We're not talking about Assange
- Thread starter Strell
- Start date
speedracer
Banned
So Visa and MC got the American government to lobby to prevent Russia from setting up a system exactly like Visa and MC have in America because it would force them to build out their own payment system and that's unfair.
And Visa and MC conveniently block payment to Wikileaks.
I need a drink.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
How about this one, speed?
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
America,
Yeah!
249,000 cables to go.
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
America,
Yeah!249,000 cables to go.
[quote name='dohdough']Why don't you say which one instead of hiding behind coded language asshole.[/QUOTE]
Which is a more realistic scenario?
Glorified Mall Cop wakes up and decides at the next opportunity he's gonna kill a black guy because it'll be fun and might even net himself a promotion!
Four black guys in the midst of a riot "just so happened" to pull a white guy out of the track and accidently drop a cinder block on his head.
Neither is justified, neither is sensible, neither is necessary. One of them is very obviously the effect of pure racial hatred, the other not so much. If you're having a hard time with the answer, I'll give you a hint, no one was shot.
Now before you get on your high horse, the Mall Cop deserves every punishment that he's gotten (as well as more, but he's getting what is legal precedent) and will probably have to deal with a hell of a lot more when he gets out.
Which is a more realistic scenario?
Glorified Mall Cop wakes up and decides at the next opportunity he's gonna kill a black guy because it'll be fun and might even net himself a promotion!
Four black guys in the midst of a riot "just so happened" to pull a white guy out of the track and accidently drop a cinder block on his head.
Neither is justified, neither is sensible, neither is necessary. One of them is very obviously the effect of pure racial hatred, the other not so much. If you're having a hard time with the answer, I'll give you a hint, no one was shot.
Now before you get on your high horse, the Mall Cop deserves every punishment that he's gotten (as well as more, but he's getting what is legal precedent) and will probably have to deal with a hell of a lot more when he gets out.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
A pre-emptive to what will come in the cables, I'm sure:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ba...arket-fraud-charges-2010-12-07?dist=afterbell
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ba...arket-fraud-charges-2010-12-07?dist=afterbell
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']How about this one, speed?
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
America, Yeah!
249,000 cables to go.[/QUOTE]
But the ACLU makes sure that we're accepting of the cultural mores, where's the outrage?
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_texas_company_helped.php
America,
Yeah!249,000 cables to go.[/QUOTE]
But the ACLU makes sure that we're accepting of the cultural mores, where's the outrage?
I don't know how anyone could take the position that we shouldn't know any of this. Some people I've talked to seriously don't think it should have been made public, but , I want to know if our government is doing shit like this. That also goes for companies with government contracts.
, I want to know if our government is doing shit like this. That also goes for companies with government contracts.
Then honestly, if our government is doing something which could endanger lives if we found out about it, they probably shouldn't be doing it. Think about it, how many individuals have found out the hard way that it's increasingly hard to keep secrets these days? Yet our government operates as if everything it does can be kept secret forever.
Basically, if it's something that's shameful or can come back to bite you in the ass, you probably shouldn't do it.
Basically, if it's something that's shameful or can come back to bite you in the ass, you probably shouldn't do it.
[quote name='Clak']Then honestly, if our government is doing something which could endanger lives if we found out about it, they probably shouldn't be doing it. Think about it, how many individuals have found out the hard way that it's increasingly hard to keep secrets these days? Yet our government operates as if everything it does can be kept secret forever.
Basically, if it's something that's shameful or can come back to bite you in the ass, you probably shouldn't do it.[/QUOTE]
You mean something like how the US is complicit in most of the world's problems? You're damned right a lot of people will be pissed...lolz.
Basically, if it's something that's shameful or can come back to bite you in the ass, you probably shouldn't do it.[/QUOTE]
You mean something like how the US is complicit in most of the world's problems? You're damned right a lot of people will be pissed...lolz.
If you're talking about disclosing things like civilian deaths in the war, an airstrike video or proof that Bank of America is corrupt... well that's one thing. But Wikileaks has also released peoples personal information, the location of sites considered vital for the United States and information regarding intelligence for places like Iran and North Korea. Does the general public need that information? No. Does any good come from UncleBob knowing which pipelines the government considers vital? How about speedracer knowing that a Saudi King proposed chipping would-be terrorists? Again, no. If Wikileaks would draw a line on what they released and acted like real journalists, people wouldn't be throwing a fit right now, they'd be praised by the majority instead of the minority. Instead they just release all information without regard for consequences (which time will tell what those may be) for what? Transparency? Give me a break.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Well hell we know that already, might as well say the sky is blue. But really, all the skeletons in the closet were bound to get out eventually. Not that we're the only country on earth with things to hide, but it looks worse for us.[/QUOTE]
I wish I was joking when I say that a lot of people are fairly ignorant about US imperialism for the last 200 years muchless the reason why we don't have child labor anymore. My thing is that I don't necessarily think that US citizens care much about it due to American Exceptionalism, but the leaks can have pretty "disruptive" effects in places where we've propped up dictatorships and/or totaliarian regimes.
I wish I was joking when I say that a lot of people are fairly ignorant about US imperialism for the last 200 years muchless the reason why we don't have child labor anymore. My thing is that I don't necessarily think that US citizens care much about it due to American Exceptionalism, but the leaks can have pretty "disruptive" effects in places where we've propped up dictatorships and/or totaliarian regimes.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
this is a very fun read about the women after assange.
So let me see if I have this straight.
Four months ago, fame-whore Anna Ardin had a few telephone and internet conversations with WikiLeaks badboy Julian Assange, a man she had previously only known as a name in the news.
A few telephone calls with an alpha male she didn’t know from Adam is all it took for her vagina to vibrate like a tuning fork. She invited him to stay at her unattended (!) place in Stockholm. She would be away on business.
When he arrived in Stockholm, the radical libertarian Assange “held court” at a local pub with like-minded admirers. The vagina tingles reached critical mass.
