WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[herfacechair]

I noticed that you ignored a question that I asked you in a previous post. Considering that you farted something about the length of my posts, thought I'd give this question its own space. Since this is a short one, you shouldn't have problems finding this question, so here it is again:

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Really? Where I went to law school they taught us something different. Your concept of law (and long-arm statutes in particular) is seriously, seriously naive.

Really? Let's add the entire statement that I made, shall we?

From Cornel.edu:

"Hornbooks are legal texts written expressly for law students by law professors using plain prose. They condense an area of law into a single volume and give a clear overview of the law's evolution, a discussion of courts' interpretation of the law and an explanation of the application of the law today. This presentation of "Black letter law" makes hornbooks an attractive study aid. A hornbook published by West Group identifies itself as such on its cover. West's "Black Letter" series, Aspen's "Examples and Explanations" series and Lexis' "Understanding the Law" legal text series are similar to hornbooks. There is no clear line of demarcation between treatises and hornbooks but as a general rule a hornbook is not as detailed as a treatise and provides fewer references to other sources. Accordingly, hornbooks are not considered persuasive by courts and should be used only for background purposes."

Since you assume that my concept of law is "seriously, seriously 'naïve'", then answer this question:

Is Cornel WRONG about the above bolded red statement? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Simply copy and paste the Cornel.edu quote above, in its entirety, followed by the bolded red question. Then, mark an "X" in the box that represents your answer. Spare me your BS response. "YES" or "NO."

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Charles, TTH, Mazomaniac, WTF anyone hear the tree fall in the woods?

People that are like me when it comes to debates will ignore this statement and continue to argue with me. Some people need to experience pain before they listen.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

That would be one view on what's happened. Another view....

People argue with you until they realize it's a waste of time. Argument stops. Somebody forgets - or someone new comes along who doesn't know better - and reengages you. Cycle repeats...

If you go back and read what I wrote, you'd notice that we're not talking about two different views. If people wisely decide that a debate with me is pointless, they stop. If they stop, then we have the scenario that I talked about in case people do stop. All you did was expand on one aspect on how the cycle repeats itself. Go ahead, look our exchange over. You didn't contradict me, you built on my statement instead.

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

I do my level best to think something through before I open my mouth. Consequently, when I do so I tend to think I'm right. Arguing with me is the about the only way to get me to change my mind. I know I'm not perfect - far from it. I've learned to appreciate give-and-take in all of it's various forms. It's how we all learn & improve.

Both during and outside of my debates, I constantly research various topics. It's that research that causes me to change my mind. This has happened on minor information here and there. By the time I come to a debate with someone on this topic, the opposition advances an argument, or statement, that I had already rejected... either through a previous debate, or through analyzing information that I got from my research. My changing position never happens as a result of what someone, that I'm debating with, has said.

Sisyphus: But, you've got to come correct or you're going to get tuned out.

I come to these debates correct. Again, the major prerequisite for me to debate someone is for me to know more about a topic than that person. Those that think they've "turned me out" make the same mistakes previous posters have made, doing the same thing, in the past years that I've ben debating online.

Sisyphus: Know the community, know the audience.

Again, I do know the community, and the audience. This isn't the first message board that I've debated on over these years. Human nature doesn't change from one message board to another. I don't see any major differences between the people that I've seen post on this board, and those that post on the previous ones that I've posted on.

Sisyphus: You may have some valid points to make on this topic & many others...

I have valid points, very valid points. The reason most people here don't see them as valid is that they seem to lack key experiences related to what I'm arguing here. A major reason they don't see the validity of my points is that I'm arguing against their position.

Sisyphus: but I get so turned off by the self-righteous demeanor that I quickly lose interest in anything you may have to say.

Pardon me if my pointing to my research, and experiences... as opposed to the opposition's lack of it, as my being "self-righteous." But get off your high horse and be honest for a change. The real reason you don't have any interest in anything I'm saying is that you disagree with my side of the argument.

Sisyphus: I won't presume to speak for anyone but me but my guess is I'm not on an island in that regard.

