AztecPadre Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 Just now, concha said: Yo speakie bastante bien. No sea cobarde. Cobarde no soy compa. Huevos me sobran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, AztecPadre said: Cobarde no soy compa. Huevos me sobran. No te estoy hablando de lo que tienes en la boca, muerdealmohada. Que duerma bien... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 About wikileaks General FAQ 1. What is WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization created to protect whistleblowers and journalists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. They believe that transparent governments leads to better governments and less corruption. Led by Australian, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks was started 10 years ago with the goal of "opening governments" to help prevent criminal corruption. No information is leaked that could harm innocent civilians or those not involved in corruption. 2. Can we believe WikiLeaks? In short, yes. In its 10 year history, not one single leak has ever proven to be false, something WikiLeaks prides itself on. If the leaks were false, everyone implicated in them would have immediately and aggressively denied their claims rather than simply change the subject in speculating if Russia did it. For more hard proof within the emails, read this source. 3. Is WikiLeaks related to Wikipedia? No. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, WikiLeaks cannot. The only thing they share in common are their first 4 letters. According to their website, "WikiLeaks combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two are not otherwise related." 4. Why are they only going after Hillary Clinton? 10 years ago, WikiLeaks became famous for exposing elements of the Bush administration and the Iraq wars, and quickly became heroes to the left. This year, Hillary Clinton is being exposed because of the unprecedented levels of corruption throughout her history. Julian Assange, who is not necessarily pro-Trump, has stated that if any controversial Trump material is found, it will be published. However, everything controversial they have has already been said by Trump himself, according to Assange. 5. Why is the media barely covering them? Because almost 100% of mainstream media sources, as well as several prominent publishing news sources are implicated in the leaks in colluding with the Clinton campaign. These "news" sources (as you will find in the leaks below) have conspired to get Hillary elected, by only reporting anti-Trump smear pieces, manufacturing or exaggerating scandals, and hiding anything damaging to Hillary. Most are even donating big money to the Clinton campaign in order to keep the globalist status-quo. These revelations are the stories journalists dream of, but CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, AP, and several more are all implicated in the leaks. This is why the media has been so one sided this election season, and why only 6% of people trust the mainstream media. Trump hasn't helped with some past comments, but asCNN said here, the media is doing everything they can to help Hillary and give her a free ride. 6. Is Russia behind the leaks? Despite Hillary stating at the third debate that 17 intelligence agencies have said Russia is behind it, there is no proof that Russia is responsible for these leaks against her and the DNC. In fact, even Politico (who has been implicated in these leaks several times with Glenn Thrush) gave her claim a negative fact-check. There is no definitive proof, even from Hillary, only theories that it "could" be Russia. The reason for this constant claim by the media (as if it is 100% truth) is to pivot away from what is actually in the damning leaks and get your attention onto "evil" Russia. This immature approach by Hillary and the media, in conjunction with other recent foreign policy blunders, has led to extremely increased levels of tension with Russia, not seen since the Cold War. Julian Assange has strongly indicated that insiders in the DNC and US government are responsible for the leaks, including hinting at one DNC insider who was killed shortly after the DNC leaks. Regardless of who the hacker is, it does not take away from the validity of what is actually in the leaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecPadre Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 16 minutes ago, concha said: No te estoy hablando de lo que tienes en la boca, muerdealmohada. Que duerma bien... Haha. Pinche joto. No mames huey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 4 hours ago, AztecPadre said: Yes I need one from a source that won't give me a virus. Nice deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 8 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: About wikileaks General FAQ 1. What is WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization created to protect whistleblowers and journalists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public. They believe that transparent governments leads to better governments and less corruption. Led by Australian, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks was started 10 years ago with the goal of "opening governments" to help prevent criminal corruption. No information is leaked that could harm innocent civilians or those not involved in corruption. 2. Can we believe WikiLeaks? In short, yes. In its 10 year history, not one single leak has ever proven to be false, something WikiLeaks prides itself on. If the leaks were false, everyone implicated in them would have immediately and aggressively denied their claims rather than simply change the subject in speculating if Russia did it. For more hard proof within the emails, read this source. 3. Is WikiLeaks related to Wikipedia? No. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, WikiLeaks cannot. The only thing they share in common are their first 4 letters. According to their website, "WikiLeaks combines the protection and anonymity of cutting-edge cryptographic technologies with the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two are not otherwise related." 4. Why are they only going after Hillary Clinton? 10 years ago, WikiLeaks became famous for exposing elements of the Bush administration and the Iraq wars, and quickly became heroes to the left. This year, Hillary Clinton is being exposed because of the unprecedented levels of corruption throughout her history. Julian Assange, who is not necessarily pro-Trump, has stated that if any controversial Trump material is found, it will be published. However, everything controversial they have has already been said by Trump himself, according to Assange. 5. Why is the media barely covering them? Because almost 100% of mainstream media sources, as well as several prominent publishing news sources are implicated in the leaks in colluding with the Clinton campaign. These "news" sources (as you will find in the leaks below) have conspired to get Hillary elected, by only reporting anti-Trump smear pieces, manufacturing or exaggerating scandals, and hiding anything damaging to Hillary. Most are even donating big money to the Clinton campaign in order to keep the globalist status-quo. These revelations are the stories journalists dream of, but CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, AP, and several more are all implicated in the leaks. This is why the media has been so one sided this election season, and why only 6% of people trust the mainstream media. Trump hasn't helped with some past comments, but asCNN said here, the media is doing everything they can to help Hillary and give her a free ride. 6. Is Russia behind the leaks? Despite Hillary stating at the third debate that 17 intelligence agencies have said Russia is behind it, there is no proof that Russia is responsible for these leaks against her and the DNC. In fact, even Politico (who has been implicated in these leaks several times with Glenn Thrush) gave her claim a negative fact-check. There is no definitive proof, even from Hillary, only theories that it "could" be Russia. The reason for this constant claim by the media (as if it is 100% truth) is to pivot away from what is actually in the damning leaks and get your attention onto "evil" Russia. This immature approach by Hillary and the media, in conjunction with other recent foreign policy blunders, has led to extremely increased levels of tension with Russia, not seen since the Cold War. Julian Assange has strongly indicated that insiders in the DNC and US government are responsible for the leaks, including hinting at one DNC insider who was killed shortly after the DNC leaks. Regardless of who the hacker is, it does not take away from the validity of what is actually in the leaks. i had to lol at the "unbiased" nature of this self appraisal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 8 minutes ago, noonereal said: i had to lol at the "unbiased" nature of this self appraisal They became famous for going after the Bush (Shrub) administration, no? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted May 18, 2017 Report Share Posted May 18, 2017 17 minutes ago, concha said: They became famous for going after the Bush (Shrub) administration, no? . The libs loved them then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.