Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 126

Thread: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

  1. #111
    Advisor Just1Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    07-20-13 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    389

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    And Michael Moore goes on about how Americans are dumb.

    The Founders would have shot Assange as a spy without a second thought. And the rest of the world would have said "that sounds about right."
    What Michael Moore thinks of the American populace at large has nothing to do with whether or not his claim about what the founders would have supported is valid.

    There is credible information already in this thread that shows very clearly that some of the original framers of the Constitution had attitudes that were very much aware of a deep need for the people to have access to information about what their government is up to. It is not any stretch to apply those words to Wikileaks. Any person with basic reasoning skills can see that. Enough evidence has been presented that if you want to continue to deny it, then you need to present a reasoned argument to that end or else reveal yourself as unworthy of further attention in this discussion.

  2. #112
    Advisor Just1Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    07-20-13 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    389

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Do you deny that the Founders also agreed that a government could keep legitimate state secrets, especially where matters of diplomacy and war were concerned, and that stealing and exposing said secrets was espionage?
    The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.

    Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?

  3. #113
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,296
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1Voice View Post
    The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.

    Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?
    I don't think ANYONE has ever raised that point before, nice one.

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Rule 1 of not-getting-into-flame-threads: don't go near anything that involves the founding fathers. I will break this rule just to say that I'm sick of people of either side exploiting the founding fathers

    I also like it when people take one person and use them to represent half the population (ie: Michael Moore or Sarah Palin).

    Whatever, I'll let you guys get back to arguing

  5. #115
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,862
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I never said anything about the NYT or any other legitimate press organization.
    That post was not directed at you personally.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #116
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1Voice View Post
    The law is very clear about what qualifies as a state secret and what exactly can be done by the Government where State Secrets are concerned Interestingly enough there is no provision which might be used as an avenue for prosecuting Assange or Wikileaks.

    Furthermore setting a precedent for allowing this kind of prosecution would certainly work against us. How many of our own intelligence agents would we then have to let foreign powers extradite on charges of espionage?
    I'm sorry; you must have mistaken me for someone who's actually making the arguments you're railing against here.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #117
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1Voice View Post
    What Michael Moore thinks of the American populace at large has nothing to do with whether or not his claim about what the founders would have supported is valid.

    There is credible information already in this thread that shows very clearly that some of the original framers of the Constitution had attitudes that were very much aware of a deep need for the people to have access to information about what their government is up to. It is not any stretch to apply those words to Wikileaks. Any person with basic reasoning skills can see that. Enough evidence has been presented that if you want to continue to deny it, then you need to present a reasoned argument to that end or else reveal yourself as unworthy of further attention in this discussion.
    All of that was about freedom of the press, not freedom to seek and publish state secrets. These are also the Founders who hanged spies without trial and passed the Sedition Acts.

    If you can't handle that rather bold distinction, then I'm not really interested in your opinion of who's "worthy of further attention."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #118
    Advisor Just1Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    07-20-13 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    389

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    All of that was about freedom of the press, not freedom to seek and publish state secrets. These are also the Founders who hanged spies without trial and passed the Sedition Acts.

    If you can't handle that rather bold distinction, then I'm not really interested in your opinion of who's "worthy of further attention."
    Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the Sedition Acts as a violation of the First Ammendment and upon becoming president he pardoned everyone who was procescuted under it and the Congress repaid all fines resulting from it with interest. Clearly they realized it was not such a good idea.

    In any case, nothing Wikileaks has done thus far could have been construed as an actionable offense in the sedition acts. Since the documents were released in their entirety, they could not be false and there is no proof that Wikileaks published them with malicious intent against the Government. Their motivation is to keep governments honest and as such they are honorable.

    Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily, so while I might be safe to assume that my opinion now interests you, you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.

  9. #119
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,569

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Just1Voice View Post
    Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed the Sedition Acts as a violation of the First Ammendment and upon becoming president he pardoned everyone who was procescuted under it and the Congress repaid all fines resulting from it with interest. Clearly they realized it was not such a good idea.
    Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.