I've debated with enough people on your side of the argument to know that you're not on an island in that regard. You're not the first, among those that I've debated, that complained about that. At the same time, I notice the irony in the fact that the vast majority that threw that accusation against me displayed many of the same traits they accused me of having.

Sisyphus: So, at ease, Chief!

Wrong NCO Corps.

Sisyphus: Chances are...the men you serve with are tuning you out as well. That ain't good!

Not true. The vast majority of my argument here is consistent with the arguments the majority of the people I served with make. They don't tune me out when I make these similar arguments.

Sisyphus: There it is...in a nutshell.

Actually, you missed the mark.

Sisyphus: You may win battles & wars in your own mind;

Wrong. This isn't something that's "just happening in my own mind." Point blank, I win my engagements in these debates. Any critical thinker reading the threads I've debated on would see that.

Sisyphus: but, you've already lost the hearts & minds fight here. I'm guessing it's the same story pretty much everywhere you go.

Again, what I previously said:

"I've been debating online about various war related topics since I came back from the initial Operation Iraqi Freedom. In each of the debates I've been involved with, I've always came out of the debate with the same argument I had going into the debate. I don't debate to change other people's minds, and I definitely have never changed my mind based on what one of my debate opponents have said." - herfacechair

Winning the hearts and minds of the people that I'm debating with has hardly been a goal. And, as I've indicated here, with the above cycle, pretty much the same story has happened.

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

God help me...I did. You are one odd dude.... But, you keep at it, Sgt. York! The life of a prophet can be a lonely one...

Perhaps you've just been barking up the wrong tree. "Another Realm" is one floor down.

I've ben doing this for years, so I shouldn't have a problem "keeping at it." And no, my life isn't lonely. Heck, I have a blast with these debates. I'd still get a chuckle at some of the things the opposition as said, or claimed, in the past.

[herfacechair]

WTF: By your own admission you are sucking at the government tit.

WRONG. Go back and read the statement that you quoted, as well as previous statements that I've made here. I argue for the reason that I've stated on both, this message board, and other message boards. I have a break in service. Even during the time I wasn't in the service, I argued what I argued here. I didn't benefit at all from the government while making these same, or similar, arguments.

WTF: For that milk to continue to flow, I'm sure you are aware that the gain from military victory needs to at the very least equal the cost.

Wrong. The milk will continue to flow, regardless of whether the military wins or not. If it doesn't win in the short run, the milk will continue to flow until the enemies that we're fighting accomplish their ultimate objective. Then it wouldn't matter if the milk continues to flow or not.

WTF: If you look at our national debt you will see that is not happening.

Wrong again. We're going to need a military, regardless of what our situation is. Just look at our situation during the great depression... look at the situation we had during World War II... heck, look at the situation we had during the Revolutionary War. We piled on debt, but as long as we had the will to fight, we kept on fighting. The milk continued to flow.

WTF: What this means is that at some point your milk will dry up

Let's put it this way. If the milk "dries up," our existence as a country is numbered.

WTF: as will, I suspect your cockiness.

Pardon me if my steadfast devotion to my debating hobby constitutes my being "cocky." But, if you fantasy were to pan out, I'd still be on here arguing the position that I argue.

WTF: Thus I stick by my statement that you are winning the battle but losing the funding war.

The only part of the statement that's correct is the part about my winning the battle. As with some of the other wars we fought, we ran our debt up, but that debt eventually went down. Your "funding" argument is a non issue.

WTF: It may not affect you.

It won't affect me. Regardless of whether your fantasy plays out or not, I'll continue doing what I do here.

WTF: Now I realize that you may think this debate is all about you but from my POV it is not, it is about long term trends and economic health. Just because you are not able to see past the decade does not mean that I can't.

