Jump to content


Click to shop at Zamnesia
Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Julian Assange Statement On The U. S. Elections




  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#31 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,611 posts

Posted November 10 2016 - 03:22 AM

lets just assume it was the russian government that was behind the wikileaks and lets just assume that it was enough to sway the election.

so russia was doing its part to do what it thought was best for its own interest.

 

USA WOULD NEVERRRRRR MEDDLE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES ELECTIONS OR TRY TO GET THE LEADERS THAT ARE IN OUR BEST INTEREST ELECTED! 


  • storch likes this

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#32 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,683 posts
  • LocationDobbstown, Malaysia

Posted November 10 2016 - 03:46 AM

Being a sexual predator isn't a crime, although some feminists would like it to be. (If it were a crime Bill 'blowjob' Clinton would be in jail)
Deleting government emails is a crime (since 2009).

Do you see the difference?

No.

A sexual predator is someone who seeks out individuals and attempts to sexually abuse them, for example they use force to kiss them or grab their genitals.

 

Bill Clinton engaged in consensual oral sex with a willing adult. In addition he wasn't a candidate, so I don't know what your point is.

 

Also I don't know why you bring up emails that have already been thoroughly investigated and fully covered ad nausea by the media.


HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#33 Vanilla Gorilla

Vanilla Gorilla

    Go Ape

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,323 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted November 10 2016 - 04:06 AM

:rofl:


Assange tries to claim impartiality, then in that letter talks about his bias for the Obama administration for its dealings with Chelsea Manning.

If Russian hackers, or whoever it was, but most likely Russian hackers, hadn't supplied him with all those Clinton related emails...what would Wikileaks have reported over the last 12 months, how would they have gotten their brand in the headlines.

As if his organisation isn't subject to the same forces of supply and demand every other is


He is a hero to trump supporters in 2016, but it won't be long before he digs in and upsets even some good trump may try to do.

Assange is a slime bucket. Probably did Russia's work for them. not knowingly, but becuase he didn't have much else at the time and he didn't want his little project to fade into oblivion

Edited by Vanilla Gorilla, November 10 2016 - 04:08 AM.

  • NoxiousGas likes this

#34 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,683 posts
  • LocationDobbstown, Malaysia

Posted November 10 2016 - 04:09 AM

 

Could you please clarify your position, please. It seems a bit contradictory to defend the right of the free press to choose a political side in one thread, but condemn WikiLeaks for the same thing.

 

Also I'm a little bit sorry because I do hate when people dig up old posts to prove a point, but your comments above have stuck with me because I didn't really understand how you could defend the obvious influence the DNC had over the mainstream media this election. And in light of your comments regarding Wikileak's bias, I understand even less.

 

I couldn't find your post regarding this, but (please corrent me if I'm mistaken) I believe you al;so pointed out that there is a long history of political parties using the press for their own political gain and the press in turn favoring one candidate over the other.

 

How is WikiLeaks different, exactly?

You have a point in that the press is free to take sides about any issue.

 

I have no problem with Fox News existing, for example, I think they are a terrible source of information, but they have a right to exist.

Wikileaks on the other hand does not report news, they don't just write opinion articles or present arguments for or against certain issues. 

 

They provide a service for the presentation of data illegally stolen from private and governmental sources. They invade privacy. In addition they don't vet this data, they dump it. They have no regard for private information such as phone numbers, social security numbers, etc. They take no actions to see if the data they dump may result in danger to anyone's person or any Western nation's national security, and they are willingly or unwillingly being manipulated by the Russians.

 

Also they exist above the law. They can't be sued for libel or slander as they exist in "hyperspace" only. So they are free to present any material at will. Some one can hack your medical records, your private email server, your private photo logs, driving record, bank account, anything...and Wikileaks can post that out to the net without fear of  legal jeopardy.

 

There is no cable news network, no magazine or newspaper that can do that without legal ramifications. 

 

Even if we disregard all of the above and assume that Wikileaks is just like any other news source and they can legally publish anything they want in regard to a political candidate. That doesn't make it right nor does that prevent me from criticizing them for doing it.

 

If Fox news gets hold of Podesta's emails and starts leaking them in the manner that Wikileaks did that doesn't mean they are right or ethical. It doesn't mean that I can't say that they are trying to influence the election. They are. And they are doing it in an underhanded way. Nothing wrong with me calling that to your attention. All I'm doing is saying, "Hey, look at what they are doing."

 

I am free to condemn them for that action, just as you are free to say Bill Maher  is bias and only presenting one side of an issue.


HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#35 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,683 posts
  • LocationDobbstown, Malaysia

Posted November 10 2016 - 04:11 AM

How is everyone so certain that the hackers were Putin's insiders? You do realize that the Clintons have amassed so many enemies that span much much further than Trump's cronies. I find it disgusting how the media uses its manipulation tactics to try to distort the story to make it sound like it's all Russia's fault the DNC hated Bernie Sanders. The real villains were the corrupt individuals who stacked the deck and forced a candidate down the throats of their voters. Heck, if I knew how to get away with it (alive), I too would have hacked and released the Podesta files, and I'd have done it all for free. I mean Podesta's email password was "p@ssword" all along FFS.

It's called evidence and admission by the Russians.


HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 





Click to shop at Weed Seed Shop