FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:1. If it's not shocking, why is it a real story? :thought
Pretty simple. The information leaked is the real story, not the smearing of the person who leaked it. Finding out the government lied is never shocking.
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:2. Both can be true.
I don't even see the most laughable propagandists claiming this is "Russian disinformation" anymore. The fact that this came from the US government kinda ruins that spin.
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:I can take a screenshot of the "top secret" box score of the UGA/TCU game and make it look like TCU won 65-7.
No one is even claiming that. Alterations made to the documents were meant to hide the source, not change the actual facts/data.
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:Are you really saying Russians are above lying and distorting figures? :lolthumb
Assuming you can read, why even ask such a stupid question?
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:Also note the use of the word "likely," as in unconfirmed but believed or probable. Same with your pipeline and Taliban points. I find it highly unlikely that TCU would lose to Georgia 65-7, but that's what happened. But let's make fun of Biden because he's not clairvoyant and doesn't claim to be. :lolthumb
He said "highly unlikely" when everyone with a functioning brain knew it was highly likely. And only propagandists and people retarded enough to think Russia would blow up its own pipeline ever made such claims. It's like Biden saying it's highly unlikely the sun will come up tomorrow, and when it does, his apologists say "he's not clairvoyant! Duh!".
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:3. Regarding leakers and Obama catching more/most of them (just taking your word for it),
You have a fascinating ability to read one thing and interpret it as something else. The Obama administration didn't "catch" more, they prosecuted more. You expose the truth about Democrats, you get punished. Simple.
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:it's almost as if it's easier to steal classified documents when they're computer files on computers on a worldwide network...
:facepalm You should really educate yourself on how top secret documents are handled (unless Hillary Clinton is handling them). Ever heard of a SCIF? C,mon, man!
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:4. It's very different giving soldiers fighting in an actual war guns versus giving some insurrectionist Billy Bob a gun for when when he's bored of muddin' and goes into an impotent rage about his favorite politician losing or feels like shooting up a school or church.
We are giving weapons to the most corrupt government in Europe. They are then giving them to (often untrained) Nazi fags, or possibly selling some of them to arms dealers. We don't know. Our government has repeatedly made it clear that we don't even
want to know. Remember when all that Iraq money just disappeared? Same thing is happening here. And we know it. And we don't care.
By the way, where do I sign up to get those free government guns for Billy Bob insurrectionists? :ROFL2 And can you remind me how many shots were fired (not by the government) during that "insurrection"? :dunno
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:5. Regarding the banker, even though Stalin was a villain, he wasn't wrong about needing to stop Hitler. It's just a shame that Stalin also benefited.
You come up with some retarded-ass analogies, man.
FuckESPNdotCOM wrote:6. Leaking things like the "NSA is spying on everyone" is something the public needs to and should know. Leaking battle plan information and putting lives in danger is not the same.
This guy is certainly no Snowden, and there is no benefit in releasing some of the information he leaked. But like Snowden, he's just proving what people who were paying attention already knew. And like Snowden, he's being punished because the leaks make the establishment look bad. Nothing wrong with letting taxpayers know how their money is being
spent laundered. But overall, you're ending on a high note. :up