Assange’s alphaness must have been so powerful it was telepathic, because Ardin picked up on the disturbance in the electromagnetic spectrum from far away and returned home a day earlier than she had planned. SETI could not locate an extraterrestrial signal so precisely.
Assange was still at her place when she returned. She decided he could continue to stay. Scientists are baffled.
Within mere hours of returning and meeting this man in the flesh for the first time in her life, Ardin and Assange had sex. She is not a total slut, though. She would like you to know that they had dinner beforehand.
During sex, the condom broke. Both confirm this.
The two lovebirds were happy and friendly the next morning, as can be discerned by the fact that Ardin threw a party for him that night.
At a seminar that day, woman #2, Sofia Wilen, felt a strong rush of tingles for Assange because she read about him in the papers.
Wilen set out to meet Assange, by stalking him introducing herself:
[Sofia] would later tell police that she had first seen Assange on television a few weeks before. She had found him ‘interesting, brave and admirable’. As a result, she began to follow the WikiLeaks saga, and when she discovered that he was due to visit Stockholm she contacted the Brotherhood Movement to volunteer to help out at the seminar. Although her offer was not taken up, she decided to attend the seminar anyway and took a large number of photos of Assange during his 90-minute talk.
Lesson: A woman will move heaven and earth to meet an alpha male. When a man does the same thing to meet a woman he likes, he is slapped with a restraining order.
Assange and Wilen went to lunch together with Assange’s friends.
They flirted.
The attraction was mutual. Scientists, still baffled, wonder how an ugly but infamous mofo like Assange could be considered attractive by a cute babe.
After lunch, Assange and Wilen went to see a movie. But Assange had to part early, to attend the party that Ardin was throwing for him that night.
After the party, the future rape accuser Anna Ardin Tweeted that she was “with the coolest people” and that she felt “amazing”.
There were other Tweets of this nature that suggest a state of mind very unlike what one would imagine a recent rape victim would possess.
A couple days later, Sofia meets Assange in Stockholm. She then pays for his train ticket to her home in another Swedish town. Scientists, now knee-deep in bafflement, wonder why a young woman would pay the way of an ugly and poor but infamous libertardian badboy claiming he can’t get money because the CIA tracks his credit card transactions. Sofia’s hamster is about to collapse from exhaustion.
Maxim #21: Betas pay, alphas split, super alphas profit.
Later that night, the two self-satisfied, egomaniacal “activists” make sweet rebellious love as the world burns down around them. Assange wore a condom at night, but raw dogged it in the morning.
Sofia Wilen would later claim that she had asked him to wear a condom in the morning, but he refused. She opened her legs anyway.
On Tuesday, the following day, Wilen and Assange had lunch. She paid for his train ticket again.
Assange forgets rule #1 of successful womanizers: Do NOT concurrently bed mutual acquaintances, particularly those who are proud to call themselves feminists. Wilen calls Ardin, and the two women conspire a false rape charge to exact revenge against the man who treated the purity of their love so cavalierly.
At the police station, the women are interviewed by a female police officer. Charges follow. No, not charges of “cruel and unusual fits of jealousy” but charges of rape and sexual molestation against Assange.
Assange, a figure of ambivalence at best, has as a result of his recent arrest in Britain, epicenter of self-loathing, self-annihilating Westerners, earned street cred with REAL liberty loving men.
What scores of powerful governments around the world have been unable to do, two spurned groupies and a female police officer, along with the backing of the feminist establishment, have been able to orchestrate unhindered.
******
I think that’s the story. What can we learn from this? Let me be blunt.
If Assange is convicted of rape,
then we are all rapists now.
Every man who’s ever had a condom break, or who had condomless sex with a woman who agreed to the sex despite her misgivings, or who has slept with more than one woman in a weekend, is now a rapist. By these standards, half the men in the world would be locked up on rape charges. This is the logical conclusion of feminist thought. I’m sure they secretly love the idea.
Feminists and feminist enablers (you know who you are, you pasty-skinned sunken-chest droopy cartoon muscled $$$gy-faced white knighters who wear T-shirts that say “this is what a feminist looks like”), here is word from the Committee of Helpful Reminders:
Sex with a woman willingly spreading for a man despite his refusal to wear a condom, and then feeling regret about her sluttiness the next day, is not rape. It is not even rape in emasculated Sweden. Similarly, getting pumped and dumped is not sexual molestation. Hope this helps.
Anna Ardin’s ego was bruised, and her sluttiness broadcast to all her friends. As a result, she set out to seek vengeance against the skirt-chasing man she fell in love with over a heady late summer weekend. She even had a website devoted to plans for exacting just such a revenge scenerio.
Earlier this year, [Anna] is reported to have posted a telling entry on her website, which she has since removed. But a copy has been retrieved and widely circulated on the internet.
Entitled ‘7 Steps to Legal Revenge’, it explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.
Step 7 says: ‘Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did.’
In a normal, sane society with a firm grip on what constitutes fairness and justice, hypercunty feminism-soaked revenge fantasists would have to consign themselves to acting out their aggression in theired-up heads. The only people who would suffer from their delusions would be the hapless also-ran beta boyfriends competing with the lingering memories of badboy alpha cock like Assange’s piercing the grateful labia of these heartbroken shrikes.
But we in the West don’t live in a sane society. Not anymore. Rabid attack cunts like Ardin and Wilen can now see their revenge fantasies breathed into life, aided and abetted by the feminism-industrial complex, cultural PC-ism, an allied media, and women in positions of influence where their natural inclination toward favoring social cohesion and grrlpower at the expense of justice makes a mockery of the institutions they claim to represent.
By the way, is there anything more repulsive than a “Christian feminist”, as Anna Ardin calls herself? At least you can enjoy a piece of ass with regular secular feminists, which helps makes their inane little opinions tolerable. But a Christian feminist is the worst of both worlds — teeth-gnashingly insipid and prudish. Wow, sign me up! Anyhow, it’s been my observation that self-professed Christian feminists are some of the worst man-hating cunts alive, truly devoid of any sense of empathy or even a rudimentary grasp of fairness. Anna Ardin, in all her glorious hamsterized self-rationalizing hypocrisy, fits the mold perfectly. This is how the Daily Mail describes her job in life:
While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.
