|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:50 am
I'm not allowed to go on Wikileaks, since it's illegal. It could get my husband in a ton of trouble...
Um... How is that lawfirm still in business? That's some BS, but I don't really agree with Wikileaks. I don't agree with that lawfirm's doings either. But they got their a** handed to them so I guess all's good
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:28 am
What gets me, is that they were PERFECTLY fine, destroying journalists for supporting Wikileaks, until this, i had very little interest in wikileaks, because honestly, just about everyone knows the government is lying to SOMEONE, so it was kind a Meh thing. But when the LAWYERS are encouraging people to break the laws to get rid of them? well.... that makes me pay attention.
What that man wanted to do was WRONG, there is suppose to be freedom of press, what's happening to that? And what i worry about is HOW he meant to destroy their careers, if there were "documents" created that marked them as terrorists.... what then? they would be prosecuted and removed.... that's a very scary thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:19 am
while I understand the arguments posed against WikiLeaks (they are giving away information that now enemies can use against the U.S., they are revealing information that could potentially allow for mass public panic, etctera), most of the arguments about endangering the safety of U.S. citizens is just rhetoric used to fight this site that is showing the public how the government uses it's military to control people, not only in our ation but also other nations.
the reason the government is so against WikiLeaks is because they want to keep as much support for the war effort as possible. they want to keep everyone controlled, "peaceful", well-trained puppets.
technically, what is being revealed is just as treasonous if not more so than the act of revealing it. and as mentioned above, the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect the rights of people who want to show this (not to mention the freedom of information act). it's supposed to be perfectly legal, and technically is. it's unconstitutional to outlaw WikiLeaks.
I'd love to hear more debate on this though, maybe we can have a thread on it in the Debate District. =w=
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:23 am
I am sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bored! xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:40 am
Chieftain Twilight while I understand the arguments posed against WikiLeaks (they are giving away information that now enemies can use against the U.S., they are revealing information that could potentially allow for mass public panic, etctera), most of the arguments about endangering the safety of U.S. citizens is just rhetoric used to fight this site that is showing the public how the government uses it's military to control people, not only in our ation but also other nations. the reason the government is so against WikiLeaks is because they want to keep as much support for the war effort as possible. they want to keep everyone controlled, "peaceful", well-trained puppets. technically, what is being revealed is just as treasonous if not more so than the act of revealing it. and as mentioned above, the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect the rights of people who want to show this (not to mention the freedom of information act). it's supposed to be perfectly legal, and technically is. it's unconstitutional to outlaw WikiLeaks. I'd love to hear more debate on this though, maybe we can have a thread on it in the Debate District. =w= I'll post one later, but i doubt we will get much activity, Honestly, not too many people seem to care about these things here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:48 am
shandrel Chieftain Twilight while I understand the arguments posed against WikiLeaks (they are giving away information that now enemies can use against the U.S., they are revealing information that could potentially allow for mass public panic, etctera), most of the arguments about endangering the safety of U.S. citizens is just rhetoric used to fight this site that is showing the public how the government uses it's military to control people, not only in our ation but also other nations. the reason the government is so against WikiLeaks is because they want to keep as much support for the war effort as possible. they want to keep everyone controlled, "peaceful", well-trained puppets. technically, what is being revealed is just as treasonous if not more so than the act of revealing it. and as mentioned above, the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect the rights of people who want to show this (not to mention the freedom of information act). it's supposed to be perfectly legal, and technically is. it's unconstitutional to outlaw WikiLeaks. I'd love to hear more debate on this though, maybe we can have a thread on it in the Debate District. =w= I'll post one later, but i doubt we will get much activity, Honestly, not too many people seem to care about these things here. aye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chieftain Twilight Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:13 pm
shandrel What gets me, is that they were PERFECTLY fine, destroying journalists for supporting Wikileaks, until this, i had very little interest in wikileaks, because honestly, just about everyone knows the government is lying to SOMEONE, so it was kind a Meh thing. But when the LAWYERS are encouraging people to break the laws to get rid of them? well.... that makes me pay attention. What that man wanted to do was WRONG, there is suppose to be freedom of press, what's happening to that? And what i worry about is HOW he meant to destroy their careers, if there were "documents" created that marked them as terrorists.... what then? they would be prosecuted and removed.... that's a very scary thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:18 pm
Chieftain Twilight the reason the government is so against WikiLeaks is because they want to keep as much support for the war effort as possible. they want to keep everyone controlled, "peaceful", well-trained puppets.
