• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Running Scared[W:49]

Re: Running Scared

But Clinton is not afraid of Wikileaks? The article goes on and says the information will still get out. Nice try, no cigar.

One Day Biden Declares Cyber War, Next Day Assange Is Cut Off From Internet. Hmmm...

OK - let's talk fact not theory. The wikileaks are releasing every day terrible evidence against Clinton, Obama and this administration. Next on their list is John Kerry. Anyone would be crazy to think that this corrupt government isn't going to do all that they can to stop these leaks - because quite honestly, I'm sure that Assange is saving the very best for last.

The bigger question is do you care? Do you want to know the truth even if it means your candidate will be destroyed in the process? I for one do. I don't think this is a CT, I think it is just the truth that is so unbelievable that no one wants to believe it. It's like "invasion of the body snatchers" come to life in the re-enactment of "invasion of the soul snatchers." Sadly, they went after Hillary's and came up empty handed.
 
Re: Running Scared

The news specifically stated that a "State Actor" is responsible for Assange's disconnect. Not an ISP, a state actor. The State is afraid of the truth that Assange releases. I think it was William Colby (CIA) that stated a "successful media campaign would be when what everyone believes to be the truth is actually a lie." Assange is a thorn in the side of that campaign.


Assange thinks he's going to be attacked by drones, too. Apparently, Assange is suffering from self important paranoid delusions and will say anything if he thinks it will get him attention.
 
Re: Running Scared

The news specifically stated that a "State Actor" is responsible for Assange's disconnect. Not an ISP, a state actor. The State is afraid of the truth that Assange releases. I think it was William Colby (CIA) that stated a "successful media campaign would be when what everyone believes to be the truth is actually a lie." Assange is a thorn in the side of that campaign.

You are mistaken. Wikileaks specifically stated that a "state actor" is responsible.

Don't hold your breath waiting for evidence of that. Generally, when your internet is shut off, blame is not terribly straightforward.
 
Re: Running Scared

My internet cut off for awhile last night. Clearly the government thinks I am Russian...
Yes, rumor has it your screen name was changed from Redressinski.
 
Re: Running Scared

Just reading the negative reactions from liberals and the press is enough to make me believe that they hate the very presence of Assange. He is having a huge negative influence on Clinton's campaign. The first reaction was to link Assange to the Russians, which nobody has been able to do. Now it is all about "conspiracy theories". He has not published one document, in more than 10 million documents, that has been proven to be edited by Wikileaks. The absence of rebuttal of any the actual content in the release of the Podesta files is telling. He has only dumped about 10,000 of the documents and still has about 40,000 more docs to dump. By the actions of the left, to include the left leaning MSM media I would conclude that Julian has a valid concern about his safety. As much as the left would like to label this as a conspiracy theory it is a valid story that the left will continue to try ignore.
 
Re: Running Scared

The news specifically stated that a "State Actor" is responsible for Assange's disconnect. Not an ISP, a state actor. The State is afraid of the truth that Assange releases. I think it was William Colby (CIA) that stated a "successful media campaign would be when what everyone believes to be the truth is actually a lie." Assange is a thorn in the side of that campaign.

"State actor" comes directly from Assange and wikileaks. Much like the claim that the gubment was going to assassinate him. You are welcome to believe what you want, but as of now, there is no evidence to support the claim that the gubment, US or otherwise, cut off the internets.
 
Re: Running Scared

"State actor" comes directly from Assange and wikileaks. Much like the claim that the gubment was going to assassinate him. You are welcome to believe what you want, but as of now, there is no evidence to support the claim that the gubment, US or otherwise, cut off the internets.

That is not the test for deciding if we are dealing with news or CT.

In fact some folks say that we should take people at their word until/unless their word is proven to be faulty.
 
Re: Running Scared

Well, it is probably. Whether it is the gubment, or a problem at the ISP, we do not know. The conspiricy theory starts in when you assume the gubment is at fault for an internet outage. I mean, lord knows my internet NEVER goes out when the gubment does not interfere...

Some government influenced provider is, or should I say government intimidated provider.
 