    In any case, nothing Wikileaks has done thus far could have been construed as an actionable offense in the sedition acts. Since the documents were released in their entirety
    You don't know that they were.


    they could not be false
    Exceptionally specious "reasoning."


    and there is no proof that Wikileaks published them with malicious intent against the Government. Their motivation is to keep governments honest and as such they are honorable.
    "Honorable."

    Here's a nice rundown of what he's about:

    Commentary: 'International subversives' - UPI.com

    I guess you might consider him "honorable" if you share his agenda.


    Your 'bold distinction' is really nothing more than a red herring but I have indeed handled it readily,
    You didn't "handle it" at all. You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.

    As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.

    But you're more concerned with (what you consider) scoring points than understanding what someone writes, apparently.


    so while I might be safe to assume that my opinion now interests you,
    You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.


    you have yet to present anything substantive to this conversation.
    Oh, goody. Another new poster who thinks bluster is the same thing as debate. You're going to get rolled here, and I'll enjoy watching; I always do. In the meantime, there's a whole group of guys just like you that I'm sure you'll naturally gravitate toward.
    Last edited by Harshaw; 12-18-10 at 02:17 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #120
    Advisor Just1Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    07-20-13 @ 12:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    389

    Re: Michael Moore Says Founders Would Have Been "Wikileakers"

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    You've already betrayed your own opinion by continuing to engage me after declaring me "unworthy of futher attention." You don't take your own opinion very seriously, so I'm sure not going to.
    What I said, in essence, was that if you did not add something to the discussion then you were not worth my attention. I took your last post as an ill conceived attempt to be a constructive part of this conversation, but because you made an attempt I felt it was at least worth giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    Thomas Jefferson alone wasn't "the Founders." And even he fully understood the need for secrecy in war and diplomacy.
    So in your opinion the founding fathers would have had to unanimously agree with what Wikileaks is doing in order to give credence to Michael Moore's statement? By that reasoning, even the U.S. Constitution would be an invalid example of what the founding fathers wanted, since it was the result of considerable debate and compromise.

    Exceptionally specious "reasoning."
    No, My reasoning was not specious, however I will go as far as to concede that my statement was more ambiguous than it could have been, it was not my intent to be misleading. I will restate it in a more clear form: Wikileaks released the cables and documents without editing them. Whether the statements in the documents are true or false is not at issue here. Their veracity is out of Wikileaks' purview to control, nor is such expected. Any "falsity" that might be attributed to Wikileaks could only arise if they had edited the documents or else fabricated false documents.

    The credibility of Wikileaks rests on their ability to insure that whatever they release is authentic, and I have not yet observed any official charges that the documents have been tampered with. Beyond that, the burden of veracity rests with the various authors of the documents, not with Wikileaks as an institution.

    You didn't "handle it" at all. You merely gave Thomas Jefferson's opinion of the Sedition Acts. A truly thoughtful person would understand that the distinction was between a "free press" and "freedom to seek to obtain and publish state secrets," which you didn't even mention.
    I didn't mention it because it is not a valid distinction. We have a free press specifically to act as a check against a government that relies on 'State Secrets"

    As for the Sedition Acts, whether or not they were Constitutional is entirely beside the point; whehter or not Assange himself might have violated them is also beside the point. Again, a truly thoughtful person would understand that I brought them up as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time, particularly vis-a-vis the distinction I made.
    But you're more concerned with (what you consider) scoring points than understanding what someone writes, apparently.
    I am concerned with addressing the issue in a way that will allow everyone to understand it fully, and find ethical common ground. Michael Moore also made his statement "as an example of what a rather prominent group of Founders thought about things at the time" but that has led to this entire discussion, so apparently a truly thoughtful person should have told you that such a distinction is redundant at this point.

    Oh, goody. Another new poster who thinks bluster is the same thing as debate. You're going to get rolled here, and I'll enjoy watching; I always do. In the meantime, there's a whole group of guys just like you that I'm sure you'll naturally gravitate toward.
    Bluster is aggressive and ineffectual, so no I don't think that. I have added to this conversation with at least one unique observation of my own. Your accusation that I don't distinguish between bluster and debate is patently malicious and false.
    Last edited by Just1Voice; 12-18-10 at 03:16 PM.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •