More WikileaksFollow

Why because I believe that the actions of those whom I employ should be readily available for me to review. To me it sounds like you are content to let your government give you cake, and tell when and how to eat it.

seriously.

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT FUNNY! IT IS SO FUNNY! MY MOM SAYS SO!



Oh no, you misunderstand. We're not going to be doing much debating. I don't take your arguments seriously enough to waste my time seriously debating with you. See, this little exchange was a litmus, and you failed about as horribly as one could. I might talk AT you, as I sometimes do to gbaji or varus, but to me you're just a source of flawed and problematic arguments, that are occasionally amusing to work through. But overall, I think you're more of a "gbaji," only far less effectual through lack of experience and knowledge. Maybe Gbaji lite-- a fair substitute when you're trying to cut back, but doesn't leave you as satisfied as downing the real thing.



Not when the subject is someone's death. But I already got that your social graces are impressively lacking. You don't need to give me real-life examples.

Dumbest thing said today by someone who generally agrees with me, party lines be damned.

Well it was also kind of a stupid point to connect common state interest restrictions of liberty to acts of espionage, to be fair.

I don't normally offer, but it is the season of giving: If you give me your mailing address, I'll send you a free supply of diuretics. They will help you to not be so full of ****.

I think you mean laxatives. Diuretics inhibit reabsorption thru the loops of Henle in the kidneys thereby encouraging the passing of urine.

Having said that..You were right about Alma.

Specifically in the descending limb of the loop of Henle.

Some compounds, such as caffeine, can be considered diuretics because of their secondary biochemical reactions. Caffeine, for example, inhibits phosphodiesterase which causes excess cAMP. The excess cAMP will then activate cAMP dependent calcium pumps that release calcium ions from inner cell storages. Some of this calcium escapes the cell via plasma membrane ion channels. Water then follows the calcium out of the cell due to osmosis. This can occur in the intestinal lining leading to water in the intestinal tract, though the majority of the water does indeed enter the blood stream to be processed by the kidneys.




Edited, Dec 21st 2010 2:08pm by Bardalicious

It must be awfully nice to be so delusional that when people dismiss you as too stupid to be worth their time, you interpret it as some concession. So basically my options are:
1) Concede that you're right.
2) Argue with you indefinitely (you'll never admit that you're wrong, and probably insist that you've proven yourself right numerous times over the course of the argument).
3) Dismiss you as a hopeless **** (which you'll interpret as a victory).

Congratulations on inventing a fantasy world where you're infallible.



Oh, but I guess I was wrong. About diuretics anyway. Thanks; can't believe I mixed that up.

(See, Alma, that's an example of me being big enough to admit that I'm wrong-- something I'd do for you if I ever catch you in the act of being right-- rather than trying to execute semantic gymnastics to explain why you **** through your ****.)

Fantasy world? I do believe I have admitted to being wrong in my arguments more than anyone else has.



That doesn't even make any sense. You said that jokes about someone death isn't funny. I asked you questions in response.

You responded with nothing relevant to the topic, so I assumed that you realized that you were wrong.

and the law of sexual harrasment in the USA does not apply to him. He has not broken any american laws. He has done nothing illegal because he has no laws that can be applied to him. The only one who can be held responsible is the one who gave him the information the American to whom the laws apply.

If the US detains or he mysteriously dies or disappears (which will likely be done by US authorities or even if it is not will be widely assumed as such.) It will basically say to the rest of the world anything said or written that is anit-american in context or action will be policed and punished under american law. Which is a long way of saying, its ok to talk about america but not agaisnt them.

You can continually line up laws that are applicable in your country but those laws mean nothing because this man is not an American. He is above american laws and has the Right to do whatever he wants. Now if there are laws in his country that specifically state he can not release details of foreign governments goings on, then he is liable under those laws. But since none of that has come up, and it most certainly would have already, he has done nothing illegal.

Christ your so retarded.....(America =/= worldwide law) you should quit the military and reprogram your brain and actually learn ****, instead of relying on what you are told to think.

There's a huge gaping hole in the argument that a foreign citizen cannot be subject to any action by our government because our laws don't apply to him. And if you think really hard about it, it might just come to you.

Nah... Who am I kidding! I'll give you a hint: Enemy soldiers haven't broken any US laws either.




No. It'll say to the rest of the world that if you run an espionage operation and solicit/steal secrets from the US government, we'll take action against you regardless of whether you were acting on behalf of a government. Why would you think this is unusual in anyway? If Assange were the head of a foreign nation's intelligence organization, we'd treat him the same way, right? If we had a shot at taking him out, we certainly might take it, especially if he'd just taken some action against us.


I guess my question here is the same one I have when we debate valid responses to terrorism. Why is it that we have this tendency to provide greater protection to someone committing acts of espionage or war when they are *not* members of a government and bound by the rules and treaties than when they are? Isn't that backwards?