If there is something more pointless to do with one’s life, I can’t think of it. The obvious pointlessness explains some of the resentment that people like Ardin nurse against the outside world, and against men specifically. The humanities departments of academia throughout the West have turned into mills for churning out ignorant, man-loathing fascists who envy and hate the inherent freedom of male desire. They are pinkshirts on the prowl for “incorrect thinking”, who see rape in the frosting on a birthday cake. Imagine a high heel stomping on a nutsack, forever. Why do men put up with this shit? Probably because they think assuming a posture of prostration will get them laid. Nominal alphas may have supported feminism in the past as a quick and painless route to easy sex, but today they are in the gun sights as much as any beta. To win at this war, you need true insight into the female mind.
Sweden leads the way in this fembot festival of absurdity, but the other Western (white) nations are not far behind. China will catapult to superpower status this century, not least because they have their heads on straight and see modern feminism for the productivity and innovation sapping insanity it is.
I’ve written before that false rape accusers ought to be punished the same as actual rapists, with jail time. It is as evil as real rape. Their lies destroy lives. Tossing them in jail for years will send a valuable message to women everywhere that they will not escape the consequences of smearing a man who didn’t fulfill their romantic expectations.
Four months ago, fame-whore Anna Ardin had a few telephone and internet conversations with WikiLeaks badboy Julian Assange, a man she had previously only known as a name in the news.
A few telephone calls with an alpha male she didn’t know from Adam is all it took for her vagina to vibrate like a tuning fork. She invited him to stay at her unattended (!) place in Stockholm. She would be away on business.
When he arrived in Stockholm, the radical libertarian Assange “held court” at a local pub with like-minded admirers. The vagina tingles reached critical mass.
Assange’s alphaness must have been so powerful it was telepathic, because Ardin picked up on the disturbance in the electromagnetic spectrum from far away and returned home a day earlier than she had planned. SETI could not locate an extraterrestrial signal so precisely.
Assange was still at her place when she returned. She decided he could continue to stay. Scientists are baffled.
Within mere hours of returning and meeting this man in the flesh for the first time in her life, Ardin and Assange had sex. She is not a total slut, though. She would like you to know that they had dinner beforehand.
During sex, the condom broke. Both confirm this.
The two lovebirds were happy and friendly the next morning, as can be discerned by the fact that Ardin threw a party for him that night.
At a seminar that day, woman #2, Sofia Wilen, felt a strong rush of tingles for Assange because she read about him in the papers.
Wilen set out to meet Assange, by stalking him introducing herself:
[Sofia] would later tell police that she had first seen Assange on television a few weeks before. She had found him ‘interesting, brave and admirable’. As a result, she began to follow the WikiLeaks saga, and when she discovered that he was due to visit Stockholm she contacted the Brotherhood Movement to volunteer to help out at the seminar. Although her offer was not taken up, she decided to attend the seminar anyway and took a large number of photos of Assange during his 90-minute talk.
Lesson: A woman will move heaven and earth to meet an alpha male. When a man does the same thing to meet a woman he likes, he is slapped with a restraining order.
Assange and Wilen went to lunch together with Assange’s friends.
They flirted.
The attraction was mutual. Scientists, still baffled, wonder how an ugly but infamous mofo like Assange could be considered attractive by a cute babe.
After lunch, Assange and Wilen went to see a movie. But Assange had to part early, to attend the party that Ardin was throwing for him that night.
After the party, the future rape accuser Anna Ardin Tweeted that she was “with the coolest people” and that she felt “amazing”.
There were other Tweets of this nature that suggest a state of mind very unlike what one would imagine a recent rape victim would possess.
A couple days later, Sofia meets Assange in Stockholm. She then pays for his train ticket to her home in another Swedish town. Scientists, now knee-deep in bafflement, wonder why a young woman would pay the way of an ugly and poor but infamous libertardian badboy claiming he can’t get money because the CIA tracks his credit card transactions. Sofia’s hamster is about to collapse from exhaustion.
Maxim #21: Betas pay, alphas split, super alphas profit.
Later that night, the two self-satisfied, egomaniacal “activists” make sweet rebellious love as the world burns down around them. Assange wore a condom at night, but raw dogged it in the morning.
Sofia Wilen would later claim that she had asked him to wear a condom in the morning, but he refused. She opened her legs anyway.
On Tuesday, the following day, Wilen and Assange had lunch. She paid for his train ticket again.
Assange forgets rule #1 of successful womanizers: Do NOT concurrently bed mutual acquaintances, particularly those who are proud to call themselves feminists. Wilen calls Ardin, and the two women conspire a false rape charge to exact revenge against the man who treated the purity of their love so cavalierly.
At the police station, the women are interviewed by a female police officer. Charges follow. No, not charges of “cruel and unusual fits of jealousy” but charges of rape and sexual molestation against Assange.
Assange, a figure of ambivalence at best, has as a result of his recent arrest in Britain, epicenter of self-loathing, self-annihilating Westerners, earned street cred with REAL liberty loving men.
What scores of powerful governments around the world have been unable to do, two spurned groupies and a female police officer, along with the backing of the feminist establishment, have been able to orchestrate unhindered.
******
I think that’s the story. What can we learn from this? Let me be blunt.
If Assange is convicted of rape,
then we are all rapists now.
Every man who’s ever had a condom break, or who had condomless sex with a woman who agreed to the sex despite her misgivings, or who has slept with more than one woman in a weekend, is now a rapist. By these standards, half the men in the world would be locked up on rape charges. This is the logical conclusion of feminist thought. I’m sure they secretly love the idea.
Feminists and feminist enablers (you know who you are, you pasty-skinned sunken-chest droopy cartoon muscled $$$gy-faced white knighters who wear T-shirts that say “this is what a feminist looks like”), here is word from the Committee of Helpful Reminders:
Sex with a woman willingly spreading for a man despite his refusal to wear a condom, and then feeling regret about her sluttiness the next day, is not rape. It is not even rape in emasculated Sweden. Similarly, getting pumped and dumped is not sexual molestation. Hope this helps.
Anna Ardin’s ego was bruised, and her sluttiness broadcast to all her friends. As a result, she set out to seek vengeance against the skirt-chasing man she fell in love with over a heady late summer weekend. She even had a website devoted to plans for exacting just such a revenge scenerio.
Earlier this year, [Anna] is reported to have posted a telling entry on her website, which she has since removed. But a copy has been retrieved and widely circulated on the internet.
Entitled ‘7 Steps to Legal Revenge’, it explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.
Step 7 says: ‘Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did.’
In a normal, sane society with a firm grip on what constitutes fairness and justice, hypercunty feminism-soaked revenge fantasists would have to consign themselves to acting out their aggression in their
ed-up heads. The only people who would suffer from their delusions would be the hapless also-ran beta boyfriends competing with the lingering memories of badboy alpha cock like Assange’s piercing the grateful labia of these heartbroken shrikes.But we in the West don’t live in a sane society. Not anymore. Rabid attack cunts like Ardin and Wilen can now see their revenge fantasies breathed into life, aided and abetted by the feminism-industrial complex, cultural PC-ism, an allied media, and women in positions of influence where their natural inclination toward favoring social cohesion and grrlpower at the expense of justice makes a mockery of the institutions they claim to represent.
By the way, is there anything more repulsive than a “Christian feminist”, as Anna Ardin calls herself? At least you can enjoy a piece of ass with regular secular feminists, which helps makes their inane little opinions tolerable. But a Christian feminist is the worst of both worlds — teeth-gnashingly insipid and prudish. Wow, sign me up! Anyhow, it’s been my observation that self-professed Christian feminists are some of the worst man-hating cunts alive, truly devoid of any sense of empathy or even a rudimentary grasp of fairness. Anna Ardin, in all her glorious hamsterized self-rationalizing hypocrisy, fits the mold perfectly. This is how the Daily Mail describes her job in life:
While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.
If there is something more pointless to do with one’s life, I can’t think of it. The obvious pointlessness explains some of the resentment that people like Ardin nurse against the outside world, and against men specifically. The humanities departments of academia throughout the West have turned into mills for churning out ignorant, man-loathing fascists who envy and hate the inherent freedom of male desire. They are pinkshirts on the prowl for “incorrect thinking”, who see rape in the frosting on a birthday cake. Imagine a high heel stomping on a nutsack, forever. Why do men put up with this shit? Probably because they think assuming a posture of prostration will get them laid. Nominal alphas may have supported feminism in the past as a quick and painless route to easy sex, but today they are in the gun sights as much as any beta. To win at this war, you need true insight into the female mind.
Sweden leads the way in this fembot festival of absurdity, but the other Western (white) nations are not far behind. China will catapult to superpower status this century, not least because they have their heads on straight and see modern feminism for the productivity and innovation sapping insanity it is.
I’ve written before that false rape accusers ought to be punished the same as actual rapists, with jail time. It is as evil as real rape. Their lies destroy lives. Tossing them in jail for years will send a valuable message to women everywhere that they will not escape the consequences of smearing a man who didn’t fulfill their romantic expectations.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']If you're talking about disclosing things like civilian deaths in the war, an airstrike video or proof that Bank of America is corrupt... well that's one thing. But Wikileaks has also released peoples personal information, the location of sites considered vital for the United States and information regarding intelligence for places like Iran and North Korea. Does the general public need that information? No. Does any good come from UncleBob knowing which pipelines the government considers vital? How about speedracer knowing that a Saudi King proposed chipping would-be terrorists? Again, no. If Wikileaks would draw a line on what they released and acted like real journalists, people wouldn't be throwing a fit right now, they'd be praised by the majority instead of the minority. Instead they just release all information without regard for consequences (which time will tell what those may be) for what? Transparency? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Actually I'd like to know if one of our so called "allies" was proposing we attack another country. I honestly didn't realize Iran was that hated in their own back yard so to speak.
Actually I'd like to know if one of our so called "allies" was proposing we attack another country. I honestly didn't realize Iran was that hated in their own back yard so to speak.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of it either. If the story is as UB said, then it's rape, plain and simple. If it's not then maybe it's not, but A+ on the crazyass misogyny panzerfaust. Rush would be proud of that one, that's free entry into the he-man woman-haters club.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
i didn't say i sided with it, i just thought it was a really fun read =D
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
I hope they put Assange in the same cell as Cheney for his crimes.
Oh and I love the veiled threats to college students about reading/posting about/talking about the cables that could lead to problems with future employment. Gotta love the bogeyman.
Oh and I love the veiled threats to college students about reading/posting about/talking about the cables that could lead to problems with future employment. Gotta love the bogeyman.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, I'm not a fan of it either. If the story is as UB said, then it's rape, plain and simple. If it's not then maybe it's not, but A+ on the crazyass misogyny panzerfaust. Rush would be proud of that one, that's free entry into the he-man woman-haters club.[/QUOTE]
Is it? According to his attorney, the women kept in touch with Assange well after their escpades and they have communications that verify this. The women pressed charges after they asked him to take STD tests and he did not. This muddies the any "rape" charge. Also, the prosecutor had initially thrown out these cases. Very suspicious.
Is it? According to his attorney, the women kept in touch with Assange well after their escpades and they have communications that verify this. The women pressed charges after they asked him to take STD tests and he did not. This muddies the any "rape" charge. Also, the prosecutor had initially thrown out these cases. Very suspicious.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']If you're talking about disclosing things like civilian deaths in the war, an airstrike video or proof that Bank of America is corrupt... well that's one thing. But Wikileaks has also released peoples personal information, the location of sites considered vital for the United States and information regarding intelligence for places like Iran and North Korea. Does the general public need that information? No. Does any good come from UncleBob knowing which pipelines the government considers vital? How about speedracer knowing that a Saudi King proposed chipping would-be terrorists? Again, no. If Wikileaks would draw a line on what they released and acted like real journalists, people wouldn't be throwing a fit right now, they'd be praised by the majority instead of the minority. Instead they just release all information without regard for consequences (which time will tell what those may be) for what? Transparency? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
I think you might be drinking the Obama Administrations kool-aid. Wikileaks has made errors in their redactions in the PAST. They admitted their error and have since made efforts to correct them. There are reasons they have only released less than 1% of the documents. And Wikileaks is doing more good than any of our so called "news" corporations.
