Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | Next > | Last >
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: tyrannicalrex]
    #27387655 - 07/14/21 04:40 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

tyrannicalrex said:
I was just posting an article because you said the one the other poster linked was a pay per view, so I posted another link to a story for you.



Fair enough - thank you.  :thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewolf8312
Pennywise
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/01/12
Posts: 2,365
Last seen: 14 hours, 39 minutes
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #27388121 - 07/14/21 11:33 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Oh, so they didn't actually fail to get into the RNC servers, they only "minimally" got into the RNC servers now. Can you define "minimally"?



I didn't use the word "minimally" which you put in quotes.  I said the NY Times reported, "there was no evidence 'that the current R.N.C.' — he appeared to be referring to servers at the committee’s headquarters or contractors with current data — had been hacked."

If you're talking about the "outdated material" "of little value" on a contractor site previously used for website hosting and donor lists (NOT emails), I agreed that happened years ago.

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Just so we know what we're working with here before you move the goalposts again.



First you said Assange was "heavily editing" his material.  Then you said it might have been the Russian hackers who were withholding the emails.  Then we see the hacked materials were website hosting and donor lists, not emails.  Finally, we know these materials were outdated and of little value.

It seems to be you that's moving the goalposts.  :shrug:

Or would you agree you were wrong to say Assange was "heavily editing" his content?





Rich isn’t it? :laugh:

He first called Assange a whistleblower to justify his indifference to the desecration of due process, the freedom of the press, and the crimes Assange exposed.

When it was pointed out that Assange was not a whistleblower he quickly moved the goalposts (albeit onto a mountain) to claim instead that he doesn’t care because journalists must not rock the boat! 

This would be fine if we could assume he’s just a psychopath but when you contrast his utter lack of social conscience on the Assange issue with his other opinions on more mainstream issues (Trump) it’s worrying to note that his own moral and intellectual integrity not only mirrors the MSM itself (or the 'left' side), but is every bit as selective and inconsistent.

By his own admission, Kryptos knows perfectly well that Assange was ‘railroaded’ and (assuming he is the authority on the case that he now seems to be) will have watched the videos of kids in Iraq being systematically murdered by cheering troops. But he still doesn’t give a shit?

This glaring contradiction should be kept in mind whenever he brings ethics or morality into a conversation about Donald Trump, or whatever moral issue is trending on Facebook.


--------------------
"I'm every nightmare you ever had. I am your worst dreams come true. I am everything you ever were afraid of."

Pennywise the dancing clown


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27388346 - 07/15/21 07:46 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Can you give an example of what you mean by "heavily editing"?



Sure. Where were the RNC emails published?



Were RNC emails ever even given to Wikileaks?  That's news to me.



August 17th: “If anyone has any information that is from inside the Trump campaign, which is authentic, it’s not like some claimed witness statement but actually internal documentation, we’d be very happy to receive it and publish it,”

August 26th: “We do have some information about the Republican campaign. I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day."


Assange got his information on the Republican campaign, and declined to publish it - not because it wasn't authentic - but because it wasn't controversial enough.

Considering some of the criticism that has been levied at Wikileaks indiscriminate data dumps - https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/07/28/on-weaponized-transparency/ -  it's quite a coincidence that controversial info on the RNC is where Assange decides to take a stand and do some editorializing.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27388558 - 07/15/21 10:50 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Assange got his information on the Republican campaign, and declined to publish it - not because it wasn't authentic - but because it wasn't controversial enough.



Are you really criticizing Wikileaks for not dumping content of no significant importance?  If Wikileaks published every single thing it got, nobody would read it anymore; it would be too much information.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Considering some of the criticism that has been levied at Wikileaks indiscriminate data dumps - https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/07/28/on-weaponized-transparency/ -  it's quite a coincidence that controversial info on the RNC is where Assange decides to take a stand and do some editorializing.



Wikileaks has long taken a position to redact sensitive information not relevant to the story, it didn't start with the RNC.  Sure, we can criticize them for leaking a bit too much with the DNC leaks, but that leak exposed DNC corruption and forced the head of the DNC to resign in shame.

I really don't understand why anyone would criticize Wikileaks for exposing corruption, and criticize them again for not releasing content of no significance.


