WikiLeaks [Text View] - VehiCROSS.info Forums

vt_maverick

12/09/2010, 08:07 AM

Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing and government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.

I bet he does have it, and keeps it right beside the President's Book of Secrets and the Ark of the Convenant. :rolleyes: I guarantee you it won't take years to break the code, and I doubt very seriously anything in that file will change the world. Despite leaks, wars, etc., governments still execute their business in the same way they did 3000 years ago, so there's no reason to believe it will change over one file. Sounds like a conveniently timed myth to keep the media interested.

These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.

"Hack-proof" is a pipe dream. That's like saying doctors should have made the world disease-free by now. Hackers find holes and exploit them; security experts close the holes and develop new ways to track the hackers; hackers find new ways to evade detection and in turn find new holes. It's an arms race fought in cyberspace. Nothing will ever be hack-proof.

No one has ever been harmed by anything they released.

Come on Mom, why can't I play football in the street? No one's hit me so far! :rolleyes:

Consider this scenario: North Korea knows it has enemies in the West, and the overwhelming disapproval of the international community for it's nuclear program. Until now they've felt safe in China's shadow, assured that any attack by South Korea or the US would be repulsed not only by their Army, but also by the overwhelming air power of the Chinese Air Force.

Then Wikileaks releases diplomatic messages indicating that the Chinese might turn their back on North Korea in a conflict, and may already be working out a plan with the US on how to handle the aftermath. Where does that leave the North Korean government? Unable to rely on a superpower's protection but unwilling to back down from their conflict with the South, they have to choose one of two directions: (1) back down on all fronts to avoid a conflict (unlikely), or (2) become more belligerent and aim to do the most civilian damage possible since the situation is hopeless anyway.

It's easy to cast all governments and politicians as inherently evil and naively believe that truth conquers all. But the reality is that governments need to be able to discuss matters in a private context to achieve any honest dialogue and to ensure proper context behind any official release. For example, the quotes from Chinese diplomats regarding North Korea may very well be the ramblings of a disenchanted public servant, rather than the feeling of the Chinese government as a whole. But without that context North Korea might assume those opinions to be official (but disavowed) Chinese policy and execute option #2 above.

If Assange wants to leak stuff, let him leak stuff going on now in 10 years. By then it's less likely to cause a conflict, but still recent enough to generate the change he purports to advocate. Does anyone really believe that a file capable of "changing the world" would be irrelevant in 10 years?

Marlin

12/09/2010, 08:14 AM

If you think for one second so low ranked enlisted guy had access to dimplomatic cables, you are wrong. The kid that is imprisoned right now gave him the video of the journalists being killed and some other minor stuff, this stuff coming out came from much higher.

I am waiting to see what happens as they pull the string to find out where it all came from.
I can't get anything in or out where I work, and we only go to Confidential, way low on the totem of information security. We can't even bring in radios that have any feature other than AM/FM. No alarm, no digital display...we have been this way for a few years. Wherever this stuff is coming from, it came from the upper eschelon of access.

Triathlete

12/09/2010, 08:48 AM

vt_maverick

12/09/2010, 08:58 AM

Billy's on the money. No matter how high up the food chain these cables were originally written, there's almost always an intern / coffee-chaser who is asked to carry papers from one office to another. That's all it takes.

tom4bren

12/09/2010, 09:33 AM

Careful fellers. Our securtiy office indicated that if anyone is caught accessing wikileaks from a government computer, your clearance could be revoked. It may apply to contractors as well. It's not likely that they are monitoring it close enough to catch anyone but I sure ain't taking any chances.

Honestly though, I haven't even been curious enough about what's been posted to go out & look. Personally I consider Julian Assange a waste of perfectly good sperm and hope that he disappears into anonymity very soon.

Ascinder

12/09/2010, 09:58 AM

Honestly though, I haven't even been curious enough about what's been posted to go out & look. Personally I consider Julian Assange a waste of perfectly good sperm and hope that he disappears into anonymity very soon.

Well said. While I think there is a positive side to journalists trying to uncover the truth(coverups and such for example), I do not even remotely trust them to properly handle sensitive information they may come across in the course of their work. I absolutely don't trust their moral compass to keep critical information secret if they feel they can make a quick buck or further their own career over it either. Look at any "good intentioned" weapon mankind has ever tried to make or harness. It always inevitably gets used for nefarious purposes sooner or later. This stuff is no different. This guy is no Robin Hood, he's the one that opened pandoras box, and no good will come of it.

Marlin

12/09/2010, 11:26 AM

Marlin, I am sure things have changed some since my time in but as an E2 I had the highest security clearance available. As our equipment got older and less "secret" they slowly downgraded the clearance as needed. Of course we didn't have computers back then either...good old paper!

I was not referring to the clearance level, but rather the accessibility to the information. I have secret clearance, but no access to it. You have to have a special computer, in a vaulted room where no PED (personal electronic device) are allowed. I just can't see this private having the access to those types of communications. The spread of the topics would be more like things saved on an entire server or encrypted digital vault of some type.

I am sure that Ash is right about some assistant maybe having access, and they do have those at the Pentagon level, they are called 06s. Guys that are in command of entire units in the field, and some congressman's aid on shore duty.

If a command was allowing E2s to be able to access a broad spectrum of info to this level, then we deserve any fallout that may arise, and those in charge should be held accountable for those repercussions.

We were talking about this at work today, the whole thing seems too convenient, I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but its like a magic show, "Look over here, watch this hand", meanwhile, what is happening with the other hand? Its all too pretty.

Hiredgoon

12/09/2010, 11:32 AM

This whole information age is so very tacky. I think people need to take a little more responsibility for themselves and try to have a little integrity, and that definitely applies to journalists as well as politicians. I wonder how much comfort freedom of the press will give him when his work gets people killed.

It's all pretty depressing, really.

circmand

12/09/2010, 12:20 PM

I consider Julian a hero. There's no way they can stop this now. WikiLeaks is mirrored in hundreds of locations around the world.

Of course not kill him anyhow make him your martyr. Its like the death penalty at least he wont ever do it again

[/QUOTE]Here's one mirror if you've never seen this stuff- http://wikileaks.ch (http://wikileaks.ch/)[/QUOTE]

just because some of stuff isnt that sensitive doesnt mean other stuff isnt. He released names of people who told us where terrorists were planning attacks and murders of children. This hero allows them to continue to kill children. Yeah I underrstand why you like him so much he is a child killer

[/QUOTE]Julian's friends are in possession of a 1.4 gigabyte file that supposedly will change the world. They will unleash this monster if Julian is killed or imprisoned. Governments have a copy of this file, but Julian used 256-bit encryption and it will take untold years to break the code. It can be released uncoded on the internet at any time and there's nothing any government can do to stop it. I hope it has all kinds of dirt on all the political scum and all the illegal stuff they've done.[/QUOTE]

That makes them guilty to. Kill them too. They may have access but they cant release it when they are dead or wont once they start dieing. This is simply extortion. Yu dont deal with terrorists you kill them.

[/QUOTE]These people are very smart. You would think all the biggest companies have made themselves hack-proof by now, yet they were able to shut down MasterCard and PayPal.[/QUOTE]

Really? How smart do you have to be to have someone copy informaion from a file and paste it into a new location?

[/QUOTE]No one has ever been harmed by anything they released. Even in the past when spies have been named, they just get a new identity and disappear.[/QUOTE]

And your proof of this statement is? You know all the thousands and thousands of pages of info linked and you know every name mentioned and have checked on their well being and personally know and have verified that everyone is safe do you? I hope I dont have to explain to you why that statement is ludicrous.

Stephen Biko

12/09/2010, 04:22 PM

They may have access but they cant release it when they are dead or wont once they start dieing. This is simply extortion. Yu dont deal with terrorists you kill them.

Creeping authoritarianism has destroyed the rule of law when speech is considered terrorism.

It is important to understand the purpose of the "insurance" file - it isn't 'extortion' to insure that Assange or others won't be killed or prosecuted, it is to insure that all of the information that has been leaked to wikileaks is published. That's a promise the wikileaks organization made to any and all whistle-blowers - if you risk your butt to get the information to wikileaks, they absolutely promise to make sure it gets published. They would prefer to review it and edit it for safety first, but if the wikileaks organization is somehow disrupted, they intend to keep their word if it's the last thing they do.

That's not to say plenty of political pundits have sensationalized the insurance file, but neither wikileaks nor Assange have made any threats about using it for retaliation.

And your proof of this statement is? You know all the thousands and thousands of pages of info linked and you know every name mentioned and have checked on their well being and personally know and have verified that everyone is safe do you? I hope I dont have to explain to you why that statement is ludicrous.

Really its ludicrous to claim that people have died as a result when even the Pentagon's own review found otherwise. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/) The wikileaks organization has gone to great pains to redact that kind of information from the documents they publish. In cases where the government has released the same documents under FOIA it's turned out that wikileaks did an even more thorough job of removing potentially sensitive information (http://publicintelligence.net/wikileaks-redacts-more-than-pentagon-in-latest-release/)than the pentagon did.

But, ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays (http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf) explaining the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.

He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

The US government is not his only target (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Information_leaked_by_WikiLeaks), it's just the one that's currently getting the most press.

Furthermore, plenty of legitimate public figures in the business of government and security have expressed support for Assange and Wikileaks include Ron Paul, Daniel Esllberg (of the Pentagon Papers), Veterans for Peace president Mike Ferner, former long-time CIA counter-terrorism expert Michael Scheuer, Republican congressman Connie Mack of Florida and former Australian Prime Minister (currently Foreign Minister) Kevin Rudd just for starters.

Marlin

12/09/2010, 04:59 PM

The information he posts is still illegal, like it or not. There is no difference between what he is doing and if a bank robber gave you a bag of money, and you went and spent it knowing where it came from. It is still against the law!!

He is knowingly publishing classified information, it is a form of terrorism.

Let's say you murdered someone, and then told the police that if they tried to arrest you or investigate the crime, you would kill their family, that is the same thing he is doing with his "poison pill", we should not negotiate with hostage takers...it sets a bad example.

Stephen Biko

12/09/2010, 05:24 PM

It is still against the law!!

Except it is not. He's not an american citizen and not subject to american laws. Furthermore it isn't necessarily illegal for american citizens to publish classified information, see New York Times vs United States. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States) Finally, if that line of reasoning is true, why aren't the newspapers like The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times that are also publishing the same information equally culpable?

He is knowingly publishing classified information, it is a form of terrorism.
No, at worst it is espionage. Over use of the terrorism label just waters down the meaning of the word.

we should not negotiate with hostage takers...it sets a bad example.
Wikileaks is NOT negotiating - the information is going to be released no matter what. The insurance file's purpose is to insure the "no matter what" part.

Marlin

12/09/2010, 05:42 PM

No, at worst it is espionage. Over use of the terrorism label just waters down the meaning of the word.

Playing semantics does not change the fact that it is wrong, terrorism, espionage, the fact that you know what I mean is enough.

Wikileaks is NOT negotiating - the information is going to be released no matter what. The insurance file's purpose is to insure the "no matter what" part.
This is in direct contradiction to what was posted earlier about how well they (wikileaks) has done by scrubbing their info to minimize risk to others. So they are threatening to release non-scrubbed info? Still a threat, still holding information hostage.

So if he were a citizen of a country that had legalized murder, it would be ok for him to murder Americans? Your logic or lack there of makes no sense. Once again, I go back to the bank robber analogy, lets say the stolen money given to you was Canadian, does it make it an more legal for you to spend it?

Marlin

12/09/2010, 06:00 PM

I just readthrough the Wiki you posted and you are incorrect about the concept of the publishing of classified info:

The most recent incarnation of the exception was the grave and probable danger rule, established in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). During this case, the wording was changed to the grave and irreparable danger standard. The idea behind the numerous versions of the rule is that if a certain message will likely cause a “grave and irreparable” danger to the American public when expressed, then the message’s prior restraint could be considered an acceptable infringement of civil liberties. The Supreme Court was therefore charged with determining if the Government had sufficiently met the “burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint”

This is exactly the goal of wikileaks, as stated by themselves, that these documents would topple banks (the ones that needed 9 trillion in aid or else our economy would fail), and cripple government operations. They stated on their own one thing that is actually not legal and could result in censure.

Don't get me wrong, I am against a big government, there are so many leeches (you democrats know who you are ;) ), but what he is doing is wrong. I think the government threatening folks for even looking at the documents is ridiculous, but to say that Assange is a hero is out there and just plain ridiculous. Its almost as if the whole thing is staged to allow the implementation of an internet censureship branch of the government. Add that up with TSA:
A few years ago, we threw a fit about taking off our shoes at the airport, now we would be grateful if that was it. How many bombs has TSA stopped? None. The only two in a decade that were stopped were stopped by the individual's error and other passengers. Now they want to add the scanners to sporting events, train/bus stations, and how many bombs have been exploded there? None. This is all a gambit to get the average idiot to accept control by the government.

