Greg Gutfeld: The guilty sins of WikiLeaks and our wicked approval

[Mileage Psycho]

Gutfeld nails it!! 

Quote

Greg Gutfeld: The guilty sins of WikiLeaks and our wicked approval

Before I unload on WikiLeaks, let me make myself clear:

I don't care much for Hillary Clinton.

I can't stand many of her ardent supporters, who frankly, can't stand me either.

As a buddy of mine said about the election: "I don't like Trump much, but I know Hillary hates me more."

That's how I feel, and think, too. Why support someone who despises me, my beliefs, and my contributions to society?

But it still does not make WikiLeaks  -- which is currently targeting Hillary's campaign -- okay.

"Hacking" is jargon for theft.

We conservatives pride ourselves on calling something as it is. We harass President Obama daily for his inability to say "radical Islam."  We openly mock the gender monsoon of pronouns offered to students; we deride politicians who call taxes "revenue."

And yet, we're A-OK with calling theft of personal information, a "hack."

No kids, it's "theft."  And, if it were happening to someone you like, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs.

Lucky us, it's only happening to Democrats!

Thus we see the consequence of team sport politics. We hate goons on the other side, but we love our goons nonetheless. For now, WikiLeaks is our goon. 

For now. Until that goon comes for you.

It's the crocodile that eats you last.

Now there are some lightweight thinkers who simplistically recite this common ruse: "if you have nothing to hide, then hacking should not bother you."

That is hardly the point.

First of all, if you have nothing to hide, then you're a hopeless bore. Every interesting person has stuff in their heads and in their pasts that make them perversely human.

Second, it is not up to you to decide whether their personal communications are YOUR property.

Emails are as private as private can get: it's when people talk about their lives, their loves, their hatreds, their petty opinions, their desperate pleas for forgiveness, their wild drunken boasts, their racy poems, their intimate grief, their sullen sign offs and boozy flirtations.

As to the argument that WikiLeaks is performing a service that our mainstream media has abdicated  -- does that mean you'd prefer the mainstream media to steal people's emails, too?

What's offensive is not what's in those emails, but that one would be "offended" by private info you happen to be picking through as if it's a bargain bin at a record store. If you're upset about some stranger's feelings expressed in an email about religion, then that's on you for invading that person’s privacy. You aren't God. You aren't supposed to see everything.

And ... how dare anyone comment on the "tone" of an email?  So, are we now all supposed to adjust our private thoughts and feelings based on how someone else perceives our "tone?"  It's none of anyone's business, and it's frankly creepy that anyone would care about tone in something that ain't your business.

Fact: if you're remotely interesting, this invasion WILL happen to you. Trust me.

As for the argument that we have a right to invade the personal sock drawers of public servants as an issue of transparency,  then that means we can apply that to all arenas of work.

Take media. You could say that, "because we get our information from these servants of media, we should know what they really think behind closed doors." So, "hack them."

Take health care. We trust doctors and nurses with our lives, so "we have every right to see what they think behind closed doors." So "hack them."

Take gas, electric, auto, or oil company employees.  The left might see them as causes of climate change, so "we have every right to see what they think behind closed doors."

You're in the military? If you're supporting the war industry, then I have a right, etc.

You can apply this logic to anyone, and everyone. 

Ben & Jerry's products cause obesity -- which leads to premature death. --  I wonder if they ever discuss that in their private emails!

The Catholic Church claims their pope is infallible -- well, I want to see HIS emails!!

And, if you happily announce, for lack of a coherent argument -- that "who cares -- this is a new era! Privacy is dead!" --  you do so under a cloud of ignorance. 

And, even more important: you are banking on your own failures as a human.

For if you think you're safe from the prying eyes of the media, political groups, spies and thieves -- it's only because  you think your life is worthless. You somehow believe that no one would want anything from you: you're boring, insignificant, a piece of nothing floating in the atmosphere.

Yep, you conclude, people only "hack" important people.

