In before Julian Assange...

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Generalizing about "people" like me makes you look stupid. Focus on what I asked and said and keep it there. Frankly I don't spend any time reading your stump speeches.

I'm not generalizing. You've made your views about politics public. It's easy to deduce what kind of Conservative you are by your past and present posts, reading your signature, etc. I didn't need to 'generalize' or assume anything, all the evidence is right in front of me.

Originally Posted by Innoc

I did in fact make that assertion. If you scroll up you can see where I posted that earlier. I asked that as I was unable to find any legitimate news source with either a direct quote or sound byte from Wikileaks or even Assange himself. If it's good enough to show on some site in a dark corner of the net then it surely will make it onto some major source like bbc? msnbc? CNN? Drudge? Fox? None of them?

And then you can find the following quote from the article you linked:

So is this your only source? And that source cannot quote anything from Wikileaks?

If the source is REALLY that big of an issue (Are you really asking me to get an article from the MSM for you? Uh oh!) you could have easily just verified the claim by extracting the quotes that are referenced in the TechNewsWorld article from Pentagon/Defense Officials, and plugged them into Google to see if they were real.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%5BT%5Dhe+Depar...d+documents%2C

There you go. Nearly 9,000 results, and the Pentagon's own press release is in the top results. Hopefully you'll excuse me for not spending an extra 30 seconds trying to confirm my previous 10-second Google search.

Originally Posted by Innoc

I made my comments on Assange based on what I'd observed from his publicly visible actions in the past. I speculated based on his track record. Barring anything new...I stand by that.

What are you referencing? Assange has never made any gaffes or said anything stupid in public.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc...ileaks/?hpt=T2

[GenghisTron]

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632

[Iggy]

Thank you! I am probably going to be placed to a terror watch list, but fuck it, I'm following them anyway.

[moosh]

WikiLeaks now hosted at 507 locations, planet wide http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

[BinaryLife]

Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.

If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.

Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked. This is the same as any news organization in America, and isn't limited to him. However, since his product is direct quotes and leaks from governments he should be a little more tactful and create less of a hero mentality. I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house. Unless it is a real live actual order, then I honestly am not interested it, and plastering it all over the internet as if you are a hero fighting the good fight makes you a douche bag. A rather large douche bag.

Just watch C-Span, you can find plenty of politicians saying things that will make you shocked and sick to know they have power. I assume you'll over exaggerate my view points though. Take my advice too personally, or do something to imply I believe something I don't. Just be nice.

[Iggy]

The thing is, this is bringing attention to the average person who won't watch c-span, or any of the political channels. Like it or not, he IS doing a service to the average American. Many sheeple would prefer to keep their heads in the sand over shit the government does. Either because they feel there is nothing they can do, or because they want to remain blind to anything they may not agree with.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.

More like, let's keep responses as narrow as everyone else's intellect.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.

If someone makes the claim that Julian Assange is an idiot, and I know that claim is baseless and unsupported by the person who made it because his political position inspires him to say dumb shit, then it is pointless to argue with any sincerity against the point itself. You would be wasting your time attacking a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself. Want to fall a tree? Attack the root, stop wasting your time flailing around in the branches like a bitch.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked. This is the same as any news organization in America, and isn't limited to him. However, since his product is direct quotes and leaks from governments he should be a little more tactful and create less of a hero mentality. I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house. Unless it is a real live actual order, then I honestly am not interested it, and plastering it all over the internet as if you are a hero fighting the good fight makes you a douche bag. A rather large douche bag.