Any man willing to trade freedom for safety deserves neither.-Ben Franklin. Give me my guns, my helmetless motorcycle riders, my caffeine impregnated alcoholic drink (rum and coke) and let me make my own choices. Give me warnings (like on cigarattes) and set me free. Hold me accountable for my choices (no public healthcare for lung cancer ridden smokers, fatty heart attack victims and so on)
So in a way, I agree with your point of view, just not when it comes to this douche clown.
There is more at risk than some hokey internet prank.

vt_maverick

12/09/2010, 06:02 PM

He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

The community has been that way for decades, and I think it's safe to say that our government is no closer to either curbing its tendencies or collapsing.

Marlin

12/09/2010, 06:19 PM

I just thought of something funny, Anonymous, is all about the transparency of information and no secrecy, yet ironically they will not share their identity or their plans? Transparency of info for everyone except them?

Stephen Biko

12/09/2010, 07:11 PM

So if he were a citizen of a country that had legalized murder, it would be ok for him to murder Americans?Murder is universally recognized as being "not ok" so that's not a valid analogy. Let's turn the tables - if an american living in America were to publish Chinese classified materials would that be OK?

So they are threatening to release non-scrubbed info? Still a threat, still holding information hostage.Is the fact that a bee has a stinger a threat? There is no intent to threaten anyone. Wikileaks' intent is to keep the promise they made to the whistleblowers - not to save their own butts.

The idea behind the numerous versions of the rule is that if a certain message will likely cause a "grave and irreparable"� danger to the American public when expressed, then the message's prior restraint could be considered an acceptable infringement of civil liberties.
...
This is exactly the goal of wikileaks, as stated by themselves, that these documents would topple banks (the ones that needed 9 trillion in aid or else our economy would fail), and cripple government operations.

Don't over-generalize "grave and irreparable" danger - "too big to fail" is just a political catch phrase not a legal term. Similarly the failure of some government operations needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Very few of them would qualify as "grave an irreparable."

I just thought of something funny, Anonymous, is all about the transparency of information and no secrecy, yet ironically they will not share their identity or their plans? Transparency of info for everyone except them? Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of individuals - all of their plans are made in public and anyone can join - if you want to be part of Anonymous all you have to do is say you are. They are not centralized, there is no members-only secret website, membership rules or even a members list. Not all of Anonymous even agrees with anything other parts of Anonymous do.

Marlin

12/09/2010, 07:48 PM

Murder is universally recognized as being "not ok" so that's not a valid analogy. Let's turn the tables - if an american living in America were to publish Chinese classified materials would that be OK?

No it wouldn't be ok...and we haven't done that, but at least you get the point
Is the fact that a bee has a stinger a threat? There is no intent to threaten anyone. Wikileaks' intent is to keep the promise they made to the whistleblowers - not to save their own butts.

A bee never threatened anyone(well, except the african honey bee), they don't go out and attack other creatures and threaten retribution if they are forced to face any consequences. Good retort though, I like it (honestly, no sarcasm, I thoroughly enjoy good logic sparring)

Don't over-generalize "grave and irreparable" danger - "too big to fail" is just a political catch phrase not a legal term. Similarly the failure of some government operations needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Very few of them would qualify as "grave an irreparable."

I think 9 trillion in loans is enough to qualify as irreparable. If it wasn't true, you would have to send the Fed (which is NOT A PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, to jail for unfair lending practices)

Anonymous is nothing more than a bunch of individuals - all of their plans are made in public and anyone can join - if you want to be part of Anonymous all you have to do is say you are. They are not centralized, there is no members-only secret website, membership rules or even a members list. Not all of Anonymous even agrees with anything other parts of Anonymous do.
And to this one I throw the B u l l s h i t flag. Every group has its leaders, regardless of the forum. If you think for a second that there aren't a few old schoolers that drive the party, you are very ignorant, which I doubt based on your responses. Just look at our forum, there are a few that kind of "run the show". This is just a small truck forum, imagine how bad it must be on some geeky hacker forum:rolleyes: The senior guys say go, the NUBs just follow. Tis human nature. If no one was in charge, nothing would ever happen.

There is always someone in charge. Do some research on the Rothchilds, Queen of england...there are a few families that have more money combined than the the rest of the 95% of the world put together. I am a fan of prisonplanet.com.

Stephen Biko

12/09/2010, 09:02 PM

if an american living in America were to publish Chinese classified materials would that be OK?

No it wouldn't be ok...and we haven't done that, but at least you get the point

Seems to be OK with the US government if a Chinese citizen does it. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/exclusive-chinese-spy-who-defected-tells-all/)

A bee never threatened ... retribution if they are forced to face any consequences.You are assuming your own premise. Wikileaks has never made a threat. It is circular logic to say it is a threat just because you say it's a threat. You choose to view their actions in a certain light and ignore their own published goals. There is not a single statement from wikileaks or Assange regarding the insurance file that suggests a threat. You are encouraged to quote one to prove otherwise.

I think 9 trillion in loans is enough to qualify as irreparable.There is zero legal precedent for your interpretation.

Every group has its leaders, regardless of the forum.
I'm sure Anonymous has plenty of little sub-groups with more formalized structures, but the group as a whole is completely fluid. You can read up on their inherent lack of structure. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29)

technocoy

12/09/2010, 09:15 PM

Look at you Crotchrocket. You sneaky dog. You done threw a molotov and ran!!!! Hahahah.

You know, I'm not sure where I'm at yet with the Assange thing. I know there are a lot of variables at play, and there is a lot of grey area.

I want to see what he has on the banks. That's the kind of information I would like to see keeping these bastards honest. I find it funny that when he announced the bank leak is when all the congressmen really found that it was all of a sudden an emergency to shut this guy down. Self-preservation at work maybe?

What I do know, is that someone's bigot flag just flew.

"2. Congress is also considering allowing gays to openly join and serve in the military. Considering the spy who leaked this info is a homosexual who had a hissy fit and decided leaking secret documents was the way to go can we allow them to serve if this is what can be expected?"

Really? I mean, REALLY?

First of all I can respect nearly every point of view so far in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can respect them.

This however is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. It personally offends me, and I'm not even gay. Not because you support don't ask don't tell necessarily. I think there was a time where it protected gays more than anything else. More because your statement tells a lot about your character and decision making.

WTF does the person in question being gay have to do with why they chose to leak the information? You know how many things have been leaked over the years by straight folks? Oh wait, pretty much ALL of it. Should we ban straight folks from serving because they obviously are easier to make into spies? Your logic is quite silly and morally idiotic.

Anyone can feel wronged or feel they are doing something just that other don't agree with, straight people included. I don't know enough about the leaker to make any more judgement than that. It's the broader implication here I want to speak to.

ANY person that has the strength and capacity to serve his or her country in the military should be allowed. If they are brave enough to go fight and possibly die for the land and people they love then they are alright by me. PERIOD. Through the years our fighting force has only gotten better, stronger and smarter and has constantly become more and more diversified.

I can promise you, having several very close gay and lesbian friends (two of which have served in the military on hazard duty) that they are not trying to sneak up from behind on some straight dude/dudette. They are gay and like other gay people, most can't even identify with the majority of straight people. If anything, they should toss out the idiots who CAN'T deal with it because it seems to me they can't mentally compete with even the most basic pressure or stress. I bet that when my buddy helped a group of soldiers survive an ambush in a back alley of baghdad they didn't question his resolve and they damn sure didn't take back their appreciation when they found out he was gay.

The sad thing is that because of don't ask don't tell he served 3 tours at a year each and wasn't able to tell his partner how much he cared for them on the phone for fear of being thrown out, and often feared calling them at all. He couldn't talk about his loved ones when sharing stories about missing home with his fellow soldiers. He was isolated from the person he loved much more than his fellow soldiers, yet he still performed his job admirably and above the bar.

He took two shots for his country in his time there and he did it all while feeling like he was being **** on by the very people he was protecting. That's how much he loves his country. He did all this for his friends, family, fellow Americans and all the sorry bigoted asses that have been so quick to condemn people because they are different. That in my opinion makes him a bigger man that most.

If someone is so weird and weak-minded that all they can think about while in the service is about how someone else goes about having sex, maybe they need their head examined. They are certainly a pervert. Do you also sit around imagining your squadmate getting it off with his girlfriend? Is that soothing vs stressful? Does that increase moral vs decrease? Jesus Christ.

I definitely don't find a person like that strong-minded and intelligent enough to fight along those that can.

I truly hope that if you are ever in a life threatening situation with a homosexual fighting at your side that A: they don't take a break to ask if you're straight, and B: they don't see your true colors.

I'll post more about Assange when I'm not so disgusted at the hypocrisy I'm seeing.

VXR

12/10/2010, 03:13 AM

Whats your opinions on this then guys???

do you see what you have done:yesb:

crotchrocket

12/10/2010, 03:55 AM

ooooops, i'll get my coat :whiteflag:

best start reading all this above! :D

Marlin

12/10/2010, 05:53 AM

Seems to be OK with the US government if a Chinese citizen does it. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/exclusive-chinese-spy-who-defected-tells-all/)

You are assuming your own premise. Wikileaks has never made a threat. It is circular logic to say it is a threat just because you say it's a threat. You choose to view their actions in a certain light and ignore their own published goals. There is not a single statement from wikileaks or Assange regarding the insurance file that suggests a threat. You are encouraged to quote one to prove otherwise.

There is zero legal precedent for your interpretation.

I'm sure Anonymous has plenty of little sub-groups with more formalized structures, but the group as a whole is completely fluid. You can read up on their inherent lack of structure. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29)

I am not saying that the release of the documents was the threat, but rather the fact that he said if you try to imprison or prosecute me, my 'friends' will release this info. If you do this, I will retaliate. That is a threat. Not sure how circular that logic is.

As far as the banks, there is nothing he could release that would change anything. They took 9 trillion dollars in virtually interest free loans!!!!!! If that isn't enough to topple them, then nothing is. 9 trillion, that is like half of our deficit, all to one group of people, who turned around and paid their CEOs ridiculous sums of money with it. JPM controls the price of silver by selling silver they don't have, the banks are gobbling up land one piece at a time. Soon that land will belong to government.

We bailed out failing auto companies, and let them keep their unions, the mos crippling facet of their whole process.

We GIVE away billions of dollars in aid to foreign countries that don't even like us.

We are condoning illegal actions (immigration)

What more do you need to topple an empire? Americans are passive, touchy feely, *******. We are so engaged on PC BS, making everything fair, making everything safe, that we have forgotten what is important. Freedom and Justice.

We are at a point where if someone doesn't tell you what to do, then you won't do it.

As I said, I think we share similar views, just not on this specific topic.

circmand

12/10/2010, 07:25 AM

What I do know, is that someone's bigot flag just flew.

"2. Congress is also considering allowing gays to openly join and serve in the military. Considering the spy who leaked this info is a homosexual who had a hissy fit and decided leaking secret documents was the way to go can we allow them to serve if this is what can be expected?"

Really? I mean, REALLY?

First of all I can respect nearly every point of view so far in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can respect them.

This however is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. It personally offends me, and I'm not even gay. Not because you support don't ask don't tell necessarily. I think there was a time where it protected gays more than anything else. More because your statement tells a lot about your character and decision making.

WTF does the person in question being gay have to do with why they chose to leak the information? You know how many things have been leaked over the years by straight folks? Oh wait, pretty much ALL of it. Should we ban straight folks from serving because they obviously are easier to make into spies? Your logic is quite silly and morally idiotic.

Anyone can feel wronged or feel they are doing something just that other don't agree with, straight people included. I don't know enough about the leaker to make any more judgement than that. It's the broader implication here I want to speak to.

ANY person that has the strength and capacity to serve his or her country in the military should be allowed. If they are brave enough to go fight and possibly die for the land and people they love then they are alright by me. PERIOD. Through the years our fighting force has only gotten better, stronger and smarter and has constantly become more and more diversified.

I can promise you, having several very close gay and lesbian friends (two of which have served in the military on hazard duty) that they are not trying to sneak up from behind on some straight dude/dudette. They are gay and like other gay people, most can't even identify with the majority of straight people. If anything, they should toss out the idiots who CAN'T deal with it because it seems to me they can't mentally compete with even the most basic pressure or stress. I bet that when my buddy helped a group of soldiers survive an ambush in a back alley of baghdad they didn't question his resolve and they damn sure didn't take back their appreciation when they found out he was gay.