Edit:  Actually, I do understand - the mainstream media is playing some of us like a fiddle.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 34,046
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 38 minutes
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27388567 - 07/15/21 10:53 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

They released a shit ton of embassy cables and war logs that had no real significance.

I’m all for Assange to be released, but let’s not pretend he didn’t make a deliberate effort to release DNC emails and not RNC emails. Of course, this doesn’t warrant all the phony outrage you see from the media on that front, because if he had released both they’d have just concocted another phony rape scandal or made up a new excuse to imprison him.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #27388596 - 07/15/21 11:05 AM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
I’m all for Assange to be released, but let’s not pretend he didn’t make a deliberate effort to release DNC emails and not RNC emails.



There is no evidence that any RNC emails were hacked.  As I indicated above, there was "'outdated material' 'of little value' on a contractor site previously used for website hosting and donor lists (NOT emails)."

Of course, if you have evidence that RNC emails were hacked (and then given to Wikileaks), please share!


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27388783 - 07/15/21 01:16 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Are you really criticizing Wikileaks for not dumping content of no significant importance?  If Wikileaks published every single thing it got, nobody would read it anymore; it would be too much information.

Wikileaks has long taken a position to redact sensitive information not relevant to the story, it didn't start with the RNC. 




How do we know the content was of no significance? For an organization dedicated to institutional transparency, that's not very transparent. Wikileaks is just another institution - it's not infallible - so why should we give it a pass here?

You are also incorrect regarding Wikileaks position on reacting sensitive information. The link I supplied to Sunshine Press (the organization responsible for Wikileaks foundation) provides an excellent critique of Wikileaks indiscriminate reporting methods. The Ecstatic provided a couple more examples of indiscriminate data dumps. You didn't provide anything to back up your claim, so what are you basing it on?

You seem to value the opinion of Glenn Greenwald, here's a quote of his:

"And the interesting thing here is that we have been attacked—we being the journalists who have kind of shepherded the Snowden archive reporting—by a lot of people, including WikiLeaks, in fact led by WikiLeaks, for not dumping all the information but instead redacting information that we thought might harm innocent people. Most of the information that we have withheld I’ve withheld on the grounds that it would invade people’s privacy, like emails that the NSA has collected between people, documents where they accuse people of engaging in certain bad acts without any proof. We’ve done a lot of withholding information in order to protect people’s privacy or reputational interests or other legitimate interests. We tried to balance these two competing values. WikiLeaks has said, criticizing us, that they no longer believe in any form of redaction. I do not ascribe to that view. "





Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Edit:  Actually, I do understand - the mainstream media is playing some of us like a fiddle.



Care to explain why you hold this opinion?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblechopstick
nobody
Male


Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Chin's Wok
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27388817 - 07/15/21 01:41 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Wait... so you guys are butthurt that Assange didn't release damning dirt on the RNC like he did the Hillary camp?

Gee, maybe because whatever shit the DNC did is way worse?

Not saying the RNC isn't dirty, but Hillary is clearly in her own class of corruption and evil. She makes third-world dictators look like saints. I think there's a pretty good chance that her corruption vastly outweighs anything the RNC was up to.

Either way, what we should be discussing here is the fact that an innocent journalist is having his life taken from him by a self-serving gang of corrupt elites on trumped up charges because he exposed their criminal behavior.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinetwighead
mͯó
I'm a teapot


Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 30,491
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill Flag
Last seen: 8 days, 16 hours
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: chopstick]
    #27388829 - 07/15/21 01:53 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Lmao that's extremely rich considering the depth of corruption that the RNC has shown themselves to be complicit in just on the fucking obvious surface of things in the US.

And no I'm not saying the democrats aren't too :lolsy:


--------------------
¿Check out some art m8?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,333
Loc: subtropics
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: chopstick]
    #27388841 - 07/15/21 02:01 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

"Not saying the RNC isn't dirty, but Hillary is clearly in her own class of corruption and evil. She makes third-world dictators look like saints. I think there's a pretty good chance that her corruption vastly outweighs anything the RNC was up to."


