Printable View
When liberals start losing on the facts they resort to calling names or trotting out their favorite poor victim. As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXIRONwoMAN
Like "***-ange" when you clearly meant A.s.s-ange?Quote:
Originally Posted by circmand
Like using the "treason" non-sequitor to paint the US as a victim of "***-ange?"Quote:
or trotting out their favorite poor victim.
High irony from someone who bases his claims on the assumed support of people "here who have any legal background."Quote:
As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.
Per the census website, there were 12 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2007. Probably a safe bet to put it somewhere in the low 20 millions now. So yes, immigration is legal, but when someone mentions immigrants and legalities, it is clearly understood by all what is actually meant.
A quote from a recent movie I saw seems appropriate.
"It isn't what it is, Tommy. It is never what it is. It is what it can be made to look like."
That most people nowadays are aware that "spin" is the name of the game makes it difficult to understand how so many can still be distracted. Does is not seem odd that the main coverage of most of the story tends to focus on the leaks themselves rather than the content of the leaks? If all that stuff hadn't happened in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Anyone using the argument that "everyone" talks about people behind their backs, so why should politicians be held accountable is conveniently overlooking the fact that talking about people behind their backs is still wrong. In my personal experience, the people who use that argument are the people who do it most, and are just trying to justify their own actions by perpetuating the myth that "everyone" does it. Using the argument that leaks may cause collateral damage is also overlooking the collateral damage that has already occured as exposed in the leaks.
When the people who are the subjects of the leaks reach such positions of "power" and affluence, and begin to be too overly esteemed because of their position or how much money they make, it seems it's all too quickly forgotten that they are still working for us, and are supposed to be representing us in the best light possible. Well I don't know about the rest of you, but my elected leaders indirectly making me look like an @&& in the eyes of residents of the nations of the rest of the world got old a LONG time ago.
There's no reason whatsoever that I should be expected to continue granting the illusions they would prefer to those who obviously have no respect for me as so clearly illustrated by their actions. That people like that resort to intimidation and character assassination tactics when exposed says more about them than it does the people they are trying to attack. Doesn't it seem rather convenient that the "sexual assault" allegations should have become so newsworthy at the precise time that they did? Sexual assault is in quotes by the way because the actual charge is based around a condom breaking. "Sex by surprise" was the actual charge. Consentual, but now an issue because the condom broke. Trumped up for the purpose of sensationalization and distraction? One has to wonder.
The question to me is whether Wikileaks is just filling a much needed and overdue niche. One where whistleblowers can turn when the established avenue still leaves a lot to be desired. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a good start, but it's nowhere near what is needed, and anyone who has ever held a job where they've witnessed unfair/questionable business or managerial practices but did nothing for fear of losing their job, the prospect of future jobs, or even worse, knows the potential long-term reality of such situations...the Mel Gibson movie The Edge of Darkness from which that initial quote was taken being such an example. Power and affluence run amok, but not let off the hook because exposure was simply the right thing to do.
True, they do work for us, yet they make FAR more than their employers. Doesn't make sense if the employee makes more than the boss? Especially if the employee controls their own salary?
I'd reply, but I'm not sure how. Was that meant to be sarcastic, rhetorical, or simply an example of the over-esteem I mentioned which is sometimes mistakenly placed on those in positions of "power" or affluence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Biko
If you actually read the post I was saying people with legal background would support the legal description NOT NECESARILY MY VIEWPOINT. I assume that is why you did not do a quote where my post would be easily available for those reading your post? If you cant make your point dont make stuff up or take my statements out of context. That is the type of thing that used to work in the past. However people now see through it and is what exposed the global warming myths as lies meant to allow people like Al Gore to make millions of the hysteria.
You know one of the things I liked about this forum when I joined was the lack of political debates... seems like we're headed the other way lately though.
I think you guys need to trade in this: :badhorse:
for this: :_beer:
Retreating back to the main forum now before I get yelled at. :)
Mmmmmmmmmmmm..... Beer.
weres hot wasabi junkie when you need him...lol sorry I had to
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
don't tell vt he may lose all hope:yesb:Quote:
Originally Posted by don moore
:whiteflag: :flower:
BS, this thread is clearly labeled as a political thread. If you don't want to get involved or read about it, don't look at it. its not like this is buried in a thread about how to get a white L.V. shifter boot or how to fit a slushy machine in dashboard:bgwb:Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
I like Beer tooQuote:
Originally Posted by technocoy
Here's a new twist for ya:
Who's to say that ANY of the documents on wikileak are genuine???