Yes, because we all know irrelevant, over-hyped, normally overlooked information warrants a global arrest request, calls for execution by previous presidential candidates, consistent denial of service attacks, bank-freezes and service terminations, and all that, right? Comparing the work Julian Assange does to something any news organization does in America is a fucking laughable comparison. He has the hero mentality because he's a goddamn boss doing a thousand times more than any fake ass news organization would. Also, it's obvious you haven't taken a look at the actual leaks themselves if you think they're just some transcripts of smalltalk by the water fountain at the pentagon. Essentially, this is a case of your ignorance and inexperience fueling false assumptions, which motivates me to figuratively punch you in the dick instead of wish to discuss this with you like an adult.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by Iggy

The thing is, this is bringing attention to the average person who won't watch c-span, or any of the political channels. Like it or not, he IS doing a service to the average American. Many sheeple would prefer to keep their heads in the sand over shit the government does. Either because they feel there is nothing they can do, or because they want to remain blind to anything they may not agree with.

I agree that he is doing a service. But I think he's doing it wrong. I also feel like more people should go out of their way to watch cspan and other new sources that aren't fox. Real news and real transparency is a must in order to find out if the people we put in power are doing the jobs we want them to. And since we put them there they do need to answer to us for the things they say and do.

See now I went on a confusing tangent. Bottom line is that I agree we need more sources that cut through the bs and show us these types of articles. I absolutely agree. But I don't like the way assange is doing itm

[Iggy]

Yeah, I think he's going about it wrong, as well. But realistically, what choice does he have? It's getting attention, and while it's controvertial, it IS getting attention by people who won't seek that information out on thier own. Now that he's in custody, everyone and their great uncle is going to be trying to extradite him.

[Bridget]

What is wrong with it?

[Iggy]

Frankly, it's only getting people that might believe it to look at it, and of those, only the industrious ones at that. There are still people who look at him as some kind of nut, that he's making all this up(despite the government not denying any of it), and of course, the ones want his head of a plate for "treason against the United States" just on principles.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

I'm not generalizing. You've made your views about politics public. It's easy to deduce what kind of Conservative you are by your past and present posts, reading your signature, etc. I didn't need to 'generalize' or assume anything, all the evidence is right in front of me.

Stick to what's posted in the thread. Your deductions about me are completely wrong and you're only making yourself look bad. You've clearly confused me with someone else and you clearly can't aggregate and attribute impressions with any accuracy. Also, who's to say that someone's views don't shift over time.

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

If the source is REALLY that big of an issue (Are you really asking me to get an article from the MSM for you? Uh oh!) you could have easily just verified the claim by extracting the quotes that are referenced in the TechNewsWorld article from Pentagon/Defense Officials, and plugged them into Google to see if they were real.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%5BT%5Dhe+Depar...d+documents%2C

There you go. Nearly 9,000 results, and the Pentagon's own press release is in the top results. Hopefully you'll excuse me for not spending an extra 30 seconds trying to confirm my previous 10-second Google search.

Again...you focus on the wrong thing and miss my point. Wikileaks NEVER offered to collaborate. Period. You cannot find a link that shows anything from Assange or Wikileaks that shows an offer of collaboration. That is the point you keep missing.

Originally Posted by GenghisTron

What are you referencing? Assange has never made any gaffes or said anything stupid in public.

What I am referencing is his past behavior. Look at it. His profile is that of an anarchist or damned close to it. The last thing someone fitting his profile would do is collaborate with any government. I don't believe that he wants to "improve" the quality of Govt...I believe he wants to take them down.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Genghis, sometimes when you have a point you drown out your own thoughts with nonsense. It makes it difficult to follow, and causes a lot of confusion. You then get annoyed when other people find you difficult to converse with and you get even more confusing. You need to keep your responses as narrow as the conversation.

I disagree. People sometimes make extraneous things about themselves known by how they act, and other queues. Someone like Innoc fits a popular profile shared by a lot of people, and it's easy to extrapolate that by queues he gives off in his posts and otherwise. I realize that judging a persons character isn't a valid argument, but my attempt is not to always make a valid argument, but rather, persuade someone. I'm a polemicist, I'm good at making my case and getting people to think like me. Part of getting people to agree with me, is to criticize by trying to show them the flaws in their own thinking. If I wanted to keep everything strictly fact-based and keep the debate as narrow as possible, it would be awful boring, and I'd basically just be regurgitating Wikipedia, negating the need for actual debate. Debating is a binary thing, and I agree you should avoid logical fallacies, I don't think extraneous arguments like the ones you and Innoc are criticizing me for are off-limits.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

If I say, I think Assange is and idiot. And you want to argue that, then focus your responses on why he is intelligent, and why I'm wrong to think he's an idiot. You shouldn't go on tirades about my resulting, inferred political beliefs and further confuse the discussion because then people stop caring.