Uhhh, Laurence King? Boys Town? Bush, again?:rolleyes: Yeah, the clinton death toll is fucked up beyond belief too. Like no one actually believes it. But I digress, Carrion.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblechopstick
nobody
Male


Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Chin's Wok
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: tyrannicalrex] * 1
    #27388876 - 07/15/21 02:30 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

True, the Bush admin. was in on 9/11, among many other things. But if we're talking recent events during which Wikileaks has been relevant - ie the 2016 election and after - maybe he just didn't have anything major to release compared to Hillary's shenanigans in the same time period?

All I'm saying is that in my opinion it doesn't make him any less of a hero just because of this one particular thing.

I very much doubt that Assange, an Australian citizen, would have some nefarious reason to take sides between Democrat and Republican when he's not even a US citizen.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: chopstick]
    #27388938 - 07/15/21 03:10 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

chopstick said:
Wait... so you guys are butthurt that Assange didn't release damning dirt on the RNC like he did the Hillary camp?




Not at all. I think most people on this forum know me well enough to realize I'm not particularly caught up in US party politics.

This is my criticism: if an institution (Wikileaks) that has built a reputation around publishing unredacted data dumps, in the name of radical transparency, suddenly acts in contradiction to these ideals by deciding not to publish data deemed 'uncontroversial' - and if this atypical decision aligns with the personal bias of the individuals controlling the institution (Assange) - than the conclusion that the institution is being influenced by personal bias is a reasonable one.

I support the ideals Wikileaks professes to hold, but I don't believe that Wikileaks actually holds true to these ideals. I oppose the hero worship of Assange.


Source on Assange's personal opinion:
https://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/14/julian-assange-wikileaks-election-clinton-trump/


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblechopstick
nobody
Male


Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,252
Loc: Chin's Wok
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27388957 - 07/15/21 03:28 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Fair enough.

So from your links it appears he favored the GOP because he saw them as being less likely or less able to start new wars due to internal political opposition.

One more thing that I could see that isn't mentioned there is that he might have wanted to curry favor with Trump in hopes for a pardon, although that's just my own speculation. If that was the case, it didn't work.

At any rate, I do agree that airing everyone's dirty laundry is in everyone's best interests as opposed to withholding some things for personal reasons.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27388984 - 07/15/21 03:45 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
How do we know the content was of no significance?



Because it wasn't emails that were hacked, per the Director of the FBI and the NY Times.  I realize you don't trust either of those sources (nor do I), but their word is better than just make believing Wikileaks has the RNC emails, which is all you've done so far.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
You are also incorrect regarding Wikileaks position on reacting sensitive information. The link I supplied to Sunshine Press (the organization responsible for Wikileaks foundation) provides an excellent critique of Wikileaks indiscriminate reporting methods. The Ecstatic provided a couple more examples of indiscriminate data dumps. You didn't provide anything to back up your claim, so what are you basing it on?



I never claimed Wikileaks hasn't released sensitive information before.  But they have a "harm minimisation (minimization) procedure", which they've had for over 10 years.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
You seem to value the opinion of Glenn Greenwald, here's a quote of his:

"... WikiLeaks has said, criticizing us, that they no longer believe in any form of redaction. I do not ascribe to that view. "



I realize there is a difference of opinion on how much should be redacted.  Glenn Greenwald, for example, didn't want to release the names of the countries in which the US was recording every single phone call, while Wikileaks did.  I tend to side with Wikileaks on this, but I can understand why opinions may differ.  But it's easy to show Wikileaks generally does redact information they feel may be harmful to innocent people.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I really don't understand why anyone would criticize Wikileaks for exposing corruption, and criticize them again for not releasing content of no significance.

Edit:  Actually, I do understand - the mainstream media is playing some of us like a fiddle.



Care to explain why you hold this opinion?



Because you're make believing things about Assange, like that he has RNC emails, and that he favors Trump over Hillary.  Anytime the mainstream media can get you to play along with their make believe, they're playing you.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 24 minutes, 22 seconds
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27389083 - 07/15/21 04:44 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I really don't understand why anyone would criticize Wikileaks for exposing corruption, and criticize them again for not releasing content of no significance.

Edit:  Actually, I do understand - the mainstream media is playing some of us like a fiddle.



