WikiLeaks: Assange's internet link 'severed' by state actor

[Harvey]

[FourthBase]

Some Americans don't like foreigners fucking with their elections

Irony?

It's as though all memory of the last few decades has been erased. Fear is working.

Sorry, I'm missing the irony. Are you suggesting seemslikeadream or anyone else on RI is cool with any country's election being fucked with by foreigners (or by the USA if we happen to reside there)?

You fucking frauds.

My initial reaction to reading this yesterday (perhaps partially out of my Catholic propensity for denial) was to ignore it. But I don't think that's fair to either of us. FourthBase, ever since interacting with you on the Boston Bombing thread, I've always thought you were a straight shooter with me and I've always tried to be a straight shooter with you. So what gives?

What gives is, you and anyone else here pretending to be appalled by Wikileaks now are FRAUDS. You are PLAYACTING. You are NOT BEING REAL. It doesn't even need elaboration. The hypocrisy is that laughably obvious.

But for you, I will elaborate. You, who fellate Paul Craig Roberts, one of the most obvious Putin assets in the world, are feigning displeasure with foreign interference in American democracy, the interference being nothing more than radical, officially impermissible TRANSPARENCY, a golden fleece in the tinfoil world, but now all of a sudden it's TABOO and SIN, because what it turns out to be is, you are not actually a truthseeker. You are not a relentless digger into bullshit. You are a HACK. You are an IDEOLOGUE. You are a PHONY.

I'm really hoping this is just a case of you being a self-described asshole in the tradition of Walter Sobchak where you can bust my chops over an issue we disagree on with the closing rejoinder, "Am I wrong?" And maybe you're not wrong where Julian Assange is concerned, I'm just offering my opinion on what I think he's doing and why I don't like it (which is separate from what Ecuador did and what their motives are, which I don't particularly like either). I don't know him so I don't definitively know his motives. But how does that make me a fucking fraud?

See above.

Mac, on the other hand, however disconnected from reality his infinite cynicism makes him, is NOT a fraud.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I really don't understand how y'all can be so interested in each other when y'all are so boring.

[coffin_dodger]

Rex:

I really don't understand how y'all can be so interested in each other when y'all are so boring.

What direction is your mind meandering towards these days, Rex?
Spark something interesting.

[General Patton]

WikiLeaks reveals first batch of US president Barack Obama emails sent via secret address bobama@ameritech.com
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q ... archresult

Who's ready for the most transparent administration in history?

[JackRiddler]

Heh.

Choose 1:

a. There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is perfect.

b. Nothing a splendid little war wouldn't fix.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Rex:

I really don't understand how y'all can be so interested in each other when y'all are so boring.

What direction is your mind meandering towards these days, Rex?
Spark something interesting.

I'm suggesting that what matters most about Election 2016 is the fact we will be in the same fundamental position once it's done.

....

What got shaken loose during the past 12 months?
What happened in the past 8 years that got overlooked by everyone, including us?
What can we re-build actual American Majorities around now? I mean, Canadian Majorities.
What are people ready to think about in 2017 that they wouldn't admit to thinking about in 2015?
Where is global capital weakest? Mainstream media? Federal law enforcement?
What if there are no policy-level solutions for the problems we discuss here?
What if "lowering the bar" isn't necessarily bad? What if that creates more opportunities for candidates with fringe beliefs? Like you?
What value does engaging with pop culture have when nobody who loved Stranger Things will read A Terrible Mistake?

And the only serious one I'm posing to us:

What sub-forum should we move the actual research to? No, really.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

What gives is, you and anyone else here pretending to be appalled by Wikileaks now are FRAUDS. You are PLAYACTING. You are NOT BEING REAL. It doesn't even need elaboration. The hypocrisy is that laughably obvious.

I was hoping that in trying to engage you in a serious, somewhat civil manner that you might drop your Sobchak-asshole pose and actually provide some substantiation for your point of view in a constructive dialogue, instead of TALKING AT ME, which, let's cut the shit, is exactly what all-caps constitutes. You really disappoint me, FourthBase. First of all, I am not "pretending". Second, I am not "appalled" by Wikileaks. I'm not even appalled by Assange as a person. In spite of everything, I can honestly say I still like him and hope he finds a way out of his current predicament to genuine freedom instead of embassy purgatory.

I'll elaborate a bit further and reiterate some earlier points on my opinion in this matter. First, I don't have a problem with the content Wikileaks releases. Particularly in regards to HRC, you can check and see I've got a number of posts on her RI threads where I call into question her affiliation with various multi-national corporate abominations. Second, I don't think Ecuador is being honest. Yes, it's their embassy and they have the right to do what they did, but I don't believe for a second that the State Department had nothing to do with their decision. Give me a fucking break, even if they didn't give an order, of course they had an influence, it's an embassy for Chrissakes! My problem, ultimately, is that I don't think Assange is being an impartial journalist where the election is concerned. Now, that's just my opinion and I admit it, I have absolutely no proof that Assange has anything to publish on Donald Trump (though I think the odds that he doesn't have anything on someone who has been in the public spotlight for over three fucking decades is pretty microscopic). But it's an opinion buttressed by two of his fellow Wikileaks collaborators, Angela Richter and Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who both think that Assange is supporting Trump as a calculation for his own protection. I understand it, I don't blame him, but I don't like it for the reasons I've stated.

