Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Assange is a weirdo twat.
If for you, Assange is a weirdo, what would you call your Dear Leader then?
A dangerous schizophrenic twat...with multiple personality disorder?
Because that's exactly what the B is.
If I was as stupid as you I would keep quiet and hope that nobody noticed.
The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I might be concerned about the illegality of hacking the emails if the DNC actually obeyed the law themselves. Like you said, this is war, and the rules are set by the aggressors. They can't be bothered by the law in the way they are conducting this war so why should their opponents be?The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
Stealing is transparency?Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
What are you talking about?I might be concerned about the illegality of hacking the emails if the DNC actually obeyed the law themselves. Like you said, this is war, and the rules are set by the aggressors. They can't be bothered by the law in the way they are conducting this war so why should their opponents be?The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.
So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.Internet censorship.
WikiLeaks (@wikileaks)
14 hours ago - View on Twitter
Julian Assange's internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.
Bye bye transparency, bye bye personal opinions and the right to express them. Hello State run internet. Thanks Obama.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
Assange is a weirdo twat.[/QUOTE)
And that's what you love about him.
I saw this coming when Obama asked for an internet "kill switch".
That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.The last I heard hacking into private email was illegal. Maybe we should repeal all these silly laws so all that is private can legally be made public.
I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.
Lol, you keep dodging the main point with double talk.That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.I am not so concerned with the illegalities of how the information was obtained as I am with what the information exposed. I am not CIA, I'm not out to arrest anyone. I am however about to vote for the leader of the United States. I am thankful I learned about her dream before it was too late.
My country is at stake. If this was war, and it is, I would consider the gathering of enemy documents as intelligence. For instance, I am happy to know before hand that Hillary said she will use executive order< tyranny, to shut down gun manufactures in this country. Because the UN wants her to. Because we are going to need them soon, and they know that.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.
Lol, you keep dodging the main point with double talk.That sounds good but it's false. In a political campaign addressing the accuracy and meaning of thousands of emails while staying on message is virtually impossible. A campaign has to concentrate on activities that will delivery the most votes and this is certainly not one of them.If the information was not accurate it could (and would) be proven as such.Wikileaks does not publish stories so you can't say their stories are right or wrong. They publish data from anonymous sources and leave it up to the reader to determine if the data is actually correct and to arrive at their own conclusion.So what story has Wikileaks gotten provably wrong in the last five years, Einstein?If you trust hacked information such as emails you are putting your trust in an anonymous source that you know nothing about except that they violated the law. If they can hack emails they can certainly alter those emails to say anything that fits their purpose.
The other major problem with hacked private communications is you don't know the context in which they were written. I've read some of the wikileak emails and wonder did the writer really mean what he or she was saying? Was he brainstorming? Was the author repeating what someone else said? You just don't know.
Lastly, hacked personal communications can easy be misquoted, pulled out of context, or even altered to support all kinds of fake stories.
These emails do not tell the complete story or even come close. Deleted emails in chains, meetings, phone conversations, written memos, and the position and responsibilities of the people are also an important part of the story which are missing. Without them you just have snippets of information which are subject to interpretation. They are like conversations one might hear standing at the door of an office with references to other conversations, documents, and meeting that you are not privy to.
If Wikileaks puts out bad reports/data from other sources, then it loses credibility.
They go to great lengths to ensure that their sources are valid, dude.
And it is valid even if it hurts Hillarys campaign, doh!
"It begins." What a dumb fucking thread.
Internet is crap round here. They know where I live so maybe there is something in this. I will ask Obama next time I am down the Mosque."It begins." What a dumb fucking thread.
Hey, dont laugh, I lost my signal near a farm so that means that the internet IS under attack....
There is no winning spin to this.Libs are failing miserably at spinning this. They're saying some crazy shit here.
