Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "A man with a briefcase can steak more money than a man with a gun. I think that's Assange." Steak, steal. It's dinnertime.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I don't believe that at all. But in this particular case, Nixon was the tipping point. It was his administration that tried to discredit Dr. Ellsberg by the Gordon Liddy break-in of his therapist's office. The dirty tricks team of Liddy's went after Democrats and anti-war protestors, all at the behest of Nixon.>> Either you are not aware of the history or you are revising it. The release of the Pentagon Papers did NOTHING to discredit Nixon over the Watergate break-in. The Watergate break-in occurred AFTER the New York Times had already published the information from Ellsberg. The Watergate break-in was a REACTION to that release, in an attempt to discredit Ellsberg. To say that revealing the dirty tricks of the White House was a motivating factor for Ellsberg is pure fantasy on your part. Unless Ellsberg was prescient of what was to come, releasing the information had NOTHING TO DO with exposing the White House dirty tricks. Your comparison of Ellsberg to Assange is absolutely ludicrous and indicates that either you don't know your history or are living in a fantasyland.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Either you are not aware of the history or you are revising it. The release of the Pentagon Papers did NOTHING to discredit Nixon over the Watergate break-in.>> Why don't you try reading my post again. Here's what I wrote: "It was his administration that tried to discredit Dr. Ellsberg by the Gordon Liddy break-in of his therapist's office." Nixon tried to discredit Ellsberg. That's what I wrote. Liddy and his dirty tricks team tried to find dirt on Ellsberg in his therapist's office at the Watergate Hotel. Of course this occurred AFTER the Pentagon Papers were published. That's the whole point of attempting to discredit him. Nowhere did I imply that Ellsberg was releasing the Pentagon Papers to expose the dirty tricks. That's what you read into it. Ellsberg released the papers to expose Nixon's ongoing deception to the American people about the war. Others who came before Nixon also were exposed. But Nixon was the President at the time, and therefore, fully responsible for keeping the war going. Ellsberg did the right thing in exposing his involvement. Your blind hatred for me for not standing by your hatred for Assange is affecting your ability to read my posts. And no matter what anyone else on this board believes, I do think that there are enough similarities between what Assange is doing and what Ellsberg did to compare the two.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Your blind hatred for me>> Now that is the craziest comment I've read yet. More Skinner paranoia. Frankly I don't give a rip about you one way or the other. I don't know you. I think some of your comments are are over the edge, but that is as far as it goes.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've herd that a future Assange leak will be a list of those men who have a prescription to Viagra. Now he will be shut down FOR SURE!! ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip herd/heard. Hate that spell-check can't tell when the word is spelled correctly but it is the wrong word!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Now that is the craziest comment I've read yet. More Skinner paranoia.>> What other conclusion would you have me draw given YOUR actions? You completely misread and/or misinterpreted what I posted about Ellsberg and the Watergate break-in, then proceed to tell me that I'm rewriting history or that I live in fantasyland and have all kinds of irrational paranoia for the Republicans. You absolutely despise Assange. We all get that. But a few of us on these boards are tacitly defending his actions, which obviously does not sit well with you. It's not "paranoid" to see your attacks against me and my posts as stemming from your hatred for Assange. I'm defending his actions, so you're naturally going to extend that hatred to anyone like me who doesn't project as much vitriol for the guy as you do. Sheesh.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Nah... I may hate Assange, but you are just an Assange groupie. I don't bother with groupies. They are a dime a dozen.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You absolutely despise Assange. We all get that. But a few of us on these boards are tacitly defending his actions, which obviously does not sit well with you." After doing some reading this evening, given what he's responsible for up until now, I fail to see how he can be rationally defended in any way. I actually think Gingrich has it right. He's now an enemy combatant.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat I'll defend Assange. I've been appreciative of Wikileaks for years, from back when they were releasing documents of corporate espionage and Scientology. The group began in December of 06; an awful long time to wait to jump on US interests if that was their/his motive. So this site operates for four years at an even keel, but some US political faces get some yoke on them, and now Assange is the demon. I recall the argument "if you don't have anything to hide, what's the problem?" brought up during the long reign of the Patriot Act, TSA overgrowth, etc. Now that the government is the one with something to hide, kill Assange? Oh, and RoadTrip, the 'insurance file' you mentioned that has been encrypted and distributed, Assange isn't the one holding the key. The key is set to publish if Assange gets 'suicided' or the site is censored. Keep pressing for that assassination, and we'll all get that file opened sooner. O'er land of the free, and the home of the brave~~
Originally Posted By Mr X Assange got nabbed in London on the Swedish warrant. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/07/uk.wikileaks.investigation/index.html?hpt=T1" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WO...l?hpt=T1</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Now that the government is the one with something to hide..." It goes beyond that, and that should be obvious. Disclosing locations key to the U.S.'s security reveals egg on whose face, exactly?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***and we'll all get that file opened sooner. *** And if that happens, people *will* die as a result. Lots of people. No way to know how many, but if any "assets" living in N. Korea, Iran, China, Russia, or any number of hostile states get outed, they're as good as dead. I'm reluctant to defend the Wikileaks project, but this "nuclear option" of theirs does smack of extortion and criminal, yes terrorist level, threats to the world. That in and of itself is enough to consider them terrorists imho, since they have clearly threatened to use it. Also, as I was reading on another site, it's entirely possible that they have *already* released this "insurance" or will soon, without knowing. There's no doubt that the best of the best cryptologists with enormous computing power at their disposal in any number of countries are all hard at work as we speak trying to crack open their copy (if they haven't already). Methinks the Wikileaks folks have already gone a bridge too far with their cloak and dagger poison pill crap. I'll defend Assange on the arrest though, that sounds to me like a trumped up load of BS designed to discredit him and thus Wikileaks itself so people won't be too upset when they get taken out using perhaps shady means to do so. That's my 2 cents, anyway. I don't really have a horse invested in this race. Generally I'm all about freedom of the press but threatening to explode a bomb (even an informational one) is over the top.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I'm reluctant to defend the Wikileaks project, but this "nuclear option" of theirs does smack of extortion and criminal, yes terrorist level, threats to the world*** Sorry, bad wording. I'm reluctant to ATTACK the Wikileaks project. Generally speaking I'm all for exposure and I don't believe that *just* because a government slaps the word "secret" on their misdeeds doesn't mean they have that right nor should such stuff remain buried, never to see the light of day. In that sense, I was behind Wikileaks all the way until recently.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Mr X Are you implying this is something that has happened before? If so, I'd really love to get pointed in the right historical direction. It hardly seems to be that they're some sort of terrorist "sleeper cell" in the normal sense of the term (with the caveat that, yes, their threat to expose all is a terrorist tactic).
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///"assets" living in N. Korea, Iran, China, Russia, or any number of hostile states get outed, they're as good as dead./// I just saw that movie again recently and Tom Cruise did a great job securing the "N.O.C. list" from Langley, Virginia.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'll defend Assange on the arrest though, that sounds to me like a trumped up load of BS>> <<Assange had sex with the second complainant, Miss W, on Aug. 17 without a condom WHILE SHE WAS ASLEEP at her Stockholm home.>> Source: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40...ecurity/</a> That certainly sounds like rape to me.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///That certainly sounds like rape to me./// Not so fast there.... I can think of a scenario or three where jumping on a sleeper is playing fair.
