SerHaHa Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 On 1/3/2017 at 1:16 PM, SerHaHa said: Anyone see J Assange in the news yesterday? He stated loudly and for the record that the sources of the Democrat emails were NOT the Russians, or any state actor, but a source. He's also strongly hinted in the past that this source was Seth Rich, even prior to Rich's "robbery" gone bad (snicker). I wonder if he'll come forward with actual proof of the sources not being Russia - if it did turn out to be Rich, that combined with Rich's manner and timing of his death will be a pretty interesting day. Anyway, the source of the election leaks has now said it wasn't Russia. This after actual sanctions and PNGs having been used vs Russia. Good job Obama. Where did the hope and change circa 2008 go, with the most secretive and non-transparent administration since...forever? Quote Why would you trust Assange in this? Uh, what? So you don't trust Assange to be honest about this, yet trust him enough to believe all the hacked emails he produced through Wikileaks are legit? Which way is it? Not a single email has been accused of being altered, changed, edited, or anything like that, yet Assange is now going to lie about the source of what this whole hacking flap is all about? Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Just now, SerHaHa said: Uh, what? So you don't trust Assange to be honest about this, yet trust him enough to believe all the hacked emails he produced through Wikileaks are legit? Which way is it? Not a single email has been accused of being altered, changed, edited, or anything like that, yet Assange is now going to lie about the source of what this whole hacking flap is all about? Unreal. Huh? Assuming he knew it was the Russians, why would he tell the truth and tell everyone that he knew the Russians hacked the DNC/Podesta and even knowing that, he still released the emails with a pretty clear intent to affect the election? What do you think would happen to whatever credibility he has? Additionally, you make the assumption that Assange knew exactly who obtained the emails. Don't you think the Russians would have worked through a middle man? I really don't understand how not altering the emails (which isn't entirely true given Sputnik did alter one Podesta email to make a point and Trump used it several hours later on stage) means he's automatically telling the truth about who gave them to him. One has nothing to do with the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 35 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Dude's got billions of copies of this paper that says "in God we trust" Good point. I've got a handful of those, but I can't say that they've made me a believer as of yet. I suppose if I had 49.1 billion of them that might help matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 12 minutes ago, SerHaHa said: Uh, what? So you don't trust Assange to be honest about this, yet trust him enough to believe all the hacked emails he produced through Wikileaks are legit? Which way is it? Not a single email has been accused of being altered, changed, edited, or anything like that, yet Assange is now going to lie about the source of what this whole hacking flap is all about? Unreal. Um, those are 2 completely different issues. You can have experts verify the validity of the emails. The same can't be said for Mr. Assange's word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Good point. I've got a handful of those, but I can't say that they've made me a believer as of yet. I suppose if I had 49.1 billion of them that might help matters. Why is it impossible to believe an atheist can change their mind about the existence of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Why is it impossible to believe an atheist can change their mind about the existence of God? Not impossible, just somewhat unlikely. I don't know. I've never felt the presence, Scott, despite having a handful of epiphany type moments through the course of my life. I guess I'm just geared against it to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Of course its possible. I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. If he was still an atheist it would have been a nice test case to see how Americans respond to such an animal running for public office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not impossible, just somewhat unlikely. I don't know. I've never felt the presence, Scott, despite having a handful of epiphany type moments through the course of my life. I guess I'm just geared against it to some degree. Okay, no individual's experience of life is universal. I could just as well say I don't understand how people can not believe in God. People are different. I was fairly agnostic though my mid twenties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Okay, no individual's experience of life is universal. I could just as well say I don't understand how people can not believe in God. People are different. I was fairly agnostic though my mid twenties. Yeah, I get that. I guess it's my default is to be even less understanding to someone who comes to it late, as they don't have the excuse of having been brainwashed into it as a child. Even that's an assumption of sorts, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, I get that. I guess it's my default is to be even less understanding to someone who comes to it late, as they don't have the excuse of having been brainwashed into it as a child. Even that's an assumption of sorts, I suppose. I was raised Protestant. Brought into the Catholic church. Fell away, became agnostic, and then became Orthodox in my mid 30s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I was raised Protestant. Brought into the Catholic church. Fell away, became agnostic, and then became Orthodox in my mid 30s. That kind of goes to my point. You had the seed planted early, right? I can understand that more easily. I'm not sure what Zuckerberg's formative experience was in regards to religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: That kind of goes to my point. You had the seed planted early, right? I can understand that more easily. I'm not sure what Zuckerberg's formative experience was in regards to religion. Both my kids question the existence of God. I encourage that. The choice to believe is their's not mine or their Mother's. ETA: I'm curious how would you address a child of yours who does believe in God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Both my kids question the existence of God. I encourage that. The choice to believe is their's not mine or their Mother's. ETA: I'm curious how would you address a child of yours who does believe in God? Loudly, slowly and using small words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 6 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Loudly, slowly and using small words Lulz. I did experience that for awhile with my daughter, Scot. My ex-wife is Mormon (although not really practicing or devout) and her parents were all to keen to expose their granddaughter to the religion. I was always quite straightforward with her regarding my lack of belief without trying to supplant or directly influence her beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Lulz. I did experience that for awhile with my daughter, Scot. My ex-wife is Mormon (although not really practicing or devout) and her parents were all to keen to expose their granddaughter to the religion. I was always quite straightforward with her regarding my lack of belief without trying to supplant or directly influence her beliefs. That's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibbs Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Notone said: That's imo a case of killing the messenger, who brings bad news. I remember saying something along the lines of, that as fractured as the GOP is, the Democrats might end up in a similar shape over a year ago. The standard response was: No, the Democratic Coalition is not going to fall apart any time soon. I think we are starting to see at least some tearings at the seams. While the GOP freakshow tries to find the true conservative to lead them to the promised land. The Democrats are now looking for the Progressive that was promised. And I am still curious what the Democrats equivalent to a RINO will be. I hope it's not a DINO. Let's see who gets to make the definition of progressive. That's a very shrewd point, and, I think, the real reason this is shaping up as an increasingly divisive proxy fight: Both wings (although it's a bit of an oversimplification to say there are only two of them) have vested, emotional stakes in making, but more importantly in being, the definition of a progressive. At this point it's not at all clear to me that mutual accommodation is possible. The establishment wing needs to stop condescending to the Sanders wing and make them feel actually welcome at the table, the Sanders wing needs to stop smearing the accomplishments/intentions/progressivism of the establishment wing. Neither is going to happen so long as both sides have reason to feel defensive towards the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Holy shit, this guy is such a fucking neandrathal. What's say you get the goddamn information before you deride it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Holy shit, this guy is such a fucking neandrathal. What's say you get the goddamn information before you deride it? It's also a lie, as the briefing was always scheduled for Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Just now, Kalbear said: It's also a lie, as the briefing was always scheduled for Friday. Yeah, I caught that bit. SHOCKER THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 If this was a TV show where Trump was President, these tweets would be highly entertaining. But it's not. It's the real life dude who's going to have all the nukes soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.