WikiLeaks

[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?

[Marlin]

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.

Are you saying that if you had access to billions of dollars and could get away with funneling some of that to your own personal use, if even only a few hundred thousand, and not suffer any real consequences, you wouldn't? Day after day, temptation of virtually unlimited funding, others pushing you to do things in their own best interests, or else you suffer job failure that you might not be tempted to do the wrong thing? If you really believe you wouldn't, you are the next savior. The problems are inherent in the system, be it Bush, Obama, whoever, our government and their funding are just too big. Hence the inevitable collapse. Much the same as the Romans, we have begun voting our coffers back into our own pockets. This is a tell tale sign of things to come. As Biko pointed out, history will repeat itself, and the bloated empires always fail eventually.

[Stephen Biko]

As Biko pointed out, history will repeat itself, and the bloated empires always fail eventually.

Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.

Umm, perhaps it is the corruption that has lead to our success.

If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.

When you define both success of the system and failure of the system as failure that's simply arguing in bad faith.

This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing.

You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed. On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.

Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.

[Marlin]

Really? That's what you took away from me saying that no armed revolution has succeeded in eliminating corruption? You make a big deal about people not calling names but you really test the line by arguing in bad faith - that's worse than simply calling names because its so banal that its easy to simply accept.

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.

If that were true then North Korea would be an economic power-house. Corruption, practically by definition, is a restraint on broad economic development. Your proposed theory of "benign corruption" is not corruption at all - it is the system working.

Nor sure where you got your definition, I just used dictionary.com. Didn't see anything about economics, except via a stretch to bribery which could be for anything. Corruption is:
moral perversion; depravity
dishonesty, esp bribery

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?

You have a double-standard for proof - on one hand you are preparing for the total collapse of society, yet no western democracy has ever even come close to, much less actually collapsed.

The Romans said the same thing...strangely enough, western democracies haven't been around very long. Lets see if it lasts 2000 years...lol.
You're right, I am preparing. It hurts no one.
Oh, and a fitting cliche, "There is a first time for everything".

On the other hand you demand that wikileaks be practically omnipotent - that if corruption doesn't immediately melt away under their trillions of candlepower then they are totally irrelevant. When it does happen in other much smaller countries, that doesn't count, but the inertia of the largest economy in the world is required to be no problem for omnipotent wikileaks.

I never made Julian out to be a hero, therefore I do not have to defend him.
I said that I don't care what he does and that I think it's all a setup.

Society does not work that way. Exposure of corruption causes slow change - people vote differently, legislation gets rewritten over the course of years, others still in the shadows aren't so bold with their conspiracies going forward. Spectacular implosions like Enron and Madoff are the very rare exception. They make great fodder for 24-hour news and faux-outrage pundits - but it's the slow inexorable plod of progress that does the most to improve the world. Corruption is a drag on that progress, exposure reduces that drag.

Why would the powers that be be any less than bold than they were before? 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? No, not even an apology from the president for not adequately supervising her. Hell, if anything, the results of wikileaks will encourage them to more corruption because they have seen that they will not be held accountable!!!!

[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.

[Y33TREKker]

I think we are in a rut here, arguing the same thing with same point of view....

Well, there's one thing we seem to agree on anyway, and that's the sensation of being in a rut. What's worse is, the rut you are in seems to be two ruts that you jump back and forth from because it gets more and more difficult to decipher exactly what side you are arguing.

Earlier you said that, in your opinion, "it was more like the majority" of people who had given up because there seemed to realistically be nothing that could be done. But now you are arguing that the majority is comprised of people who are satisfied with the status quo, and thus, do nothing.

This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing...

You can't know that for sure, just as you can't know at this time what the end result will be.

And you maintaining the position that, just because you personally believe that what wikileaks IS DOING can't possibly make a difference their efforts should be equated with nothing being done, could in no way be considered frustrating for anyone else?

Actions are being taken and have been taken (otherwise_we_wouldn't_be_having_this_conversation_ right_now), the question remains as to why you are simply refusing to acknowledge them.

One possibility - You do nothing because you believe no one can, but now someone is doing something, and that calls into question your own path of choice or limited abilities. Well no one said you had to be a savior either, so why not give yourself a break.

[Y33TREKker]

...Why would the powers that be be any less than bold than they were before? 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? No, not even an apology from the president for not adequately supervising her. Hell, if anything, the results of wikileaks will encourage them to more corruption because they have seen that they will not be held accountable!!!!

As far as your apparent impatience and need for immediate action, have you never heard the saying that some things are worth the wait?

[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

This repeated concept is really starting to frustrate me. THERE ARE NO ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. You keep saying that something is being done about what comes out on wikileaks, but what is being done? Not a DAMNED thing. Its been weeks, nothing. Not even a news blip. the investigations can't be secret, it would do no good. Think of ENRON.
You can't even tell me what you are going to do in the worst case scenario, you are willing to sit back and wait for someone else to do it. At least I admit that I am going to do nothing but prepare for the worst. At least I am doing something. That is far better than doing nothing but waiting for someone else to take care of it for you...thus proving my point that America is full of folks just waiting to be told what to do.

Along the lines of being told what to do:
I just read an article yesterday that 31 of 35 major cities tested for chromium in tap water were well above the limits. Takes years for the government to enact any kind of controls. That means you need to filter your own water, especially for children. I did this 3 years ago. Our entire house has better than bottled water out of every tap in the house. As a matter of fact, by the little computer on my filtration system, it has filtered out 186lbs of solids in the last 835 days. (apparently power was out long enough to lose memory a few years ago).