mejari

18 ms·

211.
by mejari 10y ago
>I made it fairly clear that I see nothing in this thread for which Wikileaks need be defended. And I have pointed out that they actively put people at risk. Of course, you deflect it onto the DNC, as evidence by: >The DNC put its don
212.
by mejari 10y ago
>Email isn't assured to remain on trusted servers while in transit over the 'net. Nothing is assured to remain safe. >Moreover, if you had a stack of printouts containing your customer's credit card information sitting
213.
by mejari 10y ago
So, if I have my credit card sitting on my kitchen counter, and you come in and steal it, it's my fault for not keeping it more secure in my home?
214.
by mejari 10y ago
Then what does Clinton have to do with that?
215.
by mejari 10y ago
So, completely deflecting from the point. Does that mean you've given up trying to defend WikiLeaks' actions?
216.
by mejari 10y ago
So, you're angry at her for not doing something you don't want her to do, but you feel like she would do it, even though she's not doing it. And you're throwing in random accusations of lying. You're reinforcing my
217.
by mejari 10y ago
You want her to insert herself into these women's personal choices? Can you imagine the outrage from the right if she tried to convince these women of anything? You're not making any sense, it just sounds like you're looking
218.
by mejari 10y ago
>Because that's not the example you used. I wasn't aware you were refering to DNC donors with your accusation. This is what I said >And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousa
219.
by mejari 10y ago
What at all does Clinton have to do with these women pressing charges or not? As for why a woman might not press charges after a sexual assault, there are a multitude of reasons that have been discussed in plenty of related literature, I
220.
by mejari 10y ago
>So they promised releases well in advance and then released them. Are you being intentionally obtuse? They promised releases to occur each week, until eventually weeks later an actual leak came out. >That wasn't Wikileaks, it wa
221.
by mejari 10y ago
The fact that they explicitly removed data from their release is faking their release. It's not like there was even an entire release they chose not to do, they did the release but selectively removed a small part of it, seemingly in
222.
by mejari 10y ago
Because no one has pressed charges? I don't see how that's relevant. People can be guilty of things they haven't been proven to do in a court of law. I'm not saying he should be thrown in jail without due process, I&#x27
223.
by mejari 10y ago
My "agenda" was a direct response to your comment. You act like I'm trying to change the subject or something.
224.
by mejari 10y ago
Can you say "allegedly" when he himself admits to it?
225.
by mejari 10y ago
I didn't say we should assume he's racist, but you assumed he isn't. In fact you assumed his motivation very explicitly. I was asking how you made such an assumption.
226.
by mejari 10y ago
You also can't infer that he doesn't, which is what the commentor I replied to did.
227.
by mejari 10y ago
No? What part of my comment suggested I agreed they were true and accurate? I laid out what about them was false and inaccurate.
228.
by mejari 10y ago
I encourage you to watch one of his recent rallies. It is not hyperbole.
229.
by mejari 10y ago
>Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. How do you know that?
230.
by mejari 10y ago
>Yes, right. They used it as a way of naming the thing they were seeing, not using it like someone familiar with it. You do know that the people they were talking about in their tweet didn't literally have (((echoes))) around their
231.
by mejari 10y ago
You... you literally brought it up yourself. Why are you angry at me for responding to your own point?
232.
by mejari 10y ago
>That they'd never heard of the key? Then why use it? You're saying it's more likely they hadn't heard of it, but used it anyway? You've never heard of it, have you ever surrounded a reference to people you don&#
233.
by mejari 10y ago
That is incorrect on both counts. They promised releases several weeks in a row before they actually released anything. And they also released social security numbers, names and addresses for hundreds/thousands of people, so they'
234.
by mejari 10y ago
>I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). It's using the clearly anti-Semitic (((echo))) format, and linking those people to a
235.
by mejari 10y ago
They leaked falsified documents. Either through receiving falsified documents and releasing them or through falsifying them themselves. Either way your claim is false.
236.
by mejari 10y ago
According to some. To others there's not really much in there other than some unsavory, but not unusual, political maneuvering.
237.
by mejari 10y ago
They faked the documents by editing their contents to remove data they didn't want released. How is that twisting your words to show that your claim they've never leaked fake documents is false?
238.
by mejari 10y ago
Locker-room antics of sexual assault?
239.
by mejari 10y ago
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-syria-files-syria-r... 100%, huh?
240.
by mejari 10y ago
They did that repeatedly with nothing delivered, previously. All of a sudden they feel the need to actually release something.

More ›