Julian’s guests are smarter that Michele Bachman, but not much. Neither of them can hone a line of thought worth hearing.
If these are "leading lights" of left and right, I’m a hampster.
Dumb show! Useful concept maybe but lousy choices for putting forth opposing ideologies.

This David Horowitz guy is scum.

He’s a traitor, not sure who he is kidding.

Did not read all the comments here so don’t quite know if my feelings about this episode are widely shared or I am in a minority. In short, this second episode was a bit of a disappointment. I am not referring to the fact Assange did not have control of the back and forth yelling but rather the quality of what was being said. On the one hand we had a idiotic (ex-panther fund raiser) Zionist and on the other a ’communist’ - rambling at each other. Hope Assange’s future sessions will not be as ad hoc as this one.

Last thing....and this could be a matter of opinion. But no one seemed to challege the claim the Zionist guy makes -- that for the world to be war free, you must have an uber powerful ’policeman’ who could intimidate others to stay on straight and narrow. And then he asks a question - who else could be better than the US to do that? Utter nonsense on both counts. The simplest counter argument (which no one floated) is - what if the US (the policeman) initiates wars of aggression to protect it’s interests?

In any case, after setting the bar so very high after his first interview with the Hezbollah head, Assange let us down with this one. Let’s hope he will do better than this going forward.

To Carmen:

*Plus*, you’re *DEFENDING* -- or *’SPIN DOCTORING’* for -- **DAVID HORRORWIT** and you, Carmen, have THE *NNNERRRVE*, THE *CHHHHUTZPAH*, to criticize "hate speech"!!?

(Supposedly my "hate speech" against Chomsky -- A "LEFT" RACIST, CLOSET, "ANARCHIST" *ZIONIST*! Note the blatant, inherent, moral, intellectual, political and linguistic *contradiction* in terms: _’Left’ *Zionist*_ and _’Anarchist’ *Zionist*_! Chomsky calls himself an "Anarchist"!)

Ohhhh, Carmen..., that’s mighty *RRRRICH*, too!!

To Carmen (re your "Dear Joseph Anderson", 20 hrs ago, comment post):

re, "I never heard about the existence of Horowitz"

If, Carmen (let’s just *humor* you an accept for the sake of argument), you had never heard of the existence of David Horowitz (the racist, ultra-right-wing nutcase David Horowitz) -- where the hell have *you* been -- then perhaps you should leave it to those of us who *have* -- and know him *all too well*: you know, leave it to, more or less, the experts, when it comes to knowing about Horowitz. Maybe you should go do a little more research and homework on the guy, first, before you -- from on high -- try to tell the *rest* of us what he’s saying: you know, before you be his ’spin doctor’.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "what I read about him was satisfactory for me..."

Like I said before, Carmen, you’re obviously *vvverrry easily impressed*.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "On the other hand your hate speech against Chomsky does not help much."

Carmen, you call it "hate speech"?: i.e., legitimate intellectual, political historical and moral criticism/discourse about a political figure (even if he is supposed to be a *cult* figure/guru/deity)? What?: political gurus -- perfection reified(!!) -- can not be politically criticized, Carmen? You wanna tell me in advance who *else* on your "forbidden index"/list of anyone criticizing them -- especially any other cult figure -- who can’t be intellectually, politically, historically, and morally criticized, when legitimately explicated?

This is what an _*anti*-intellectual_ -- like you -- do (albeit a softer, more sophisticated version of what the crude, actually polemically *vulgar*, David Horowitz much more crudely does): instead of *specifically* citing what you intellectually, historically or morally disagree with, you just call it "hate speech" (which is supposed to be based on someone’s racial/ethnic, religious, gender, sexual orientation, etc., identification, *not* on their "intellectual"/pseudo-intellectual positions) -- without any *specific* explanation why you’re even calling it *that* -- and every one is supposed to be horrified and automatically agree with you.

Carmen, you’re *disimpressing* me already.

yyyYYYAAAWWWwwwnnn...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "You dedicated more time to write negative stuff about him then about Horowitz."

That’s because David Horowitz is much more obvious. Chomsky is much more sophisticated and much more, insidiously, dangerous to the Palestinian -- the indigenous people of historic Palestine -- cause.

And *I* didn’t bring Chomsky up -- someone *else* did. I was responding to the idea, as well as intellectually criticizing Chomsky and saying what should be asked to Chomsky, since -- although I greatly support Julian -- Julian’s 2nd interview (incluidng the very selection of Horowitz) left a lot to be desired to say the least. (More incisive people than *you* in these comments section have easily observed and noted that.)

So, the obvious question is why *you* are *not* intellectually open to intellectual & moral *criticism* of Chomsky?

(It’s a purely rhetorical question to you: *you* don’t bother to answer. I already know where people like you are coming from -- and you don’t impress me enough for me to carry on a discussion with.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "What is the purpose of writing all that in this list?"

