Where does WF stand on WikiLeaks?
- Thread starter redwings0921
- Start date
If being anti-American means that I'm not a blind nationalist who believes everything America does is good simply because it's America doing it, then I gladly accept the label. It seems like what constitutes being an American today is rejection of all the principles on which the country was founded.
You don't have to believe everything America does is good.
But you have to believe that America does not need an outside entity hostile to American interests to force itself into our internal affairs and wreak havoc in order to solve whatever problem you think America has.
If you don't believe that, then you are by definition complacent in the face of America's decline, and therefore anti-American.
Here here!
If you're proud of your county, it should be for your countries achievements, fair policies, and the good it does... Not because someone told you to be.
Turn off fox news, grow a brain, & try thinking for yourself. You will very likely find one or two things here that aren't worth being proud of.
At the very least consider why the 1st amendment, you know the very lowest-numbered amendment to the US constituion, is being so trampled on these days... Should we just do away with it?
Seriously, think about that.
Shit like this will cause the internet to be regulated; so his no hero of mine.
I just hope I make my fortune on time. Goodbye wild west internet days.
I just hope I make my fortune on time. Goodbye wild west internet days.
They're for freedom of speech which goes hand in hand with freedom on the Internet...something we should all be concerned about!
Wikileaks rocks! \o/
Wikileaks rocks! \o/
It is exactly to protect the internet that Wikileaks needs to exist. We have a right to free speech and anyone who tries to suppress it should be shown up as they really are.
If the internet starts to get censored and controlled as a result of Wikileaks then our protectors are no better than China or Iran. I don't see the people standing for it. Well that said, I do see SOME people standing for it
Until now, I haven't been paying attention to the WL story. Now that I am caught up, I see the implications. I predict WL will be transformative; the coming decade will be the Wiki decade.
This trend gives notice to governments, corps and institutions: Clean up your act. Teh internets are watching. Fear of exposure will likely work better than government regulations.
I approve.
This trend gives notice to governments, corps and institutions: Clean up your act. Teh internets are watching. Fear of exposure will likely work better than government regulations.
I approve.
If true, Wiki can go Wikleak themselves. If they don't, some offshoot will do it for them.
That report is not true at all, it's all made up by someone who is not very smart. Some of the facts they quote are laughable and completely incorrect.
To be honest, not speaking about things purely for that reason, no matter what the information is, is no different from answering to terrorist threats, and paying them money when they ask for it.
Yeah man, just imagine how great this country would be if everyone only read huffington post and only watched msnbc and cnn for news. I mean everyone would be so informed the government couldn't ever hide anything. The media would be balanced again and puppies would shit kittens.
No one should rely on only one source for anything, especially the news. That's one reason that RSS aggregators are so popular.
I wouldn't put down Fox News. Yes, they are biased on some things and have been called on them, but there is a lot that they say that you wouldn't have heard in other places.
Glenn Beck for instance, when he's not constantly repeating himself, linked a woman that is responsible for Obama's career in politics to a ton of other people. I forget the date, but it was a little over a year ago when Obama was appointing a lot of people to their offices.
It was one of the few times since he joined Fox he made a lot of sense and stayed on topic and showed how this one lady was tied to different politicians, homeland terrorists/fanaticals, etc. It was really interesting and she pretty much influenced who Obama put in certain positions so that she could get more wealth, power, and influence.
I'd get the lady's name, but I honestly don't want to take the time to go hunt through his archives. I rarely watch the news on TV anymore, but I just happened to be flipping the channels and caught a snippet of that and kept watching.
Honestly, I agree with you, but I haven't turned on an idiot box since Stargate split into multiple series.
What is a huffington post? I'm guessing a liberal newspaper? I don't read those either, because ALL media is slanted.
The reason I rested my case is because when I told everyone to carefully think about the 1st amendment, I didn't put a liberal or conservative slant on it...
It shouldn't be assumed that since I think Fox news is a bad source to learn from, then a liberal show is a good one. -My point is that the TV should always be left in the Off position, or better yet, in the trash bin.
Telling everybody to think carefully about the first amendment doesn't say anything.
You need to be clear with your point. How far is free speech meant to go, and for what purpose?
I don't see WikiLeaks justified in benefiting from an invasion of government security. I don't see how the first amendment protects that kind of behavior. And it shouldn't.
If a free press needs to depend on illegal behavior to exist, then something is wrong.
You need to be clear with your point. How far is free speech meant to go, and for what purpose?
I don't see WikiLeaks justified in benefiting from an invasion of government security. I don't see how the first amendment protects that kind of behavior. And it shouldn't.
If a free press needs to depend on illegal behavior to exist, then something is wrong.