Care to explain why you hold this opinion?



Because you're make believing things about Assange, like that he has RNC emails, and that he favors Trump over Hillary.  Anytime the mainstream media can get you to play along with their make believe, they're playing you.




It's almost like Assange literally said he prefers Trump to Hillary back in 2016.

Oh wait.

How is he not a political hack again?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,487
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27389121 - 07/15/21 04:57 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

@FW

I didn't make believe anything about Wikileaks - I provided a direct quote from Assange: "We do have some information about the Republican campaign." Whether that information came via leaked emails or not is irrelevant - the point is that Wikileaks had information on both the DNC and RNC, but chose to only publish information about the Democrat campaign.

Furthermore, Assange's stated reason for not publishing the information on the RNC was because "it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day." Wikileaks 'harm minimisation (minimization) procedure' hardly seems relevant in this instance. Are there other instances where Wikileaks redacted information on the basis of it not being sufficiently controversial?

Finally, I never explicitly stated what I believe to be Assange's bias so I'll take the opportunity to clarify this now. In my above response to Chopstick, I provided two links that I will quote from:

"Trump is a completely unpredictable phenomenon. You can’t predict what he would do in office. [...] Hillary Clinton is receiving constant updates about my personal situation; she has pushed for the prosecution of WikiLeaks. We do see her as more of a problem for freedom of the press generally.”


"We believe it would be much better for GOP to win. Dems+Media+liberals woudl then form a block to reign in their worst qualities. With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. She’s a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath.”



The first is quoting Assange, the second is quoting Wikileaks (with the assumption that Assange is the person posting). The claim that Assange and Wikileaks believed it would be much better for GOP to win because they saw a Hilary presidency as more of a problem, is not make believe.

Given that I've clarified my position regarding "RNC emails" and "favors Trump over Hillary", do you have any other reason to believe I'm being played like a fiddle?





@Chopstick

Yeah, 'opposed to Hillary' and 'supportive to Trump' are two different things, but they manifested similarly in 2016. That in and of itself isn't even necessarily awful - a fair portion of anarchists held similar positions during the 2016 election. The reason I consider it unforgivable is because the introduction of personal bias completely undermines the mission of Wikileaks - institutional transparency. If they allowed personal bias to influence the data they publish one time, how are we to trust that it won't happen again? Or that it hasn't happened before?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKryptos
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 11/01/14
Posts: 12,848
Last seen: 24 minutes, 22 seconds
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #27389137 - 07/15/21 05:03 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Kryptos said:
Oh, so they didn't actually fail to get into the RNC servers, they only "minimally" got into the RNC servers now. Can you define "minimally"?



I didn't use the word "minimally" which you put in quotes.  I said the NY Times reported, "there was no evidence 'that the current R.N.C.' — he appeared to be referring to servers at the committee’s headquarters or contractors with current data — had been hacked."

If you're talking about the "outdated material" "of little value" on a contractor site previously used for website hosting and donor lists (NOT emails), I agreed that happened years ago.

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Just so we know what we're working with here before you move the goalposts again.



First you said Assange was "heavily editing" his material.  Then you said it might have been the Russian hackers who were withholding the emails.  Then we see the hacked materials were website hosting and donor lists, not emails.  Finally, we know these materials were outdated and of little value.

It seems to be you that's moving the goalposts.  :shrug:

Or would you agree you were wrong to say Assange was "heavily editing" his content?




Apologies, not "minimally" hacked, there was "limited" hacking. As per your source. And not years ago.

Perhaps I should have been more clear: Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump. You have not shown that to be false at all. At this point, the only way to show that to be false would be to prove that the Russians limited Assange's access to the materials they fed him, but that's also not true, we know that Assange had a clear political goal in mind. I just thought it would be funny for you to blame the russian hackers, then turn around and claim there were no russian hackers in the next post.

So go ahead and call me king of make believe, like you do when you're all out of other logical fallacies.

---

Edit:
Quote:

wolf8312 said:
This glaring contradiction should be kept in mind whenever he brings ethics or morality into a conversation.




You should be more clear, because I don't think you pointed out any inconsistencies. You did correct me on the whistleblower thing: Assange wasn't a whistleblower. He wasn't a journalist either. He was an editor, at best.