The sad thing is that because of don't ask don't tell he served 3 tours at a year each and wasn't able to tell his partner how much he cared for them on the phone for fear of being thrown out, and often feared calling them at all. He couldn't talk about his loved ones when sharing stories about missing home with his fellow soldiers. He was isolated from the person he loved much more than his fellow soldiers, yet he still performed his job admirably and above the bar.

He took two shots for his country in his time there and he did it all while feeling like he was being **** on by the very people he was protecting. That's how much he loves his country. He did all this for his friends, family, fellow Americans and all the sorry bigoted asses that have been so quick to condemn people because they are different. That in my opinion makes him a bigger man that most.

If someone is so weird and weak-minded that all they can think about while in the service is about how someone else goes about having sex, maybe they need their head examined. They are certainly a pervert. Do you also sit around imagining your squadmate getting it off with his girlfriend? Is that soothing vs stressful? Does that increase moral vs decrease? Jesus Christ.

I definitely don't find a person like that strong-minded and intelligent enough to fight along those that can.

I truly hope that if you are ever in a life threatening situation with a homosexual fighting at your side that A: they don't take a break to ask if you're straight, and B: they don't see your true colors.
.

Apparently you have some insight no one else does that allows you to see into my mind on how I feel and how I think. However it doesnt seem to be working or you are transferring your own issues on to me because you are unwilling to face them. I was big into debate into school. For those like the poster here that do not understand debate you are given an issue and the side you need to argue. Whether you agree or not you must argue that side. Thta being said the best way to win your side is to figure out what points the other side will argue and have a counter to that point. Crying and yelling and calling names will NOT win a debate no matter how much you do it. Only well thought out arguements and points count.

Now while I am under no obligation to defend myself against unsubstantiated name calling I will list a few points. I am for the right of gays to serve in the military. I once lived with for several years several homosexuals. We had a great time we got along great we often had debates of this nature without any of us being offended and remain friends over 20 years later. Perhaps you can call my friends up and tell them you have deduced I hate gays without having met me and after their 20+ years of association with me they are too stupid to realize.

Actually the most idiotic statement I ever read is the one in your post. How you are so offended although you are not gay. Because for you to be so offended by something that does not affect you directly but still feel the need to point out you are not gay really says something about you. Do you feel homosexuals are so unable to defend themselves that they need you to rush to their defense? IF you think they cannot defend themselves in a debate of ideas I have to think you really dont beleive they can defend themselves in battle.

I actually dont beleive that is the case however. I think you are just another liberal who thinks they know everything. If you disagree with Obama you are a racist. If you dont want to pay higher taxes for entitlement programs you hate the elderly or the poor or the children etc. Liberals always have these urges to put in place feel good programs that cost a fortune never solve the problem then want to throw away more money and god forbid if someone questions why you resort to calling names. I guess the elite liberals resort to calling names because us stoopid conservatives wouldnt understand your facts if you ever bothered to state them. (BTW I spelled Stupid incorrectly on purpose as sarcasm. I felt I should state that as liberals never seem to have a sense of humor or understand sarcasm)

don moore

12/10/2010, 07:31 AM

whats wikileaks....???
I think everything that is on the internet is real..lol.... if you make a big deal out of it ..then more people will want to know what its about ..so lets try to get everyone involved by making a big deal about it ...if they did it the old way ..one one would care and the persons involved would some how end up having a accident or heat atact.and it would be over .lets see wiki leaks has been doing this for how long and now they are doing something about it ..lol
get real
..thx gang....

Stephen Biko

12/10/2010, 10:06 AM

I am not saying that the release of the documents was the threat, but rather the fact that he said if you try to imprison or prosecute me, my 'friends' will release this info. If you do this, I will retaliate. That is a threat. Not sure how circular that logic is.

Again show me ONE quote from wikileaks or Assange saying he is going to retaliate. The guy voluntarily went into custody on the Swedish warrant and no one has released the password for the insurance file. Lots of political commentators want people to see the situation the way you describe it, but when you go looking for the evidence to support that viewpoint it is not there.

As far as the banks, there is nothing he could release that would change anything.

First it was "grave and irreparable danger" and now nothing at all.

circmand

12/10/2010, 12:58 PM

Again show me ONE quote from wikileaks or Assange saying he is going to retaliate. The guy voluntarily went into custody on the Swedish warrant and no one has released the password for the insurance file. Lots of political commentators want people to see the situation the way you describe it, but when you go looking for the evidence to support that viewpoint it is not there.

First it was "grave and irreparable danger" and now nothing at all.

he turned him self in for the rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force in separate incidents he commited not the treason he comitted. Then after ducking that crime for all this time he wanted bail. On top of that he walked out of a TV interview when questioned about those crimes. Apparently he thinks what he wants kept secret should be kept secret but he can publish what he wants to publish.

Also as far as threats they not only have been made but several carried out when Visa, Mastercard were experienced hacker attacks when they stopped funneling money to further ***-anges attempt to help terrorists. Attackinga cyber site that was legally opting out is a crime. So much for his innocent journalism lies.

In 1992, he pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking this is not a journalist

technocoy

12/10/2010, 04:31 PM

Uh, I don't need much insight.

"2. Congress is also considering allowing gays to openly join and serve in the military. Considering the spy who leaked this info is a homosexual who had a hissy fit and decided leaking secret documents was the way to go can we allow them to serve if this is what can be expected?"

I think you put it out there for all to see. I'm not the one making stereotypical and bigotry-tinged remarks. But you got me! I'm a crazy uber-lefty commie who lives for coming to my favorite message board and calling people out in the name of homosexuals everywhere!!!!! They call me PC MAN!

"I am for the right of gays to serve in the military."

Then maybe consider editing your statements a bit better, because that pretty obviously comes off as against it or at least having serious doubts about it. Which isn't even the major issue.

It was less about whether you agree with it or not, as I would be willing to have a healthy debate about it were it just that. It was more your condescending and stereotypical tone about it that caused my reaction. See there are people who have folks they care about that get upset when people make crappy remarks like that...

Freudian slip, maybe. Honest mistake in sentence structure? I could maybe see that, but based on another thread where you came in guns a blazing and not thinking about what you type, or even reading source material in it's entirety before posting a flame about it, it's obvious that if nothing else, maybe you should slow down and think about things a bit before you post them.

The reality here is that though we are all friends through a common interest here, our differences vary beyond that. Calling you out on it has nothing to do with an issue with my own views as much as an issue with those close to me putting their lives on the line and then having other folks doubt their resolve. So yes, I DID take it personal.

Not sure about the rest of the post. It's so double talk and hypocritical I'll have to read it a few times to figure it out.

The reality is, were we at a meet, on 99% of things you and I and everyone here could probably have a beer, have some great conversation and debate some great questions (or just work on our rides). I'm not trying to make you out to be some kind of monster here, Circmand, I'm just letting you know that sometimes there are other people in the room, and those people may have someone they care about in harms way. I'm not saying you gotta be PC all the time, but when you start making insinuations about a whole group of people you also can't expect NOT to piss anyone off at all.

If I misread your intent, I apologize for calling you a bigot, but I can't see where that statement implied anything else.

To everyone else, I apologize for the off-topic rants.

Cheers,
Technocoy

Stephen Biko

12/10/2010, 05:14 PM

not the treason he comitted.

Treason? Are you trolling? Come on, you can admit it. Not even a hardcore jingoist could believe that.

Stephen Biko

12/10/2010, 05:20 PM

Not sure about the rest of the post. It's so double talk and hypocritical I'll have to read it a few times to figure it out.

It was standard "some of my closest friends are black" defense. Troll or caricature I dunno, but off the charts funny either way.

VXR

12/10/2010, 09:55 PM

I was big into debate into school

Did you ever win any:confused:

circmand

12/11/2010, 09:34 AM

Did you ever win any:confused:

Yes even at the national level, mostly Lincoln Douglas.

As for the friends I wouldn't paste their names or numbers but I am secure in knowing I am right. They will enjoy this as well

Treason? Yes there is no doubt that the military individual who stole the secret documents violated his sworn oath he took and will be found guilty. Those here who have any legal background can vouch that if you knowngly participate by dispensing the data you have a high percentage of being convicted as aiding and abetting. Given Wikileaks actually knowlingly and willingly participated in the act of diseminating secret documents where they had to know sworn enemies of the US would access them that is an easy case to make. And doing this act can in no way be defended as journalism.

and Technocoy I have no hard feelings. Rereading my posts the use of hissy fit was a term that could have been replaced but I really couldnt think of a better term at the time. As for the rest I was simply putting forth an issue that will come up using the least amount of words so as not to sway it in one way or another so the responses that were received would show the predispositon of the responder. It is quite similar to an ink blot test. And trust me that arguement will be made by those against dont ask dont tell.

IRONVIKING

12/12/2010, 02:29 AM

I feel its all a waste of time. Its all over the news and really its all crap. All it is is a way to distract people from how bad things really are. All our politicians are self serving and have little to no honor. They dont serve the people anymore. I hope this whole thing helps to weed out the losers we have in office and maybe it will bring people to the forefront who really do care about this country. People who are not worried about whats said about them or dug up ,because they have nothing to hide and what they have done or said was in the best interest of the people and not their bank accounts.
Wikileaks is wikiwack, but not as wack as the people who are worried about whats being leaked.
My 2 cents.
Peace

VXIRONwoMAN

12/12/2010, 10:42 AM

Like any other spy both he and the soldier who fed him the info should be given a military trial and summarily executed.

That makes them guilty to. Kill them too. They may have access but they cant release it when they are dead or wont once they start dieing. This is simply extortion. Yu dont deal with terrorists you kill them.

The information he posts is still illegal, like it or not. There is no difference between what he is doing and if a bank robber gave you a bag of money, and you went and spent it knowing where it came from. It is still against the law!!

What's with all this posting of the cables being illegal stuff. It's only illegal because our government says it is. At one point is was illegal for blacks to marry whites... Just because big brother says it's illegal doesn't mean that it's wrong.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but its like a magic show, "Look over here, watch this hand", meanwhile, what is happening with the other hand? Its all too pretty.

I like that analogy.

He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organizations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organization will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organization cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organization must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

You are a genius. I have to stop multi-quoting you...But I agree with majority of what you are saying. A+

So if he were a citizen of a country that had legalized murder, it would be ok for him to murder Americans? Your logic or lack there of makes no sense. Once again, I go back to the bank robber analogy, lets say the stolen money given to you was Canadian, does it make it an more legal for you to spend it?

Marlin, you are debating with emotion and you are not making sense. Analogies are good for expressing feelings. Not when refuting facts.

Don't get me wrong, I am against a big government... Its almost as if the whole thing is staged to allow the implementation of an internet censureship branch of the government. Add that up with TSA:
A few years ago, we threw a fit about taking off our shoes at the airport, now we would be grateful if that was it. How many bombs has TSA stopped? None. The only two in a decade that were stopped were stopped by the individual's error and other passengers. Now they want to add the scanners to sporting events, train/bus stations, and how many bombs have been exploded there? None. This is all a gambit to get the average idiot to accept control by the government.

Don't even get me started on TSA! It's a joke! I was a flight attendant and dealt with them multiple times a day. That's a whole other thread...

We are condoning illegal actions (immigration)

Immigration is NOT illegal!

Apparently you have some insight no one else does that allows you to see into my mind on how I feel and how I think. However it doesnt seem to be working or you are transferring your own issues on to me because you are unwilling to face them. I was big into debate into school. For those like the poster here that do not understand debate you are given an issue and the side you need to argue. Whether you agree or not you must argue that side. Thta being said the best way to win your side is to figure out what points the other side will argue and have a counter to that point. Crying and yelling and calling names will NOT win a debate no matter how much you do it. Only well thought out arguements and points count.

Now while I am under no obligation to defend myself against unsubstantiated name calling I will list a few points. I am for the right of gays to serve in the military. I once lived with for several years several homosexuals. We had a great time we got along great we often had debates of this nature without any of us being offended and remain friends over 20 years later. Perhaps you can call my friends up and tell them you have deduced I hate gays without having met me and after their 20+ years of association with me they are too stupid to realize.

Actually the most idiotic statement I ever read is the one in your post. How you are so offended although you are not gay. Because for you to be so offended by something that does not affect you directly but still feel the need to point out you are not gay really says something about you. Do you feel homosexuals are so unable to defend themselves that they need you to rush to their defense? IF you think they cannot defend themselves in a debate of ideas I have to think you really dont beleive they can defend themselves in battle.

I actually dont beleive that is the case however. I think you are just another liberal who thinks they know everything. If you disagree with Obama you are a racist. If you dont want to pay higher taxes for entitlement programs you hate the elderly or the poor or the children etc. Liberals always have these urges to put in place feel good programs that cost a fortune never solve the problem then want to throw away more money and god forbid if someone questions why you resort to calling names. I guess the elite liberals resort to calling names because us stoopid conservatives wouldnt understand your facts if you ever bothered to state them. (BTW I spelled Stupid incorrectly on purpose as sarcasm. I felt I should state that as liberals never seem to have a sense of humor or understand sarcasm)

Thanks for the Speech 101 lesson Professor. I think in English 102 they teach you how to write without coming off as a major blockhead...

