Psychotronic Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 whatever the fuck is going on there's no way we're gonna get the full truth so I'm gonna choose to believe Alex Jones and wait for WW3 Only Rich knows the full truth. Wait for cryptic messages on his SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbpete Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Looking forward to those 3 Pre-Commitment EPs by TCF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 https://twitter.com/SandraEckersley/status/787918450547044354 don't know the veracity of this, but Assange being a creep is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Wikileaks leaking the juice and Clinton News Network™ not reporting to the civilization of the United That's a lie. Lots of coverage on CNN about the leaks, maybe there would be a lot more coverage if there was anything of note in the leaks though. The assertion that the leaks don't even offer *anything of note* is laughably ignorant. Anyone interested in the political processes and mindset of those who will run the next presidential campaign will find plenty of informative and interesting material in both sets of leaks. As for the notion that cnn (or liberal media generally) have not reported on the leaks that is indeed a lie. Even greenwald was on cnn talking about the leaks just this weekend. Come on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreOceans Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 not sure if idm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisbot Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 We really need to start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, but Hillary doesn't appear to think so. I was hoping she'd at least TRY like Obama's been doing, recognizing that it's going to cost the public a lot more money to combat climate change in the future, than the fossil fuel industry is making at the moment. Funny. The cleaning up and attempt at circumvention will fall on public taxes. Whereas the current profit is only going to a select few. I bet that they won't pay for the sea wall that NYC is going to need in the future.So there's a good chance, if what she's saying in her emails is what she actually thinks, that we're going to have another 4-8 years of little to no progress on this front, at least from here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 The assertion that the leaks don't even offer *anything of note* is laughably ignorant. Anyone interested in the political processes and mindset of those who will run the next presidential campaign will find plenty of informative and interesting material in both sets of leaks. Sure, I meant in the sense that it fails to show Clinton doing anything illegal or corrupt, or even unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 We really need to start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, but Hillary doesn't appear to think so. I was hoping she'd at least TRY like Obama's been doing, recognizing that it's going to cost the public a lot more money to combat climate change in the future, than the fossil fuel industry is making at the moment. Funny. The cleaning up and attempt at circumvention will fall on public taxes. Whereas the current profit is only going to a select few. I bet that they won't pay for the sea wall that NYC is going to need in the future. So there's a good chance, if what she's saying in her emails is what she actually thinks, that we're going to have another 4-8 years of little to no progress on this front, at least from here in the US. well she's in favour of nuclear, the only energy source that can see us wean ourselves off fossil fuels. also coal use has declined massively in the US recently (largely thanks to fracking, but also tougher regulation), so I think there's a good chance we'll continue to see improvements. she's right as well, most so called environmentalists are part of the problem, they don't support policies that will ever work, they just end up indirectly propping up the fossil fuel industry. morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisbot Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Her definition of 'radical environmentalists' are people who think the US should wean themselves off fossil fuels, and transition to alternative forms of energy. I am going by her private words here. Nothing more. Caze, if YOU think we should begin weaning off of fossil fuels, then Hillary thinks you are a radical.I don't really trust what she says in public. If she's getting paid by an industry that she is claiming to be against, then I don't believe her a bit. Otherwise she wouldn't take money from fossil fuels. There is a reason climate change is barely talked about. Both our presidential nominees are CONSERVATIVES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 looks like Ecuador might be losing patience with their house guest: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Her definition of 'radical environmentalists' are people who think the US should wean themselves off fossil fuels, and transition to alternative forms of energy. I am going by her private words here. Nothing more. Caze, if YOU think we should begin weaning off of fossil fuels, then Hillary thinks you are a radical. I don't really trust what she says in public. If she's getting paid by an industry that she is claiming to be against, then I don't believe her a bit. Otherwise she wouldn't take money from fossil fuels. There is a reason climate change is barely talked about. Both our presidential nominees are CONSERVATIVES. wrong. she was talking about anti-fracking campaigners, not reasonable people who want to wean us off fossil fuels (hint, fracking helps wean us off fossil fuels). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDobalina Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 fracking helps wean us off fossil fuels Swish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I mean sure, tell that to people who have to deal with fracking-induced earthquakes Or people whose drinking water has been fucked up by fracking All these crackpots wanting clean drinking water smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisbot Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 I mean sure, tell that to people who have to deal with fracking-induced earthquakesOr people whose drinking water has been fucked up by fracking All these crackpots wanting clean drinking water smh You know, if someone robs your house, and your gun is too far away, which we all know is unlikely. You could always get your flammable water and catch him on fire! FLAMMABLE WATER SAVES LIVES! WikiLeaks is very biased for a supposedly non-biased organisation at the moment - I get that uncovering the Hillary emails to uncover loads of stuff about Benghazi, links with the media, and her personal views behind closed doors was a triumph for them, but I bet there's tons and tons of dirt on the tax returns that Donald Trump is so hesitant about keeping away from the public eye and they won't even touch the surface of them... it's pretty unfair at this point imo ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You don't need Wikileaks to find dirt on Donald Trump. You say they are biased but I highly doubt they support Donald Trump. IT's just that, if there is an underlying truth in the way our political system works, then it should be uncovered. Some people need it to be spelled out for them. It isn't hard to figure out who Hillary works for. All you have to do is look at her voting record, and her 'changing opinions' as she gathers more and more money from different industries. wrong. she was talking about anti-fracking campaigners reread it. Yeah she mentioned them, but she was talking about the whole industry. The words are RIGHT there, it's up to you to figure it out. Because I can't do it for you. :P Profits >>> People. Btw, I don't think she'll make things worse, I just think she won't do enough. Or much at all. She has a very mixed record when it comes to this, and she takes millions from oil companies, maybe to BE inactive vs actively voting against. BTW, when it comes to this issue she doesn't vote most of the time. Interesting. So it'll be 4-8 years of status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 You do know that methane contamination in the water supply is probably why they went there to frack in the first place? People could light their taps on fire before the first well was fracked, also even when methane contamination is due to drilling, it's not down to fracking per se, regular natural gas wells can leak in exactly the same way if the wells aren't properly sealed. Even then though, methane doesn't stick around in the atmosphere for very long, CO2 accumulates over a very long period (1000s of years), methane cycles out after a decade or two. The US could probably do with a better regulatory framework around fracking, for well inspections and monitoring, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the process, especially when compared to burning coal. We have to burn some fossil fuels while we transition away from them, it's simply not feasible to do otherwise, and natural gas is significantly the least worst option. You probably watched that bullshit Gasland documentary, I heard the guy behind that on Radio 4 the other day, came across as a real asshole (he stormed out of the studio in a huff after being asked some routine questions). The anti-fracking movement is full of the same ignorant bulshit that's behind the anti-nuclear movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 You don't need Wikileaks to find dirt on Donald Trump. You say they are biased but I highly doubt they support Donald Trump. IT's just that, if there is an underlying truth in the way our political system works, then it should be uncovered. Some people need it to be spelled out for them. It isn't hard to figure out who Hillary works for. All you have to do is look at her voting record, and her 'changing opinions' as she gathers more and more money from different industries. I'm sure if Wikileaks really wanted to they could've dug up a huge amount of dirt on Trump, they've made zero effort, it doesn't suit their agenda. His tax records would be nice. Clinton doesn't work for anyone, the idea that she's literally in the pocket of big business is only a short step away from international banking conspiracy nonsense, there's nothing to back it up, it's retarded. reread it. Yeah she mentioned them, but she was talking about the whole industry. The words are RIGHT there, it's up to you to figure it out. Because I can't do it for you. :P Nope, you are 100% wrong. Read it again, she's talking about very specific people: “Bernie Sanders is getting lots of support from the most radical environmentalists because he’s out there every day bashing the Keystone pipeline. And, you know, I’m not into it for that,” Clinton said at the meeting, according to transcripts. “My view is, I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy. I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances.” Clinton was also repeatedly asked at rallies if she will put an end to oil and gas drilling on federal lands and to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. “I’m already at odds with the most organized and wildest” of the environmental movement, Clinton said. “They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisbot Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Clinton doesn't work for anyone, the idea that she's literally in the pocket of big business is only a short step away from international banking conspiracy nonsense, there's nothing to back it up, it's retarded. Oh, just her actions and votes and opinions that have changed to suit who she's taking money from over time. She was a good politician in the early 90s before money corrupted her. She seems to rationalize it as 'having a big tent', which is what's "retarded". It is so obvious it's happening. I can't find evidence to the contrary, trust me, I want to like Clinton as you do, but her BS prevents me from doing so. You know, I keep giving her the benefit of the doubt because I too WANT her to be a good president, but only her rhetoric (occasionally) seems to reflect what I want from her. Her actions are different, and her private messages seem to reflect her actions much more clearly. Nope, you are 100% wrong. Read it again, she's talking about very specific people: This is politician talk 