Again, I respectfully disagree. There's reasons why people believe certain things, and unless you attack the reasons why people believe (wrongly) in certain ideologies, you'll never convince them that your position is better. Despite what most people think, the vast, vast, vast majority of people never challenge their own views, and this is why my style of debate is necessary. My goal is to find the ultimate truth, and the way to find the ultimate truth is to debate on the battlefield of ideas, and to also show people how I'm right. That is the zenith of debate, everyone thinks they're right, and they want to convince other people to agree with them. As I pointed out, people will believe in certain things for reasons other than pure logic and reason, and this is why keeping the debate as narrow as possible is dull and nothing more than a nicety, and not an actual rule of debating.

Also, don't confuse my style of polemicism with ad hominems, since people always bring this up. People will often accuse me (wrongly) of using an ad hominem when I go on extraneous rants. An ad hominem is when you attack someone personally INSTEAD of debating their argument. When I debate, I sometimes 'attack' people, but it's not in place of an argument, it IS an argument.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

Now, the problem with Assange, is that much of what is leaked is irrelevant, but since he wants views and attention he hypes up things that would otherwise be overlooked.

Conjecture. Assange certainly isn't one to look for attention or to overblow things. If you have ever followed any of his earlier philosophical rants from his earlier years, you'd see he's entirely sincere in his goal. I also disagree what he's leaking is irrelevant, ESPECIALLY considering the most recent leak showed us that there's widespread corruption in Afghanistan, and is so bad our own diplomats don't even have any faith in it. You really think that's irrelevant? Don't you think Americans would like to know they're spending TRILLIONS of dollars in Iraq/Afghanistan, all to find out that it's pretty much a waste because drug runners have effectively shut down the Government are using it for their own benefit? It seems pretty clear to me that you haven't even followed the leaks and are just relying on what you heard on TV. There's PLENTY of relevant things we're learning from WikiLeaks. Some of the lessons are existential in nature, for instance, the recent leaks are basically confirming for us that the Emperor has no clothes.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

create less of a hero mentality.

This is your own (flawed) extrapolation of what Wikipedia/Assange stand for. Wikileaks has really only had any notoriety in the media since the 'collateral murder' video was released earlier this year. It's been less than a year, and you're already convinced he has a 'hero mentality' despite the fact that he's been largely marginalized and unheard of in the short 4 years he and WikiLeaks have been around?

[quote=BinaryLife;479305]I like that there is someone to show us what our government is doing. But I also don't care what a political official mumbles to his friends when he's walking through the walls of the white house.

Do you care that our Secretary of State is concerning herself and her staff with essentially stealing the identities of foreign leaders and diplomats? While you're right that a majority of the recent cable leaks are mundane and boring (About 150,000 cables are barely secret, non-classified information), it's still nice to actually have SOME transparency.

Originally Posted by BinaryLife

I assume you'll over exaggerate my view points though. Take my advice too personally, or do something to imply I believe something I don't. Just be nice.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Stick to what's posted in the thread. Your deductions about me are completely wrong and you're only making yourself look bad. You've clearly confused me with someone else and you clearly can't aggregate and attribute impressions with any accuracy. Also, who's to say that someone's views don't shift over time.

Read what I typed to BinaryLife above.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Again...you focus on the wrong thing and miss my point.

Actually, the only counter-argument you've made to mine is that I gave you an unreliable media source to back up my claim, and then you continued to support your unprovable claim that they never offered a 'bonafide offer of collaboration'. I then offered up a more reliable source, and now I'm missing the point.

