WikiLeaks

[Y33TREKker]

...but corporate corruption, government spying, we already know about all these things, and we don't care...

And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[Marlin]

On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway.

Saying that you agree with wikileaks or not agreeing is not doing something. My lack of caring about wikileaks does not weaken or strengthen their position.

I provided an option anyone could choose to adopt, and just because you personally didn't feel that option qualified as an acceptable answer doesn't mean it didn't.
What option? I didn't see anything about any possible actions to be taken.

Viewed even another way though, maybe it's as you say, and the efforts of wikileaks will do no good. Since you think what they are attempting is impossible, why is it apparently not enough for you to just sit back and watch them fail? Instead, you are going out of your way and expending an awful lot of effort to convince others that's the inevitable conclusion.

Well why is that? That's my question.

Multiple reasons:
1. I enjoy intelligible banter. You have some valid points and do not resort to name calling. For the most part, your arguments include some meat to justify your position.
2. I do care what others think,one way or another. I am adult enough to admit that I could be wrong, and if someone else feels so strongly as to support the opposite side, it must mean something...
3. If there was more conversations like ours during the elections, we wouldn't have had a majority of the population voting without having any real idea what they were voting for. At work we called it MTV voting. There should be Q&A when you vote, or else your vote does not count, predisclosed questions, you gotta get 3/5 correct or something along those lines. Candidates can only spend a certain amount of money on their campaign to prevent buying the vote...you get the idea. Maybe we make it so they can only have a certain amount of money, so you know they are a Real American and representative of the majority of our nation. It should be popular vote only, to prevent the major cities from determining the entire state's vote. IIf you are a liberal in Utah, your vote doesn't count. If you are a conservative in California, might as well not even vote. It doesn't count.
4. I am not taking any classes right now, too cold to work on the VX, and I only go into work every few days for christmas stand down.
5. I am not really expending any effort, just a few minutes here and there on the puter, keeps me from buying stuff I don't need...lol.


That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.
Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time. DADT is just another 'look over here' tactic that really doesn't matter in the big picture. How many millions of dollars in man hours alone did the house/senate waste on something that affects a very TINY portion of our population. Especially since they still have to follow the rules of the UCMJ, they will not get benefits for their 'partners' or base housing privileges, commissary, medical and so on. We are actually insulting them even more. We respected women enough to spend billions of dollars to create their own berthing areas, millions to put a few on submarines, but we can't spare any money for the homosexuals. It is all a dog and pony show. I think we should make handicap accessible facilities for our armed forces. Its not fair, we are discriminating against those in wheelchairs and whatnot. I realize that is a cheeky response, but the spirit of my point remains intact.
When you try to care about everything, it loses its value. How about focusing on important things, such as social security, immigration, drug control. Per the census bureau, in 2006 there were an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, a bulk of which were mexican/south american. Lets say only 1/4 have children each year. That means we have 20 million or so in our country.
Drugs are out of control. We kick students out of the Navy every week for the abuse of legal derivatives of illegal drugs. Social security is going to be broke in the future if we keep borrowing against it. This is a program that every tax paying citizen HAS TO PAY INTO. Same concept as Obamacare, force me to pay into something that I will most likely never receive a return from.

Sorry this is longer than I had initially intended,
the point being, we know our politicians are corrupt, we know corporate america is corrupt, we know shady business goes on at all the levels of government, we don't need wikileaks to prove it. We already know these things, but nothing happens. Hillary Clinton is still in her position, all of the clowns appointed by Obama and Bush alike are still in charge, not in jail. I just want someone to tell me what they expect to happen, and what they are going to DO about it.

[Marlin]

And if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Oh, I should have said "we don't care enough to actually do anything about it". A representative doesn't get reelected, he still gets paid for the rest of his life and receives full benefits. That is like being suspended with pay....pick me, pick me! I want to be suspended with pay.

[Stephen Biko]

That's a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible to care about both things without one interfering with the other.

Actually, based on the way propositions pass through the senate and house, they can't do both at the same time.

Which is irrelevant since 99+% of the work in congress does not happen on the floor.