Again show me ONE quote from wikileaks or Assange saying he is going to retaliate. The guy voluntarily went into custody on the Swedish warrant and no one has released the password for the insurance file. Lots of political commentators want people to see the situation the way you describe it, but when you go looking for the evidence to support that viewpoint it is not there.

First it was "grave and irreparable danger" and now nothing at all.

Did you ever win any:confused:
:laughing:

Seeing all of the stuff that's going on and how others are freaking out about it sometimes makes me chuckle. It's like our government has gone Jerry Springer...

rowhard

12/12/2010, 11:39 AM

Well, being retired military and me last job was working in a vault as a plans writer, I can't believe one PFC had sole access to this amount of data. That said, he and who ever leaked this should be tried for espionage and hung if convicted.

As far as the comment about a gay hissy fit. Maybe he was gay, and maybe he was being blackmailed which has happened many times to gays in key positions. If he could of serve openly, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

As far as Julian Assange is concerned, personally I'd like to shot the bastard, but legally he hasn't done anything wrong as I'm being led to believe. If an exception is made, then throw the constitution out the window.

circmand

12/12/2010, 02:17 PM

Marlin, you are debating with emotion and you are not making sense. Analogies are good for expressing feelings. Not when refuting facts.

Immigration is NOT illegal!

Thanks for the Speech 101 lesson Professor. I think in English 102 they teach you how to write without coming off as a major blockhead...

:laughing:

...

When liberals start losing on the facts they resort to calling names or trotting out their favorite poor victim. As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.

Stephen Biko

12/12/2010, 02:44 PM

When liberals start losing on the facts they resort to calling names

Like "***-ange" when you clearly meant A.s.s-ange?

or trotting out their favorite poor victim.

Like using the "treason" non-sequitor to paint the US as a victim of "***-ange?"

As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.

High irony from someone who bases his claims on the assumed support of people "here who have any legal background."

Marlin

12/12/2010, 03:26 PM

Per the census website, there were 12 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2007. Probably a safe bet to put it somewhere in the low 20 millions now. So yes, immigration is legal, but when someone mentions immigrants and legalities, it is clearly understood by all what is actually meant.

Y33TREKker

12/12/2010, 04:01 PM

A quote from a recent movie I saw seems appropriate.

"It isn't what it is, Tommy. It is never what it is. It is what it can be made to look like."

That most people nowadays are aware that "spin" is the name of the game makes it difficult to understand how so many can still be distracted. Does is not seem odd that the main coverage of most of the story tends to focus on the leaks themselves rather than the content of the leaks? If all that stuff hadn't happened in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Anyone using the argument that "everyone" talks about people behind their backs, so why should politicians be held accountable is conveniently overlooking the fact that talking about people behind their backs is still wrong. In my personal experience, the people who use that argument are the people who do it most, and are just trying to justify their own actions by perpetuating the myth that "everyone" does it. Using the argument that leaks may cause collateral damage is also overlooking the collateral damage that has already occured as exposed in the leaks.

When the people who are the subjects of the leaks reach such positions of "power" and affluence, and begin to be too overly esteemed because of their position or how much money they make, it seems it's all too quickly forgotten that they are still working for us, and are supposed to be representing us in the best light possible. Well I don't know about the rest of you, but my elected leaders indirectly making me look like an @&& in the eyes of residents of the nations of the rest of the world got old a LONG time ago.

There's no reason whatsoever that I should be expected to continue granting the illusions they would prefer to those who obviously have no respect for me as so clearly illustrated by their actions. That people like that resort to intimidation and character assassination tactics when exposed says more about them than it does the people they are trying to attack. Doesn't it seem rather convenient that the "sexual assault" allegations should have become so newsworthy at the precise time that they did? Sexual assault is in quotes by the way because the actual charge is based around a condom breaking. "Sex by surprise" was the actual charge. Consentual, but now an issue because the condom broke. Trumped up for the purpose of sensationalization and distraction? One has to wonder.

The question to me is whether Wikileaks is just filling a much needed and overdue niche. One where whistleblowers can turn when the established avenue still leaves a lot to be desired. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a good start, but it's nowhere near what is needed, and anyone who has ever held a job where they've witnessed unfair/questionable business or managerial practices but did nothing for fear of losing their job, the prospect of future jobs, or even worse, knows the potential long-term reality of such situations...the Mel Gibson movie The Edge of Darkness from which that initial quote was taken being such an example. Power and affluence run amok, but not let off the hook because exposure was simply the right thing to do.

Marlin

12/12/2010, 04:39 PM

True, they do work for us, yet they make FAR more than their employers. Doesn't make sense if the employee makes more than the boss? Especially if the employee controls their own salary?

Y33TREKker

12/12/2010, 07:52 PM

True, they do work for us, yet they make FAR more than their employers. Doesn't make sense if the employee makes more than the boss? Especially if the employee controls their own salary?
I'd reply, but I'm not sure how. Was that meant to be sarcastic, rhetorical, or simply an example of the over-esteem I mentioned which is sometimes mistakenly placed on those in positions of "power" or affluence?

circmand

12/12/2010, 09:04 PM

Like "***-ange" when you clearly meant A.s.s-ange?

Like using the "treason" non-sequitor to paint the US as a victim of "***-ange?"

High irony from someone who bases his claims on the assumed support of people "here who have any legal background."

If you actually read the post I was saying people with legal background would support the legal description NOT NECESARILY MY VIEWPOINT. I assume that is why you did not do a quote where my post would be easily available for those reading your post? If you cant make your point dont make stuff up or take my statements out of context. That is the type of thing that used to work in the past. However people now see through it and is what exposed the global warming myths as lies meant to allow people like Al Gore to make millions of the hysteria.

vt_maverick

12/12/2010, 09:14 PM

technocoy

12/12/2010, 09:32 PM

Mmmmmmmmmmmm..... Beer.

don moore

12/12/2010, 10:06 PM

weres hot wasabi junkie when you need him...lol sorry I had to

VXR

12/13/2010, 02:04 AM

You know one of the things I liked about this forum when I joined was the lack of political debates

:confused:

weres hot wasabi junkie when you need him

don't tell vt he may lose all hope:yesb:

crotchrocket

12/13/2010, 04:07 AM

:whiteflag: :flower:

Marlin

12/13/2010, 05:03 AM

You know one of the things I liked about this forum when I joined was the lack of political debates... seems like we're headed the other way lately though.

I think you guys need to trade in this: :badhorse:

for this: :_beer:

Retreating back to the main forum now before I get yelled at. :)

BS, this thread is clearly labeled as a political thread. If you don't want to get involved or read about it, don't look at it. its not like this is buried in a thread about how to get a white L.V. shifter boot or how to fit a slushy machine in dashboard:bgwb:

circmand

12/13/2010, 06:50 AM

Mmmmmmmmmmmm..... Beer.

I like Beer too

tom4bren

12/13/2010, 07:46 AM

Here's a new twist for ya:

Who's to say that ANY of the documents on wikileak are genuine???

Wouldn't it be far cheaper for someone to create 40K+ pages of fraudulent documents than to collect the true classified ones?

Stephen Biko

12/13/2010, 09:08 AM

Wouldn't it be far cheaper for someone to create 40K+ pages of fraudulent documents than to collect the true classified ones?

Not really. Generating that many different documents addressing that many different situations around the world and making sure they correlate with known facts in a believable fashion would be practically impossible.

tom4bren

12/13/2010, 09:30 AM

True, but ...

With the available technology in the 1960's it would've been impossible to 'hype' the moon landing too.

vt_maverick

12/13/2010, 09:53 AM

BS, this thread is clearly labeled as a political thread. If you don't want to get involved or read about it, don't look at it. its not like this is buried in a thread about how to get a white L.V. shifter boot or how to fit a slushy machine in dashboard:bgwb:

WikiLeaks
Started by crotchrocket
Chit-Chat ... Anything Non-VX Related

Clearly you see what you want to see. :) I'm just saying that I don't understand why a discussion about WikiLeaks has to devolve into liberal v. conservative name-calling.

Stephen Biko

12/13/2010, 11:46 AM

I'm just saying that I don't understand why a discussion about WikiLeaks has to devolve into liberal v. conservative name-calling.

It hasn't. It's devolved into authoritarian vs libertarian name-calling.

Jolly Roger VX'er

12/13/2010, 03:09 PM

Stephen Biko

12/13/2010, 06:40 PM

FYI, the US has been trying to extradite a guy from the UK (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gary_McKinnon) who did try to hack into the US government systems looking for evidence of UFOs. He didn't find any. But it's not like classified systems are hooked up to the internet so he didn't have that much of a chance even if there was evidence.

VXR

12/13/2010, 06:53 PM

Ever watched Ancient Aliens on the history channel?

Interesting stuff :yesb:

Ldub

12/13/2010, 07:19 PM

why can't they leak something interesting.....like what does the government really know about UFO's and was the 1947 incident @ Roswell real or just a myth for the ages?

My viewpoint: Open-minded skeptic.

Ever watched Ancient Aliens on the history channel?

Interesting stuff :yesb:

Man do I hear THAT!...:yesgray:

My second wife was FOR SHO that she'd been abducted, transported to the MO ship, & seen other galaxies...I'm totally serious here.

She seemed so normal, until we'ed been married for about a month...:rolleyesg

Me myself...I've done things in the 70's & 80's that allowed me to see glowing orange phosphorescent trails behind golf balls at dusk, also seen walls melt like candles & stuph...but the MO ship ?.....mnnnnnn Naaaaaa...:laughing:

Triathlete

12/13/2010, 07:26 PM

how to fit a slushy machine in dashboard:bgwb:

Your next mod Marlin?:bwgy: Would be sweet on those hot days on the trail in Moab!:yesy:

VXR

12/14/2010, 04:37 AM

transported to the MO ship, & seen other galaxies

and she left you behind:confused:

tom4bren

12/14/2010, 04:43 AM

Man do I hear THAT!...:yesgray:

My second wife was FOR SHO that she'd been abducted, transported to the MO ship, & seen other galaxies...I'm totally serious here.

She seemed so normal, until we'ed been married for about a month...:rolleyesg

Me myself...I've done things in the 70's & 80's that allowed me to see glowing orange phosphorescent trails behind golf balls at dusk, also seen walls melt like candles & stuph...but the MO ship ?.....mnnnnnn Naaaaaa...:laughing:

You son, are truely a freak magnet.:)

crotchrocket

12/14/2010, 04:54 AM

hahahahaha

tom4bren

12/14/2010, 05:04 AM

hahahahaha

What are you laughing about. You're a charter member of the Dubster Freak Managerie!!!

deermagnet

12/14/2010, 07:58 AM

Well, Julian was just granted bail on the Swedish sex allegations, which are very hard to prove. He was never actually charged. He'll probably stick around and answer any charges brought by the US over WikiLeaks. I hope he disappears and is never seen again.

Either way, WikiLeaks will go on. Even if they imprison Julian and torture and kill him, WikiLeaks will go on. There's nothing any government can do to stop it. As long as insiders keep getting info out, WikiLeaks will make sure the world knows the truth.

Mark Griffin

Y33TREKker

12/14/2010, 09:42 AM

tom4bren

12/14/2010, 09:45 AM

... the whole sex scandal was the result of a deliberate "honeypot" operation, with the women involved apparently working for the CIA ...

Oldest defense tactic in the world.

Triathlete

12/14/2010, 06:33 PM

I think sasquach is responsible for everything!:yesy:

Ldub

12/14/2010, 06:45 PM

and she left you behind:confused:

Yes, my behind was left intact, even the lawyer'n fees for that one were less than a grand.

Thank you for caring...:yesgray:

You son, are truely a freak magnet.:)

Well...YAH...:rolleyesg

Thas how you & me became friends...:yesgray:

hahahahaha

What are you laughing about. You're a charter member of the Dubster Freak Managerie!!!

So many members, so little time to flit about the earf in my sweet UFO...:(

tom4bren

12/15/2010, 05:29 AM

BWAAHAAHAA!!!

Yer killin me here. Are you sure we're not twin sons of different mothers?

nfpgasmask

12/15/2010, 11:34 AM

It's like our government has gone Jerry Springer...

Reading through this whole ridiculous thread, this pretty much hits the nail on the head across the board for me. Sarah Palin on TV 'goin huntin' is a perfect example. Its all a complete effing joke. NEXT NEW SHOW IDEA: The Real Housewives of Washington DC.