Again, before you pull an assumption like that out of your ass, it helps to do your research. I've made enough statements here for anybody, having more than a 5th grade education, to understand why I'm doing this. For instance, what I said on this thread:

"Given the asymmetrical warfare that we're involved in, we have to be doing what we're doing right now to defeat the threat that intends to illuminate us as a culture, as a non Muslim people. Our failure to do what we're doing right now invites the enemy to succeed with their goal... establishing global Islamic law." -herfacechair

Anybody with any reading comprehension ability would conclude, from reading that statement, that for me, this is about long term trends given the asymmetrical threat that we're facing. Anybody with at least "half a brain" would also conclude that what I'm talking about here requires seeing decades, even centuries, past our current decade.

Again, considering that everything is at state, our economic health isn't going to matter if we're forced to bow down to Mecca 5 times a day, and forced to abide by a radical version of what the Taliban subjected Afghanistan to.

WTF: No you leave out a very important factor....funds to fight.

If funds were an issue, we should've lost the Revolutionary War and World War II. So no, I didn't leave that important factor out.

WTF: The Indians had the will to fight and win.

And thanks to our will to fight, and win, we conquered the rest their lands and caused them to live in reservations, assimilate, or both.

WTF: Good Lord, you sound like some Defense contractor feeding at the trough trying to feed me a line about why I need to feed you.

If that's how my statement came across to you, then you need to go back to the school system that pushed you through, and sue them for dereliction of duty. They did you a disservice in the reading comprehension department.

What I say still stands.

We still have a will to fight, and congress is still providing funding for us to continue to do our operations. Despite the fact that you're blind to the asymmetrical threats this country faces, congress sees the importance of our accomplishing our objectives downrange.

You see, my life, as a service member, would be a lot easier, and comfortable, if I weren't to deploy downrange. I could start on my doctorate degree. I could turn one of my hobbies into an income stream. I could build on another one. I could do all sorts of things to make things more convenient for me.

So, it wouldn't make sense for me to do things for the reasons you say I'm doing things.

Go back to quote that I made, THAT'S the reason I'm arguing the things that I'm arguing here.

WTF: No , I was comparing you to the Jack Nicholison charchter. Col. Jessup, I believe his name was.

That's PRECISELY the character that I was talking about. As a "Col," his character would've been someone that had graduated from the Naval Academy, or from a university via an ROTC program. His character would've at least have a Bachelor's degree.

The Nicolson (sp) character did a good job acting like someone with extensive military experience. In fact, his demeanor would be considered "lenient" by how many in the military actually act.

WTF: Look I appreciate your POV. To have the job you have, it is exactly what you need to have. I understand why they instill it in you. But it is a short term view, one that saves your life but does not take into consideration the long term health of this country.

Your opinion is erroneous on several levels, and relies on inductive fallacy.

What I've presented here is an assessment based on my experiences, as well as on my research. Nobody instilled these assessments into me. I came up with them independently of others coming to the same, or similar, conclusions. Nobody issued me the arguments that I'm making here, and nobody is forcing me to say what I'm saying here. Nobody is paying me to say what I'm saying here.

I'm saying this on my own free will.

What you dismiss with the "short term view, one that saves your life," is something that you don't want to entertain.

For us, FACTS play an important role in our decisions and analysis. We gather facts, and make projections based on the facts. This is helpful downrange, this is helpful during an online debate, this is helpful in many places.

Again, if we don't accomplish our strategic objectives, our financial/economic health won't matter. We'd have other things to worry about, like a radical version of Islamic Law that makes the Taliban's leadership look like a real democratic government being forced down our throats.

WTF: That is why I think this discussion , at least that you and I are having is about two different subject matters.

I'm arguing about the negative impact the Useful Idiot, and his website, are having on our efforts against our enemies. You're making it about something else.

WTF: Good luck to you and from the bottom of my heart I hope like hell none of the leaks put you or any of our soldiers life in danger

That's an unfortunate reality that the service members have to face now that they've released information that should've remained secret.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Bush, Rumsfeld, and few of their friends had war crimes charges pressed against them in more than one European country. Those charges were dismissed on sovereignty grounds, of course.

