|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking.
But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)?
|
On October 04 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:11 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! Beyond the document we're looking at, not yet. But again, this isn't the first dance. We're not "looking at" any document supporting that idea. No we're looking at a document that shows the meeting the quote is allegedly pulled from isn't fictitious. Since we won't know whether it's a true quote for an undetermined amount of time I'll ask again, would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? What difference would it make? We're looking at a document that shows State dept officials discussed Wikileaks in 2010 (duh?). Nothing in that document indicates that assassinating Assange is an idea that was given any consideration, or even brought up at all. I could make up an account of that meeting with Clinton suggesting that the U.S. use the secret Death Star it has been building on the dark side of the moon to blow up every city where a staff member of Wikileaks lives, and it would be as substantiated as your claim. It's not a matter of this not being "100% confirmed", it's a matter of this not being confirmed at all, and even of this being a random claim made by an admin on a conspiracy theory website. I suspect they are dodging on purpose.
Dodging what? I was replying to you as biology posted. But I'm glad we settled the matter of how substantiated your claim about Clinton was. Or do you have anything else to add?
|
|
|
On October 04 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? On October 04 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:11 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! Beyond the document we're looking at, not yet. But again, this isn't the first dance. We're not "looking at" any document supporting that idea. No we're looking at a document that shows the meeting the quote is allegedly pulled from isn't fictitious. Since we won't know whether it's a true quote for an undetermined amount of time I'll ask again, would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? What difference would it make? We're looking at a document that shows State dept officials discussed Wikileaks in 2010 (duh?). Nothing in that document indicates that assassinating Assange is an idea that was given any consideration, or even brought up at all. I could make up an account of that meeting with Clinton suggesting that the U.S. use the secret Death Star it has been building on the dark side of the moon to blow up every city where a staff member of Wikileaks lives, and it would be as substantiated as your claim. It's not a matter of this not being "100% confirmed", it's a matter of this not being confirmed at all, and even of this being a random claim made by an admin on a conspiracy theory website. I suspect they are dodging on purpose. Dodging what? I was replying to you as biology posted. But I'm glad we settled the matter of how substantiated your claim about Clinton was. Or do you have anything else to add?
This question: Presuming for a moment the quote turns out to be real (conceding this has less going for it than previous leaks regarding looking legit on it's face), What, if anything, would it change for you?
|
On October 04 2016 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? On October 04 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:11 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! Beyond the document we're looking at, not yet. But again, this isn't the first dance. We're not "looking at" any document supporting that idea. No we're looking at a document that shows the meeting the quote is allegedly pulled from isn't fictitious. Since we won't know whether it's a true quote for an undetermined amount of time I'll ask again, would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? What difference would it make? We're looking at a document that shows State dept officials discussed Wikileaks in 2010 (duh?). Nothing in that document indicates that assassinating Assange is an idea that was given any consideration, or even brought up at all. I could make up an account of that meeting with Clinton suggesting that the U.S. use the secret Death Star it has been building on the dark side of the moon to blow up every city where a staff member of Wikileaks lives, and it would be as substantiated as your claim. It's not a matter of this not being "100% confirmed", it's a matter of this not being confirmed at all, and even of this being a random claim made by an admin on a conspiracy theory website. I suspect they are dodging on purpose. Dodging what? I was replying to you as biology posted. But I'm glad we settled the matter of how substantiated your claim about Clinton was. Or do you have anything else to add? This question: Presuming for a moment the quote turns out to be real (conceding this has less going for it than previous leaks regarding looking legit on it's face), What, if anything, would it change for you?
I would think less of any person that would support the assassination of Julian Assange, Clinton included.
You're still weaseling around the admission that your claim is unsubstantiated, though. "this has less going for it than previous leaks" is the understatement of the year. Can you recognize that your claim has nothing going for it except for a text written by a random contributor to a conspiracy theory website?
|
United States44403 Posts
On October 04 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking. But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)?