Re: Running Scared

Simpleχity;1066434693 said:
Creeeeepy. Maybe Biden has ESP? Maybe Assange didn't pay his cable bill? Maybe the Ecuadorans are tired of this deadbeat mooch.

Extra Stupid Person? There is a good chance of that.
 
Re: Running Scared

You need to invest in some tinfoil, so the guberment can't track you.

Playing loud music while typing on your keyboard will also do it.
 
Re: Running Scared

Whether anyone is afraid or not should have no bearing on the decision. Can you not comprehend how cutting off the internet to a foreigner who is acting with a foreign government to affect the outcome of our election through illegal means is a good idea regardless? If he has evidence Hillary or the DNC committed a crime or something, come out with it, otherwise I see no problem with simple and effective measures like this.

When it comes to discerning whether a candidate for President is transparent and holds themselves to a higher standard of integrity, their private conversations and correspondence are newsworthy items; especially when things are found to be at odds with their public positions. Clinton's inner circle is also fair game, as it's assumed they are working on precisely what their Boss wants worked on. You seem to be worked up over WHO releases them vs. WHAT these documents contain.

It seems like the Rodhamites aren't interested in truth, transparency, or integrity as long as their candidate wins.
 
Re: Running Scared

That is not the test for deciding if we are dealing with news or CT.

In fact some folks say that we should take people at their word until/unless their word is proven to be faulty.

I did not say anything about whether it qualifies as "news". Reading comprehension is gud. It is conspiracy crap because it is a claim based on no evidence. You can call it news if you want, but claims it is the government are, right now, conspiracy claims.
 
Re: Running Scared

Some government influenced provider is, or should I say government intimidated provider.

Restate that, as it is either grammatically ****ed up, or an incomplete thought.
 
Re: Running Scared

When it comes to discerning whether a candidate for President is transparent and holds themselves to a higher standard of integrity, their private conversations and correspondence are newsworthy items; especially when things are found to be at odds with their public positions. Clinton's inner circle is also fair game, as it's assumed they are working on precisely what their Boss wants worked on. You seem to be worked up over WHO releases them vs. WHAT these documents contain.

It seems like the Rodhamites aren't interested in truth, transparency, or integrity as long as their candidate wins.

I'd be saying the exact same thing if it were a foreign country hacking the RNC. This is very different than an insider leaking info on a corrupt practice inside a political party or something like that. This isn't even a nuanced difference. It's a glaringly obvious distinction that any sane american should be wary of.
 
Re: Running Scared

When it comes to discerning whether a candidate for President is transparent and holds themselves to a higher standard of integrity, their private conversations and correspondence are newsworthy items; especially when things are found to be at odds with their public positions. Clinton's inner circle is also fair game, as it's assumed they are working on precisely what their Boss wants worked on. You seem to be worked up over WHO releases them vs. WHAT these documents contain.

It seems like the Rodhamites aren't interested in truth, transparency, or integrity as long as their candidate wins.

Pot Meet Kettle.
 
Re: Running Scared

Extra Stupid Person? There is a good chance of that.
The acronym ESP typically refers to Extra Sensory Perception.

But in your case, I'd wager that your suggestion is born of experience.
 
Re: Running Scared

Just reading the negative reactions from liberals and the press is enough to make me believe that they hate the very presence of Assange. He is having a huge negative influence on Clinton's campaign. The first reaction was to link Assange to the Russians, which nobody has been able to do. Now it is all about "conspiracy theories". He has not published one document, in more than 10 million documents, that has been proven to be edited by Wikileaks. The absence of rebuttal of any the actual content in the release of the Podesta files is telling. He has only dumped about 10,000 of the documents and still has about 40,000 more docs to dump. By the actions of the left, to include the left leaning MSM media I would conclude that Julian has a valid concern about his safety. As much as the left would like to label this as a conspiracy theory it is a valid story that the left will continue to try ignore.

I have really two problems with Wikileaks. The first is if they're acting as a NGO cutout for the Russians, we have a right to shut it down - the U.S. doesn't have to put up with foreign governments interfering in our elections, or to facilitate or turn a blind eye to the release of hacked emails no matter who criminally stole them - it's a crime. Imagine if it was your emails/phone calls/medical records, etc. and someone says they're going to release them on a daily basis for the next week. Damn right we'd all be calling the cops trying like hell to get it stopped, and if they can the police SHOULD stop the releases.