Here are the latest excellent revelations... Gotta love the great defender of freedom's support of war crimes! AND corporate control of governments! And the China assessment from our diplomats? Really, what an insight! And the US doesn't act in the same interests as our massive history of interventionism demonstrates.
Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/9/headlines
Cables: Shell Boasted of Infiltrating Nigerian Gov’t
WikiLeaks continues to release more documents from its trove of some quarter million classified U.S. diplomatic cables. Among the new disclosures is a claim that the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell essentially infiltrated the Nigerian government to monitor and influence decisions related to its business in the Niger Delta. A cable from October 2009 quotes Ann Pickard, then Shell’s vice president in Africa, saying that the Nigerian government "forgot] that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries." An earlier cable from 2008 shows that Shell passed intelligence claims to U.S. diplomats, including naming two Nigerian politicians the company said were backing Nigerian militants. Shell officials also asked the United States to relay information on whether Nigerian militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles. In an ironic aside, one cable quotes the Shell executive, Ann Pickard, as saying she’s hesitant to talk to U.S. officials because the U.S. government is "leaky." The cable continues, "She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell’s Nigerian operations will leak out." In response to the cables, Celestine AkpoBari of the group Social Action Nigeria said, "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria… They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."
U.S. Diplomat: China Has "No Morals"
The WikiLeaks U.S. diplomatic cables also show heightened U.S. concerns over Chinese and Russian interest in African oil. In a meeting with oil company executives, Johnnie Carson, the assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, says, "China is a very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals. China is not in Africa for altruistic reasons. China is in Africa for China primarily.’’
U.S. Asked Uganda for Notice on War Crimes
Another leaked cable from Africa shows U.S. officials asked the Ugandan government to report plans to commit war crimes based on U.S. intelligence—but did not try to dissuade the war crimes from being committed. The U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Uganda, Jerry Lanier, wrote one year ago, "Uganda understands the need to consult with the U.S. in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use U.S.-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not [governed] by the law of armed conflict." The cables give no indication the U.S. asked Uganda not to commit war crimes in the first place.
I think you might be drinking the Obama Administrations kool-aid. Wikileaks has made errors in their redactions in the PAST. They admitted their error and have since made efforts to correct them. There are reasons they have only released less than 1% of the documents. And Wikileaks is doing more good than any of our so called "news" corporations.
Here are the latest excellent revelations... Gotta love the great defender of freedom's support of war crimes! AND corporate control of governments! And the China assessment from our diplomats? Really, what an insight! And the US doesn't act in the same interests as our massive history of interventionism demonstrates.
Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/9/headlines
Cables: Shell Boasted of Infiltrating Nigerian Gov’t
WikiLeaks continues to release more documents from its trove of some quarter million classified U.S. diplomatic cables. Among the new disclosures is a claim that the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell essentially infiltrated the Nigerian government to monitor and influence decisions related to its business in the Niger Delta. A cable from October 2009 quotes Ann Pickard, then Shell’s vice president in Africa, saying that the Nigerian government "forgot] that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries." An earlier cable from 2008 shows that Shell passed intelligence claims to U.S. diplomats, including naming two Nigerian politicians the company said were backing Nigerian militants. Shell officials also asked the United States to relay information on whether Nigerian militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles. In an ironic aside, one cable quotes the Shell executive, Ann Pickard, as saying she’s hesitant to talk to U.S. officials because the U.S. government is "leaky." The cable continues, "She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell’s Nigerian operations will leak out." In response to the cables, Celestine AkpoBari of the group Social Action Nigeria said, "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria… They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."
U.S. Diplomat: China Has "No Morals"
The WikiLeaks U.S. diplomatic cables also show heightened U.S. concerns over Chinese and Russian interest in African oil. In a meeting with oil company executives, Johnnie Carson, the assistant secretary of state for African Affairs, says, "China is a very aggressive and pernicious economic competitor with no morals. China is not in Africa for altruistic reasons. China is in Africa for China primarily.’’
U.S. Asked Uganda for Notice on War Crimes
Another leaked cable from Africa shows U.S. officials asked the Ugandan government to report plans to commit war crimes based on U.S. intelligence—but did not try to dissuade the war crimes from being committed. The U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Uganda, Jerry Lanier, wrote one year ago, "Uganda understands the need to consult with the U.S. in advance if the [Ugandan army] intends to use U.S.-supplied intelligence to engage in operations not [governed] by the law of armed conflict." The cables give no indication the U.S. asked Uganda not to commit war crimes in the first place.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']If you're talking about disclosing things like civilian deaths in the war, an airstrike video or proof that Bank of America is corrupt... well that's one thing. But Wikileaks has also released peoples personal information, the location of sites considered vital for the United States and information regarding intelligence for places like Iran and North Korea. Does the general public need that information? No. Does any good come from UncleBob knowing which pipelines the government considers vital? How about speedracer knowing that a Saudi King proposed chipping would-be terrorists? Again, no. If Wikileaks would draw a line on what they released and acted like real journalists, people wouldn't be throwing a fit right now, they'd be praised by the majority instead of the minority. Instead they just release all information without regard for consequences (which time will tell what those may be) for what? Transparency? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
So much this.
So much this.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='joeboosauce']Wikileaks is doing more good than any of our so called "news" corporations.[/QUOTE]
This is a critical point. Whether you agree with what WL is doing or not, our news media has failed us for several decades (just as the citizenry has failed itself). We prefer celebrity gossip to actual news, we prefer our political contests framed as sports events as opposed to a clash of ideas and policy proposals, and we are woefully uninformed of the world around us.
