Emphasis on 'maybe' helped, asserted with fuck all evidence, and yet another bit of propaganda from The Guardian, who have had it in for Assange for years now. The Guardian is simply trolling these days.
From the recent Wikileaks Q&A, re the comment from the political analyst -
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5...ur_editor/
Quote:He is just a political pundit, akin to the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and was just repeating speculative claims.
Anthony Thorne Wrote:Emphasis on 'maybe' helped, asserted with fuck all evidence, and yet another bit of propaganda from The Guardian, who have had it in for Assange for years now. The Guardian is simply trolling these days.
From the recent Wikileaks Q&A, re the comment from the political analyst -
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5...ur_editor/
Quote:He is just a political pundit, akin to the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and was just repeating speculative claims.
They hung Clinton for such.
Shoe's on the other foot now.
Popcorn?
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Anthony Thorne Wrote:Emphasis on 'maybe' helped, asserted with fuck all evidence, and yet another bit of propaganda from The Guardian, who have had it in for Assange for years now. The Guardian is simply trolling these days.
From the recent Wikileaks Q&A, re the comment from the political analyst -
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5...ur_editor/
Quote:He is just a political pundit, akin to the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and was just repeating speculative claims.
They hung Clinton for such.
Shoe's on the other foot now.
Popcorn?
You really do take the biscuit with this. How can you possibly liken Assange to Clinton? In-fucking-credible, maladroit, contemptuous tosh.
But then you still buy that London Bridge story about Putin leaking the DNC email to Wikileaks, even though everyone and their dog now knows it was a Podesta/Clinton scam to hoodwink unwitting voters.
Never let it be said that you are not hidebound in your thinking, Cliff....
But, I suppose, if the cap fits, then at least you wear the "unwitting" hat proudly. A small triumph for you in an otherwise storm of naive cobblers you litter across this folder.
.
David Guyatt Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:Anthony Thorne Wrote:Emphasis on 'maybe' helped, asserted with fuck all evidence, and yet another bit of propaganda from The Guardian, who have had it in for Assange for years now. The Guardian is simply trolling these days.
From the recent Wikileaks Q&A, re the comment from the political analyst -
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5...ur_editor/
Quote:He is just a political pundit, akin to the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and was just repeating speculative claims.
They hung Clinton for such.
Shoe's on the other foot now.
Popcorn?
You really do take the biscuit with this. How can you possibly liken Assange to Clinton? In-fucking-credible, maladroit, contemptuous tosh.
But then you still buy that London Bridge story about Putin leaking the DNC email to Wikileaks, even though everyone and their dog now knows it was a Podesta/Clinton scam to hoodwink unwitting voters.
Never let it be said that you are not hidebound in your thinking, Cliff....
But, I suppose, if the cap fits, then at least you wear the "unwitting" hat proudly. A small triumph for you in an otherwise storm of naive cobblers you litter across this folder.
.
I likened the casting of accusations -- Clinton and Assange both stand accused, do they not? -- to point out how easy it is to make them.
Now the accusations are going the other way.
How am I wrong?
It's easy to insult people David -- making an actual argument is something else.
When Wikileaks and Assange start leaking emails from the GOP and Trump's people, then I'll believe they are interested in genuine transparency in government. Right now they look like they're just taking sides in America's political battles.
Cliff Varnell Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:Anthony Thorne Wrote:Emphasis on 'maybe' helped, asserted with fuck all evidence, and yet another bit of propaganda from The Guardian, who have had it in for Assange for years now. The Guardian is simply trolling these days.
From the recent Wikileaks Q&A, re the comment from the political analyst -
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5...ur_editor/
They hung Clinton for such.
Shoe's on the other foot now.
Popcorn?
You really do take the biscuit with this. How can you possibly liken Assange to Clinton? In-fucking-credible, maladroit, contemptuous tosh.
But then you still buy that London Bridge story about Putin leaking the DNC email to Wikileaks, even though everyone and their dog now knows it was a Podesta/Clinton scam to hoodwink unwitting voters.
Never let it be said that you are not hidebound in your thinking, Cliff....
But, I suppose, if the cap fits, then at least you wear the "unwitting" hat proudly. A small triumph for you in an otherwise storm of naive cobblers you litter across this folder.
.
I likened the casting of accusations -- Clinton and Assange both stand accused, do they not? -- to point out how easy it is to make them.
Now the accusations are going the other way.
How am I wrong?
It's easy to insult people David -- making an actual argument is something else.
You did no such thing, Cliff. Today you're wriggling using the words "casting of accusations", yesterday you were pulling up a comfy chair and looking for popcorn and comparing like with like. But there is no likeness. None.
