WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
that post is so dumb on so many levels i don't even know where to begin. you fail catastrophically every time you try to be clever.
 
play stupid games, win stupid prizes :shrug:

i'm not thrilled that my concern for my friends in the military was taken as an opportunity for a shitty joke, but no worries, i'm done with this.
 
Except the leaking of the tape isn't illegal, it's contractual. And there's a huge fine built in, which is why nobody has leaked it yet. The potential leaker is asking for somebody to cover the clause in the contract.

There's also a distinct difference between whistle blowing and hacking.

So neither of your arguments hold any water. They aren't the same things.


I think it would be hard to defend classifying the leaking of privately held offensive conversations as "whistle-blowing," but for the sake of argument, we can use a more directly analogous example:

Should we have forgone any discussion of Donald Trump's leaked tax returns? Those were absolutely illegally leaked - very unlikely that Trump put those out himself.

As for the greater overall point... Clinton's tendency to push the limits and blur the lines over what's legal or not does bother me.

Trump bothers me more; by a vast and significant margin.

If there were a better option, I'd take it. There isn't.


This is a position I can respect ??



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
that's not even close to what's going on here. try to read deeper than at a "cursory" level. you can't just ignore context or invent it to fit whatever meaning you decide to assign beforehand, that's not how this works.


If the first leaked emails implying Obama had knowledge of the server weren't obvious enough...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hack...intons-private-email-while-claiming-he-didnt/

"We need to clean this up. He has emails from her – they do not say state.gov.”

Perhaps we need to do a deeper literary analysis of the text to determine what it really means...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I think it would be hard to defend classifying the leaking of privately held offensive conversations as "whistle-blowing," but for the sake of argument, we can use a more directly analogous example:

Should we have forgone any discussion of Donald Trump's leaked tax returns? Those were absolutely illegally leaked - very unlikely that Trump put those out himself.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Except they probably weren't leaked illegally... and probably is probably likely as he never threatened to sue anyone there.

The rumor is that the person who "leaked" the returns was someone who had every legal right to do so... his ex wife
 
Except they probably weren't leaked illegally... and probably is probably likely as he never threatened to sue anyone there.

The rumor is that the person who "leaked" the returns was someone who had every legal right to do so... his ex wife


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-letter.html?_r=0

Trump did actually threaten legal action, though. You may be right about the leaker's identity, but we don't know this.

I would argue that the leaker's identity doesn't matter to me, though - I'm still going to look at the information, regardless of how it got out there


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I actually have zero issue with Trump taking advantage of tax law. He'd be silly not to.

It's the least of my worries with him.


Oh, I completely agree. People getting outraged over that perplex me.

But I actually did think it was important to see his tax returns for other reasons. If more tax returns get leaked, I will definitely look.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Oh, I completely agree. People getting outraged over that perplex me.

But I actually did think it was important to see his tax returns for other reasons. If more tax returns get leaked, I will definitely look.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
The outrage is over Trump's hypocrisy. He was actively bashing others while doing the same things.

If he was just straight up from the beginning, admitted to it as a legal, non-issue, then it wouldn't have been a story for longer than one cycle.
 
Oh, I completely agree. People getting outraged over that perplex me.

But I actually did think it was important to see his tax returns for other reasons. If more tax returns get leaked, I will definitely look.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
His tax return did not get leaked
It was stolen by an IRS employee then suppositly put in the home mailbox anonymously of a NYT writer. Why is the Obama Administration up in arms about hacked gmail accounts but not one word about government employees violating the law, why no investigation into that?

Also, how did the NYT know it was not fake, like when Dan Rather got that W. Bush military file, that ended his career?
 
His tax return did not get leaked
It was stolen by an IRS employee then suppositly put in the home mailbox anonymously of a NYT writer. Why is the Obama Administration up in arms about hacked gmail accounts but not one word about government employees violating the law, why no investigation into that?

Also, how did the NYT know it was not fake, like when Dan Rather got that W. Bush military file, that ended his career?
Ummm, no. It wasn't.
 
Also, how did the NYT know it was not fake, like when Dan Rather got that W. Bush military file, that ended his career?


Because, like responsible journalists, they looked up the accountant who did Trump's taxes at that time, contacted him to verify the authenticity of the document, and he did so?
 
His tax return did not get leaked
It was stolen by an IRS employee then suppositly put in the home mailbox anonymously of a NYT writer. Why is the Obama Administration up in arms about hacked gmail accounts but not one word about government employees violating the law, why no investigation into that?

Also, how did the NYT know it was not fake, like when Dan Rather got that W. Bush military file, that ended his career?




It's fun knowing that we can believe whatever we want to believe regardless of facts.
 
Still find it hard to believe that Trump, part of the bourgeoisie all his life, can be considered an 'outsider' in any way, shape or form.
 
Back
Top Bottom