Now that we have access to being informed about what our government actually *does*, we collectively gasp and ask if that's what we should know about. That's rather telling.
This is a critical point. Whether you agree with what WL is doing or not, our news media has failed us for several decades (just as the citizenry has failed itself). We prefer celebrity gossip to actual news, we prefer our political contests framed as sports events as opposed to a clash of ideas and policy proposals, and we are woefully uninformed of the world around us.
Now that we have access to being informed about what our government actually *does*, we collectively gasp and ask if that's what we should know about. That's rather telling.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']This is a critical point. Whether you agree with what WL is doing or not, our news media has failed us for several decades (just as the citizenry has failed itself). We prefer celebrity gossip to actual news, we prefer our political contests framed as sports events as opposed to a clash of ideas and policy proposals, and we are woefully uninformed of the world around us.
Now that we have access to being informed about what our government actually *does*, we collectively gasp and ask if that's what we should know about. That's rather telling.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Total agreement, it is quite telling. Indeed, the citizenry has failed itself. Regardless of how much I rail against this being a sham of a democracy, we still have the opportunity to take action whereas people in truly authoritarian regimes could not go out in the street without fear of being shot on sight. Shame on us.
Now that we have access to being informed about what our government actually *does*, we collectively gasp and ask if that's what we should know about. That's rather telling.[/QUOTE]
LOL! Total agreement, it is quite telling. Indeed, the citizenry has failed itself. Regardless of how much I rail against this being a sham of a democracy, we still have the opportunity to take action whereas people in truly authoritarian regimes could not go out in the street without fear of being shot on sight. Shame on us.
BlueLobstah
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']This is a critical point. Whether you agree with what WL is doing or not, our news media has failed us for several decades (just as the citizenry has failed itself). We prefer celebrity gossip to actual news, we prefer our political contests framed as sports events as opposed to a clash of ideas and policy proposals, and we are woefully uninformed of the world around us.
Now that we have access to being informed about what our government actually *does*, we collectively gasp and ask if that's what we should know about. That's rather telling.[/QUOTE]
Rather telling indeed. Should we not at citizens be concerned about the conduct of officials who claim to represent us?
Could the information been filtered to help protect persons involved? Perhaps. But Wikileaks is still doing a far better job - regardless of the consequences - than any media has been doing the past few decades. I'd rather be an informed citizen than never have this information released at all.
Now that we have access to being informed about what our government actually *does*, we collectively gasp and ask if that's what we should know about. That's rather telling.[/QUOTE]
Rather telling indeed. Should we not at citizens be concerned about the conduct of officials who claim to represent us?
Could the information been filtered to help protect persons involved? Perhaps. But Wikileaks is still doing a far better job - regardless of the consequences - than any media has been doing the past few decades. I'd rather be an informed citizen than never have this information released at all.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
[quote name='nasum']So much this.[/QUOTE]
And remember, actually you probably are ignorant of this, thanks to the Wikileaks,
we now know of 15,000 additional Iraqi civilian deaths thanks to our occupation. As long as our government engages in unwarranted secrecy, what Wikileaks is doing is necessary and proving beneficial. And WHERE OH WHERE is the evidence from the government that ANY leaks have hurt anyone who didn't deserve it. Corrupt politicians and officials deserve the political embarrassment at the least. They need to be jailed.
And remember, actually you probably are ignorant of this, thanks to the Wikileaks,
we now know of 15,000 additional Iraqi civilian deaths thanks to our occupation. As long as our government engages in unwarranted secrecy, what Wikileaks is doing is necessary and proving beneficial. And WHERE OH WHERE is the evidence from the government that ANY leaks have hurt anyone who didn't deserve it. Corrupt politicians and officials deserve the political embarrassment at the least. They need to be jailed.speedracer
Banned
This story is making for strange bedfellows on our board.
That'sing stellar right there. I don't want them drawing lines. I just want the information.
Everyone complains about the media. It covers this story, it doesn't cover that one. It spins this and that. Really, Wikileaks is about the purest form of journalism I can imagine. They release information gleaned from sources and that's it. We don't have to sit through Assange droning on about this one or that. We get the docs and we can make up our own minds.
That's
ing stellar right there. I don't want them drawing lines. I just want the information.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
Anna Ardin, Julian Assange Rape Accuser, May Have Ceased Pursuing Claims
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html
From the article:
Business Insider is reporting that you can follow Anna Ardin on Twitter, @annaardin. Crikey says that her last tweet translates as:Surprise, surprise.
So what is the history of people coming against the powerful institutions and allegations of sexual impropriety? Make sure to watch until the end. Coincidence or...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4
And consider historically that blacks were accused of rape and sexual misconduct as justification for lynching. Oh how times do change!
Women Against Rape statement:
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/inthemedia/women-question-unusual-zeal-pursuing-julian-assang
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html
From the article:
Business Insider is reporting that you can follow Anna Ardin on Twitter, @annaardin. Crikey says that her last tweet translates as:
So what is the history of people coming against the powerful institutions and allegations of sexual impropriety? Make sure to watch until the end. Coincidence or...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ZoOZ4fI4
And consider historically that blacks were accused of rape and sexual misconduct as justification for lynching. Oh how times do change!
Women Against Rape statement:
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/inthemedia/women-question-unusual-zeal-pursuing-julian-assang
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
Here's yet another not a revelation and not a service to transparency from Wikileaks.
Manipulating and destroying the climate talks is not newsworthy of course! So un-newsworthy that the US corporate media do not report it! What a friggin joke! You lemmings need to stop regurgitating whatever Tom Brokaw or Glen Beck is "reporting."