Carmen, thank goodness we have *you* here as the comments list arbiter of what intellectual arguments can be made.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "But most participants just criticized the fact that Horowitz was invited."

Gee, I wonder why!?...

Maybe other comment posters are just not as easily impressed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "It seemed to me that they did not really LISTEN to the discussion."

Thank goodness we have -- where would we be without -- *you*!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "That is why I wrote down, what I think most of the participants in the discussion board did seem to have missed (although not because they can not see it, but as Sartre would say, because of their bad faith)."

You -- someone standing up for *Horowitz* -- talking about who has "bad faith"!?

Ohhhh, that’s *rrrrich*....

Thank goodness for *yee* -- you and Horowitz -- of good faith.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "I know everybody can listen and analyze the video on his own."

Obviously you don’t!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re, "Individuals should not be treated as being an essential part of any racial, ethnic or gender group."

Now run along and tell this to the *Zionist* Jews.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "...and that is why I decided to... support Assange’s work and whereabouts..."

’Yyyeah’..., Carmen, if Julian had *criticized* Horowitz’s very crude and vulgar anti-Palestinian/anti-Arab racist statements (equating Palestinians with the Nazis, when it’s the *NAtionalist ZIonists* who *demonstrably* been behaving more like Nazis ), or as many people say, "They learned from the Nazis", then you and the rest of the Zionists and Israel lobby would have been flooding RT with emails, letters, and phone calls to get *rid* of Julian Assange.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

re, "Finally I want to say that you are not doing Assange any favor expecting him to support your anti-Jewish hateful worldview."

Like Malcolm X (and James Baldwin and Stokely Carmichael a.k.a. Kwame Ture) once said, "THAT STICK DON’T HURT ME."

Go try that out on someone *else*.

Be sure, Carmen, to pass your ’advice’ on to Julian, huh?

Annnnd this, Carmen, is where I’m OUT (with *you*). Unlike Slavoj Zizek, I don’t waste my time and debate morons &/or mental cases, I just make *FFFUN* & *FFFOOOLS* o’ them.

You see, Carmen, you are, you know to be, more sophisticated, softer, and much smoother, than Horowitz (could anyone imagine being *married* to this man, unless it’s to *another* rrrabid arch-Zionist ultra-right-wing Jewish racist, like those glass-eyed, theocratic, Jewish fundamentalist extremist, rabid Zionist racists in someplace like Hebron in the West Bank), BUT you’re still just as *OBVIOUS* to me!

Come back again when you *can’t stay*, ya heeyah!?

*Buh-byyye*...

;-)

Dear Joseph Anderson. I hardly watch TV. I do not know these programs you mentioned. I never heard about the existence of Horowitz until this Assange- program and I only did some research on him since everybody seemed to hate him in this discussion list. And what I read about him was satisfactory for me – considering that he is a conservative.

On the other side, I would rather say that I am very hard to get impressed, but this is irrelevant.

I was nevertheless sadly impressed by the small quantity of visitors of this website, and that is why I decided to participate writing on this discussion-board: to support Assange’s work and whereabouts. It would be good if more people would participate in the discussions and if there were less junk messages like the one who keeps repeating: INTERVIEW JACQUE FRESCO! On the other hand your hate speech against Chomsky does not help much. What is the purpose of writing all that in this list? You dedicated more time to write negative stuff about him then about Horowitz.

I know everybody can listen and analyze the video on his own. But most participants just criticized the fact that Horowitz was invited. It seemed to me that they did not really LISTEN to the discussion. That is why I wrote down, what I think most of the participants in the discussion board did seem to have missed (although not because they can not see it, but as Sartre would say, because of their bad faith).

Finally I want to say that you are not doing Assange any favor expecting him to support your anti-Jewish hateful worldview. Individuals should not be treated as being an essential part of any racial, ethnic or gender group. Our external looks or the documents with which we are imposed to identify ourselves should not be the reason why anybody should think that we think in a certain way. But this is obvious.

I wonder what Episode 3 will be about :-)

Not sure what the point of this was. Horowitz is a polemicist, not an intellectual. He’s like an amateur boxer, dancing around the ring and shouting insults. His strategy is not to engage, but simple to distract long enough to end the round without receiving the haymaker he knows awaits him if he gives his opponent an opening.

I can see an improvement from the first one and im exited to continue seeing the series.

Some positive suggestions in the visual aspect (sorry if i come across rather trivial) would be to look Mr Julian outfit, an ironed shirt and a less cluttered surrounding will make even more pleasant the program.

Kind Regards

Can we get Assange to moderate better on his own show, and somehow get Horowitz to shut his interrupting mouth every 5 seconds!!!???

Assange and Chomsky would be an amazing interview, I watched the first 10 or 15 minutes of this discussion and it was a complete waste of time.. incoherent rambling and raised voices with no real substance.