faceless007
Member
Do you have any proof he's been skimming from donations for his own personal use? First I've heard that.SpectreFire said:
WikiLeaks suspends leaks, and may close by end of the year.
- Thread starter Slayven
- Start date
- Status
Like the hat?
Banned
If it goes down, I hope right beforehand they release every single piece of information they have
SpectreFire
Member
Have you seen the man's face and the shit that spews from his mouth?faceless007 said:
I highly doubt he's a noble individual doing this for the good of society.
sangreal said:
You are twisting this beyond recognition. Denying corporations the right to interfere with the political process is not a limitation of free speech, since corporations are not human beings.
Corporations doing their best to deny individuals the means to donate to a cause they believe in is. Especially when they have a huge monopoly on money transfering. It should be treated the same way anti competetive behavour is when they do it to other corporations.
It would even piss me off if they tried to deny transfers to the KKK.
But they don't.
Like the hat?
Banned
They might know that I only kind of like the hatDeku said:
the worst thing that ever happened to wikileaks is assange himself
anyone who actually reads up on the man knows he's an extremely polarizing figure who more or less burns bridges with every person and organization he has dealt with
one can only imagine in some alternate universe julian assange isn't some self-destructive narcissist and wikileaks would still be going strong
anyone who actually reads up on the man knows he's an extremely polarizing figure who more or less burns bridges with every person and organization he has dealt with
one can only imagine in some alternate universe julian assange isn't some self-destructive narcissist and wikileaks would still be going strong
SpectreFire
Member
I think the man's delusions of grandeur are more than enough evidence to suspect he's in it for self glory.demon said:
What does it matter what he's in for?SpectreFire said:
Is he auditioning to become your friend?
You need to evaluate wikileaks as a whole and it's contribution (or harm, if that's your position) it has for society.
The personality of Assange is a minor minor part of that.
p.s.
Some of the greatest leaders in history did it for nothing but self glory.
In fact, some people will say most of them did.
You really think that the powers that be wouldn't do anything in their power to trash an organization like wikileaks?Jenga said:
And do you really think that "everything in their power" does not include smearing anyone related to such endeavor?
Now, I'm not saying that Assange is not a dick, I don't know and don't really care, and yes, I'm certain that there are people out there harder to attack than him, but I don't believe for a minute that wikileaks is one well adjusted individual away from mainstream acceptance.
SpectreFire
Member
Because when you give a man that much power and influence, it matters whether or not he'll put his own self glory in front of what's good for the rest of the world.Chichikov said:
What if he leaks something that ends in war, but does it because he knows leaking it will etch himself forever in the history books?
Assange IS Wikileaks. He is the face of wikileaks. He is the voice of wikileaks. He is the leader of Wikileaks. Assange never stopped and disassociated his personal life with his own organization. He sunk his own boat, his own organization there is no denying this.Chichikov said:
Had Assange been a stronger leader Wikileaks wouldn't be where it's at. Also, investing so much into bitcoin donations was also an hilariously dumb move
Gaborn said:
You're ignoring all of the private (individual and corporate) data released by WikiLeaks. The only criteria is that it supports Assange's political motives. For example, hacked e-mails from a holocaust denier: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Controversial_holocaust_historian_David_Irving_emails,_Nov_2009
jorma said:
So you agree that money is speech, you just don't believe that corporations have a right to free speech as they are not people?
Also, if anything they have a duopoly not a monopoly. But really, nobody wants to do business with Wikileaks, it isn't just MasterCard and VISA. Also, BOA, PayPal, Amazon etc.
Again, you think that there are no politicians (who possess much more power than someone like Assange) who do it only for their personal glory?SpectreFire said:
You think there are no CEOs who do it for that very reason?
I have no idea what his motivations are, I'm guess that like all human beings, it's not as white as you try to paint it, but I still don't see how that would matter.
If a person advance human society for egotistical reasons, why is that a bad thing?
What if he doesn't leak something and it caused a war?SpectreFire said:
Why are we dealing with hypotheticals?
Or are you against the very idea of whistle-blowing no matter what?
And I'll as again like I ask in any wikileaks thread (and I still didn't get a satisfying answer) -
Can you give one example in history where it was a good idea to allow the government to keep secret from it's people, after the fact (and so we're clear, I'm obviously not talking about forward looking stuff, like future plans, I'm talking about accounts of things that happened in the past).
Because I can give you countless examples where an informed public could've saved lives.
Do you really believe that if it was someone more likable than Assange than the BOAs of the world would've just said - yeah, he might be sitting on emails that can send us all to jail, but he's such a nice guy, so we'll let it slide.Jenga said:
Focusing on such distraction just validate those smear campaigns.
sangreal said:
Well they're not people, now are they? They are legal constructs meant to enable people to separate their personal economy from their business. They are given leave to exercise some of the rights a human being has, but it does not mean they have to be extended all of those rights.
And what is the difference to anyone who wants to use their card to donate to wikileaks?
I take it these corporations are "everybody" then?
jorma said:
So that's a yes? I haven't made any arguments about corporate personhood so it is largely irrelevant. I'm fine with conceding that corporations have no right to free speech (although I don't agree with it). That is a separate issue than the general argument of whether money = speech.
