Jump to content

julian assange dead pool


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I love the idea of transparency. Why does this need to be a partisan issue? The most blatant of the usual meatheads have chimed in in unison.

Here's some homework for you: next time your wife asks you "Do these pants make me look fat," tell her "No, your ass does."

 

Then get back to us about the benefits of transparency over discretion.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: It's been 3 days, so this post has earned a:

 

"No reply. There's no reply at all. Ohhh, ohhh, no reply at all."

4. All the minions who carried out those attacks last week against companies who, based on their own freewill cut ties with wikileaks are in hiding or talking online behind a veil of anonymity.

 

Assange is a fraud and a fake and so are his followers.

For the last time, Anon are not the minions of Assange, or anybody. The are only loyal to memes, until they become overdone, or something comes along that either creates a new meme, or diverts their attention elsewhere.

 

There is no "plan" because their are no "leaders". If there were leaders, they certainly wouldn't be pissants like Assange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: It's been 3 days, so this post has earned a:

 

"No reply. There's no reply at all. Ohhh, ohhh, no reply at all."

Do you seriously have nothing better to do? Do you really think that "next time your wife asks you 'Do these pants make me look fat,' tell her 'No, your ass does.'" is an argument that is crying out for a response? If you recall, all I actually said was "I love the idea of transparency." I love the idea of you getting punched in the face, but that doesn't mean it's something that I've thought all the way through or something that should be done.

 

You see, I'm not always all about trying to win an argument. If somebody coherently presents an opposing view in less that 5 paragraphs, I'll think about it for a while. If it makes more sense than what I was originally thinking, I'll even change my mind - crazy, I know! There were some good arguments presented in this thread about a subject I didn't really have a strong opinion about it to begin with. I did the same with the global warming debate, though I started with a much stronger opinion on that topic. On both of these subjects, I'm now in a wait-and-see mode. We'll see what affect these leak sites and their transparency have in the long-term just like we'll see what the science bears out with global warming. I know, that makes me a flip/flopper, right?

 

So anyway, once in a while I'll choke my way through one of your shorter posts and I cannot recall a single instance of you behaving in the fashion I have just described. You, sir, are no flip-flopper. So, could you please describe in words what it's like to have it all figured out? Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the whole way wikileaks operates to be disingenuous and ironic. If the purpose of my “media” organization is to promote transparency in world governments, I’d first apply a 80/20 rule knowing that you cannot possible categorize and interpret all the data coming into wilkileaks. Make a list of governments that have closed societies and secrete governments and put them at the top of the list. Governments like North Korea, China, Iran, Russia etc.. and concentrate most of my efforts on them.

 

It is quite clear what the true motivation of the wikileaks is and it’s not transparency in government but is to knock down the US and its cultural influences in the world.

 

The whole ironic thing is that wikileaks would have never gotten such information from a government that was not as transparent as the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you seriously have nothing better to do? Do you really think that "next time your wife asks you 'Do these pants make me look fat,' tell her 'No, your ass does.'" is an argument that is crying out for a response? If you recall, all I actually said was "I love the idea of transparency." I love the idea of you getting punched in the face, but that doesn't mean it's something that I've thought all the way through or something that should be done.

 

You see, I'm not always all about trying to win an argument. If somebody coherently presents an opposing view in less that 5 paragraphs, I'll think about it for a while. If it makes more sense than what I was originally thinking, I'll even change my mind - crazy, I know! There were some good arguments presented in this thread about a subject I didn't really have a strong opinion about it to begin with. I did the same with the global warming debate, though I started with a much stronger opinion on that topic. On both of these subjects, I'm now in a wait-and-see mode. We'll see what affect these leak sites and their transparency have in the long-term just like we'll see what the science bears out with global warming. I know, that makes me a flip/flopper, right?

 

So anyway, once in a while I'll choke my way through one of your shorter posts and I cannot recall a single instance of you behaving in the fashion I have just described. You, sir, are no flip-flopper. So, could you please describe in words what it's like to have it all figured out? Thanks in advance.

Blah, blah, blah, Tom gave you homework. Rather than doing it, you come crying to me?

 

I am also in wait and see mode on Global warming, and always have been. I have have been telling the chicken littles to stop and think: who benefits from the chicken little scheme? Before we go running around destroying our entire economy, we need to consider the source.

 

I have it all figured out because: I'm not a f'ing idiot.

 

Now go do your homework. It's an easy assignment. Now get to it.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah, blah, blah, Tom gave you homework. Rather than doing it, you come crying to me?

 

I am also in wait and see mode on Global warming, and always have been. I have have been telling the chicken littles to stop and think: who benefits from the chicken little scheme?

 

I have it all figured out because: I'm not a f'ing idiot.