I know, Innoc, you're a victim and a very busy person.

Originally Posted by Innoc

Wikileaks NEVER offered to collaborate. Period. You cannot find a link that shows anything from Assange or Wikileaks that shows an offer of collaboration. That is the point you keep missing.

Again, you're repeating a bold-faced lie, for which you have produced not a single shred of evidence to support, while on the contrary, I have.

Since this is apparently a very hard concept to swallow, let's try it again.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...uest-for-help/

The Pentagon rebuffed a WikiLeaks request for help reviewing 15,000 classified documents about the war in Afghanistan. Instead, it demanded the online whistleblower return all of the logs to the U.S. government and abandon plans to publish them.

Timothy Matusheski, a lawyer who says he represents WikiLeaks, had reached out to the Pentagon to discuss ways to minimize the risk to civilians who may be identified in the yet-to-be-published documents. WikiLeaks has already released some 76,000 classified documents covering the war from 2004 to 2010, leaked by a source the website has refused to identify.


The Pentagon said it believes that the 15,000 additional documents, like the initial batch, contain the names of Afghans who have helped the U.S. war effort and who could be targeted by the Taliban if their identities were made public.


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told the Associated Press in Stockholm that the Pentagon had expressed a willingness to discuss the group’s request for help going through the 15,000 documents.


The Pentagon acknowledged that it had arranged a phone call on Sunday between its general counsel, Jeh Charles Johnson, and Matusheski. But Matusheski was a “no-show for the call,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.


Matusheski disputed the Pentagon’s assertion that he missed a phone call on Sunday, telling Washington Wire he was never told that one was scheduled. He said WikiLeaks has set up a network interface to allow the Pentagon to review the 15,000 documents, but that the response from the department “didn’t leave any room for negotiation.”


In a letter to Matusheski released on Wednesday, Johnson said the Pentagon would not collaborate with WikiLeaks. “The Department of Defense will not negotiate some ‘minimized’ or ‘sanitized’ version of a release by WikiLeaks of additional U.S. government classified documents,” Johnson wrote in the Aug. 16 letter.


“The department demands that nothing further be released by WikiLeaks, that all of the U.S. government classified documents that WikiLeaks has obtained be returned immediately, and that WikiLeaks remove and destroy all of these records from its databases,” Johnson added.


The U.S. says it is investigating army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning as a possible source of the leak.


The documents touch on unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings by North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and covert operations against Taliban figures, among other things.


WikiLeaks’ supporters say the accounts of the conflict should be publicized to show potential war crimes and the toll of the war.


The Pentagon has said that posting more documents would be “the height of irresponsibility.”

If the Pentagon in the past refused to collaborate with WikiLeaks, then clearly an offer was struck in secret. Despite popular belief, not everyone wishes to make everything they do public, especially when you're the head of an organization that exposes secrets, and blood thirsty Statists want you assassinated.

Originally Posted by Innoc

What I am referencing is his past behavior. Look at it. His profile is that of an anarchist or damned close to it.

He's publicly said that his ideas on Government closely mimic market (American) libertarianism. I'm not a minarchist, nor am I founding father nuthugger, but I think it goes without saying that someone demanding transparency is someone who has his head in the right place. Giving Government a complete, unquestioned monopoly on law, force, and information is the ultimate legitimization of the power of Big Government, moreso than raising taxes and forcing us to fill out census forms

Originally Posted by Innoc

The last thing someone fitting his profile would do is collaborate with any government. I don't believe that he wants to "improve" the quality of Govt...I believe he wants to take them down.

More baseless conjecture. You still have not supported this argument with a shred of proof. Come back when you can.

[GenghisTron]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...d-dancing-boys

[Iggy]

You expect educated patriotic Americans to believe a foreign news source? Especially a British one? Shame on you!

[Bridget]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

:>

[Iggy]

You expect educated patriotic Americans to believe a news source that differs from their beliefs? Shame on you!

[GenghisTron]

Yea, 'cuz only Americans do that.