The fact that you don't care about these violations is a reveal of how little you care about yourself.

And that's a big mistake. For if you communicate with others, about things, about life, about whatever  -- someone will find value in it -- either on purpose or accidentally.

Look at Ken Bone, that seemingly decent nobody who happened to ask a question at the last town hall-style  presidential debate. Catapulted to fame -- all 15 minutes of it-- he ends up being exposed as a guy who leaves comments on porn threads. Turns out he likes to talk about porn, and his vasectomy. And that's now a story that he must deal with because America suddenly took an interest in him, and therefore a prurient interest in him, too. It was as if Gawker never left us.

So, if you applaud WikiLeaks now for their decision to publicize the contents of stolen emails handed over to them, in all probability from Russian actors, pretend for a moment that those emails belonged to you, or your dad, or your mom.

If you state you have nothing to hide, then either you're lying or the least interesting person on earth. 

I hope, for your sake, you're lying.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/17/greg-gutfeld-guilty-sins-wikileaks-and-our-wicked-approval.html

 

 

[SnowRider]

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Having issue with wikileaks stealing and what is actually written in those emails are two different things. The fact conspiracy against the very fabric of a working democracy are shown in those emails is another in all its own. At what point do we draw the line is a very good question. Do we disregard/justify the theft at a certain line in the sand that is crossed based upon what is truly in those emails? That is an important question that the author does not bring forth. 

[racer254]

Like stated before, julian assange was loved by the left before this when he was "on their side"  But now OMG!!!

Maybe you both should listen to Gutfield and apply it to the current DOJ or the improprieties of the DNC.  The left likes to set the stage and tread new ground on all things political until the opposite side does the same.  Way to set the standard.

[Rod]

I love how the democrat cultists used to love wiki when they were nailing bush. Now that the shoe is on the other foot now wiki is bad. Ponderous 

[SnowRider]

What's the fuss about?  Many of you so long for your opinions to be confirmed by 'secret' information that you refuse to acknowledge the facts.  Not real exciting 

What we've learned from the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign

Washington (CNN)The emails hacked from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta have offered an insight into the inner workings of the famously guarded candidate's operation. 

And it turns out, they're not much different than the external ones.

The Podesta emails blog 

Emails posted by WikiLeaks reveal a buttoned-up campaign that analyzes nearly every decision, mirroring Clinton's reputation as a methodical and tactical politician. And secret transcripts of Clinton's paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall Street have failed to turn up any positions widely different than what she says in public.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-email-hack-what-learned/index.html

Edited October 18, 2016 by SnowRider

[Mileage Psycho]

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Having issue with wikileaks stealing and what is actually written in those emails are two different things. The fact conspiracy against the very fabric of a working democracy are shown in those emails is another in all its own. At what point do we draw the line is a very good question. Do we disregard/justify the theft at a certain line in the sand that is crossed based upon what is truly in those emails? That is an important question that the author does not bring forth. 

 

Conspiracy against democracy?? Discussing strategy is now a conspiracy? 

 

[Snoslinger]

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Having issue with wikileaks stealing and what is actually written in those emails are two different things. The fact conspiracy against the very fabric of a working democracy are shown in those emails is another in all its own. At what point do we draw the line is a very good question. Do we disregard/justify the theft at a certain line in the sand that is crossed based upon what is truly in those emails? That is an important question that the author does not bring forth. 

 you're only OK with it because it's hurting the dems. I cant believe some of the disphits in here actually think every little thing in elections is done by the books, and these little things that wiki is revealing are big "conspiracies". example, the dnc favoring Hillary. of course they're going to favor her, Bernie is an indy, she a long time dem. I'ts pretty obvious to me wiki wants trump in power, same with Russia.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

3 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said:

 

Conspiracy against democracy?? Discussing strategy is now a conspiracy? 

 

Silencing the collective voices or a large portion of the population by black balling Bernie sure would qualify in my opinion. I think the author has some valid points, but it is hard to say morally corrupt behavior to expose morally corrupt behavior is really the worst thing occurring. I would argue the morally corrupt behavior being exposed takes the win on that one. 

