Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RussK

  1. Funny, yet disturbing in a whole watching news on television sort of way: the emotional nuts on the 'Right' insist their rhetoric couldn't incite violence. Yet, everyone is running away and back tracking from their militant, violent statements. The now famous Sarah Palin crosshairs web posting has been deleted, etc... My favorite though: "If ballots don't work, bullets will." Joyce Kauffman, tea party rally.

  2. Good job Auburn and Cam Newton for a great, fun season. Great job SEC for five championships in a row; no one can compete, esp the Big Ten.

  3. Lets cap this college football season with a great game. Go Auburn; thanks for a great season Cam.

  4. Damn how I love listening to south stations. Esp. Getting tired of sad folks here

  5. I love the Cotton Bowl. LSU vs Texas A&M tonight. Too bad Miami isn't there "to mess with Texas."

    was a game that defined the generational attitude for many people.
  6. Wind chill -40 below zero "expect flesh to freeze in 20 minutes. " Only one way to find out.

  7. Muqtada al-Sadr has returned to Iraq without fear of death or arrest. His Mahdi army is responsible for the slaughter of countless US military personnel and Sunni, Iraqi citizens. His political party continues to be the 'king makers' of power in Iraq. This signals a clear, objective failure of the Iraq War.

  8. So, is Brainerd and Baxter too broke now to buy and put more sand down on the roads? The storm has been over for days; white knuckle driving, let alone 'in town,' is inexcusable.

  9. Miami vs. Notre Dame. U apparel is ready to rock. Go Canes!

  10. Concerning the circumstances that surround tonights NFL game: "This is part of what's happened in this country. I think we've become a nation of wussies." --Ed Rendell

  11. Green Bay vs New York Giants

  12. @Jesus_M_Christ There was actually supposed to be 4 of us in the Holy Trinity, but Santa backed out at the last minute.

  13. What's with the quote? On it's own, as a statement, I don't agree with it. If it's supposed to be a comment on my reply concerning first amendment protection to those releasing classified information, that "The Supreme Court has never ruled that publishing secret documents is protected by the first amendment," then the quote doesn't do anything to refute my statement. That case spoke only to a prior restraint injunction against the two news outlets; the court didn't think the government had sufficient reason. Nothing in that decision expands first amendment rights or protects the release of classified information. The government could have easily prosecuted the New York Times and Washington Post if they wanted to, under the Espionage Act; and the majority of justices involved in the case stated that fact.
  14. Well, Assange, in his quest for attention, has stirred up a nice storm against him. There is no doubt that he is operating a little differently now--which is not to say that its satisfactory. However, this is not to say that they hadn't released data raw, en masse, because that was their mode of operation. You can see my post on the other thread for an example (the release of large CVS files). In fact, such mass releases are what got people talking about Wikileaks to begin with. There is no smear campaign here, that is the government and media outlets reporting the facts.
  15. Both of you are being truly ignorant, especially the one calling me a liar for stating the truth and the other for calling me lazy for not fulfilling my part of due diligence on this thread. For that, I didn't even bother to read the last post, as any semblance of 'due diligence' on the behalf of you two is seriously lacking. To question the fact of mass release of raw information on the part of Wikileaks is ridiculous and disturbing. As an example, they have released CVS files near 70mb in size, with over 65,000 entries--so don't try using 2003 excel if you want to see all of them--with many entries containing information that I have outlined in this and other threads. So, I'd suggest you two go ahead an fix yourselves, apply the allegations you've launched against me and others to yourselves, and then figure out why you are "robotically repeating nonsense" to defend Assange, due to whatever sort of love affair you have with the nihilist. As for recommendations that people of the forum visit wikileaks, I suggest that people on the forum do not visit the site. Certain universities and departments have already warned their students and employees not to visit the sites; the DoD has warned their employees as well and blocked sites from access on their different networks. The warning shouldn't be taken too lightly: it is easy to understand how the ability of someone to handle official or classified documents could be called into question if they are speaking about the contents of wikileaks in any significant matter or even if they are simply reading the information, of which they have no right of access to.
  16. Good luck on the viewing. I was excited about the prospect of being able to watch the eclipse, but, unfortunately, the weather isn't going to participate: it's going to be very cloudy and snowing.
  17. Yes, lets do: Wikileaks, in their numerous mass releases of illegally acquired documents, have released the names of foreign local nationals working with US personnel and other information that could be damaging to an individual, foreign or not. Many major news outlets have, on their own, been routinely redacting information contained in these reports, while what is released by Wikileaks is simply the raw data, as is. So, whoever you say has refuted the fact that Assange has released such information, is, quite simply, full of shit. One can easily open up some of the data files that Assange has released and figure that out. However, I wouldn't recommend downloading or reading the documents.
  18. Um, really? And who refuted this? Whoever it is, they are reporting false information.
  19. Wikileaks does obtain information, if they didn't obtain it, they wouldn't have anything to release; and information is selected for pursuit now--floods of random data is no longer allowed. U.S. law applies within the the U.S., and anyone can be extradited for crimes committed against the country. With Assange explicitly targeting the United States, hopefully they attempt extradition. Major news sources may have published information, but many have worked with the government and redacted information contained within intelligence reports, situation reports, cables, etc... They can go after news outlets once they deal with the cause of the problem, Assange. The Supreme Court has never ruled that publishing secret documents is protected by the first amendment, and the source you give (wikipedia) doesn't make your claim or give any evidence to support it. I don't need evidence to understand the harm that is caused by releasing the names of foreign local nationals, their activities with coalition forces, and other information; and this says nothing about the release of personal, private information about soldiers and diplomats.
  20. Not a bad article. And yes, Yost is right. Besides the overall destructive nature of Wikileaks, the whole goal of releasing documents for the sake of releasing documents, without any value judgment involved, smacks of nihilism. For Assange and his nihilistic stance, it must all boil down to 'perspective,' hence the governments of the world are lumped into one category of enemy, and the "US administration" is as equal a target to "bring down" as "those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia."
  21. Bernard Hopkins, 45, is going for history tonight.