Obviously that doesn't affect whether the press should report on the leaks - from where they sit the only thing that matters is if they're genuine. How or where they were obtained doesn't matter to journalists.

Second, it's fine to cheer transparency, but we're getting massive dumps of correspondence from one candidate and....nothing from the other. One candidate has released 30 straight tax returns, the other none. Obviously Assange doesn't have to be fair and balanced, but we also don't have to pretend that it's sunlight he's shooting for - he has a partisan agenda, and the indiscriminate dumping of massive emails without any examination of what is in the public interest and what isn't is reckless and not "journalism" by any stretch. So I don't respect him or what he's doing or the way he's going about it and would be happy if he's shut down, but ultimately that's irrelevant. The stuff he releases is fair game for reporting.
 
Re: Running Scared

Restate that, as it is either grammatically ****ed up, or an incomplete thought.

Imagine it is an answer to your post, because that is what it is. Assange was shutdown for one reason only, and any service provider is no match for any government.
 
Re: Running Scared

Simpleχity;1066435713 said:
The acronym ESP typically refers to Extra Sensory Perception.

But in your case, I'd wager that your suggestion is born of experience.

And in that case, Bidens too. Let's give credit where credit is due. And insulting someones intelligence has never changed one fact. So you know.
 
Re: Running Scared

Imagine it is an answer to your post, because that is what it is. Assange was shutdown for one reason only, and any service provider is no match for any government.

Those are what we call but the fancy term "suppositions". They are not facts, they are guesses, based with zero evidence to back them up.
 
Re: Running Scared

I have really two problems with Wikileaks. The first is if they're acting as a NGO cutout for the Russians, we have a right to shut it down - the U.S. doesn't have to put up with foreign governments interfering in our elections, or to facilitate or turn a blind eye to the release of hacked emails no matter who criminally stole them - it's a crime. Imagine if it was your emails/phone calls/medical records, etc. and someone says they're going to release them on a daily basis for the next week. Damn right we'd all be calling the cops trying like hell to get it stopped, and if they can the police SHOULD stop the releases.

Obviously that doesn't affect whether the press should report on the leaks - from where they sit the only thing that matters is if they're genuine. How or where they were obtained doesn't matter to journalists.

Second, it's fine to cheer transparency, but we're getting massive dumps of correspondence from one candidate and....nothing from the other. One candidate has released 30 straight tax returns, the other none. Obviously Assange doesn't have to be fair and balanced, but we also don't have to pretend that it's sunlight he's shooting for - he has a partisan agenda, and the indiscriminate dumping of massive emails without any examination of what is in the public interest and what isn't is reckless and not "journalism" by any stretch. So I don't respect him or what he's doing or the way he's going about it and would be happy if he's shut down, but ultimately that's irrelevant. The stuff he releases is fair game for reporting.

tldr, don't care. Talk to the NY Times about tax returns and get back to me.
 
Re: Running Scared

tldr, don't care. Talk to the NY Times about tax returns and get back to me.

Good deal. I'll let you talk to the NYT.

And if you read it you'd notice I said the press obviously publishes it without regard to where it comes from.
 
Re: Running Scared

Imagine it is an answer to your post, because that is what it is. Assange was shutdown for one reason only, and any service provider is no match for any government.

Let's say the U.S. did shut him down. Why is that a problem? Should it just watch as he releases the hacked emails of the sitting SoS, which he dumps without any regard for whether the contents are damaging, newsworthy, etc. Hacking is a crime, the government should stop the release if they can. Unless it's your opinion that the U.S. has some kind of moral or ethical or legal obligation to stand aside as someone's (and especially the sitting SoS) hacked personal data is released to the world. It's ridiculous.
 
Re: Running Scared

Enhanced rules are in force? So, we are more likely to get banned here for disagreeing?

Well, I guess I'll go to another category since it seems they're CRACKING DOWN on us nutcases in the Conspiracy Theory threads.
 
Back
Top Bottom