WikiLeaks

[circmand]

Marlin, you are debating with emotion and you are not making sense. Analogies are good for expressing feelings. Not when refuting facts.



Immigration is NOT illegal!



Thanks for the Speech 101 lesson Professor. I think in English 102 they teach you how to write without coming off as a major blockhead...








...

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.

[Stephen Biko]

When liberals start losing on the facts they resort to calling names

Like "***-ange" when you clearly meant A.s.s-ange?

or trotting out their favorite poor victim.

Like using the "treason" non-sequitor to paint the US as a victim of "***-ange?"

As for English 102 I'll see you there when they start teaching the difference between facts and feelings.

High irony from someone who bases his claims on the assumed support of people "here who have any legal background."

[Marlin]

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.

[Y33TREKker]

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.

[Marlin]

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?

[Y33TREKker]

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?

[circmand]

Like "***-ange" when you clearly meant A.s.s-ange?



Like using the "treason" non-sequitor to paint the US as a victim of "***-ange?"



High irony from someone who bases his claims on the assumed support of people "here who have any legal background."

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.