U.S. Climate Envoy Refuses to Answer Democracy Now!'s Questions on WikiLeaks Cables' Account of Summit Manipulation
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Cancún, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern refuses to comment on the WikiLeaks cables’ account of discussions with the European Union on using climate aid to gain the backing of small island states for the informal Copenhagen Accord reached at last year’s U.N. climate summit. He also avoided answering a question addressing the removal of funding to Bolivia and Ecuador, whose governments opposed the accord.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/7/us_negotiator_refuses_to_answer_questions
Manipulating and destroying the climate talks is not newsworthy of course! So un-newsworthy that the US corporate media do not report it! What a friggin joke! You lemmings need to stop regurgitating whatever Tom Brokaw or Glen Beck is "reporting."
U.S. Climate Envoy Refuses to Answer Democracy Now!'s Questions on WikiLeaks Cables' Account of Summit Manipulation
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Cancún, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern refuses to comment on the WikiLeaks cables’ account of discussions with the European Union on using climate aid to gain the backing of small island states for the informal Copenhagen Accord reached at last year’s U.N. climate summit. He also avoided answering a question addressing the removal of funding to Bolivia and Ecuador, whose governments opposed the accord.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/7/us_negotiator_refuses_to_answer_questions
[quote name='joeboosauce']I think you might be drinking the Obama Administrations kool-aid. Wikileaks has made errors in their redactions in the PAST. They admitted their error and have since made efforts to correct them. There are reasons they have only released less than 1% of the documents. And Wikileaks is doing more good than any of our so called "news" corporations.
[/QUOTE]
Try rereading what I said, and I think you'll find that we agree to a certain extent. My contention is only with certain information, the way they are releasing it and the mystifying (to me) support that they Wikileaks has.
[/QUOTE]
Try rereading what I said, and I think you'll find that we agree to a certain extent. My contention is only with certain information, the way they are releasing it and the mystifying (to me) support that they Wikileaks has.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Why do you see it as mystifying?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I support what they do. If they have ulterior motives, and those motives involve stopping governments from the secretive abuses and violations of human rights they have and are committing, then I support those motives.
The only thing I find mystifying is (to bring in, again, the cross pollenation of sports teams attitudes with politics) people on the left defending potential rape committed by Assange. I don't know much about the case, and perhaps it is purely political. But I won't dare say there's no way he's guilty, she's a CIA spy, she asked for it, etc. Supporting wikileak's cause doesn't mean that Assange may not be an asshole.
Like people got bent a year ago when Tiger Woods had an affair, they make the cognitive error of thinking that someone they like is pure and wholesome and capable of no wrongdoing. They're human, they're complex, they have myriad traits. Assange can be behind something I support (transparency in government to a degree that makes the government uncomfortable), but still be an asshole and criminal. The courts will bear that out. I know well enough about that.
The only thing I find mystifying is (to bring in, again, the cross pollenation of sports teams attitudes with politics) people on the left defending potential rape committed by Assange. I don't know much about the case, and perhaps it is purely political. But I won't dare say there's no way he's guilty, she's a CIA spy, she asked for it, etc. Supporting wikileak's cause doesn't mean that Assange may not be an asshole.
Like people got bent a year ago when Tiger Woods had an affair, they make the cognitive error of thinking that someone they like is pure and wholesome and capable of no wrongdoing. They're human, they're complex, they have myriad traits. Assange can be behind something I support (transparency in government to a degree that makes the government uncomfortable), but still be an asshole and criminal. The courts will bear that out. I know well enough about that.
I brought this up to someone earlier, but do any of you think he could get a fair trial at this point? I mean think about it, so much of the stuff they've released shows our own government doing some incredibly shady shit, rigging a trial would seem down right tame compared to some of it. I have no idea if he raped the women or not, but that may not even matter at this point.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Condemning the justice system does not equate to condemning the accuser, though. I'm sure you know that.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I support what they do. If they have ulterior motives, and those motives involve stopping governments from the secretive abuses and violations of human rights they have and are committing, then I support those motives.
The only thing I find mystifying is (to bring in, again, the cross pollenation of sports teams attitudes with politics) people on the left defending potential rape committed by Assange. I don't know much about the case, and perhaps it is purely political. But I won't dare say there's no way he's guilty, she's a CIA spy, she asked for it, etc. Supporting wikileak's cause doesn't mean that Assange may not be an asshole.
Like people got bent a year ago when Tiger Woods had an affair, they make the cognitive error of thinking that someone they like is pure and wholesome and capable of no wrongdoing. They're human, they're complex, they have myriad traits. Assange can be behind something I support (transparency in government to a degree that makes the government uncomfortable), but still be an asshole and criminal. The courts will bear that out. I know well enough about that.[/QUOTE]
Finally something we can agree on.
The thing I have been wondering about is just how much of wikileaks Julian is. I was under the impression that he started it, but it's its own thing now; a snowball that can't be stopped. At least, that's what I hope it is.
I am not entirely sure why he has the spotlight so much here - as I think wikileaks is more of a movement now than one man's crusade.
I'm more comfortable believing that wikileaks has no real political agenda beyond transparency, but my instinct tells me that's not the case.
The only thing I find mystifying is (to bring in, again, the cross pollenation of sports teams attitudes with politics) people on the left defending potential rape committed by Assange. I don't know much about the case, and perhaps it is purely political. But I won't dare say there's no way he's guilty, she's a CIA spy, she asked for it, etc. Supporting wikileak's cause doesn't mean that Assange may not be an asshole.
Like people got bent a year ago when Tiger Woods had an affair, they make the cognitive error of thinking that someone they like is pure and wholesome and capable of no wrongdoing. They're human, they're complex, they have myriad traits. Assange can be behind something I support (transparency in government to a degree that makes the government uncomfortable), but still be an asshole and criminal. The courts will bear that out. I know well enough about that.[/QUOTE]
Finally something we can agree on.
The thing I have been wondering about is just how much of wikileaks Julian is. I was under the impression that he started it, but it's its own thing now; a snowball that can't be stopped. At least, that's what I hope it is.
I am not entirely sure why he has the spotlight so much here - as I think wikileaks is more of a movement now than one man's crusade.
