Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

326 Excellent

About JimmyJ

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. What is this babble? Trying to find a coherent thought, I'll try this: "But since you're such a believer in transparency, why don't you tell us your Line and email addresses and passwords. If you have nothing to hide..." There is a reason that government employees are called "public servants". They work for us. If they are doing something illegal/unconstitutional etc. it needs to be exposed. We pay their salaries. We have a right - and an obligation - to know what they are doing. Hence whistleblowers. There is also a reason we are called "private citizens". We have a right to privacy, public servants have a need for transparency. Asking for the poster's passwords shows a lack of understanding on your part.
  2. Thanks for the link - I missed that situation. I was wrong stating: "No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them." At least one entity did state that. The article did give Wiki's reasons - " WikiLeaks told FP that it turns down documents it cannot verify or that have already been published elsewhere, and that it “has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin.” Also - "‘We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote, according to FP. “We don’t have the resources.”
  3. There are a hundred countries of which they have never published revelations about "government corruption and misdeeds". They can only publish what they are provided. Even if they are provided material, and they deem it of interest, Wikileaks publishes nothing they cannot verify, and nothing which has already been published. They have never published anything which has been shown to be false or fake. No one has ever stated that they have been furnished documents of "Russian government corruption and misdeeds" and then chose not to publish them. They cannot publish material they do not have.
  4. He is not a criminal - he has never been charged with a crime. He's always been willing to face the law as far as being interviewed by Swedish prosecutors - but to protect himself from being extradited and thrown into a USA dungeon he wanted the interview to be remotely or in person at the embassy - which Sweden finally did, and could have done years earlier.
  5. I read that, but also read that it was his tweeting (accurately) that there is only circumstantial evidence that Russia was behind the illness of the ex-Russian spy and his daughter.
  6. No. One woman, who had consensual sex with him previously, said she was "half asleep" the final time they had sex but was upset that he hadn't used a condom. He was initially questioned and the case closed. 3 months later a prosecutor chose to reopen it. Seems likely a deal was made with the US as a means to extradite Assange for heroically publishing the truth, embarrassing those in power. Assange's defense team: "We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant... "Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
  7. Thus far incurable in his case. Caught from a woman in southeast Asia. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43571120
  8. Thai eating habits

    I would not eat from the shared plate as described nor drink from the shared cup.
  9. . Excellent film. (I've been watching all the films of Jacques Audiard I can find after seeing this and "The Beat That My Heart Skipped"). `
  10. Aren't you being a bit hard on him, Thakkar? Get real. Who among us hasn't had unprotected intercourse with a porn star & playmate while wife #3 (the one you had intercourse with while still married to wife #2, the woman you slept with while still married to wife #1) was home nursing child number five?
  11. +1. Never heard of it before, just read about it on Wiki.
  12. Christopher Hitchens was well spoken on this - "Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn old knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite.”
  13. I agree with this in general. But - when someone positions themself as the holier than thou fundamentalist Christian, and the "Family Values" spokesperson, then they have abdicated their right to privacy on issues which negate their espoused values. The same with sexuality - e.g. if someone is gay that should not be an issue of any kind and shouldn't be brought up as it is (or should be) irrelevant. But if the person is consistently supporting anti-gay legislation, condemns gays in general, and it turns out is actually gay and enjoying the gay lifestyle while at the same time working against that community, that person should be exposed for the lying hypocrite that they are. (There is a terrific documentary on that very topic - gay politicians who campaign as anti-gay).