Heres why Assange had to go from a public announcement to a Video conference release.
- Thread starter GeauxHerd
- Start date
That guy is going to end up at the bottom of the river.
Mysterious heart attack caused by a hole in the back of his head.
Mysterious heart attack caused by a hole in the back of his head.
The irony is that Trump said he could shoot someone and not lose his supporters. Hillary has actually proven that's already true with her supporters. What happens if the poor staffer that was killed turns out to be the leak in the DNC? Will her supports buy that it was just a coincidence and that he was killed during a robbery, but nothing was taken?
Also, then do they begin to question how hard the Dems pushed the Russians as the source and used it as an entire Trump loves Putin, the Russians are trying to determine our election narrative?
Also, then do they begin to question how hard the Dems pushed the Russians as the source and used it as an entire Trump loves Putin, the Russians are trying to determine our election narrative?
True Pundit is not wiki leaks. The claim is unsubstantiated, and the only sources are "sources at the state dept" which can't be verified.
I'll introduce you to irony. It's you believing that the "poor staffer" was bumped off by hillary supporters while questioning those that don't buy into your conspiracy theory.
Yep, they are the most skilled assassins in the history of the world. Ninja samurai illuminati shape shifters. You moron.
"Hillary and Bill have had plenty of people knocked off..."
Evidently you cannot read or refuse to do so. Clearly, Rockdog didn't say they personally committed the act.
The intellectually weak and dishonest positions both sides have to take to support their candidates is off the chart ludicrous. If the roles and deeds of either candidate were reversed everyone would be supporting the same points they are attacking. It's the fundamental weakness of an ideological mindset. Both candidates are so wrong for this country, but I swear it really doesn't matter how egregious the stuff we find out about them is, their supporters will continue to justify it.
Assange is a piece of shit self promoter and nothing more. je creates all this hype to bring attention to himself. Nothing he has will harm Hillary in any way
Really? I don't want you confused so I'll play along.
Bill and Hillary hire the most skilled assassins in the history of the world. Ninja samurai illuminati shape shifters.
At least this version would make sense, as it reflects more accurately what the poster stated.
You are correct. In the past I was guilty of doing the same thing. But I found I was being dishonest and lazy with my thinking so I changed. That's why I'm voting for neither in the election.
I'm amused that you didn't question the statement "Hillary and Bill have had plenty of other people knocked off". So I take it that consider that statement as fact.
It's neither lazy nor dishonest to argue against or for a particular candidate if you do it with the best data that can be found, and actually try to find that data. No one on here believes their candidate, past, present, or future are without flaw. And since you brought it up, it's not dishonest, but it IS lazy to vote for neither.
Yeah. I mean thats just ridiculous . . .
So, you're tired of lying about politics, and want to start lying about something you know less about.
My interest, at the moment, isn't regarding the claim. On the contrary, it is keeping you from twisting one's words, regardless of whether they are fact or fiction.
No...but what is dishonest is to defend a deed or action when it is done by your own candidate and then turn around and attack it when the exact same thing is done by your opponent. That's dishonest and lazy. You agree to that when I said it the first time. Now what you've done is state a completely different argument and try to pass it off as my original point.
He might very well be motivated by ego and the attention. I really can't speak to his intent. But if hidden agendas and alliances between politicians and big donors are exposed I'm all for it. History certainly had no problem with forcing Nixon to release the incriminating white house tapes. If he was able to destroy them it's quite possible that he denies any association with the break in and cover up and history would be written completely different and it would be based on a lie. Assange releasing some of the info he does is giving us a glimpse into the what really motivates these politicians and not with how they present it. I'm kind of for that.
If the emails and documents were exposing affairs or personal family stuff, I'd be less inclined to agree with their release. But if it exposes the political maneuverings and motivations behind decisions by our politicians I like that transparency.
It's sad that "real" journalist don't do their job anymore. For that reason we actually need people like Assange and, as much as I hate to say it, Snowden. The press is suppose to be the mechanism to shine a constant light on our government. It is a fundamental requirement of the functioning of our system and why freedom of speech and freedom of the press were so highly placed by the founding fathers.
Hmm...still trying to find where I said anything about agreeing with what Rockdog said.
Hurts to be wrong, doesn't it?
greed is feeling a bit down because he has chastised Trump for taking losses on tad deductions while he himself has taken similar deductions with his business.
Snowden is a niave little shit, and Massage a rapist, but otherwise I agree. Big "print" media is cutting budgets for in-depth investigative journalism. The 24 hour news stations are not going to do that sort of thing, that was never the design of such enterprises. And "network news" simply does not have the time format for it. The days of WashPo giving page after page to digging dirt are long gone.
Nope. Not changing the argument. If we are lazy and dishonest by defending our candidates on this forum, then you are lazy and dishonest when you vote, since by your vote you are defending that candidate against the other. So, whether we do it by word or at the voting booth, it's the same.
I'm not wrong. You bypassed an outright lie by Dog to refute a satiric statement I made, and then justify it by stating you don't want me twisting someones words. What a joke you are.
Similar threads