That's a weak copout for charges that didn't hold water in the first place. Somewhere during their investigations, they should've came across the "sovereignty grounds" that allegedly caused the charges to get dismissed.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

But hey! If there was reason enough to file the charges then those guys were obviously guilty of something, right? Shouldn't we be out denouncing them in public as the war criminals they obviously are? Don't they deserve to spend their remaining days in Spandau even if there wasn't an actual trial or an actual guilty verdict?

Apples to oranges comparison.

Their charges against members of the Bush Administration were phony charges. The subject happened to be in a grey area. What the Useful Idiot could face? Black and white violation. I quoted a section of the applicable law.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Yes, the wing-nut agenda does occasionally force you to swallow hard and ingest a does of reality.

That's a good way to summarize the affects a conservative's post has on your mind.

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

But that's the price ya pay for being able to point at Assange and yell "WITCH!!!" before the gavel falls. Thinking about it, I guess the cost of extremism is actually pretty low.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Again, comparing apples to oranges. The charges against Bush and Company were phony charges. They could've tried them and convicted them of war crimes. But no, they dismissed those charges on "sovereignty grounds." Why even raise the "sovereignty grounds" when you start by pressing charges, based on a law that allows you to render judgment against anybody in the world for "crimes against humanity"?

In the Useful Idiot's case, you could pull a law and make a nice comparison.

In your case, this post illustrates your true issues with me, and others arguing something that you disagree with. Bottom line, you truly oppose the war. Bush and Company, "perpetrators" for the war are "bad." The Useful Idiot, who worked against the Military by releasing sensitive military related information? He's "good" in your eyes. This clouds your judgment in this fight, and makes your bias obvious.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Did you forget about Hitler who was probably responsible for more deaths (directly in concentration camps or in WW II) then any dictator in history.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

[Whirlaway]

Hitler's Nazi party was the National Socialist Workers Party....a socialist leftist political party.....Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge) was a communist..Mao Tse Chung a communist..Stalin a communist...just a few who top the list of the most murderous thugs in world history.

[Whirlaway]

And let's not forget the Pro Abortion party - Democrats..who faithfully support a women's right to choose with abortions up to and including partial birth...I think the last count is about about 45 million executions of innocents......

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

@ discreetgent - I wasn’t sure whether or not you were right. I knew approximately how many Europeans died during the war, but I also knew Mao’s governmental policies led to famine that killed millions of Chinese. I was betting that if Mao didn’t have this dubious distinction, he would be a close second to Hitler. However, based on what I found, Mao is, in fact, the winner in this infamous contest and the Communist regime in the USSR holds second place. So, Whirlaway is right—but these contenders had the added benefit of time. Hitler was only in power for a little over twelve years. .

Good information; thanks

[discreetgent]

I'm beginning to think of WTF posting links as the good old days.

Trees in a forest folks

[John Bull]

So now comes the mod to say, "Gents, you may argue until Hell freezes over. But let's not have any more characterizations such as "Dumbass", "Idiot" etc. and let's not be talking about inflicting pain on any member because that causes me pain".

[Mazomaniac]

I'm going to make the gentle suggestion that the best way to kill a troll is to starve it to death. That's certainly the strategy I'll be using from this point forward.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Hitler's Nazi party was the National Socialist Workers Party....a socialist leftist political party.....Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge) was a communist..Mao Tse Chung a communist..Stalin a communist...just a few who top the list of the most murderous thugs in world history.

Just because Hitler's party had the name "socialist" in it, doesn't mean that it was leftist, as can be seen by the following graph:

[John Bull]

You may make a graph of pictures lay in any order you like but the name of the party pretty much says it all:

National Socialist German Workers' Party

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by John Bull

You may make a graph of pictures lay in any order you like but the name of the party pretty much says it all:

National Socialist German Workers' Party

Ah, but JB, you can name anything you want. It is what it is, no matter the name.

In this case, I believe Fascism to be the extreme right wing of the political spectrum, while Communism is the extreme left wing. Both are nearly identical in the way they treat humans. And both are nearly equally abhorrent to those who love this country and other republics/democracies.

My earlier post merely object to the position that they were all left-wing wingnuts. Obviously there are some right wing wingnuts in there too.