I don't think it's just about the war though. I think they want to keep all of their corruption contained so that way it will not spark a revolution (which we desperately need). Have you seen Red? The VP commited war crimes when he was in Guatamala. The CIA covered him up and protected him. And maybe I should spoil it all. It is a very good movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:03 pm
Aakosir shandrel What gets me, is that they were PERFECTLY fine, destroying journalists for supporting Wikileaks, until this, i had very little interest in wikileaks, because honestly, just about everyone knows the government is lying to SOMEONE, so it was kind a Meh thing. But when the LAWYERS are encouraging people to break the laws to get rid of them? well.... that makes me pay attention. What that man wanted to do was WRONG, there is suppose to be freedom of press, what's happening to that? And what i worry about is HOW he meant to destroy their careers, if there were "documents" created that marked them as terrorists.... what then? they would be prosecuted and removed.... that's a very scary thought. Actually, a couple of points. Anonymous are not just hackers, free though, and intelligence is the basic requirements. "hackers" is a scare word, like "terrorist" Second, they aren't ALL leaked Documents. From what i have seen quite a few of these things HAVE been released, just covered up. And you mean to tell me, that you have NO interest, or think that the public has ANY right to know about these things? I know you've never been there, because you can get your husband in trouble... but seriously, the ONLY reason there is a problem, is we are LITERALLY being lied to. I personally have interest in KNOWING what is going on behind the scenes. For instance,big business, and what they are doing. this affects ALL of us, look at the economy. and you mean that we don't have a right to know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:05 pm
Chieftain Twilight while I understand the arguments posed against WikiLeaks (they are giving away information that now enemies can use against the U.S., they are revealing information that could potentially allow for mass public panic, etctera), most of the arguments about endangering the safety of U.S. citizens is just rhetoric used to fight this site that is showing the public how the government uses it's military to control people, not only in our ation but also other nations. the reason the government is so against WikiLeaks is because they want to keep as much support for the war effort as possible. they want to keep everyone controlled, "peaceful", well-trained puppets. technically, what is being revealed is just as treasonous if not more so than the act of revealing it. and as mentioned above, the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect the rights of people who want to show this (not to mention the freedom of information act). it's supposed to be perfectly legal, and technically is. it's unconstitutional to outlaw WikiLeaks. I'd love to hear more debate on this though, maybe we can have a thread on it in the Debate District. =w= Actually, this specific case, has very little to DO with Iraq, i suppose in a round about way it does, but this actually about a banks shady dealing, and borderline illegal activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:44 pm
shandrel Aakosir shandrel What gets me, is that they were PERFECTLY fine, destroying journalists for supporting Wikileaks, until this, i had very little interest in wikileaks, because honestly, just about everyone knows the government is lying to SOMEONE, so it was kind a Meh thing. But when the LAWYERS are encouraging people to break the laws to get rid of them? well.... that makes me pay attention. What that man wanted to do was WRONG, there is suppose to be freedom of press, what's happening to that? And what i worry about is HOW he meant to destroy their careers, if there were "documents" created that marked them as terrorists.... what then? they would be prosecuted and removed.... that's a very scary thought. Actually, a couple of points. Anonymous are not just hackers, free though, and intelligence is the basic requirements. "hackers" is a scare word, like "terrorist" Second, they aren't ALL leaked Documents. From what i have seen quite a few of these things HAVE been released, just covered up. And you mean to tell me, that you have NO interest, or think that the public has ANY right to know about these things? I know you've never been there, because you can get your husband in trouble... but seriously, the ONLY reason there is a problem, is we are LITERALLY being lied to. I personally have interest in KNOWING what is going on behind the scenes. For instance,big business, and what they are doing. this affects ALL of us, look at the economy. and you mean that we don't have a right to know?