 

Now go do your homework. It's an easy assignment. Now get to it.

The point, retard, is that you are incapable of considering that you might be wrong about, oh say...anything.

 

I can almost guarantee that nearly everyone in your life thinks this about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point, retard, is that you are incapable of considering that you might be wrong about, oh say...anything.

 

I can almost guarantee that nearly everyone in your life thinks this about you.

<me IRL>

Actually quite the opposite.

Hint: this is a message board. You are taking this....way too seriously. If I ever met you IRL, I'd buy you a beer, goof around, and have fun, like I always do.

</me IRL>

Now do your homework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<me IRL>

Actually quite the opposite.

Hint: this is a message board. You are taking this....way too seriously. If I ever met you IRL, I'd buy you a beer, goof around, and have fun, like I always do.

</me IRL>

Now do your homework.

I'm not the one keeping tabs for three days, toolbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one keeping tabs for three days, toolbox.

I'm not the one who can be so easily manipulated by an obscure Genesis reference.

 

Who are you more pissed at?

Tom for assigning you homework you can't do,

Tom for proving you wrong and/or silly with 2 sentences,

or me for laughing at you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one who can be so easily manipulated by an obscure Genesis reference.

 

Who are you more pissed at?

Tom for assigning you homework you can't do,

Tom for proving you wrong and/or silly with 2 sentences,

or me for laughing at you?

 

Whoa, wait a minute, back up Sparky. I didn't prove him wrong or silly, or assign him homework. I was illustrating the point, with a familiar vignette, that there's more to the issue than just "transparency" and "secrecy", and just maybe knee-jerk blanket statements of "Assmange is a terrorist" or "I 'heart' transparancy" are rather facile.

 

I was trying to promote thought, not assign homework or prove anyone wrong/silly. Particularly the last...God knows most of you nitwits don't need my prompting to look silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, wait a minute, back up Sparky. I didn't prove him wrong or silly, or assign him homework. I was illustrating the point, with a familiar vignette, that there's more to the issue than just "transparency" and "secrecy", and just maybe knee-jerk blanket statements of "Assmange is a terrorist" or "I 'heart' transparancy" are rather facile.

 

I was trying to promote thought, not assign homework or prove anyone wrong/silly. Particularly the last...God knows most of you nitwits don't need my prompting to look silly.

Oh, leave him alone, he has no concept of what you're talking about. Everything is right or wrong, black or white with OCinBuffalo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, wait a minute, back up Sparky. I didn't prove him wrong or silly, or assign him homework. I was illustrating the point, with a familiar vignette, that there's more to the issue than just "transparency" and "secrecy", and just maybe knee-jerk blanket statements of "Assmange is a terrorist" or "I 'heart' transparancy" are rather facile.

 

I was trying to promote thought, not assign homework or prove anyone wrong/silly. Particularly the last...God knows most of you nitwits don't need my prompting to look silly.

See, I can't win for losing. I was going to write a complete response to this, which would have induced crying about length.

Instead, I wrote a short one, which I hoped would be taken in the proper context, and I have induced crying about content. :D

 

I should have said "proved wrong/silly TO ME".

 

And why? Because unlike Gene, you and I have the backgrounds as well as understanding of world events and history to know that nations need secrets. Not necessarily secrets for nefarious purposes, but because blabbing everything we know to every GeneFrenkle so we can say "see, it's TRANSPARENT" is not only worthless, it's pointless.

 

The sheer amount of data alone is not something that is worth disseminating. Look at what Assange has released, what was so important? What did he accomplish? 87k pages of stuff....and we find out Karzei is a loon. I knew that by watching an interview wit the guy. So, again, most of this is worthless.

 

Discretion, is, by definition, discrete. If we want to just blab everything we hear to everybody we meet, so that GeneFrenkle gets to transparently know that a Polish diplomat poops in a bag, awesome! Yeah, people won't want to tell us anything, because we can't keep private things to ourselves. If we can't be trusted to STFU, then we can't prevent war with diplomacy, it's a simple as that.

 

It only takes on meaning once "intelligence" has been created. That is something we don't want getting out: because that tips people off as to "how" and "what" we are thinking, which is a whole other ballgame.

 

Ultimately, I am laughing at Gene's attachment to, yet again, a platitude. In this case "transparency". I am beginning to think Gene goes through life saying "measure twice, cut once" every 5 minutes.

 

You know that commercial where the tool keeps saying "this is gonna be a win/win"? I am starting to think that's Gene....and that makes me :lol:

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And why? Because unlike Gene, you and I have the backgrounds as well as understanding of world events and history to know that nations need secrets.

 

Tom and OC stroking each other's egos? This could need its own sub-forum.

Edited by Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...