Links!
We want links!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free Assange!
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
We want links!
Which is, in your opinion?
He exposed illegal citizen surveillance.
Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians & even Greens should all oppose it.
Actually, I wasn't opposed to the surveillance.
It's two sides of a sword concerning security and privacy. It's the phone encryption debate with the FBI. I'm fine if the FBI can decrypt the phone for the national security.
I'm honestly fine if the government is parsing my emails or going through my phone calls. Simply, because I'm not doing anything illegal. My life is boring as it is.
What has he done that wasn't partisan?
His most influential work might not be what you think is his greatest.
You seem to think that Hillary was a problem because she did illegal and self serving things. Why isn't that such a problem when your boys, Trump and Assange, do that sort of thing?
Tom
Well most of us have things to hide.
So if government types want to see it, they should do it legally.
But if they do it illegally, they should go to prison.
See post #23.
Who said Trump doing illegal things isn't a problem?
We'll see what they can prosecute him for.
I'm all for putting more politicians in jail.
You're letting prejudice cloud your thinking.
Who decides what is "legal" or "illegal?"
RIght... The government based on their understanding of the constitution. I won't argue that point though if you feel it's all been illegal. I'll just go with your opinion.
The USSC, for one.
The CIA has been caught doing it before.
CIA admits to spying on Senate staffers
Here is info it's leaked....
WikiLeaks - Wikipedia
If I understand Assange's ideals correctly, he is an advocate of information regardless of their privacy, security or legal statuses?
If he could, he would publish anything regardless of the laws involved?
So, you are arguing for and against the same ideals? No?
I'm not so ready to accept your version of his ideals.
What do you think his ideals are?
IMO, he disguises himself and his website as a source of unbiased material but they definitely are not. I am saying he pretends to be a champion of full unbiased disclosures regardless if the material was legally attained.
If we agree with his "public" front-facing ideal, then isn't it a bit conflicting to then disagree with the government's effort on furthering full disclosures?
No, you are.
I see Assange as someone who created a bunch of fake news, using the best lying technique around, the partial truth. He only managed to expose the "Truth" his partisan compadres wanted exposed. And it worked. The USA took a big hit. The Democratic party took a big hit.
Trump and Putin won the rigged election, hugely, in the most powerful society on the planet. The USA.
Well, not that hugely. They lost the popular election. But you did win!
You wanted Trump to win, Putin wanted Trump to win. ExxonMobil and Walmart wanted Trump to win. Assange helped hugely to make that happen.
But I expect Assange to "face justice", the same way Saddam Hussein did. When the real Powers didn't need him anymore and it was more expedient to throw him to the wolves.
Assange is $_(# ed.
And I don't have much sympathy.
Tom
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Hillary and co. lost all by themselves despite attempting to exploit the fruits of cultivated social engineering and a massive media cheerleading squad to back her up. Putin was not needed nor is there any concrete proof that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and the purported evidence released was at best a bad joke. Our numerous domestic propaganda outlets and media conglomerates are far more concerning to me as far as undermining our democracy than any foreign source.
I hadn't considered them.
He hasn't told me, so I'll just judge what he does.
Everyone has a political bias.
So the issue is whether they accomplish a net good.
Are you Pee Wee Herman now?
Meh...pure whataboutism.
And were it fake news, one would've expected denials & debunking.
("Fake news"....isn't that a standard Trump tactic to use against his foes?)
I notice that many people were positively disposed towards Wikileaks &
Assange before the presidential campaign. But after he played a role in
exposing her & the DNC's corruption (leaked debate questions, sabotaging
Bernie), now he's a pariah to anti-Trumpers. Fickle they are.
I guess this means I'll be rooting for his freedom,
& you'll be chanting, "Lock'm up!", eh?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
When the law is corrupt or unjust, it's okay to overstep it.
Aye, we're confronted with this at times.
You've a great germ of an idea for thread, but I suspect
that soliciting examples would run afoul of the rules.
In a nutshell, he ticked off some powerful people.