Wikileaks

50PoundHead said:
The problem with Fox is that they do pretend. I guess my point is that Assange shouldn't call himself a journalist because he isn't practicing responsible journalism. He's a disseminator of information. There's a difference.
Click to expand...

Disseminators of information serve a purpose too. We don't question Deep Throat's integrity because he didn't have the equivalent amount of dirt on McGovern. Again, Assange is merely the faucet here, neither the source or the collector.
 
yeah, but Nixon was a repubican :tasty:

i have thought of that. But Deep Throat advised Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money. He didn't invade the privacy of a US citizen. Actually, the White house Plumbers did that to Danial Ellsbergs psychiatrist.
Which is what W & B were chasing

I concluded there is no line between what Assange did and what Deep Throat did.
False Equivalency 101
 
chop2chip said:
Disseminators of information serve a purpose too. We don't question Deep Throat's integrity because he didn't have the equivalent amount of dirt on McGovern. Again, Assange is merely the faucet here, neither the source or the collector.
Click to expand...

I'm old enough to have lived through Watergate as a young adult and I didn't leap with glee because Mark Felt was leaking stuff. I don't subscribe to Plato's Noble Lie, but I do believe in proper channels and integrity and I think Felt's integrity was questioned and would have been questioned more had Woodward not protected his identity. I guess if I have a beef is that there are those going around claiming Assange is a journalist. He isn't.
 
Hawk said:
He's caused Republicans just as much - if not more - grief in years past. We wouldn't know about Bush's torture methodologies or the unbridled NSA if it weren't for him.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, Assange is an equal opportunity bugbear.
 
I think the emails proved once again the system is totally corrupt and disgusting... and people saying "so what, it's always been that" are just as much part of the problem.

I mean, we have emails of these folks excited about a gun shooting because they can push their agenda. We have them saying to incite violence as Trump imposters. We have them showing pay for play is a thing, and a clear reasons why the clinton's are hundred millionaires.

You can stand there and say "well, you shouldn't be surprised" all day.

But that attitude is why it continues. We shouldn't put up with it.
 
sturg33 said:
I think the emails proved once again the system is totally corrupt and disgusting... and people saying "so what, it's always been that" are just as much part of the problem.

I mean, we have emails of these folks excited about a gun shooting because they can push their agenda. We have them saying to incite violence as Trump imposters. We have them showing pay for play is a thing, and a clear reasons why the clinton's are hundred millionaires.

You can stand there and say "well, you shouldn't be surprised" all day.

But that attitude is why it continues. We shouldn't put up with it.
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, you are alright with these e-mails being illegally obtained. If so, you subscribe to the ends justifying the means, which makes you as Machiavellian as everyone else.
 
The irony is that the whole reason Hillary used a private email server was to avoid Freedom Of Information Act requests so that her emails couldnt be made public. That should be reason enough not to vote for her.
 
50PoundHead said:
Just to make it clear, you are alright with these e-mails being illegally obtained. If so, you subscribe to the ends justifying the means, which makes you as Machiavellian as everyone else.
Click to expand...

They're different issues.

Take the "adam and eve" data dump... If I was a wife, I could be bothered by the way the info was attained, but still be more bothered about the info. Just because the info was leaked illegally doesn't change the fact that my partner was cheating on ,e

Do I support illegal hacking in general? No... But if it exposes government corruption? Which, in my mind, I have a right to know about? Then sure, bring it on.
 
ast night, NSA Chief Adm. Michael S. Rogers told the Wall Street Journal that Republicans were “consciously” assisted by the Russian state’s email hackers looking for a ‘”specific effect” in this year’s general election. In October, the NSA co-signed a written statement naming Russia as the culprit in the email hacks, which was jointly released by America’s intelligence community except the FBI.

The NSA Chief’s carefully chosen words doubly called out the Russian email hacks out as deliberate. In the authoritarian Russian state, run by ex-KGB intelligence officer Vladimir Putin, there can only be once source of such a deliberate political action; from the top. Admiral Rogers said:

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s minds, this was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
 
sturg33 said:
Nothing on yesterday's revelations?

This nut job tinfoil hat libertarians get more right by the way
Click to expand...

Hmmm. So you think that people who believe that the Russians were behind the email leaks as part of an effort to affect the election are conspiracy theorists, but people who believe that the CIA framed the Russians for it because a leak suggests that it might be theoretically possible are totally on the level.

OK, let's play your favorite game: where's the evidence?
 
Julio3000 said:
Hmmm. So you think that people who believe that the Russians were behind the email leaks as part of an effort to affect the election are conspiracy theorists, but people who believe that the CIA framed the Russians for it because a leak suggests that it might be theoretically possible are totally on the level.

OK, let's play your favorite game: where's the evidence?
Click to expand...

Sounds like we're talking about completely different revelations.
 
IekVfH2.gif
 
As is now usual with Wikileaks, their public statements about the leaks have been full of politically slanted misinformation. And in this case, their message is:

1) Generally, don't trust the CIA.

2) Specifically, the CIA can hack anyone and frame Russia for it.

3) The encrypted apps used by the NYT for whisteblowers is vulnerable to the CIA. So, better not leak to the Times!

This seems directly in line with Trump's interests. The WH has been virtually silent about WL. Why is there still a pretense about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top