  22. Requesting that people break the law and then facilitating the crime, well, is a crime. Releasing official government documents, that could cause harm to the government and employees is also a crime. The fact that government officials contacted Assange and told him (or his organization) that the release of the information would cause harm only goes to help the government's future case. The same goes for all of Assange's self damning statements about targeting the government, of which one was a stated goal of his for Wikileaks to have the ability to "bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality--including the US administration." I'm not going to answer your hypothetical question about when its right to steal and disseminate government documents. However, the idea that that dumb ass Private is a whilsteblower, and Wikileaks is a news outlet, is ridiculous. The transcripts of his conversations about the documents clearly show that he's not some sort of hero 'whistleblower,' but instead an immature, lazy, disloyal, and overall lousy soldier. I'm not going to rehash comments I've said in other posts on the forum regarding this person, but I think one of his punishments should be a whole 15 months of 'cookout duty,' or whatever stupid detail they had this incompetent loser on, and then they can hang him. As for Wikileaks being a news outlet, I can only regard that as some fantasy supported by most civil libertarians, that we can go ahead and call everyone's common blog and website a news organization, so they can get the same 'protections.' Would I have Ragnar arrested for what PFC knucklehead did? Yes, I would; and I would gladly arrest anyone who wantonly violates their obligations to properly handle classified documents--an obligation of which they voluntarily agreed to undertake--and, likewise, any agent who facilitated the crime. This is not the dystopian world presented in most of Atlas Shrugged, and proposing that some of the particulars should be accepted in reality, like Ragnar's activity, is ludicrous and criminal.
  23. Assange has partial responsibility: him and his organization requested, promoted, and abated the mishandling and illegal dissemination of protected, official documents. What Assange has done is similar to the activities of a foreign intelligence agent, except he doesn't work for a government and all the information has been made public. Making information public doesn't make an organization a news outlet. And if the New York Times promotes the theft of government property, actively colludes and participates in illegal activity, and doesn't engage in dialog with the government about the potential harm of releasing certain information, then they should be investigated and brought up on charges too. However, I've never heard of them doing that, but I have heard of news organizations doing just the opposite.
  24. "The Patriots are so good in the snow that they've offered to play their next game in the Metrodome." Mike & Mike, ESPN.

  • Create New...