[Snoslinger]

wonder how some of the resident whackos would like some of their correspondence in here shared outside of here?  

[Rod]

Snots gone full retard 

[T1R9sledder]

1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

wonder how some of the resident whackos would like some of their correspondence in here shared outside of here?  

Left wing along with right wing?

[Zambroski]

 

12 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Fucking coward hack.  STFU pussy.  Nobody cares about you or or anything you think.

10 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Having issue with wikileaks stealing and what is actually written in those emails are two different things. The fact conspiracy against the very fabric of a working democracy are shown in those emails is another in all its own. At what point do we draw the line is a very good question. Do we disregard/justify the theft at a certain line in the sand that is crossed based upon what is truly in those emails? That is an important question that the author does not bring forth. 

This.

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Silencing the collective voices or a large portion of the population by black balling Bernie sure would qualify in my opinion. I think the author has some valid points, but it is hard to say morally corrupt behavior to expose morally corrupt behavior is really the worst thing occurring. I would argue the morally corrupt behavior being exposed takes the win on that one. 

And more of this.

[T1R9sledder]

Just now, Sludgey said:

Snots gone full retard 

He'll move back toward normal after the election.

[Rod]

The emails are fake anyway right....?

[Kivalo]

The problem with Wikileaks is they're timed and the public doesn't actually care.

[Rod]

1 minute ago, oquossocbob said:

He'll move back toward normal after the election.

Maybe he will go back to pretending he wasn't going to support clinton 

[Mileage Psycho]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Silencing the collective voices or a large portion of the population by black balling Bernie sure would qualify in my opinion. I think the author has some valid points, but it is hard to say morally corrupt behavior to expose morally corrupt behavior is really the worst thing occurring. I would argue the morally corrupt behavior being exposed takes the win on that one. 

Post up the conspiratorial e-mail or e-mails, I want to see your definition of conspiracy.

Talked to my Republican committeeman yesterday and I asked him what the fuck happened just so I could get his reaction, first thing he babbles about is Hillary and I'm like the question is how the fuck did the party end up with Trump, and he said to many people on the stage, I told him Priebus has to go and I also told him that Podesta's e-mails are a lesson in campaign 101 and he could not disagree because it is what it is.

 

 

[Zambroski]

8 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

wonder how some of the resident whackos would like some of their correspondence in here shared outside of here?  

I wonder the same exact thing.  The difference, this dialogging of crap doesn't affect hundreds of millions of Americans....AT ALL.  It has no standing on democracy, on policy and or national security. Certainly you can see the difference and this question is a dumb downplay of what is going on behind our backs....and it is most definitely done behind our backs in the most secretive of rooms.

 Although I would enjoy seeing certain members faces should their employers or family members get a hold of some of this shit here that they so proudly wield around in their "safe place".  

Edited October 18, 2016 by Zambroski

[Snoslinger]

9 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I wonder the same exact thing.  The difference, this dialogging of crap doesn't affect hundreds of millions of Americans....AT ALL.  It has no standing on democracy, on policy and or national security. Certainly you can see the difference and this question is a dumb downplay of what is going on behind our backs....and it is most definitely done behind our backs in the most secretive of rooms.

 Although I would enjoy seeing certain members faces should their employers or family members get a hold of some of this shit here that they so proudly wield around in their "safe place".  

based on what I've seen and heard so far regarding wikileaks, none of it is surprising. I expected some real "damage" but then again, there are several more weeks before the election. timing is critical - they reveal shit too early it gives the dems time to counter with an explanation. too late, most minds are already made up about who to vote for.

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Snoslinger

[Mainecat]

Watergate was OK now?

[Snoslinger]

and what dipshits think none of these things go in the gop?

[motonoggin]

[Rod]

Ouch 

[Rod]

2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

and what dipshits think none of these things go in the gop?

A good cult member thinks there are only two choices