101. Look past the rhetoric. Of course she's only against the 'wild ones'. The democratic party is a 'big tent' after all. This is all obvious to me man. It's right there in front of us. It isn't hard to figure out. She seems to only be interested in "defending" them. I'd go easier on her if she said that the change needs to be gradual, but gives no indication of her intentions here. Climate change is an issue swept under the rug on her campaign, probably because she has no intentions of doing anything about it in her 4/8 year term. It's also very vague, so someone who likes/dislikes her can view it either way, as is what's happening here. Only time will tell, since she is good at giving out little to no substance with her words. I have just seen so much deceit from her this past year that I am expecting the worst, but hoping for the best. Even though she keeps showing her corruption. I'm sure if Wikileaks really wanted to they could've dug up a huge amount of dirt on Trump, they've made zero effort, it doesn't suit their agenda. His tax records would be nice. Yeah, the agenda to show in what ways the govt. is corrupt, but with evidence. Also, tax returns don't just appear out of thin air. Btw, what's it matter? From what we've seen we know the guy has gotten huge tax breaks, just like everyone else that can buy tons of golf courses and invest tons of money. And it's obvious that his sexism against women is more important than some tax returns anyway since he's taking much bigger hits in the polls after his comments. Wikileaks wasn't needed to show his corruption, the guy is an open book. Whereas Clinton is a bit more subtle. You actually have to put effort into looking things up. Whereas if you haven't then she might appear to be a good politician... liberal even! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Oh, just her actions and votes and opinions that have changed to suit who she's taking money from over time. She was a good politician in the early 90s before money corrupted her. I'd like to see some evidence for that, now that there's a bunch of leaked documents it should be easy to find... oh, what? you can't find any? weird. This is politician talk 101. Look past the rhetoric. Of course she's only against the 'wild ones'. The democratic party is a 'big tent' after all. This is all obvious to me man. It's right there in front of us. It isn't hard to figure out. She seems to only be interested in "defending" them. I'd go easier on her if she said that the change needs to be gradual, but gives no indication of her intentions here. Climate change is an issue swept under the rug on her campaign, probably because she has no intentions of doing anything about it in her 4/8 year term. It's also very vague, so someone who likes/dislikes her can view it either way, as is what's happening here. Only time will tell, since she is good at giving out little to no substance with her words. I have just seen so much deceit from her this past year that I am expecting the worst, but hoping for the best. Even though she keeps showing her corruption. I've not seen much deceit from her, I have just seen some deceit from you though. How about you admit you were wrong in your claim that she was talking to all environmentalists when she said 'get a life'? You said: "Her definition of 'radical environmentalists' are people who think the US should wean themselves off fossil fuels" That is not her definition, that is just a paranoid fantasy of yours that is not backed up by anything in the real world. Her actual definition of radical environmentalists (people who should 'get a life') seems to be people who think that we should "promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again". Yeah, the agenda to show in what ways the govt. is corrupt, but with evidence. Also, tax returns don't just appear out of thin air. Btw, what's it matter? From what we've seen we know the guy has gotten huge tax breaks, just like everyone else that can buy tons of golf courses and invest tons of money. And it's obvious that his sexism against women is more important than some tax returns anyway since he's taking much bigger hits in the polls after his comments. Wikileaks wasn't needed to show his corruption, the guy is an open book. Whereas Clinton is a bit more subtle. You actually have to put effort into looking things up. Whereas if you haven't then she might appear to be a good politician... liberal even! Private e-mails don't appear out of thin air either. The problem isn't just tax breaks, as far as we know. There could be all kinds of interesting things going on. Clinton appears to be so subtle in her corruption that a concerted effort by republicans over 30 years, millions of dollars spent, countless hours of testimony, thousands of hacked documents, have found a sum total of fuck-all to actually find fault with. Weird huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 The assertion that the leaks don't even offer *anything of note* is laughably ignorant. Anyone interested in the political processes and mindset of those who will run the next presidential campaign will find plenty of informative and interesting material in both sets of leaks.Sure, I meant in the sense that it fails to show Clinton doing anything illegal or corrupt, or even unethical. Edit: accidentally pressed submit brb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triachus Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 The assertion that the leaks don't even offer *anything of note* is laughably ignorant. Anyone interested in the political processes and mindset of those who will run the next presidential campaign will find plenty of informative and interesting material in both sets of leaks.Sure, I meant in the sense that it fails to show Clinton doing anything illegal or corrupt, or even unethical. Edit: accidentally pressed submit brb *quotes fuckup into eternity* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 yeah lol forget it *has triachus post the flip-flops gif* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juiceciuj Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 o? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Where did you find this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.