In case it was not clear, That's ranked in terms of how much respect I give each, from most to least.

I do not seek to bring ethics or morality into the conversation at all. I don't have any inclination to watch the videos, I'm sure they're horrifying. I simply do not see how those videos are relevant to the conversation at hand, apart from being Assange's portfolio as a successful editor.

Edited by Kryptos (07/15/21 09:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,333
Loc: subtropics
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27389501 - 07/15/21 08:44 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

It was like they'll be DAMNED before they'd let a woman in the white house, much less a woman like Hillary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #27389612 - 07/15/21 10:12 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Whether that information came via leaked emails or not is irrelevant - the point is that Wikileaks had information on both the DNC and RNC, but chose to only publish information about the Democrat campaign.



Others here claimed Assange has the RNC emails; a claim that hasn't been backed with evidence.  I'm glad you're smarter than that, and I apologize for directing my make believe comment at you, but you seemed to be defending them.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Furthermore, Assange's stated reason for not publishing the information on the RNC was because "it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day." Wikileaks 'harm minimisation (minimization) procedure' hardly seems relevant in this instance. Are there other instances where Wikileaks redacted information on the basis of it not being sufficiently controversial?



According to their own website, "WikiLeaks accepts classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance.  Assange also said, “If anyone has any information that is from inside the Trump campaign, which is authentic, it’s not like some claimed witness statement but actually internal documentation, we’d be very happy to receive and publish it”.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Finally, I never explicitly stated what I believe to be Assange's bias so I'll take the opportunity to clarify this now. In my above response to Chopstick, I provided two links that I will quote from:

"Trump is a completely unpredictable phenomenon. You can’t predict what he would do in office. [...] Hillary Clinton is receiving constant updates about my personal situation; she has pushed for the prosecution of WikiLeaks. We do see her as more of a problem for freedom of the press generally.”


"We believe it would be much better for GOP to win. Dems+Media+liberals woudl then form a block to reign in their worst qualities. With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities., dems+media+neoliberals will be mute. She’s a bright, well connected, sadistic sociopath.”



The first is quoting Assange, the second is quoting Wikileaks (with the assumption that Assange is the person posting). The claim that Assange and Wikileaks believed it would be much better for GOP to win because they saw a Hilary presidency as more of a problem, is not make believe.

Given that I've clarified my position regarding "RNC emails" and "favors Trump over Hillary", do you have any other reason to believe I'm being played like a fiddle?



I'm not disagreeing they saw Hillary as more of a problem.  What I meant by my comment was that Assange isn't withholding or redacting significant information about Trump.  Correct me if someone's come out with anything significant on Trump that Wikileaks first rejected.

We seem to be aligned.  It's too bad you try so hard to fight me.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 8 days
Re: Humans of the Right Wing: AsCompendium [Re: Kryptos]
    #27389621 - 07/15/21 10:25 PM (2 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kryptos said:
Perhaps I should have been more clear: Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump. You have not shown that to be false at all.



You made the claim "Assange WAS heavily editing his publications to favor Trump."  Burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to disprove.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* right wing VS left wing
( 1 2 all )
atomikfunksoldier 3,756 29 05/27/03 04:14 PM
by Edame
* 'Evidence' linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics Autonomous 1,337 8 12/02/04 12:26 PM
by Autonomous
* That pesky "left-wing" press again... Xlea321 889 5 10/01/04 03:35 PM
by Xlea321
* Nuclear anihlation and human extinction Ed1 807 13 07/14/04 04:51 AM
by Innvertigo
* old right wing fool KingOftheThing 1,184 9 07/11/05 10:11 PM
by Los_Pepes
* House Bans Coloning of Human Cells
( 1 2 all )
PotSmokinHippie 4,085 21 08/04/01 09:36 AM
by Phred
* Neither Left Wing Nor Right - It's The Bush Wing usefulidiot 567 0 12/02/04 11:50 PM
by usefulidiot
* operation democracy...changing the right wing way of life starptv23 834 2 03/25/05 01:48 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
163,775 topic views. 2 members, 7 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.043 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 15 queries.