Umm, a 200 year run is pretty good, and I never said we are a failure,

If you were to read old newspapers you'd see that people have been complaining about similar sorts of corruption for at least 100 years now - probably more. I haven't read any older than that so I can't say how long the corruption has been rampant. And if all your ranting about things like why they haven't put entire staffs of political appointees in jail isn't a claim of failure, then I don't know what is.

BTW your habit of sometimes quoting in red instead of using the system's quoting mechanism discourages people from reading and responding to what you write.

[Marlin]

Which is irrelevant since 99+% of the work in congress does not happen on the floor.

BTW your habit of sometimes quoting in red instead of using the system's quoting mechanism discourages people from reading and responding to what you write

Sorry, I don't quote in red, but rather respond in red, to allow a reader to read the original and my response in order. Makes it easier to follow in a long post, or so I thought...if you look back, the original is always in black, only my additions are red.

I will try to cut and paste sections to make it easier to read if anyone else doesn't like the format.

As for the 99% of the work happening out of session, that makes it even worse. Even more wasted man hours on stuff that doesn't matter, then it gets stuck in congress on the floor, making it all for not.

[Marlin]

If you were to read old newspapers you'd see that people have been complaining about similar sorts of corruption for at least 100 years now - probably more. I haven't read any older than that so I can't say how long the corruption has been rampant. And if all your ranting about things like why they haven't put entire staffs of political appointees in jail isn't a claim of failure, then I don't know what is.

Then what is the point of wikileaks? If we have had 100 years of the same info being put out to the common person and nothing changes, what are you expecting to come out of it now? As you pointed out, we have history of violent rebellion being unsuccessful in the longterm, the same can be said of reporting corruption?

All in all, realistically, do you deep down inside think that wikileaks released documents are going to be anything more than a brief news flash? It does give us (here on the VX forum, well at least the few of us still goin on about it) something to talk about it. Good entertainment value. I wonder how many of our little family here are lurking in this thread? I would be curious to know what others think. I know I come off as an ******* sometimes, but I do try to write coherently without name calling or anything as childish as that. I am fair and I try to be consistent. I harbor no ill will to anyone regardless of our discussions. TomDietrying has exact opposite political views as I do and we got along great at Moab!
Are we really the only ones still lookin at this thread?
Are my thoughts way over the edge and no one agrees with anything I say? (and vice versa).
For you lurkers, feel free to throw in your thoughts!!! (minus name calling and the like)

[Stephen Biko]

Then what is the point of wikileaks? If we have had 100 years of the same info being put out to the common person and nothing changes, what are you expecting to come out of it now? As you pointed out, we have history of violent rebellion being unsuccessful in the longterm, the same can be said of reporting corruption?

Except that its undeniable that the standard of living for the entire country has vastly improved during the time so the reformers have been successful. If corruption was as absolute as you make it out to be we'd all be subsistence farmers or working 12 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops.

[circmand]

Except that its undeniable that the standard of living for the entire country has vastly improved during the time so the reformers have been successful. If corruption was as absolute as you make it out to be we'd all be subsistence farmers or working 12 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops.

People living in so called poverty today would be considered among the richest in the country when it was founded. Indoor plumbing, electricity, Tvs, cell phones, free medical care, free food of better quality than most were able to obtain unless they grew it themselves. All of this was merely imagination 200 years ago.

[circmand]

Sorry, I don't quote in red, but rather respond in red, to allow a reader to read the original and my response in order. Makes it easier to follow in a long post, or so I thought...if you look back, the original is always in black, only my additions are red.

I will try to cut and paste sections to make it easier to read if anyone else doesn't like the format.

As for the 99% of the work happening out of session, that makes it even worse. Even more wasted man hours on stuff that doesn't matter, then it gets stuck in congress on the floor, making it all for not.

Use the quote button or the multi quote button at the bottom right of the post you are replying to.

[Marlin]

Except that its undeniable that the standard of living for the entire country has vastly improved during the time so the reformers have been successful. If corruption was as absolute as you make it out to be we'd all be subsistence farmers or working 12 hour days 7 days a week in sweatshops.