I'm more comfortable believing that wikileaks has no real political agenda beyond transparency, but my instinct tells me that's not the case.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']The idea people put out there that Wikileaks is some type of legitimate respectable journalism and are only doing this for openness and transparency.[/QUOTE]
They may not respectable, and they may not be doing this with pure motives in mind. But for this latest leak, what did they do differently from what the NYT, The Guardian, et al. did? Why should we condemn what wikileaks did without condemning what the NYT did and going after them in the same way?
They may not respectable, and they may not be doing this with pure motives in mind. But for this latest leak, what did they do differently from what the NYT, The Guardian, et al. did? Why should we condemn what wikileaks did without condemning what the NYT did and going after them in the same way?
[quote name='mykevermin']Condemning the justice system does not equate to condemning the accuser, though. I'm sure you know that.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I wasn't really replying to what you said as much as I was just putting that out there. Like I said, I have no idea if he raped anyone or not, the whole case is a cluster of interests. If he raped them then he should of course be punished for it, but at this point it will be hard to trust that it was a fair trial. That there is no political motivation.
Yeah I wasn't really replying to what you said as much as I was just putting that out there. Like I said, I have no idea if he raped anyone or not, the whole case is a cluster
of interests. If he raped them then he should of course be punished for it, but at this point it will be hard to trust that it was a fair trial. That there is no political motivation.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/assange-lawyers-prepare-us-espionage-indictment/story?id=12362315
Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
Welcome to the U.S.S.A.
[quote name='IRHari']They may not respectable, and they may not be doing this with pure motives in mind. But for this latest leak, what did they do differently from what the NYT, The Guardian, et al. did? Why should we condemn what wikileaks did without condemning what the NYT did and going after them in the same way?[/QUOTE]
well, the NYT didnt recruit (or however they got convinced Manning) someone from the military to leak info. they the NYT and everyone else are reporting after the fact. thats like telling someone to ignore a fire. its not going to happen.
well, the NYT didnt recruit (or however they got convinced Manning) someone from the military to leak info. they the NYT and everyone else are reporting after the fact. thats like telling someone to ignore a fire. its not going to happen.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywoInPNXZJk&feature=player_embedded
The good doctor echoing what many have said here.
Just as a fun exercise - can any of you lefties find anything he says to disagree with?
The good doctor echoing what many have said here.
Just as a fun exercise - can any of you lefties find anything he says to disagree with?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am not entirely sure why he has the spotlight so much here - as I think wikileaks is more of a movement now than one man's crusade.[/quote]
I think it's just because the rest of the organization attempts to maintain anonymity. There's gotta be at least one face on an organization like this. Imagine the firestorm of conspiracy theories that would abound if there was no face to it.
I think it's just because the rest of the organization attempts to maintain anonymity. There's gotta be at least one face on an organization like this. Imagine the firestorm of conspiracy theories that would abound if there was no face to it.
As long as their information leaks and their personal beliefs don't collide, I have no problem with any personal agendas they have. Shit, I'd watch Fox News if they had solid information on a regular basis that no one else had.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just as a fun exercise - can any of you lefties find anything he says to disagree with?[/QUOTE]
Heavens no. As you imply, what he's saying is a leftist perspective - there's nothing right-wing about those critiques in the slightest.
Funny that you agree with Ron Paul even when he's spouting leftist ideas. Tragic, but funny.
By the way, a good bit ago I posted in here asking someone to point out those on the left who are demanding Assange be charged/tried (treason!?!? more brilliance from the herp-derp-Constitution-derp right-wingers.) or executed. Nobody took that challenge on. That's unfortunate.
Heavens no. As you imply, what he's saying is a leftist perspective - there's nothing right-wing about those critiques in the slightest.
Funny that you agree with Ron Paul even when he's spouting leftist ideas. Tragic, but funny.
By the way, a good bit ago I posted in here asking someone to point out those on the left who are demanding Assange be charged/tried (treason!?!? more brilliance from the herp-derp-Constitution-derp right-wingers.) or executed. Nobody took that challenge on. That's unfortunate.
My favorite bit comes from a friend of mine who was practically apopleptic in his vitriol towards the Bush Administration for having all these secrets. Now that someone is exposing them, and showing that they're all still going on, he's still apopleptic saying that this Assange fellow needs to be stopped in his tracks.
People, they're kinda cute and funny sometimes.
People, they're kinda cute and funny sometimes.
bk187
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']The good doctor echoing what many have said here.
Just as a fun exercise - can any of you lefties find anything he says to disagree with?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear a thing he said. Probably because I tend to ignore the words that come out of racists' mouths.
Just as a fun exercise - can any of you lefties find anything he says to disagree with?[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear a thing he said. Probably because I tend to ignore the words that come out of racists' mouths.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just as a fun exercise - can any of you lefties find anything he says to disagree with?[/QUOTE]
One simple point to counter is how he said lying the way into war has caused more loss of life than the Wikileaks themselves have. Well, two weeks is difficult to gather the body count that 9 years takes to generate. Not that it will, it's just a matter of poor logic.
Continue.
And wonderful, we have another racial alarmist joining us! I couldn't be happier.
One simple point to counter is how he said lying the way into war has caused more loss of life than the Wikileaks themselves have. Well, two weeks is difficult to gather the body count that 9 years takes to generate. Not that it will, it's just a matter of poor logic.
Continue.
And wonderful, we have another racial alarmist joining us! I couldn't be happier.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='bk187']I'm sorry, I couldn't hear a thing he said. Probably because I tend to ignore the words that come out of racists' mouths.[/QUOTE]
I think you're confusing Ron with Rand.
I think you're confusing Ron with Rand.
I don't think he is, he read the teaser article on CNN from back when Ron was a possible nominee to go against President Obama which insinuated (with never any proof, and has since been debunked near as I can tell) that Ron Paul wrote "the LA Riots of 1992 ended when the blacks went to get their welfare checks" and another one suggesting that whites in Texas should make sure to carry guns in their cars since "the animals are coming" after a rash of carjackings happened in Texas.
bread's done