Bart

technocoy

12/15/2010, 12:11 PM

Wow,

I've gotten so used to Facebook I tried to "like" Bart's post. Couldn't find a button.

...so sad.

VXR

12/15/2010, 05:05 PM

Wow,

I've gotten so used to Facebook I tried to "like" Bart's post. Couldn't find a button.

...so sad.

Quite funny you should say that as CNN just reported that Time was considering Julian Assange for person of the year but went with the facebook guy instead:yesb:

Stephen Biko

12/15/2010, 07:22 PM

Assange was #1 in the reader poll for man of year. Zukerberg was #10.
But #2 was the prime minister of Turkey who is important there (for starting to roll back the separation between church and state) but is otherwise unremarkable. So it isn't like the reader poll is all that meaningful.

VXR

12/16/2010, 04:18 AM

Thank you for caring

yes/ok:yesb:

crotchrocket

12/16/2010, 05:40 AM

What are you laughing about. You're a charter member of the Dubster Freak Managerie!!!

:D yes sir...e....boss ....

deermagnet

12/16/2010, 03:14 PM

Marlin

12/16/2010, 03:53 PM

Julian is free today. He says he'll stay in Britain. He's only wanted for questioning in Sweden. He wants to be questioned by video or in person in Britain.

Why didn't the US charge him while he was locked up? Could it be they don't have a case? Even if they charge him it would be a big 'ole mess that would drag out for years. Top lawyers in the US say the US government would probably come out on top with a jury trial 'cuz the jury won't like what he did, legal or not, but the chances of getting him on US soil for a trial are next to zero.

Even if they jailed him today, it wouldn't change WikiLeaks at all. It wasn't a one man operation. It's now spread out all over the world with thousands of people involved. It's probably not worth it now to go after Julian. He wasn't the one who stole all the info anyway.

Whatever happens to Julian, WikiLeaks will go on. WikiLeaks will go on.

Mark Griffin

I found an interesting and incriminating quote from Julian:

�Our particular view on the mechanism of transparency is to selectively go after material that is concealed. Because organizations that have material and want to conceal it are giving off a signal that they believe there will be reform if that material is released.�

This infers that they track down the people who have the info, and coerce, bribe or whatever it takes to get it. Very innocent of him. So at some point in the various leaks, he has done some illegal things...

Stephen Biko

12/16/2010, 04:00 PM

Lol. That's some serious projecting you are doing there. What do you expect him to say - "We think publishing stuff that has already been published is the way to increase transparency." Doh!
Full context of the quote (http://aworldbeyondborders.com/research-raw-materials/interviews/julian-assange-interviewed-on-swedish-television-by-an-unknown-interviewer-4302010/) - of particular interest is his elaboration at the end about how media organizations explicitly sit on information rather than publish it.

Marlin

12/16/2010, 04:05 PM

Lol. That's some serious projecting you are doing there. What do you expect him to say - "We think publishing stuff that has already been published is the way to increase transparency." Doh!

No, some of the other things say that he receives info from others, much the same as a pawn shop may receive stolen goods. The pawn shop didn't steal them, just gives the thieves somewhere to offload their booty.

In this quote he says that he seeks out info, that would be the same as going into someone's home and taking something they had hidden, in other words, stealing. I am not saying that the current huge release is info that he stole, but I think it is safe to say that at some point, he has illegally obtained information.

Stephen Biko

12/16/2010, 04:16 PM

Again, you are projecting "go after" to mean something more than his usage. You choose to take one colloquial sentence and decide that it must trump all official statements.

Triathlete

12/16/2010, 04:20 PM

I just wonder if good old Julian will step up to the plate and help the guy who is looking at life in a military prison or just use him and toss him aside?

Stephen Biko

12/16/2010, 04:29 PM

Maybe you are confused but Manning was not caught giving information to wikileaks, he was caught because he trusted Adrian Lamo (best snitch name ever) who promised Manning confidentiality as a journalistic source and then turned around and reported him instead.

Manning claimed (to Lamo) that he gave info to wikileaks but wikileaks has never confirmed that in any way.

vt_maverick

12/16/2010, 04:31 PM

I just wonder if good old Julian will step up to the plate and help the guy who is looking at life in a military prison or just use him and toss him aside?

+1 - I doubt they have the same motto as you guys do.

Marlin

12/16/2010, 05:19 PM

Again, you are projecting "go after" to mean something more than his usage. You choose to take one colloquial sentence and decide that it must trump all official statements.

I understand what you are saying, but he put himself into the spotlight...much the same as anyone in the public arena, gotta watch your Ps and Qs.

I just wonder if good old Julian will step up to the plate and help the guy who is looking at life in a military prison or just use him and toss him aside?

Maybe you are confused but Manning was not caught giving information to wikileaks, he was caught because he trusted Adrian Lamo (best snitch name ever) who promised Manning confidentiality as a journalistic source and then turned around and reported him instead.

Manning claimed (to Lamo) that he gave info to wikileaks but wikileaks has never confirmed that in any way.

Ah the good old, "warranty only applies to the original owner" concept. Manning needs to go to jail anyway.
Wikileaks is all about defending the release of classified/secret info, but only if you go through them. Sounds like the Kirby and Cutco warranties, warrantied for life, as long as you buy through an official dealer, like that somehow makes it a different product?

Y33TREKker

12/16/2010, 05:49 PM

No, some of the other things say that he receives info from others...
What other things? Is it possible this is a case of seeing what you want to see due to preconceived notions? I ask because none of his comments in the interview read that way to me. And even in your recent quote, you changed some wording (inadvertently?) that takes the focus off the entities Wikileaks exposes.

�Our particular view on the mechanism of transparency is to selectively go after material that is concealed. Because organizations that have material and want to conceal it are giving off a signal that they believe there will be reform if that material is released.�

Actual quote: Assange - "The aim of Wikileaks is to achieve just reform around the world, and do it through the mechanism of transparency. Of course, many groups have that aim, but our particular view on the mechanism of transparency is to selectively go after material that is concealed, because organizations that have material and are concealing it are giving off a signal that they believe that they will be reformed if that material is released.

"They" being the organizations with the concealed materials, who, by the way I read it, sound as if they're more interested in maintaining the status quo.

It's THAT very kind of reality in reporting Wikileaks seems to want to offer. No spin.

The context of the articles seems more to say that the info he receives from others comes from sources that are either gagged from reporting the info, or who fear retaliation where "officially" established avenues don't offer as much protection as they say.

Marlin

12/16/2010, 06:11 PM

I just cut and paste the quote from some other wiki. Some of his quotes go on about his info comes from others, making him just a publisher, that he so often likes to proclaim himself to be. The quote I provided made him seem more an investigator/sleuth. Publishers don't seek out the info for their product, they just print it.

I am already at the point of not caring, like others have mentioned, nothing has changed with the release of any of his info. No one cares.

I would say realistically that change is coming. The bubble has to break soon. Hence my stockpiling of food/equipment/water purification gear/ammo/silver/solar and dyno powered equipment and so on. **** is gonna hit the fan soon, you all can find me in Missouri when it does! For those that have no hunting/mechanical/camping skills, good luck to you. ZOMBIE FOOD!!!:bgwb:

If he happens to be the straw that breaks the camels back, good for him, he will wish he was back in the outback instead of the UK at that point.

Y33TREKker

12/16/2010, 08:07 PM

...I am already at the point of not caring, like others have mentioned, nothing has changed with the release of any of his info. No one cares.
Matters of opinion.

Stephen Biko

12/16/2010, 09:24 PM

Ah the good old, "warranty only applies to the original owner" concept. Manning needs to go to jail anyway.
Wikileaks is all about defending the release of classified/secret info, but only if you go through them. Sounds like the Kirby and Cutco warranties, warrantied for life, as long as you buy through an official dealer, like that somehow makes it a different product?

That analogy is a circmand-level stretch of logic. But Wikileaks has pledged $20K in support for his legal defense - on the other hand the US government is exerting so much soft power to cut off all wikileaks funding that who knows what will happen, not content with leaning on Visa/Mastercard/Paypal it's starting to sound like Germany has been persuaded to "audit" the organization - Wau Holland - that handles most of Wikileaks donations. Want to bet they seize it?

VXR

12/17/2010, 07:36 AM

That analogy is a circmand-level stretch of logic

:yesb:

Marlin

12/17/2010, 10:51 AM

That analogy is a circmand-level stretch of logic. But Wikileaks has pledged $20K in support for his legal defense - on the other hand the US government is exerting so much soft power to cut off all wikileaks funding that who knows what will happen, not content with leaning on Visa/Mastercard/Paypal it's starting to sound like Germany has been persuaded to "audit" the organization - Wau Holland - that handles most of Wikileaks donations. Want to bet they seize it?

I am not seeing how it is a stretch. They (wikileaks) is preaching about the transparency of all information, but only if you go through them, giving them first dibs for publicity, filtering, use of the info and so on.

20 whole thousand dollars!!! Damn, here I was thinking they were cheap and not willing to help anyone unless you went through them.

"Most large law firms in the United States bill between $200 and $1,000 per hour for their lawyers' time"

So for a case of this high profile, that should get him, oh, say about one day of a good lawyer. Hell, Rangel spent millions, and he didn't even go to trial.

This is like saying I gave a homeless guy a penny yesterday, now I am a hero!!!!!!!!

Y33TREKker

12/17/2010, 01:08 PM

...They (wikileaks) is preaching about the transparency of all information, but only if you go through them, giving them first dibs for publicity, filtering, use of the info and so on.
That's not what was being said either.

In the interview, Assange himself suggested that Wikileaks is seen as a "publisher of last resort". I'm sure everyone (you, me, AND Wikileaks) would be very happy if all the news coming from all "official" channels was unfiltered, but a person would have to be very naive indeed to say that is actually the way things work at this time, as alluded to with the talk about gag orders later in the interview.

Spin is all too common, and since you like analogies, here's another one. Even as you are reporting on this site your take on the events surrounding Wikileaks, various parts of the story are going through your filter and coming out skewed to your particular viewpoint. The question as always is why?

spaceCADETzoom

12/17/2010, 07:12 PM

Does anyone believe wikileaks doesn't spin? "collateral murder"? Really? At least traditional news media has the journalistic ideal, as far removed from reality as it may be-- journalists at least pretend to uphold some professional standard. The idea that wikileaks is somehow the watchdog here is laughable. It's media without the traditional oversight of actual media. And double the deluded self righteousness ( and in comparison to how self congratulatory traditional journalism already is, that's off the charts)

Y33TREKker

12/17/2010, 07:50 PM

...It's media without the traditional oversight of actual media....
Because the oversight of "actual media" these days is soooo above reproach.

Now that's laughable.

It would seem spin can even be accomplished with over-generalization. No one has said that ALL media is at fault, but it sure seems there are difficulties involved when it comes to reporting some things.

An example of high-profile whistleblowers needing other alternatives.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_hospital_fake

Stephen Biko

12/18/2010, 10:22 AM

Does anyone believe wikileaks doesn't spin?

You know what else they do? They give you access to the raw materials so you can judge that spin for yourself. No one else does that. Even when the info isn't a secret, nobody else includes the raw source material when they publish a story, you have to dig and in many cases, like interviews, you'll never get access.

At least traditional news media has the journalistic ideal,

And what exactly is "the journalistic ideal?" Seems to me that its to inform the public. Maybe there is some other ideal I'm unaware of.

It's media without the traditional oversight of actual media.

Like the oversight of sitting on the government wiretapping info for a year? Or perhaps the oversight of CBS sitting on the Abu Ghraib photos until the New Yorker got a hold of them from another source? Or maybe you mean gag orders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament) preventing the reporting of public government proceedings?

Marlin

12/18/2010, 12:21 PM

You know what else they do? They give you access to the raw materials so you can judge that spin for yourself. No one else does that. Even when the info isn't a secret, nobody else includes the raw source material when they publish a story, you have to dig and in many cases, like interviews, you'll never get access.

I am kind of curious how you know its the raw data? We have already established that they(wikileaks) filter it. Also, why hasn't all the info been released? Is he now hoarding data? Shouldn't he just release it as soon as he gets it for the sake of transparency?

Instead all this hype gets built up, and whether or not it changes people's opinions means nothing. It isn't changing anything, Clinton is still SOS, Obama is still president, Bank CEOs are still getting HUGE DISGUSTING bonuses, no one has been fired, nor are they. Nothing is going to change short of an armed revolution. And that, folks, is just not gonna happen in America. Some part of me wishes it would, The Postman type scenario, but not likely anytime soon.

