American conservatives and Wikileaks.

Post Reply New Topic

While everyone in power in Washington seems to think Wikileaks is a criminal organization, it seems to me that outside of the political offices, its a different story. American conservatives seem to think that Julian Assange is a "cyber-terrorist" and liberals think he is a hero. The major thing to come out of "cablegate" was diplomatic embarrasment and some exposure of corruption. Its starting to look like the the more corruption Wikileaks exposes, the more the conservatives hate them. Kinda suspicious huh? Well since corruption usually involves money and money is the main thing mainstream conservatives and some liberals care about, money must be their god. KNEEL BEFORE YOUR GOD BABYLON!

What do you think America?

Disclaimer: It may sound like i'm just bashing the american conservatives. I just observed that disdain for Wikileaks seems to be almost universal to the right, but there is disdain on the left as well. Don't get me wrong, corruption knows no side.

didn't you make this exact thread before?

Actually, the other one was about the secrecy of Wikileaks. There was a line about american conservatives though.

U.S. currency has "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on it for a reason.

The whole "Government is the problem" crowd wants the government to execute people over Wikileaks in the name of the government keeping people in darkness. Very consistent.

Hey, give the liberals credit, you can either jump some of them for jumping on the whack Assange bandwagon, or you can go after others for prematurely smearing a possible sex crimes victim (egged on by a crazed anti-Semite no less), take your pick. Basically, no one looks good on this one.

Why are you making the same posts?

Conservatives oppose governments by nature because they are constitutional. That is to say that they are aware that governments are never always good, and that they go bad, become corrupt, and do things against the interest of the people.

So many actually support Assange in that he increases transparency in government, so we can see what they're really doing. On the other hand, those who call him a threat do so with the knowledge that he is hurting America's diplomatic power, which he is, but I think it's worth it.

LOL! I never thought of it that way before. Suddenly, it doesn't seem like such an infringement of the 1st amendment. Thank you.

It does not establish a particular religion nor does it prevent anyone from practicing their religion or lack thereof.

ruveyn

It was a last ditch attempt to try and unite the country during the civil war; it was allowed on coinage but not required. It's on paper money now because of the whole atheist communism vs god-fearing capitalism in the 50s.

It was signed in as the national motto in 1956.

So other than the coinage, all this injection of god into our various money and mottos and pledges and what not have been pretty recent. Almost all of it was done in the 1950s other than the coinage which was allowed but not required in the 1860s.

They are all misprints. The L between the O and D was forgotten.

It does establish religion(s): monotheism(s). Thus it discriminates against wiccans, hindus, buddhists, shintoists, atheists, and a whole host of others I just don't know about. The fact that they're minorities is neither here nor there. If you look into the congressional record at the time it was made the national motto (displacing 'e pluribus, unum,' which is a much better motto for the U.S.), the motivations were explicitly to establish religion.

They were generally a very Christian nation, give them a break!

It's not wrong for the US as a country to have values, just as every other one does. I hate hockey, yet there's hockey players printed on my damned Canadian coins all the time. I recognize that one thing that distinguishes Canada is hockey, and that's fine.

Monotheism is a belief, not a religion per se. Religion not only consists of beliefs and creeds, but customs, practices and organizations. Would you say a person who believes the universe is not an accident, but a planned thing is practicing or advocating a religion? I wouldn't.

ruveyn

practicing, yes; advocating, no - unless they started printing it on the money that everyone has to use, adding it into the national motto, adding it into the national pledge of allegiance, etc, etc, etc.

edit: 'subscribing to' would be a better verb in this case than 'practicing.'