Umm, perhaps it is the corruption that has lead to our success. "A fool and his money are soon parted." The corruption at the top has to recognize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if your people are happy and successful, then production will be better, and they will be less likely to start a violent revolution, the only kind of revolution that has ever been successful for any long term period of time.

I agree with Circmand, our conditions now are so ridiculously cushy, even 100 years ago they would have laughed at the whining that goes on today. That is part of the problem. Most people in our nation wouldn't last more than a few days without walmart and grocery stores. We have grown so accustomed to being told what we can and cannot do, we don't know what to do on our own given the chance. We have a government branch to control everything, what freedoms do you really have left? We have the illusion of freedom, but that doesn't make it real.
I think the wikileaks thing is just an excuse for the government to implement controls over internet media, much the same as 9/11 was an excuse for Homeland Defense and the monstrous TSA and the like.

[Scott Harness]

We have a government branch to control everything, what freedoms do you really have left? We have the illusion of freedom, but that doesn't make it real.
I think the wikileaks thing is just an excuse for the government to implement controls over internet media, much the same as 9/11 was an excuse for Homeland Defense and the monstrous TSA and the like.

What he said...unless they're watching

[Marlin]

What he said...unless they're watching

I just saw that the FCC is trying to regulate internet provider sales byt making the internet speeds the same for everyone...man did I call it! I know that the provisions in this regulation aren't what I am inferring, but this broke the ice. Pending court review, what is next? Just like TSA and removing your shoes, now look at what goes on.

Internet censorship, here we come!!!!

[Scott Harness]

I heard that story.They said Wi-Fi would be slower for some reason

[Y33TREKker]

by Y33TREKker - "On the contrary. My answer was even specifically tailored for you; a person who has admittedly chosen to do nothing...at least in the way of supporting an entity that is trying to do something anyway."

by Marlin - "Saying that you agree with wikileaks or not agreeing is not doing something. My lack of caring about wikileaks does not weaken or strengthen their position."

Fortunately, you caring wasn't required for them to do what they did in the first place either.

Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken can count for much more than mere lip-service as you are portraying it to be...not to mention the fact that no one has to get shot.

You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.

This is where we get to the part that doesn't make sense though, because here we have an entity that is possibly introducing tangible evidence for your suspicions, but rather than embracing said entity (that is possibly providing the proof that could be used to initiate the revolution you say is needed), your response is to dismiss that entity and anyone who suggests it should be believed, supported, etc.

It's bad enough that killing the messenger who bears bad news is too often put into practice, but is it now being suggested that should be adopted for messengers bearing potential good news too?

As I alluded to before, it's almost become a chicken-and-the-egg scenario, with people trying to condemn wikileaks to distract from the fact that the contents/actions contained in the leaks happened first.

[Marlin]

Perhaps this is just a matter of degrees, because in my opinion, supporting such an entity, even if a person does just say that they agree with the actions that are being taken can count for much more than mere lip-service as you are portraying it to be...not to mention the fact that no one has to get shot.

Money talks, by your own words above, opinions do not matter either way. Besides, if folks never got shot, we wouldn't be here right now.

You say that you know corruption is a given, but can you prove it? It's one thing for people to complain across their fences about what they "think" is going on, but it's something else entirely to have actual proof of those suspicions.

Yes, we have 100 years of newspaper reports saying so. Those have just as much value as the unconfirmed wikileaks reports. I have said more than once THE FED GAVE 9 TRILLION IN LOANS TO THE BANKS AT <1% INTEREST!!! HOW DO YOU THINK THEY PAID THEIR STIMULUS LOANS BACK SO QUICK!!!! IF THAT IS NOT CORRUPTION, I AM NOT SURE WHAT IS.

This is where we get to the part that doesn't make sense though, because here we have an entity that is possibly introducing tangible evidence for your suspicions, but rather than embracing said entity

wiki (?w?k?)

— n
a. a web application that allows anyone visiting a website to edit content on it

By the owners assigned name, it implies that it could be wrong. Wikileaks is no more credible than CNN, Fox News, New York Times and so on. There is nothing tangible about it. I could start a site tomorrow and release whatever secret documents I want. What makes them any more or less credible than Julian's releases?