Thus I stand by my original claim. Many people on this forum have proposed limiting the amount that anyone (corporate or individual) can spend on (or donate to) an election. Further, they argue that this is not a limitation of free speech as money is not speech. There was an entire thread promoting constitutional amendments to achieve this. It is not possible to reconcile the notion that this limitation is not on speech, while being prevented from giving money to WikiLeaks is.
No, it is still possible to donate to WikiLeaks.
sangreal said:
Well there you go. Not everybody. Just all the corporate powerplayers when it comes to moneytransfers.
And this duopol (+ paypal) still managed to shut the stream of wikileaks donations to the point where it's unable to function. You dont think this is fucked up? Would you still not complain if they managed to use their powers to unable an organisation you hold dear to function? Like your favourite football team or something?
More likable? No. More competent.Chichikov said:
This has nothing to do with how "likable" he is. He is just a terrible leader. I don't need you lecturing me on "smear campaigns" or whatever bullshit excuses you have for him.
The BoA's of the world didn't kill Wikileaks. Assange killed Wikileaks.
Let me understand what you're saying, you're saying that there was no smear campaign against him?Jenga said:
You're saying that people with everything to lose will not do everything in their power to stop an organization like wikileaks?
Or are you saying that wikileaks does not scare them?
Or maybe you're suggesting that BoA stopped donations to wikileaks because Assange is an asshole?
There are bigger assholes and less competent idiots running bigger organizations than Assange, yet somehow, they do not suffer from a coordinated attack by political and financial elites.Jenga said:
Again, I'm no Assange fan, in fact, I don't really have an opinion about him personally, I just think that focusing on his personality is just an easy way to discredit something like wikileaks and tried and true political modus operandi.
But you know what?
I think we're going in circles here, so let me ask you straight up -
What are you saying?
That it's okay to kill wikileaks because Assange is an incompetent asshole?
That focusing on his personal life is what we should be doing as a society?
That big banks are trying to take down wikileaks because Assange is an asshole (and not because they can go to jail)?
That such attacks would've not been made had a better person than Assange would've ran wikipedia?
Chichikov said:
The 'smear campaign' thing emerged from Assage's own mind. It's not impossible to think that, but there's no evidence other than the fact that he sort of imploded after coming on stage.
And I don't see many people here defending his character. Maybe he just believes in conspiracy theories like a few others here.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
We never even gotten UFO leaks.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Deku said:
This is totally false and I AMAZED at the amount of "facts" being spewed in this thread from the opposition that are completely untrue.
Seriously the same fucking faces in every political thread, OWS, spreading FUD. You guys better be getting paid for your commitment.
Riposte
Member
Karma Kramer said:
This thread is just bumming me out. What is the point of talking politics on this forum? Posters like Manos (who posted a shitty article and then bounced, ty for the breakdown leadbelly) and SpectreFire (who is simply shitting out of his mouth) are really bothersome.
There is so much noise getting in the way of any discussion on the facts. There has been like no back and forth about the fact the banks are using their power to shut down an organization, which is very scary. It also makes me wonder what will happen to OWS donations if someone in power feels it to be a threat.
JGS said:
Describe the current legal process levied against wikileaks and what makes the organisation illegal to donate to please. In what country has this process been initiated? And what sanctions are visa, mastercard and paypal currently facing if they do their job as their customers who wish to donate to wikileaks demand?
HurricaneJesus
Member
We have proof of the targeting and smears by way of the HBGary hack that exposed that BoA was going after Wikleaks and its supporters.
Does no-one remember?
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/anonymous-leaks-hbgary-files-wikileaks-targeted/
Some members have their heads pretty far up their own asses.
Does no-one remember?
http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/anonymous-leaks-hbgary-files-wikileaks-targeted/
Some members have their heads pretty far up their own asses.
The key word is potential. If Wikileaks were deemed a terrorist organization or otherwise an enemy of the US, companies would obviously want nothing to do with them. And if they were ever categorized this way it may be possible that companies who facilitated funding of the organization in the past with full knowledge of their activities could face legal headaches. The easiest and safest bet, even if such a scenario were remote, is to simply cut ties.jorma said:
I can see why you might think that if you convince yourself releasing secret information can only ever be good and could never cause harm to anyone. Certainly an organization obsessed with collecting and dispersing national secrets could never be considered a threat to national security.jorma said:
Besides, in the end whether you or I or anyone agrees with it or not doesn't matter.
thezerofire
Banned
Yeah, the problem comes up when a candidate won't do anything to piss of the people giving him money because then he'll never get reelected.sangreal said:
I didn't endorse the classification, I offered it as a possibility. And it is. Threatening the release of additional secrets unless a country refrains from certain legal action could certainly be argued to qualify them.jorma said:
But again, whether anyone, including the banks, agrees with the action does not matter at all.
Dude Abides
Banned
KHarvey16 said:
But the Klan has been declared a terrorist organization by Charleston, and there was an attempt to have it labeled as such in Louisville as well. The Klan has also actually committed acts of terrorism.
KHarvey16 said:
Kharvey being kharvey again i see. You are not ever going to explain how designating wikileaks a terrorist organisation could possibly happen based on what we know about them now, are you? You are just endlessly going to repeat that "it could happen, who knows" and decide that this is enough to deny them money transfers, arent you?
No, but threatening to set off a bomb in a public area could. Have wikileaks done this yet?
This is a pretty good example of "cognitive dissonance" i feel.
:lol
- Status