More WikileaksFollow

Well, let's see. If I'm ******** around, but, you think I'm serious, then you missed the fact. If you think I was trying to convince you of something, when I was ******** around, then you think I was serious. This shouldn't be a tough connection, even for you.

Nice try, but I wasn't the one who initially made that jump. I do recall posters said that I was aligning myself to certain countries. Well guess what? How can I be aligning myself to a country unless you believe that they would do such a thing? Your only counter(which I can't believe you're actually now arguing) is that NO COUNTRY would do such a crime! Else, if there exist a country who would do such a crime, then that jump of logic is substantiated. Since history has proven that there are countries that would "illegally" kill, you are obviously wrong.

I've said numerous times over that it's not a coincidence that the people who think he's innocent didn't think that was funny and for the people who think he's guilty thought it was funny. If by "everyone", you mean the 3-4 posters who commented on the joke, then yes "everyone", but that doesn't mean anything. You're just saying "everyone" to make it seem like a large number.

* Also, who said anything about governments doing the killing? You're the one making all of these assumptions!

Once again man.. IT WAS A TWO PERSON CONVERSATION!! How can I possibly take you serious if we're the only people talking? You were trolling and played along.

Maybe you missed the context of my statement. I was referencing your TROLLING to another poster as you're nothing to take seriously. So, apparently you're the one who missed a fact. This shouldn't be a tough connection, even for you.



I read that over multiple times and that doesn't make sense. You didn't find the post humorous, got it. You can't try to prove that it isn't funny to anyone, especially when people found it funny.



Flattered? I was the one who told you from the beginning that you were a victim of the laugh at Alma fad. You wrote an entire block paragraph on how you weren't a victim of that fad and you were an independent thinker. When I proved you wrong that I did give you a benefit without a doubt, you reverted to say that you were talking about me the whole time...both can't be true...

So, obviously, you're just another clone, because you refuse to admit to defeat just the same.

You're right though, I'm flattered. I was successful in getting yet another puppet poster to debate with. Sometimes I impress myself. Excuse me while I go look at myself in the mirror.

Edit:



What? The person who looks stupid is the person who tries to debate that the joke wasn't funny after I said it was a joke. Most of the times, when a joke isn't "funny", you give off a weird look and say something like "uhh yea" and you move on. You on the other hand tried to prove that the joke is inherently not funny through psychology.

Besides, I asked you to justify my comparison to Varus. You haven't said anything.


Edited, Dec 19th 2010 3:47pm by Almalieque

Yea, I caught that part. You're still the one who referenced it as me trying to convince you, when I was joking around. If you thought it was a joke, why would you think it was made top be convincing?

So, I guess the connection is too tough for you... It was a choice of words.. instead of saying "this is the guy who was talking to me but said that he wasn't talking to me", I chose to say that you were trying to convince me that you weren't talking to me. Given that the theme was "Ugly is a troll not to be taken seriously", you can't say that I was taking you seriously.

That's like if you and me were the only two people in a room and you drop a silent bomb and you say that it wasn't you. I can later say in a group, "Yea, I was standing there and smelled something beyond foul, I looked over there at Ugly and he tried to convince me that it wasn't him, but I know only he can produce a stench so gut retching". You know and I know that you weren't serious, it's just a phrase.



I wasn't talking to you.

I was expecting more insanity, less pointless semantics over unimportant crap.


So anyways, any chance we could talk about the actual implications of paying the military industrial complex 0.7 trillion dollars a year to "defend" the united states intrests only to have them increase western resentment and terrorist recruitment by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, killing journalists, bullying other nations, torturing prisoners, and funding said terrorists while we slowly sink into unrecoverable debt at home?

How about a military centric one then? How does Alma feel about wikileaks revealing civilian contractors are using US tax dollars to bribe Taliban warlords to attack military patrols rather than their convoys?

And if Assange is detained or mysteriously dies, what does that say about freedom of speech and freedoms of information.

I dunno if you have read some of that crap but 90% of it is useless rubbish. Hell the **** in there about canada is mostly.

Mr. President in canada their dollar is called a loonie. They also have colored money....yes exactly like monopoly.
They speak french and English.
Toronto seems to want to try really hard to be like new york.
etc etc etc

There is a few small jabs at some foreign ministers and such but big deal.

This whole thing was totally blown out of proportion. But I know why, It because its US documents, if it was **** from another country like say Brazil, or Spain, or Canada that was trashing Americans do you think it would be at the same level on the give a **** scale.


.....Actually it probably would because anything that mentions the US would be a direct insult and front against the american way of life.

Long story short, you can only pile **** under the house for so long, eventually you will start to smell like it.

It would say nothing at all about freedom of speech and freedom of information. What it would do is speak volumes to the stupidity of soliciting people to send you classified military information so you can publish it to the public. Personally, I don't see that as a bad message to get across.


Let me ask you a question: If there was a website dedicated to publishing peoples personal information, would you feel the same? Assume that it existed solely so that disgruntled medical workers, bankers, retail employees, DMV workers, and whatnot could pass along people's medical records, social security numbers, bank account numbers, credit card PINs, and a host of other private information and the website would make that information freely available to everyone in the world.

Would you defend that as free speech?

But it's not that type of Information. It's not vault codes to fort Knox. It's mostly evidence of bureaucrats not doing their ******* job.

No. It's mostly information about the day to day operations of various military and diplomatic operations. The bulk of which is boring and mundane. Um... but at the risk of explaining the point to classified data, if you only classify the important stuff it's kinda easy for people to know what to steal. I suspect that a lot of people don't really get this and that leads them to believe some of the more amusing conspiracy theories about this stuff.

Does that go for the identities of say undercover CIA operatives?


And yes, I'm assuming someone who is a citizen of a given country