So I retract my previous arguments against Assange,:whiteflag: he can go ahead and post every state secret he can find, short of blueprints for megaweapons or biological weapons, it will have no impact on the world at all, we already hate our elected officials, we already know they scam, scheme, cheat, lie, steal, probably murder, and there is nothing you can do about it. What are you gonna do, elect a different guy next time round, call the cops, Alex Jones tried that on air, reported to the FBI that he had leads that point to terrorists having lunch at the Pentagon. Anwar Al-Awlaki, number 2 on America's kill list, having lunch at the Pentagon a few months after 911...Was anything done about it ?:_brickwal

Y33TREKker

12/18/2010, 02:46 PM

...Or maybe you mean gag orders (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament) preventing the reporting of public government proceedings?
An excerpt from that story.

"The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority � up to the king � over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".
What's amazing is that things should ever get to the point where that should even be questioned.

And I have to finally say it Marlin, give the quote in your sig, I'm surprised you've had such a problem with what Wikileaks says they are attempting to do.

Marlin

12/18/2010, 06:40 PM

An excerpt from that story.

What's amazing is that things should ever get to the point where that should even be questioned.

And I have to finally say it Marlin, give the quote in your sig, I'm surprised you've had such a problem with what Wikileaks says they are attempting to do.

What I am saying is that wikileaks is not what they say they are. It is all too convenient and neat. If they have something important, why isn't out yet? Everyone acted surprised that our government was spying on other important world leaders. Wouldn't you be disappointed if they weren't??
My sig is more related to all the ridiculous social programs we have. Our codling of the minority instead of following the wishes of the majority. The encouragement of mediocrity and so on.

circmand

12/18/2010, 08:00 PM

Wikileaks is init for their own personal agenda. They have posted this themselves. Anyone deluded to think they are a brand new "news source" That is out there to report news for the good of the people is just plain ignorant. There is a group os greatly deluded people that is always sitting out there waiting for the next populace hero to appear. They jump on band wagon after band wagon that appears. They believe what ever the next "hero says" by that I mean says what they want to hear. They believe it never question it and for thousands of years now refuse to believe they are a group of idiots giving power to the next idiot every time it happens. It just seems to difficult for them to check facts.

Stephen Biko

12/18/2010, 09:13 PM

I am kind of curious how you know its the raw data? We have already established that they(wikileaks) filter it.

So, with zero evidence to support it, you believe that they are lying about their entire reason for existence? You can't name even one document that wikileaks has published and has later been shown to be fraudulently edited. I think that's practically the definition of prejudgment.

Also, why hasn't all the info been released? Is he now hoarding data? Shouldn't he just release it as soon as he gets it for the sake of transparency?

They used to do it that way. In fact, they released over 1.2 million documents that way - just make a press release and put out a zip file containing all of the documents from each source. But the information overload meant very few people bothered to even dig through it. (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139180/Wikileaks_plans_to_make_the_Web_a_leakier_place) So this year they've taken a different tack.

Nothing is going to change short of an armed revolution. And that, folks, is just not gonna happen in America.

So nobody should try to make things better because its really hard to make things better? Now that's a self-defeating prophecy. The enemy of good is perfect.

Plus, you've also got this US-centric view that completely misses the point. Information released via wikileaks changed an election in Kenya (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/31/kenya.topstories3) such that none of the officials in the named report were re-elected. Their Kaupthing publication prevented the Icelandic government from sweeping banking reform under the carpet - maybe the rumored BoA documents will do the same here.

Stephen Biko

12/18/2010, 09:52 PM

Everyone acted surprised that our government was spying on other important world leaders. Wouldn't you be disappointed if they weren't??

That's an oversimplification. They were spying at the UN in direct contravention of treaties the US government has agreed to. We haven't agreed not to spy in general, just not to abuse the trust that the UN is meant to engender.

My sig is more related to all the ridiculous social programs we have. Our codling of the minority instead of following the wishes of the majority. The encouragement of mediocrity and so on.

Your sig is also wrong. If you think about it for just a second it should be obvious - in Jefferson's time there were no social programs. Gerald Ford said it in 1974. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4694) However, in Jefferson's time there was plenty of censorship, that's why protection of the press is the first item in the Bill of Rights. And FYI, at that point in history the term "press" did not refer to journalists, it referred to the printed word as from a press - thus any idea that 'journalists' were singled out as being more free to publish than anyone else is erroneous.

Marlin

12/19/2010, 06:41 AM

So nobody should try to make things better because its really hard to make things better? Now that's a self-defeating prophecy. The enemy of good is perfect.

government from sweeping banking reform under the carpet - maybe the rumored BoA documents will do the same here.

It is not even in the really hard range, it is in the impossible range. The people involved have more money than we can even comprehend. Once again, it would take armed revolution or the collapse of the infrastructure they currently rely on for their power base.

He is not doing anything to make anything better. He is just posting stuff on the internet. As for Kenya, who gives a **** about Kenya? Obama probably does, but they are not a key world player by any means. All 16 people in Kenya that have internet read his post and it changed an election, now they have a whole new band of brothers to lead the way in corruption. Once again, if it came out tomorrow via Wikileaks that Hillary had a whole town in Idaho burned to the ground, the CEO of BoA stole the Crown Jewels and that the Rothchilds only ate the flesh of new born babies, what would you do? Probably the same thing I would do, not a damned thing. You are forgetting the amounts of money involved in their world. THEY DON"T CARE WHAT YOU OR I THINK! THEY ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND YES, THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. Hell, the only reason that Madoff was busted is because he stole from other wealthy people that had the money and influence to do something about it. If he stole all that money 10K at a time from people like you and me, he would still be sailing the seven seas in his sweet *** yacht.
Most of Obama's compadres are appointed, not elected. You have no say in what goes on, nor does anyone else.

I don't care what BoA documents come out, it will do nothing. We are not even concerned about 9 trillion dollars in loans that were given to them under the rug! Once again, if it came out that they were stealing homes from so-called innocent people, or taking the government loans and putting them right into their pockets, lying on forms, purposely bribing city officials to lower the values of homes to cause the housing bubble collapse, it still would not matter. Not until every member of BoA withdrew all their cash, people with BoA mortgages, credit cards and so on just stopped paying would it make a difference.

What do you think is going to happen? Or better yet, what do you want to happen? I am just curious.

As for the TJ quote, you are partially correct. I was interpreting his words in today's state of affairs. I believe it still applies, but he was not referring to the printed press or the corruption of newspapers, he was indeed talking about government control and the creation of programs to "protect and care for the common citizen". Just not social welfare programs as we know them. I am updating my signature now:)

Y33TREKker

12/19/2010, 10:10 AM

It is not even in the really hard range, it is in the impossible range. The people involved have more money than we can even comprehend....
Another example of placing too much esteem on those in positions of power and affluence?

Let's keep it simple, just because some have apparently decided to give up because they believe nothing can be done doesn't mean everyone has.

A quote from another President.

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt

Marlin

12/19/2010, 10:37 AM

Another example of placing too much esteem on those in positions of power and affluence?

Let's keep it simple, just because some have apparently decided to give up because they believe nothing can be done doesn't mean everyone has.

A quote from another President.

'Some' infers that it is the minority. I would say almost all would be a better quantifier. Haven't seen anyone do anything of importance lately.

I am not putting too much esteem on the wealthy, but if it comes down to it, there is not a whole lot you can't do with a few million bucks. Make people disappear, car accident, fired from your job, slander of character and so on.
Money talks. Until the day that money no longer talks, it will continue to be this way. Meanwhile, I will continue to prepare for that day, and it will come, wait until the USD is no longer the world reserver currency, 10 dollar loaf of bread, 25 dollars for a gallon of gas...we have gone so long without doing things for ourselves, it will be a difficult transition to say the least. A majority of our country would have no idea what to do if Starbucks closed tomorrow, and walmart closed up shop. Just look at the last presidential election, then you will know what 'majority' I am talking about.

Ask yourself, would you know how to survive if there were no stores to get all your necessities from? Do you have the means to make your own safe water, do you have a plan on where to go when cities become death traps? Could you defend your family and your belongings? Could you make your own vehicle repairs, are in you in good enough shape to hike miles if need be? Can you start a fire or make a shelter? (this is not directed at any specific person, but more of a reality check for those that are reading)

When I was in Guam, a large typhoon decimated the island. We went almost a month with no gasoline, the island's fuel farm burned to the ground. No gas=no electricity=no stores=money was worthless. If it wasn't for the Navy and Airforce having their own fuel/water/power plants, that island would have been a warzone. That was a wake-up call for me.

So until money is worthless, those that have the gold will continue to rule. You can get mad at them, you can call them names, but it makes absolutely no difference since the individuals are not elected officials, they are appointed or just simply employees. Until someone starts firing shots at em, there isn't a whole lot you can do. Look at the OJ trial, proof that if you have enough money, you are above the law (unless you Eff with another extremely wealthy individual)

I do wonder why no one has responded to the fact that we gave the major banks 9 trillion dollars at less than 1% interest with no public disclosure until a few years later. Where did we even get 9 trillion dollars? Oh wait, we didn't, the Fed just printed more money. You could invest that kind of money and earn ridiculous interest beyond 1%, oh wait, thats what they did, all at our expense and devaluation of the dollar. We could have divided that 9 trillion between every tax paying citizen and solved every financial crisis in the world. Houses paid off, new cars purchased, all kinds of things purchased, health care no longer an issue...

Y33TREKker

12/19/2010, 11:32 AM

'Some' infers that it is the minority. I would say almost all would be a better quantifier.
Actually, I used the word "some" out of respect because I didn't just want to come out and say "you", but since you've also seen fit to now try to spin my comments to mean something they don't, I suppose all bets are off.

Given the rest of your post, it's obvious you've decided to go "glass is half-full" and give up. That's your prerogative of course, but just because it's what you've decided, it doesn't mean it's the best alternative to choose.

I'm no genius, and admit I can sometimes be wrong, so I sometimes also keep quotes in mind from those more intelligent than myself.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

Marlin

12/19/2010, 12:07 PM

What are you going to do? Talking about not giving up means nothing. What are you going to do if something serious comes out of wikileaks?

I never said I gave up, I am just doing the only thing I can, preparing for the worst.

I think we are in a rut here, arguing the same thing with same point of view. Do I think the system is screwed up, yes. Do I think our elected officials are cheats, yes. When given the resources that they have available to them, the incredible amounts of money, corruption is inevitable.

Is there anything we, the common citizen, can do about it, I don't think so. Not without violence. Formal law enforcement doesn't mean a whole lot when you are the one that directs them what to do.

So once again, what do you propose the common person do about the problems?

Y33TREKker

12/20/2010, 11:14 AM

...So once again, what do you propose the common person do about the problems?
You must be a barrel of laughs during the family games of Monopoly. :p

I guess further clarification is needed. Your comments seem to be alternating between assuming that wikileaks is accomplishing nothing and that all they will accomplish by persisting is a collapse of civilization as we know it.

What can the common person do? Support entities who at least attempt to change things rather than only trying to discredit them when they try. Don't you think that doing nothing or helping to discredit the whistle-blowers of the world is exactly what the people you perceive as none being able to touch would hope you would do?

It's good to hear that you haven't given up, but your efforts are admittedly one-sided if all you are doing is preparing for the worst. So let's say that in the end you are right about the way the world is going to end up. And let's also say that Einstein was wrong.

I can't help but wonder what consolation it would be to you and your family at that point to know that you were right, as you also no doubt occasionally wondered what more you could have possibly been doing along with your current apocalyptic preparations to prevent the world from becoming what it did.

As bad as it may be, I personally believe that there is still more "civil" in current civilization than there would be in the one you are preparing for. And besides, that is still then, and since all we really have is now, the future remains unwritten.

circmand

12/20/2010, 01:24 PM

That's an oversimplification. They were spying at the UN in direct contravention of treaties the US government has agreed to. We haven't agreed not to spy in general, just not to abuse the trust that the UN is meant to engender.

.

My god that is so funny I busted a gut when I read it. I had to reread it just to make sure someone actually had the balls to post it. I doubt anyone could say it with a straight face though. The UN is the most corrupt organization in the whole worls. Where else cam leaders who torture and kile hundreds of thousands be put in charge of the human rights division. Where else can troops be sent to defend the defenseless end up raping and robbingthose sent to defend. Haiti you have medical problems we will send help that causes you to get even worse diseases and cover it up. Hey you want Sadaam to play nice the UN will run an oil for food program that allows him to purchase weapons. Noth Korea attacks South Korea twice well it must be South Koreas fault for getting attacked. Not to mention the dozens of times they supported terrorist PLA over Israel.

So yeah If we arent going to quit the UN and stop funding it I am all for spying on every evil member or anyone who deals with them. That includes England releasing the Lockerbie bomber for oil rights.