Not who you asked but no, still anyone over Trump.
|
On October 04 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:11 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! Beyond the document we're looking at, not yet. But again, this isn't the first dance. We're not "looking at" any document supporting that idea. No we're looking at a document that shows the meeting the quote is allegedly pulled from isn't fictitious. Since we won't know whether it's a true quote for an undetermined amount of time I'll ask again, would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? What difference would it make?
They also talked about the Roswell UFO, big foot and the Loch Ness monster.
We've been over this before GH. Stop dragging your unsubstantiated conspiracy theories into these discussions and whining when no one takes you seriously.
As for a lack of denial from the Clinton camp, I would like to remind you, Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?
|
I just dug this email up, Bernie Sanders supporters should address this ASAP:
![[image loading]](https://s13.postimg.org/lntg7iriv/image.png)
Now this isn't 100% substantiated because I just made it up on my computer, but it's very important for us to know whether if true this would change anyone's mind about supporting Sanders.
|
On October 04 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? On October 04 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:11 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along".
Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! Beyond the document we're looking at, not yet. But again, this isn't the first dance. We're not "looking at" any document supporting that idea. No we're looking at a document that shows the meeting the quote is allegedly pulled from isn't fictitious. Since we won't know whether it's a true quote for an undetermined amount of time I'll ask again, would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? What difference would it make? We're looking at a document that shows State dept officials discussed Wikileaks in 2010 (duh?). Nothing in that document indicates that assassinating Assange is an idea that was given any consideration, or even brought up at all. I could make up an account of that meeting with Clinton suggesting that the U.S. use the secret Death Star it has been building on the dark side of the moon to blow up every city where a staff member of Wikileaks lives, and it would be as substantiated as your claim. It's not a matter of this not being "100% confirmed", it's a matter of this not being confirmed at all, and even of this being a random claim made by an admin on a conspiracy theory website. I suspect they are dodging on purpose. Dodging what? I was replying to you as biology posted. But I'm glad we settled the matter of how substantiated your claim about Clinton was. Or do you have anything else to add? This question: Presuming for a moment the quote turns out to be real (conceding this has less going for it than previous leaks regarding looking legit on it's face), What, if anything, would it change for you? I would think less of any person that would support the assassination of Julian Assange. You're still weaseling around the admission that your claim is unsubstantiated, though. "this has less going for it than previous leaks" is the understatement of the year. Can you recognize that your claim has nothing going for it except for a text written by a random contributor to a conspiracy theory website?
Yes, I'm far more interested in the other part.
You would think less of any person that would support the assassination? Or you would think less of Hillary if that was an accurate quote? Anything else, or is that all that would change? I'll give you some examples:
Would you still vote for her knowing she said that?
Would it change the nature of your support? If so, how?
Would you suggest, that while perhaps it's too late now, she shouldn't be nominated next term?
Would you be comfortable giving her the authority to do what is suggested?
Stuff like that.
EDIT: I find it slightly bemusing that people are acting like it's preposterous to consider that Hillary, knowing her role in/position on something like Honduras, would say something like that, but for the sake of others sanity, I'll wait to see if this tabloid story has any merit. Save for Kwiz answering the questions. We could take it to PM though.
|
On October 04 2016 10:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:59 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:47 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? On October 04 2016 09:43 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:11 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! Beyond the document we're looking at, not yet. But again, this isn't the first dance. We're not "looking at" any document supporting that idea. No we're looking at a document that shows the meeting the quote is allegedly pulled from isn't fictitious. Since we won't know whether it's a true quote for an undetermined amount of time I'll ask again, would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? What difference would it make? We're looking at a document that shows State dept officials discussed Wikileaks in 2010 (duh?). Nothing in that document indicates that assassinating Assange is an idea that was given any consideration, or even brought up at all. I could make up an account of that meeting with Clinton suggesting that the U.S. use the secret Death Star it has been building on the dark side of the moon to blow up every city where a staff member of Wikileaks lives, and it would be as substantiated as your claim. It's not a matter of this not being "100% confirmed", it's a matter of this not being confirmed at all, and even of this being a random claim made by an admin on a conspiracy theory website. I suspect they are dodging on purpose. Dodging what? I was replying to you as biology posted. But I'm glad we settled the matter of how substantiated your claim about Clinton was. Or do you have anything else to add? This question: Presuming for a moment the quote turns out to be real (conceding this has less going for it than previous leaks regarding looking legit on it's face), What, if anything, would it change for you? I would think less of any person that would support the assassination of Julian Assange. You're still weaseling around the admission that your claim is unsubstantiated, though. "this has less going for it than previous leaks" is the understatement of the year. Can you recognize that your claim has nothing going for it except for a text written by a random contributor to a conspiracy theory website? Yes, I'm far more interested in the other part. You would think less of any person that would support the assassination? Or you would think less of Hillary if that was an accurate quote? Anything else, or is that all that would change? I'll give you some examples: Would you still vote for her knowing she said that? Would it change the nature of your support? If so, how? Would you suggest, that while perhaps it's too late now, she shouldn't be nominated next term? Would you be comfortable giving her the authority to do what is suggested? Stuff like that.