Wouldn't it be far cheaper for someone to create 40K+ pages of fraudulent documents than to collect the true classified ones?
Not really. Generating that many different documents addressing that many different situations around the world and making sure they correlate with known facts in a believable fashion would be practically impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by tom4bren
True, but ...
With the available technology in the 1960's it would've been impossible to 'hype' the moon landing too.
WikiLeaksQuote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
Started by crotchrocket
Chit-Chat ... Anything Non-VX Related
Clearly you see what you want to see. :) I'm just saying that I don't understand why a discussion about WikiLeaks has to devolve into liberal v. conservative name-calling.
It hasn't. It's devolved into authoritarian vs libertarian name-calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_maverick
why can't they leak something interesting.....like what does the government really know about UFO's and was the 1947 incident @ Roswell real or just a myth for the ages?
My viewpoint: Open-minded skeptic.
FYI, the US has been trying to extradite a guy from the UK who did try to hack into the US government systems looking for evidence of UFOs. He didn't find any. But it's not like classified systems are hooked up to the internet so he didn't have that much of a chance even if there was evidence.
Ever watched Ancient Aliens on the history channel?
Interesting stuff :yesb:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolly Roger VX'er
Man do I hear THAT!...:yesgray:Quote:
Originally Posted by VXR
My second wife was FOR SHO that she'd been abducted, transported to the MO ship, & seen other galaxies...I'm totally serious here.
She seemed so normal, until we'ed been married for about a month...:rolleyesg
Me myself...I've done things in the 70's & 80's that allowed me to see glowing orange phosphorescent trails behind golf balls at dusk, also seen walls melt like candles & stuph...but the MO ship ?.....mnnnnnn Naaaaaa...:laughing:
Your next mod Marlin?:bwgy: Would be sweet on those hot days on the trail in Moab!:yesy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
and she left you behind:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldub
You son, are truely a freak magnet.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldub
hahahahaha
What are you laughing about. You're a charter member of the Dubster Freak Managerie!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by crotchrocket
Well, Julian was just granted bail on the Swedish sex allegations, which are very hard to prove. He was never actually charged. He'll probably stick around and answer any charges brought by the US over WikiLeaks. I hope he disappears and is never seen again.
Either way, WikiLeaks will go on. Even if they imprison Julian and torture and kill him, WikiLeaks will go on. There's nothing any government can do to stop it. As long as insiders keep getting info out, WikiLeaks will make sure the world knows the truth.
Mark Griffin
And while never officially substantiated, there was also recent talk that the whole sex scandal was the result of a deliberate "honeypot" operation, with the women involved apparently working for the CIA.
If true, a person has to ask the questions, what kinds of people go to such lengths...and why?
Oldest defense tactic in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Y33TREKker
I think sasquach is responsible for everything!:yesy:
Yes, my behind was left intact, even the lawyer'n fees for that one were less than a grand.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXR
Thank you for caring...:yesgray:
Well...YAH...:rolleyesgQuote:
Originally Posted by tom4bren
Thas how you & me became friends...:yesgray:
Quote:
Originally Posted by crotchrocket
So many members, so little time to flit about the earf in my sweet UFO...:(Quote:
Originally Posted by tom4bren
BWAAHAAHAA!!!
Yer killin me here. Are you sure we're not twin sons of different mothers?
Reading through this whole ridiculous thread, this pretty much hits the nail on the head across the board for me. Sarah Palin on TV 'goin huntin' is a perfect example. Its all a complete effing joke. NEXT NEW SHOW IDEA: The Real Housewives of Washington DC.Quote:
Originally Posted by VXIRONwoMAN
Bart
Wow,
I've gotten so used to Facebook I tried to "like" Bart's post. Couldn't find a button.
...so sad.
Quite funny you should say that as CNN just reported that Time was considering Julian Assange for person of the year but went with the facebook guy instead:yesb:Quote:
Originally Posted by technocoy
Assange was #1 in the reader poll for man of year. Zukerberg was #10.
But #2 was the prime minister of Turkey who is important there (for starting to roll back the separation between church and state) but is otherwise unremarkable. So it isn't like the reader poll is all that meaningful.
yes/ok:yesb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldub
:D yes sir...e....boss ....Quote:
Originally Posted by tom4bren