Marlin

12/20/2010, 01:44 PM

You must be a barrel of laughs during the family games of Monopoly. :p

What can the common person do? Support entities who at least attempt to change things rather than only trying to discredit them when they try. Don't you think that doing nothing or helping to discredit the whistle-blowers of the world is exactly what the people you perceive as none being able to touch would hope you would do?

Waaiiiit aaaaa seeeecond. :_thinking You didn't answer my question!!!! What can the average person do? Agree that the stuff he is posting is true and that those people are bad? That and 50 cents will get you a coke. Us not liking 'them' means absolutely nothing.
Are you suggesting that we sit around and wait for someone else to do something? Maybe some redneck with a Barrett will take care of the problem?
Blow the whistle all day long, it doesn't mean anything is going to happen.
I understand what you are saying about supporting the guy, but I would rather support the angry redneck (enter angry mullet smiley here) that might actually get something done. :thumbup:

Since today is civilized, why not just maintain the status quo and leave well enough alone?
Although an old soldier once said, "Knowing is half the battle"

Stephen Biko

12/20/2010, 01:49 PM

The UN is the most corrupt organization in the whole worls.

Never fear, mindless hyperbole is here!!!
Or in other words, more of "the enemy of good is perfect" thinking.

So yeah If we arent going to quit the UN and stop funding it I am all for spying on every evil member or anyone who deals with them.

So when they lie and cheat it's corruption, but if you do it in the name of the USA it's fine. Goose, meet gander.

Stephen Biko

12/20/2010, 02:14 PM

INothing is going to change short of an armed revolution.

Why does your nihilism stop there? Name one armed revolution that has fixed the problem of corruption in the history of the world. You can't -- we had one 200 years ago and look where we are today -- a total failure by your very own definition.

Your entire argument boils down to defining the situation as unfixable and then dismissing anyone who says otherwise. You aren't even a glass half-empty kinda guy, you are a glass is a bottomless pit kinda guy. Good thing people like Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and tens of thousands more weren't nihilists.

circmand

12/20/2010, 02:30 PM

Never fear, mindless hyperbole is here!!!
Or in other words, more of "the enemy of good is perfect" thinking..

Does this mean? It in no way addresses the post. I love when ignorant people quote smart people (out of context) in the hope other people will think they aren't as stupid as they really are.

.[/QUOTE]So when they lie and cheat it's corruption, but if you do it in the name of the USA it's fine. Goose, meet gander.[/QUOTE]

No when they lie and cheat using the USA Tax payer's money it is corruption. When we use any means at our disposal to minimize the damage they cause it is prudence.

Marlin

12/20/2010, 02:47 PM

Why does your nihilism stop there? Name one armed revolution that has fixed the problem of corruption in the history of the world. You can't -- we had one 200 years ago and look where we are today -- a total failure by your very own definition.

Umm, a 200 year run is pretty good, and I never said we are a failure, especially by my own definition. But with huge sums of money comes complete corruption, especially when it isn't your money, hence the necessity for a small government and lower taxes. Let people take care of themselves, bring back responsibility and accountability. That has to start at the bottom. In counter to your anti-revolution question, name me one successful revolution that occurred without violence that was just as successful, one that has lasted 200 years.Hell, while your at it, name a ruling society that has lasted...greeks-nope,romans-nope,persians-nope, European monarchies-nope.

Your entire argument boils down to defining the situation as unfixable and then dismissing anyone who says otherwise.
I never dismissed anyone, I just continue to ask the question of what you are going to do when wiki releases something of actual importance. What are YOU going to do? You aren't even a glass half-empty kinda guy, you are a glass is a bottomless pit kinda guy. I am actually a silver lining kind of guy for most things. But I am realist when it comes to these big picture concepts. I have been around the world, I have seen some ****ty places, Bahrain, UAE, Malaysia and so on. I have seen what becomes of a place overrun with corruption. That is the path we are headed down. Good thing people like Upton Sinclair, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and tens of thousands more weren't nihilists.

All the above folks were civil rights leaders, not whistle blowers. Those are two completely different things. If the country found out that everyone in South Dakota had been enslaved to work a government Nike factory, something might happen, but corporate corruption, government spying, we already know about all these things, and we don't care. We care more about catering to the gay minority than we do the big problems that affect the entire nation and our economic foundations because helping the underdog makes us feel better. Toppling a corporate empire doesn't. There is no risk in supporting some special interest group.
Hopefully someone can make a liar out of me and lead a non-violent revolution that will set things straight. Till then, I will continue building my survival kit to support my family in a worst case scenario and not wait for someone else to take care of me and mine.

Stephen Biko

12/20/2010, 03:24 PM

All the above folks were civil rights leaders, not whistle blowers.You don't know who Upton Sinclair was.

We care more about catering to the gay minority than we do the big problems that affect the entire nation and our economic foundations because helping the underdog makes us feel better.

That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.

I never dismissed anyone, I just continue to ask the question of what you are going to do when wiki releases something of actual importance.

Sure you did - when you say things like, "Until the day that money no longer talks, it will continue to be this way." and "Nothing is going to change short of an armed revolution." Those are outright dismissals of the idea that informed voting and the rule of law can change anything.

Stephen Biko

12/20/2010, 03:28 PM

Does this mean? It in no way addresses the post. I love when ignorant people quote smart people (out of context) in the hope other people will think they aren't as stupid as they really are.

Mean this does. Context quote hope out stupid. Really!!!!

No when they lie and cheat using the USA Tax payer's money it is corruption. When we use any means at our disposal to minimize the damage they cause it is prudence.

When we break our promises it is prudence. When they break their promises it is corruption. Mean this does! Mean this does!!!!!

Y33TREKker

12/20/2010, 04:36 PM

Waaiiiit aaaaa seeeecond. :_thinking You didn't answer my question!!!!
On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway.

I provided an option anyone could choose to adopt, and just because you personally didn't feel that option qualified as an acceptable answer doesn't mean it didn't.

Viewed even another way though, maybe it's as you say, and the efforts of wikileaks will do no good. Since you think what they are attempting is impossible, why is it apparently not enough for you to just sit back and watch them fail? Instead, you are going out of your way and expending an awful lot of effort to convince others that's the inevitable conclusion.

Well why is that? That's my question.

Y33TREKker

12/20/2010, 05:30 PM

...but corporate corruption, government spying, we already know about all these things, and we don't care...
And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Marlin

12/20/2010, 07:22 PM

On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway.

Saying that you agree with wikileaks or not agreeing is not doing something. My lack of caring about wikileaks does not weaken or strengthen their position.

I provided an option anyone could choose to adopt, and just because you personally didn't feel that option qualified as an acceptable answer doesn't mean it didn't.
What option? I didn't see anything about any possible actions to be taken.

Viewed even another way though, maybe it's as you say, and the efforts of wikileaks will do no good. Since you think what they are attempting is impossible, why is it apparently not enough for you to just sit back and watch them fail? Instead, you are going out of your way and expending an awful lot of effort to convince others that's the inevitable conclusion.

Well why is that? That's my question.
Multiple reasons:
1. I enjoy intelligible banter. You have some valid points and do not resort to name calling. For the most part, your arguments include some meat to justify your position.
2. I do care what others think,one way or another. I am adult enough to admit that I could be wrong, and if someone else feels so strongly as to support the opposite side, it must mean something...
3. If there was more conversations like ours during the elections, we wouldn't have had a majority of the population voting without having any real idea what they were voting for. At work we called it MTV voting. There should be Q&A when you vote, or else your vote does not count, predisclosed questions, you gotta get 3/5 correct or something along those lines. Candidates can only spend a certain amount of money on their campaign to prevent buying the vote...you get the idea. Maybe we make it so they can only have a certain amount of money, so you know they are a Real American and representative of the majority of our nation. It should be popular vote only, to prevent the major cities from determining the entire state's vote. IIf you are a liberal in Utah, your vote doesn't count. If you are a conservative in California, might as well not even vote. It doesn't count.
4. I am not taking any classes right now, too cold to work on the VX, and I only go into work every few days for christmas stand down.:)
5. I am not really expending any effort, just a few minutes here and there on the puter, keeps me from buying stuff I don't need...lol.

That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.
Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time. DADT is just another 'look over here' tactic that really doesn't matter in the big picture. How many millions of dollars in man hours alone did the house/senate waste on something that affects a very TINY portion of our population. Especially since they still have to follow the rules of the UCMJ, they will not get benefits for their 'partners' or base housing privileges, commissary, medical and so on. We are actually insulting them even more. We respected women enough to spend billions of dollars to create their own berthing areas, millions to put a few on submarines, but we can't spare any money for the homosexuals. It is all a dog and pony show. I think we should make handicap accessible facilities for our armed forces. Its not fair, we are discriminating against those in wheelchairs and whatnot. I realize that is a cheeky response, but the spirit of my point remains intact.
When you try to care about everything, it loses its value. How about focusing on important things, such as social security, immigration, drug control. Per the census bureau, in 2006 there were an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, a bulk of which were mexican/south american. Lets say only 1/4 have children each year. That means we have 20 million or so in our country.
Drugs are out of control. We kick students out of the Navy every week for the abuse of legal derivatives of illegal drugs. Social security is going to be broke in the future if we keep borrowing against it. This is a program that every tax paying citizen HAS TO PAY INTO. Same concept as Obamacare, force me to pay into something that I will most likely never receive a return from.

Sorry this is longer than I had initially intended,
the point being, we know our politicians are corrupt, we know corporate america is corrupt, we know shady business goes on at all the levels of government, we don't need wikileaks to prove it. We already know these things, but nothing happens. Hillary Clinton is still in her position, all of the clowns appointed by Obama and Bush alike are still in charge, not in jail. I just want someone to tell me what they expect to happen, and what they are going to DO about it.

Marlin

12/20/2010, 07:27 PM

And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Oh, I should have said "we don't care enough to actually do anything about it". A representative doesn't get reelected, he still gets paid for the rest of his life and receives full benefits. That is like being suspended with pay....pick me, pick me! I want to be suspended with pay.

Stephen Biko

12/20/2010, 08:28 PM

That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time.

Which is irrelevant since 99+% of the work in congress does not happen on the floor.

Umm, a 200 year run is pretty good, and I never said we are a failure,

If you were to read old newspapers you'd see that people have been complaining about similar sorts of corruption for at least 100 years now - probably more. I haven't read any older than that so I can't say how long the corruption has been rampant. And if all your ranting about things like why they haven't put entire staffs of political appointees in jail isn't a claim of failure, then I don't know what is.

BTW your habit of sometimes quoting in red instead of using the system's quoting mechanism discourages people from reading and responding to what you write.

Marlin

12/20/2010, 08:38 PM

Which is irrelevant since 99+% of the work in congress does not happen on the floor.

BTW your habit of sometimes quoting in red instead of using the system's quoting mechanism discourages people from reading and responding to what you write

Sorry, I don't quote in red, but rather respond in red, to allow a reader to read the original and my response in order. Makes it easier to follow in a long post, or so I thought...if you look back, the original is always in black, only my additions are red.

I will try to cut and paste sections to make it easier to read if anyone else doesn't like the format.

As for the 99% of the work happening out of session, that makes it even worse. Even more wasted man hours on stuff that doesn't matter, then it gets stuck in congress on the floor, making it all for not.

Marlin

12/20/2010, 08:56 PM

If you were to read old newspapers you'd see that people have been complaining about similar sorts of corruption for at least 100 years now - probably more. I haven't read any older than that so I can't say how long the corruption has been rampant. And if all your ranting about things like why they haven't put entire staffs of political appointees in jail isn't a claim of failure, then I don't know what is.

Then what is the point of wikileaks? If we have had 100 years of the same info being put out to the common person and nothing changes, what are you expecting to come out of it now? As you pointed out, we have history of violent rebellion being unsuccessful in the longterm, the same can be said of reporting corruption?

All in all, realistically, do you deep down inside think that wikileaks released documents are going to be anything more than a brief news flash? It does give us (here on the VX forum, well at least the few of us still goin on about it) something to talk about it. Good entertainment value. I wonder how many of our little family here are lurking in this thread? I would be curious to know what others think. I know I come off as an ******* sometimes, but I do try to write coherently without name calling or anything as childish as that. I am fair and I try to be consistent. I harbor no ill will to anyone regardless of our discussions. TomDietrying has exact opposite political views as I do and we got along great at Moab!
Are we really the only ones still lookin at this thread?
Are my thoughts way over the edge and no one agrees with anything I say? (and vice versa).
For you lurkers, feel free to throw in your thoughts!!! (minus name calling and the like)

Stephen Biko

12/20/2010, 09:28 PM

Then what is the point of wikileaks? If we have had 100 years of the same info being put out to the common person and nothing changes, what are you expecting to come out of it now? As you pointed out, we have history of violent rebellion being unsuccessful in the longterm, the same can be said of reporting corruption?