But for you, I will elaborate. You, who fellate Paul Craig Roberts,

OK, I'm gonna stop you right there cuz you are really pissing me off now. That is a fucking lie! What's astounding is what a stupid easily refutable load of bullshit it is! I really thought you were smarter than that - guess I never knew you at all.

Very simple: click my name and search for Paul Craig Roberts. You'll find that in the seven+ years that I've been posting here, I've linked to him three fucking times, and just once did I have something to say about him myself. Here's what I said:

As far as Paul Craig Roberts goes, I'm not sure what to make of him.

Some blowjob.

And some "truthseeker" and "relentless digger into bullshit" you are.

I'm not even going to bother reprinting the rest of your screed which was basically a continuing litany of falsehoods, labels and insults. Except for one label: "IDEOLOGUE." Yes, when I first started my blog almost ten years ago, I was an ideologue. But as the Obama administration has done very little "change" where the deep state apparatus is concerned, I have undergone my own personal evolution to grow beyond ideology. If you don't think my evolution is real, that's your problem.

One more thing I disagree with you about: Mac is not "disconnected from reality." I'm not sure I can say the same about you if your continued MO is going to be personal attacks and bullshit. If so, I'm not interested in interacting with you here anymore.

[Harvey]

I really don't understand how y'all can be so interested in each other when y'all are so boring.

I might have asked, how do you know? But then you added:

Wombaticus Rex » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:01 pm wrote:
I'm suggesting that what matters most about Election 2016 is the fact we will be in the same fundamental position once it's done.

What got shaken loose during the past 12 months...

I should have known better than to wonder WTF?

So, if you're disappointed because no one has taken up your challenge, I can't answer for everyone but I haven't responded (so far) because I'm busy thinking of answers and when I have them, where should I put them? I'd love to have a serious crack at these themes, they're good questions. But as you suggested there, no sense in choking up a good long term thread. What about a dedicated discussion, subscribers only, zero tolerance for disruption? People who are honestly trying to figure a way out of this and not interested in endorsing a narrow opinion or an agenda because a majority of others share it or imagining that everyone else is their enemy because they perceive a lesser evil which few others can see. Looking beyond the current tidal surge of flotsam and as one of the more ignorant and mediocre respondents on RI, I have more ideas than I can ever use in my lifetime. Surely some of the more talented lurkers and seriously interesting correspondents must have something special to add. So what say?

Perhaps we've never really tried to work together before because an open forum isn't necessarily the best way of furthering a post politics, post agenda brainstorming session. I'm not talking about furthering our private projects but perhaps learning how to ask better questions, for a start.

[Wombaticus Rex]

So, if you're disappointed because no one has taken up your challenge,

Not hardly. Just have a strange sense of humor.

I don't propose we discuss anything here; best not to, really. But, do think about it.

The joke, to me, was introducing what's essentially a world salad of Election 2016 Themes to a thread about Julian Assange. In retrospect, pure irony bro never really works for me.

Agree with all your points on the nature of the medium.

I've had good luck in the past with parallel streams, generally a chat line for collaboration and shit-talking, and a file manager style repository of actual documents and datapoints.

[Harvey]

So, if you're disappointed because no one has taken up your challenge,

Not hardly. Just have a strange sense of humor.

I don't propose we discuss anything here; best not to, really. But, do think about it.

The joke, to me, was introducing what's essentially a world salad of Election 2016 Themes to a thread about Julian Assange. In retrospect, pure irony bro never really works for me.

Agree with all your points on the nature of the medium.

I've had good luck in the past with parallel streams, generally a chat line for collaboration and shit-talking, and a file manager style repository of actual documents and datapoints.

What sub-forum should we move the actual research to? No, really.

You're the last mod we have as far as I know, make it happen!

[Wombaticus Rex]

In the Grand Cosmic Hierarchy of phpBB, Moderators are but humble content farmers.

Would that I was an Administrator, well...perhaps we should all be grateful I lack that power.

[Wombaticus Rex]

You are a HACK. You are an IDEOLOGUE. You are a PHONY.

Well, at least we got that question answered.

[Harvey]

You are a HACK. You are an IDEOLOGUE. You are a PHONY.

Well, at least we got that question answered.

LOL

[smiths]

We have a suprise in store for @TimKaine and @DonnaBrazile.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016