If Sanders killed a kitten every morning to feed his socialist ideals, would you still support him?
|
Maybe Hillary doesn't address it because it's a stupid conspiracy that doesn't merit being, y'know, being addressed. Methinks some people watch way too much TV or otherwise have lost track of the line between fiction with reality.
|
On October 04 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking. But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)?
Hillary could stand in the middle of the State Department, and say she was going to drone somebody, and she wouldn't lose any voters, folks.
|
On October 04 2016 10:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking. But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)? Hillary could stand in the middle of the State Department, and say she was going to drone somebody, and she wouldn't lose any voters, folks.
Nevertrump vs NeverHillary, is what it comes down to in the end.
|
On October 04 2016 10:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 09:45 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 09:40 biology]major wrote:On October 04 2016 08:57 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself. Feel free to share any evidence you may have of Clinton wanting to assassinate Assange. Note that conspiracy theory websites making claims do not qualify as "evidence". Would it matter if it was 100% confirmed? Has she denied saying it? Seems like each one of these leaks has gone through the same "deny it was real, suggest we don't know it's real, minimize it's significance, point at how Trump and Russia are worse/in cahoots, act like it was nothing all along". Whether it's her repeated lying about her emails, the DNC leaks, or the cables, it's been the same song every time. Translation: there is zero evidence to support the idea that Clinton wants Assange assassinated. Got it! if it was true would it change anything for you? I find the idea of assassinating Assange despicable, if that's what you're asking. But would it change anything for you? If so, what (presuming the quote is accurate)? Hillary could stand in the middle of the State Department, and say she was going to drone somebody, and she wouldn't lose any voters, folks.
Well, Trump can say in a national broadcast that he would blow up Iranian military vessels because their soldiers said mean things (and it wouldn't start a war), and you're still voting for him.
I'm sure you can excuse the people who still vote for someone in spite of a tweet of an anonymous source's hearsay.
|
On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010.
Wikileaks claimed the Assange meetings where assassination was discussed happened in 2010.This guy was a democrat strategist at that time? Interesting...
|
On October 04 2016 10:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Wikileaks claimed the Assange meetings where assassination was discussed happened in 2010.This guy was a democrat strategist at that time? Interesting...
No, he wasn't. He was a Fox News pundit. Anything else?
|
5 hours til assange makes his final stand hype
|
On October 04 2016 10:48 Mohdoo wrote:
5 hours til assange makes his final stand hype
It better live up to the hype.
|
On October 04 2016 10:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010. Wikileaks claimed the Assange meetings where assassination was discussed happened in 2010.This guy was a democrat strategist at that time? Interesting... No, he wasn't. He was a Fox News pundit. Anything else?
Ok well the wikileaks text under the video claimed he was a democrat strategist.Seems like he also founded a lobbying firm, Bob Beckel & Associates.Wonder if there is anything about this group in the leaked wikileaks files?
Anyway this is a sideshow.The main event starts later today!
|
On October 04 2016 10:52 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 10:48 Mohdoo wrote:
5 hours til assange makes his final stand hype It better live up to the hype.
He announced the announcement, so it has to right? Though I think he burned through all that public trust a while ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1802
1101
226
277
EPT