And from what I have heard the entire site is illegal and can get whomever visits in trouble. *shrugs* That whole case has given me an even worse view of the site, especially since they attacked that person and made emails public and erased documents for the company. It was just a game of "look what I can do". Neither side was right, so I dislike both. But I don't agree with Annonymous's responce at all. Granted blackmail wasn't wise of the lawyers. It's just all screwed up and neither party can be justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:46 pm
You know. I guarantee the bank IS actually Bank Of America. They suck! I was with them for not even a year! They screwed me over so many times, but I usualy got my money back... They tried to get me to stay with them when I closed my accounts. I wanted to laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:56 pm
Aakosir shandrel Aakosir shandrel What gets me, is that they were PERFECTLY fine, destroying journalists for supporting Wikileaks, until this, i had very little interest in wikileaks, because honestly, just about everyone knows the government is lying to SOMEONE, so it was kind a Meh thing. But when the LAWYERS are encouraging people to break the laws to get rid of them? well.... that makes me pay attention. What that man wanted to do was WRONG, there is suppose to be freedom of press, what's happening to that? And what i worry about is HOW he meant to destroy their careers, if there were "documents" created that marked them as terrorists.... what then? they would be prosecuted and removed.... that's a very scary thought. Actually, a couple of points. Anonymous are not just hackers, free though, and intelligence is the basic requirements. "hackers" is a scare word, like "terrorist" Second, they aren't ALL leaked Documents. From what i have seen quite a few of these things HAVE been released, just covered up. And you mean to tell me, that you have NO interest, or think that the public has ANY right to know about these things? I know you've never been there, because you can get your husband in trouble... but seriously, the ONLY reason there is a problem, is we are LITERALLY being lied to. I personally have interest in KNOWING what is going on behind the scenes. For instance,big business, and what they are doing. this affects ALL of us, look at the economy. and you mean that we don't have a right to know?
And from what I have heard the entire site is illegal and can get whomever visits in trouble. *shrugs* That whole case has given me an even worse view of the site, especially since they attacked that person and made emails public and erased documents for the company. It was just a game of "look what I can do". Neither side was right, so I dislike both. But I don't agree with Annonymous's responce at all. Granted blackmail wasn't wise of the lawyers. It's just all screwed up and neither party can be justified.The "counter hacker" threatened THEM first, it was very clear what he did, and what he was threatening, this isn't BLACKMAIL he was after, for either the supposed leaders of Anon, OR the journalists. He was out to DESTROY lives... over documents about a BANK'S shady dealing, we're not talking National secrets that KILL people, we are talking a BANK..... that's whats so utterly scary. whats next? seriously, think about where this is leading, that they have the RIGHT, to do this, it's STILL illegal to treat citizens this way, for supporting a website?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:58 pm
Aakosir You know. I guarantee the bank IS actually Bank Of America. They suck! I was with them for not even a year! They screwed me over so many times, but I usualy got my money back... They tried to get me to stay with them when I closed my accounts. I wanted to laugh. lol yeah they screwed me over too... i won't bank with them even before this LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:35 pm
shandrel Aakosir shandrel Aakosir shandrel What gets me, is that they were PERFECTLY fine, destroying journalists for supporting Wikileaks, until this, i had very little interest in wikileaks, because honestly, just about everyone knows the government is lying to SOMEONE, so it was kind a Meh thing. But when the LAWYERS are encouraging people to break the laws to get rid of them? well.... that makes me pay attention. What that man wanted to do was WRONG, there is suppose to be freedom of press, what's happening to that? And what i worry about is HOW he meant to destroy their careers, if there were "documents" created that marked them as terrorists.... what then? they would be prosecuted and removed.... that's a very scary thought. Actually, a couple of points. Anonymous are not just hackers, free though, and intelligence is the basic requirements. "hackers" is a scare word, like "terrorist" Second, they aren't ALL leaked Documents. From what i have seen quite a few of these things HAVE been released, just covered up. And you mean to tell me, that you have NO interest, or think that the public has ANY right to know about these things? I know you've never been there, because you can get your husband in trouble... but seriously, the ONLY reason there is a problem, is we are LITERALLY being lied to. I personally have interest in KNOWING what is going on behind the scenes. For instance,big business, and what they are doing. this affects ALL of us, look at the economy. and you mean that we don't have a right to know?
And from what I have heard the entire site is illegal and can get whomever visits in trouble. *shrugs* That whole case has given me an even worse view of the site, especially since they attacked that person and made emails public and erased documents for the company. It was just a game of "look what I can do". Neither side was right, so I dislike both. But I don't agree with Annonymous's responce at all. Granted blackmail wasn't wise of the lawyers. It's just all screwed up and neither party can be justified.The "counter hacker" threatened THEM first, it was very clear what he did, and what he was threatening, this isn't BLACKMAIL he was after, for either the supposed leaders of Anon, OR the journalists. He was out to DESTROY lives... over documents about a BANK'S shady dealing, we're not talking National secrets that KILL people, we are talking a BANK..... that's whats so utterly scary. whats next? seriously, think about where this is leading, that they have the RIGHT, to do this, it's STILL illegal to treat citizens this way, for supporting a website?
Banks are all smoke and mirrors. They really do not care about their people. That is the view that I have had of banks ever since I have banked. Supposedly Credit Unions are better and more for the people. Our CU now is very good. We've never been charged. I'm really not surprised that it's a bank.
And I just asked, Wikileaks is an illegal site, in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