Except that its undeniable that the standard of living for the entire country has vastly improved during the time so the reformers have been successful. If corruption was as absolute as you make it out to be we'd all be subsistence farmers or working 12 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops.

circmand

12/21/2010, 06:20 AM

circmand

12/21/2010, 06:22 AM

Sorry, I don't quote in red, but rather respond in red, to allow a reader to read the original and my response in order. Makes it easier to follow in a long post, or so I thought...if you look back, the original is always in black, only my additions are red.

I will try to cut and paste sections to make it easier to read if anyone else doesn't like the format.

As for the 99% of the work happening out of session, that makes it even worse. Even more wasted man hours on stuff that doesn't matter, then it gets stuck in congress on the floor, making it all for not.

Use the quote button or the multi quote button at the bottom right of the post you are replying to.

Marlin

12/21/2010, 06:39 AM

Except that its undeniable that the standard of living for the entire country has vastly improved during the time so the reformers have been successful. If corruption was as absolute as you make it out to be we'd all be subsistence farmers or working 12 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops.

Umm, perhaps it is the corruption that has lead to our success. "A fool and his money are soon parted." The corruption at the top has to recognize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if your people are happy and successful, then production will be better, and they will be less likely to start a violent revolution, the only kind of revolution that has ever been successful for any long term period of time.

I agree with Circmand, our conditions now are so ridiculously cushy, even 100 years ago they would have laughed at the whining that goes on today. That is part of the problem. Most people in our nation wouldn't last more than a few days without walmart and grocery stores. We have grown so accustomed to being told what we can and cannot do, we don't know what to do on our own given the chance. We have a government branch to control everything, what freedoms do you really have left? We have the illusion of freedom, but that doesn't make it real.
I think the wikileaks thing is just an excuse for the government to implement controls over internet media, much the same as 9/11 was an excuse for Homeland Defense and the monstrous TSA and the like.

Scott Harness

12/21/2010, 02:18 PM

We have a government branch to control everything, what freedoms do you really have left? We have the illusion of freedom, but that doesn't make it real.
I think the wikileaks thing is just an excuse for the government to implement controls over internet media, much the same as 9/11 was an excuse for Homeland Defense and the monstrous TSA and the like.

What he said...unless they're watching;ooo;:supercool

Marlin

12/21/2010, 02:40 PM

What he said...unless they're watching;ooo;:supercool

I just saw that the FCC is trying to regulate internet provider sales byt making the internet speeds the same for everyone...man did I call it! I know that the provisions in this regulation aren't what I am inferring, but this broke the ice. Pending court review, what is next? Just like TSA and removing your shoes, now look at what goes on.

Internet censorship, here we come!!!!

Scott Harness

12/21/2010, 03:45 PM

I heard that story.They said Wi-Fi would be slower for some reason

Y33TREKker

12/21/2010, 03:54 PM

by Y33TREKker - "On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway."

by Marlin - "Saying that you agree with wikileaks or not agreeing is not doing something. My lack of caring about wikileaks does not weaken or strengthen their position."
Fortunately, you caring wasn't required for them to do what they did in the first place either.

Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken can count for much more than mere lip-service as you are portraying it to be...not to mention the fact that no one has to get shot.

You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.

This is where we get to the part that doesn't make sense though, because here we have an entity that is possibly introducing tangible evidence for your suspicions, but rather than embracing said entity (that is possibly providing the proof that could be used to initiate the revolution you say is needed), your response is to dismiss that entity and anyone who suggests it should be believed, supported, etc.

It's bad enough that killing the messenger who bears bad news is too often put into practice, but is it now being suggested that should be adopted for messengers bearing potential good news too?

As I alluded to before, it's almost become a chicken-and-the-egg scenario, with people trying to condemn wikileaks to distract from the fact that the contents/actions contained in the leaks happened first.

Marlin

12/21/2010, 04:42 PM

Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken can count for much more than mere lip-service as you are portraying it to be...not to mention the fact that no one has to get shot.

Money talks, by your own words above, opinions do not matter either way. Besides, if folks never got shot, we wouldn't be here right now.

You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.

Yes, we have 100 years of newspaper reports saying so. Those have just as much value as the unconfirmed wikileaks reports. I have said more than once THE FED GAVE 9 TRILLION IN LOANS TO THE BANKS AT <1% INTEREST!!! HOW DO YOU THINK THEY PAID THEIR STIMULUS LOANS BACK SO QUICK!!!! IF THAT IS NOT CORRUPTION, I AM NOT SURE WHAT IS.

This is where we get to the part that doesn't make sense though, because here we have an entity that is possibly introducing tangible evidence for your suspicions, but rather than embracing said entity

wiki (?w?k?)

� n
a. a web application that allows anyone visiting a website to edit content on it

By the owners assigned name, it implies that it could be wrong. Wikileaks is no more credible than CNN, Fox News, New York Times and so on. There is nothing tangible about it. I could start a site tomorrow and release whatever secret documents I want. What makes them any more or less credible than Julian's releases?

Marlin

12/21/2010, 04:50 PM

You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.

Are you saying that if you had access to billions of dollars and could get away with funneling some of that to your own personal use, if even only a few hundred thousand, and not suffer any real consequences, you wouldn't? Day after day, temptation of virtually unlimited funding, others pushing you to do things in their own best interests, or else you suffer job failure that you might not be tempted to do the wrong thing? If you really believe you wouldn't, you are the next savior. The problems are inherent in the system, be it Bush, Obama, whoever, our government and their funding are just too big. Hence the inevitable collapse. Much the same as the Romans, we have begun voting our coffers back into our own pockets. This is a tell tale sign of things to come. As Biko pointed out, history will repeat itself, and the bloated empires always fail eventually.

VXIRONwoMAN

12/21/2010, 05:13 PM

And while never officially substantiated, there was also recent talk that the whole sex scandal was the result of a deliberate "honeypot" operation, with the women involved apparently working for the CIA.

If true, a person has to ask the questions, what kinds of people go to such lengths...and why?

You have no idea.
Slightly off topic...Gill and I were watching a documentary on Outlaw Bikers and how they were "taken down". It was trying to be biased toward the feds, but did a terrible job. Most of the outlaw bikers are normal people and aren't trying to start any trouble. The undercover feds push them and push them for years to by illegal guns, and when the club get a hold on some legal guns, the undercovers say that's not good enough... the feds push more and more and finally the club caves and gets the undercovers what they want and takes down the outlaw bikers for illegal activities...

It's a great documentary series on National Geographic if you ever want to watch it. It's called Outlaw Bikers.

It's proves how sad our government operates.

BWAAHAAHAA!!!

Yer killin me here. Are you sure we're not twin sons of different mothers?

You mean brother from another mother???

Marlin

12/21/2010, 05:13 PM

Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken

This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing. Its been weeks, nothing. Not even a news blip. the investigations can't be secret, it would do no good. Think of ENRON.
You can't even tell me what you are going to do in the worst case scenario, you are willing to sit back and wait for someone else to do it. At least I admit that I am going to do nothing but prepare for the worst. At least I am doing something. That is far better than doing nothing but waiting for someone else to take care of it for you...thus proving my point that America is full of folks just waiting to be told what to do.

Along the lines of being told what to do:
I just read an article yesterday that 31 of 35 major cities tested for chromium in tap water were well above the limits. Takes years for the government to enact any kind of controls. That means you need to filter your own water, especially for children. I did this 3 years ago. Our entire house has better than bottled water out of every tap in the house. As a matter of fact, by the little computer on my filtration system, it has filtered out 186lbs of solids in the last 835 days. (apparently power was out long enough to lose memory a few years ago).

Marlin

12/21/2010, 05:17 PM

You have no idea.
the feds push more and more and finally the club caves and gets the undercovers what they want and takes down the outlaw bikers for illegal activities...

It's proves how sad our government operates.

Thank you for helping me with proof that the government is corrupt. Not so much as the shady entrapment, but the fact the bikers started out as normal folks, and with temptation and pressure, gave in and became corrupted. The same as every politician. Tis human nature.

Stephen Biko

12/22/2010, 03:06 AM

As Biko pointed out, history will repeat itself, and the bloated empires always fail eventually.

Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.

Umm, perhaps it is the corruption that has lead to our success.If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.

When you define both success of the system and failure of the system as failure that's simply arguing in bad faith.

This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing. You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed. On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.

Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.

Marlin

12/22/2010, 06:02 AM

Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.

How is that worse than name calling or arguing in bad faith? You flat out said that no armed revolution has ever been successful, you even went so far as to throw down the gauntlet and dare me to name one that is. You opened that doorway, not me.

If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.

Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com. Didn't see anything about economics, except via a stretch to bribery which could be for anything. Corruption is:
moral perversion; depravity
dishonesty, esp bribery

So is Julian releasing info and proof of corruption or is he confirming that the system is working? I don't get your point there? We have established that most people are happy with the status quo, the system is working for the majority, so why is he trying to fix something that isn't broke?

You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed.
The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.
You're right, I am preparing. It hurts no one.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".

On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.

I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.
I said that I don't care what he does and that I think it's all a setup.

Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.

Why would the powers that be be any less than bold than they were before? We will stick to Hillary Clinton. In black and white, plain to see, she ordered the violation of UN policy. Did she suffer any repercussions? No, not even an apology from the president for not adequately supervising her. Hell, if anything, the results of wikileaks will encourage them to more corruption because they have seen that they will not be held accountable!!!!

Stephen Biko

12/22/2010, 06:46 AM

How is that worse than name calling or arguing in bad faith? You flat out said that no armed revolution has ever been successful, you even went so far as to throw down the gauntlet and dare me to name one that is. You opened that doorway, not me.

And yet you didn't name one. Instead you made up some other random BS and attributed it to me, just like your goofy sig. The point of a discussion like this is to develop a better understanding of the topic but when you make up BS out of whole cloth like that it just obscures the truth. It is not worse than arguing in bad faith it is arguing in bad faith.

Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com.

More arguing in bad faith. Using the "its not in the dictionary, gotcha!" fallacy does not add to anyone's understanding. Oooh, dictiornary.com doesn't address the topic in depth, surfreakingprise. Is it really too much to expect that if you want to discuss corruption you have a working knowledge of how it affects society?

So is Julian releasing info and proof of corruption or is he confirming that the system is working? I don't get your point there? We have established that most people are happy with the status quo, the system is working for the majority, so why is he trying to fix something that isn't broke?Because the situation is not black and white. Because there is always room for improvement. It doesn't take an armed revolution for incremental improvement just like it doesn't take the end of society for there to be incremental loss.

The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".
Do you really find that convincing? Why aren't you worried about 2012? Or what about all of those other people constantly predicting the end of the world for centuries? First time for everything after all. Or maybe you realize that such predictions have been so consistently wrong that its not worth paying attention, but this other essentially identical prediction you buy into. When you don't require the same standard of evidence for something you disagree with as you do for something you agree with, that's arguing in bad faith.

I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.
And I never said you did. What you have consistently done is require far higher standards of proof in support of wikileaks than for your own personal dislike of wikileaks. That is arguing in bad faith.

We will stick to Hillary Clinton. In black and white, plain to see, she ordered the violation of UN policy. Did she suffer any repercussions?

She's suffered diminished credibility in her profession. You insist that results must be a spectacle or they don't count. My point, which you ignore over and over, is that spectacle is only a small part of the process - it's incremental change that ultimately matters.

If she ever stands for elected office again her chances of winning have been reduced - some fervent supporters will be less fervent, some fence sitters are now on the other side of the fence. Even as a political appointee her career has been affected - she is just that much more of a liability which reduces her clout. Some other event that she could have weathered may now be enough to get her tossed out.

Y33TREKker

12/22/2010, 08:30 AM

I think we are in a rut here, arguing the same thing with same point of view....
Well, there's one thing we seem to agree on anyway, and that's the sensation of being in a rut. What's worse is, the rut you are in seems to be two ruts that you jump back and forth from because it gets more and more difficult to decipher exactly what side you are arguing.

Earlier you said that, in your opinion, "it was more like the majority" of people who had given up because there seemed to realistically be nothing that could be done. But now you are arguing that the majority is comprised of people who are satisfied with the status quo, and thus, do nothing.

This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing...
You can't know that for sure, just as you can't know at this time what the end result will be.

And you maintaining the position that, just because you personally believe that what wikileaks IS DOING can't possibly make a difference their efforts should be equated with nothing being done, could in no way be considered frustrating for anyone else?

Actions are being taken and have been taken (otherwise_we_wouldn't_be_having_this_conversation _right_now), the question remains as to why you are simply refusing to acknowledge them.

One possibility - You do nothing because you believe no one can, but now someone is doing something, and that calls into question your own path of choice or limited abilities. Well no one said you had to be a savior either, so why not give yourself a break.