You don't read much do you?

I read plenty.  I also recognize when someone is trying to discredit the source rather than admit his dreamboat candidate is a morally bankrupt, corrupt professional politician who has made a career, and a significant fortune, out of graft and influence peddling. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

For the deaf morons.. I could give two [BLEEP] about Hillary's wrinkly [BLEEP] face or her dumb [BLEEP] pant suits.


My point is they put info out there and it is immediately accepted as gospel truth before it is verified. They trolled with a fake story that took at least SOME time to sort out before the truth was known. There are some things they have leaked which have not been verified in any other way except that a person denies it. They took money from the Kremlin which, according the 70s and 80s makes them at the very least suspect in their intentions.


You clowns can say over and over again I am trying to challenge them over the DNC. IGNORING THE ACTUAL WORDS I TYPE. But I am simply pointing out the danger in having a source you blindly believe no matter what they say (wikileaks, Trump or otherwise).

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I also recognize when someone is trying to discredit the source..

What is the very first sentence I typed about Wikileaks? Does that sound like discrediting? In what language? You leap to these conclusions with no foothold in what has been said at all. Way to 'recognize.'

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Assange has like 10 years flawless record

I'm not doubting assange... but we just had another thread where the facts are purposely misinterpreted in other to create a false narrative.


That is what the concern is. Trust but verify, ya know?

---

Nobody is "blindly believing" WikiLeaks.  They have a track record that speaks for itself, and they're releasing emails that, if fabricated, would quickly be dismissed by all parties involved.  Every document release Assange has made has been supported by fact.  You post one link to a situation where they were basically trolling the NY Times, and that's somehow cause for scrutiny, as if it doesn't already exist.  If anything released involving Clinton's emails was made up or false, she'd be out there having a Grand Mal seizure in front of anyone watching to make sure that was pointed out.  She figured wiping the server with a towel was good enough to make those emails disappear after all. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Couldn't tell.. are you admitting I did not try to discredit them?


The reason I posted to that link was to show how people will run with what they say as if it is verified regardless of whether or not it actually is. Yes they were trolling. Yes it was discovered to be trolling. But for a period of time it was perceived as fact. And to just blindly believe everything someone says is dangerous. You say people aren't. But you clearly do.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Couldn't tell.. are you admitting I did not try to discredit them?


The reason I posted to that link was to show how people will run with what they say as if it is verified regardless of whether or not it actually is. Yes they were trolling. Yes it was discovered to be trolling. But for a period of time it was perceived as fact. And to just blindly believe everything someone says is dangerous. You say people aren't. But you clearly do.

Oh, you're doing your part as a good little lemming to lay the groundwork to discredit the emails.  Don't try to pretend otherwise. 

 

No, I don't blindly believe anything, but, based on the track record of the source, the odds of them not being credible is pretty much nil.  I fully expect the emails to be scrutinized almost as much as any republican candidate since they involve potential damaging/incriminating info on the corrupt pantsuit princess.  If these emails were leaked about Donald Trump, the media wouldn't scrutinize them one iota.  They'd breathlessly scan them for potential scandals and break as quickly as possible with the news.  Since it's Clinton, they'll dig deep to make sure there's nothing fabricated in the release, and when that doesn't provide what they would perceive to be positive results, they'll just ignore them all together with the standard response:

 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'm not doubting assange... but we just had another thread where the facts are purposely misinterpreted in other to create a false narrative.


That is what the concern is. Trust but verify, ya know?

 

The amount of misleading headlines and garbage in mainstream news that is obviously designed to mislead the public is much more concerning than a couple websites speculating on what the wikileak will be.

 

think about it.  you have ALL the big big news organizations all-in for Hillary. there is a huge imbalance there. worrying about these much smaller websites for "false narratives" is like worrying about minnows while swimming in a pool of sharks.

---

Oh, you're doing your part as a good little lemming to lay the groundwork to discredit the emails. Don't try to pretend otherwise.


No, I don't blindly believe anything, but, based on the track record of the source, the odds of them not being credible is pretty much nil. I fully expect the emails to be scrutinized almost as much as any republican candidate since they involve potential damaging/incriminating info on the corrupt pantsuit princess. If these emails were leaked about Donald Trump, the media wouldn't scrutinize them one iota. They'd breathlessly scan them for potential scandals and break as quickly as possible with the news. Since it's Clinton, they'll dig deep to make sure there's nothing fabricated in the release, and when that doesn't provide what they would perceive to be positive results, they'll just ignore them all together with the standard response:

You really love calling people lemmings. Even when it doesn't fit. You're still saying I'm trying to discredit wikileaks after I have repeatedly said I am not disputing anything they have claimed. And you are still aligning me with Hillary even after I have said I do not care for her at all. For someone who has some really intelligent posts you seem to have a real lack of comprehensive skills.


I simply pointed out people believe everything from this site without supportive evidence being verified from an independent third party and you made my point.


Tell me more about how I am a lemming.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!