WikiLeaks

[Stephen Biko]

How is that worse than name calling or arguing in bad faith? You flat out said that no armed revolution has ever been successful, you even went so far as to throw down the gauntlet and dare me to name one that is. You opened that doorway, not me.

And yet you didn't name one. Instead you made up some other random BS and attributed it to me, just like your goofy sig. The point of a discussion like this is to develop a better understanding of the topic but when you make up BS out of whole cloth like that it just obscures the truth. It is not worse than arguing in bad faith it is arguing in bad faith.

Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com.

More arguing in bad faith. Using the "its not in the dictionary, gotcha!" fallacy does not add to anyone's understanding. Oooh, dictiornary.com doesn't address the topic in depth, surfreakingprise. Is it really too much to expect that if you want to discuss corruption you have a working knowledge of how it affects society?

So is Julian releasing info and proof of corruption or is he confirming that the system is working? I don't get your point there? We have established that most people are happy with the status quo, the system is working for the majority, so why is he trying to fix something that isn't broke?

Because the situation is not black and white. Because there is always room for improvement. It doesn't take an armed revolution for incremental improvement just like it doesn't take the end of society for there to be incremental loss.

The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".

Do you really find that convincing? Why aren't you worried about 2012? Or what about all of those other people constantly predicting the end of the world for centuries? First time for everything after all. Or maybe you realize that such predictions have been so consistently wrong that its not worth paying attention, but this other essentially identical prediction you buy into. When you don't require the same standard of evidence for something you disagree with as you do for something you agree with, that's arguing in bad faith.

I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.

And I never said you did. What you have consistently done is require far higher standards of proof in support of wikileaks than for your own personal dislike of wikileaks. That is arguing in bad faith.

We will stick to Hillary Clinton. In black and white, plain to see, she ordered the violation of UN policy. Did she suffer any repercussions?

She's suffered diminished credibility in her profession. You insist that results must be a spectacle or they don't count. My point, which you ignore over and over, is that spectacle is only a small part of the process - it's incremental change that ultimately matters.

If she ever stands for elected office again her chances of winning have been reduced - some fervent supporters will be less fervent, some fence sitters are now on the other side of the fence. Even as a political appointee her career has been affected - she is just that much more of a liability which reduces her clout. Some other event that she could have weathered may now be enough to get her tossed out.