So, let's deal with facts: Assange is not a member of a leading American political family that has a long history of criminal activity in the US and is a leading faction in the war party. There's not a chance in hell she'll ever see the inside of a court house. It's all political rhetoric for public consumption.
Assange is an Australian journalist who's only "crime" was to make public facts that embarrassed the US war party and for that they have pressured governments to hold him incommunicado with a view to extraditing him and then having him extradited a second time to stand trial in the US for what exactly? You tell me what the charges are going to be please? Not a guess but the actual charges pending?
Tracy Riddle Wrote:When Wikileaks and Assange start leaking emails from the GOP and Trump's people, then I'll believe they are interested in genuine transparency in government. Right now they look like they're just taking sides in America's political battles.
They can only publish what is submitted to them. If some one has the Republican emails and give them to WL they will publish them.
David Guyatt Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:They hung Clinton for such.
Shoe's on the other foot now.
Popcorn?
You really do take the biscuit with this. How can you possibly liken Assange to Clinton? In-fucking-credible, maladroit, contemptuous tosh.
But then you still buy that London Bridge story about Putin leaking the DNC email to Wikileaks, even though everyone and their dog now knows it was a Podesta/Clinton scam to hoodwink unwitting voters.
Never let it be said that you are not hidebound in your thinking, Cliff....
But, I suppose, if the cap fits, then at least you wear the "unwitting" hat proudly. A small triumph for you in an otherwise storm of naive cobblers you litter across this folder.
.
I likened the casting of accusations -- Clinton and Assange both stand accused, do they not? -- to point out how easy it is to make them.
Now the accusations are going the other way.
How am I wrong?
It's easy to insult people David -- making an actual argument is something else.
You did no such thing, Cliff. Today you're wriggling using the words "casting of accusations", yesterday you were pulling up a comfy chair and looking for popcorn and comparing like with like. But there is no likeness. None.
So, let's deal with facts: Assange is not a member of a leading American political family that has a long history of criminal activity in the US and is a leading faction in the war party. There's not a chance in hell she'll ever see the inside of a court house. It's all political rhetoric for public consumption.
Assange is an Australian journalist who's only "crime" was to make public facts that embarrassed the US war party and for that they have pressured governments to hold him incommunicado with a view to extraditing him and then having him extradited a second time to stand trial in the US for what exactly? You tell me what the charges are going to be please? Not a guess but the actual charges pending?
No, I was not "comparing like with like."
I was comparing the leveling of accusations with the leveling of accusations. That's how they hung Clinton -- the relentless accusations.
That you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this -- or are incapable of grasping the difference -- that is not my problem, and the rest of your post has nothing to do with my argument at all.
Cliff Varnell Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:You really do take the biscuit with this. How can you possibly liken Assange to Clinton? In-fucking-credible, maladroit, contemptuous tosh.
But then you still buy that London Bridge story about Putin leaking the DNC email to Wikileaks, even though everyone and their dog now knows it was a Podesta/Clinton scam to hoodwink unwitting voters.
Never let it be said that you are not hidebound in your thinking, Cliff....
But, I suppose, if the cap fits, then at least you wear the "unwitting" hat proudly. A small triumph for you in an otherwise storm of naive cobblers you litter across this folder.
.
I likened the casting of accusations -- Clinton and Assange both stand accused, do they not? -- to point out how easy it is to make them.
Now the accusations are going the other way.
How am I wrong?
It's easy to insult people David -- making an actual argument is something else.
You did no such thing, Cliff. Today you're wriggling using the words "casting of accusations", yesterday you were pulling up a comfy chair and looking for popcorn and comparing like with like. But there is no likeness. None.
So, let's deal with facts: Assange is not a member of a leading American political family that has a long history of criminal activity in the US and is a leading faction in the war party. There's not a chance in hell she'll ever see the inside of a court house. It's all political rhetoric for public consumption.
Assange is an Australian journalist who's only "crime" was to make public facts that embarrassed the US war party and for that they have pressured governments to hold him incommunicado with a view to extraditing him and then having him extradited a second time to stand trial in the US for what exactly? You tell me what the charges are going to be please? Not a guess but the actual charges pending?
No, I was not "comparing like with like."
I was comparing the leveling of accusations with the leveling of accusations. That's how they hung Clinton -- the relentless accusations.
That you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this -- or are incapable of grasping the difference -- that is not my problem, and the rest of your post has nothing to do with my argument at all.
Clinton was the one who wanted Assange extradited on non-existant charges for reasons of revenge. It's a whole different ballgame. And you're utterly blind to it with your repetitive, stale and outworn partisanship.
I'm going to mostly ignore your posts from this point forward Cliff, as it's getting tediously circular and ego-based argument for the sake of argument.