Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246
LOL, I love that comparison, not because it is apt, but because of how ironic and wrong it is. Breitbart is famous for purposely editing/distorting his content to satisfy his own personal ideology, whereas Assange is the exact opposite (though to the extreme), pushing for full disclosure of all information even if it harms him or his country.
To be a little facetious, which would you prefer? Someone that strives to always tell the truth LMFAO(or at least give you as much information as they can so that you can form some sort of meaningful opinion), or someone who deliberately lies to you (or at least presents information is such a way as to influence you) in order to affect your opinion from the onset?
Wikileaks may or may not have gone too far in this specific case, and their good intentions could mistakenly pave a road to "hell", but damn if I don't personally prefer hearing some real facts about the world (even if I or my loved ones could be potentially harmed) rather than the pasteurized drivel that comes out of 90+% of the media on the right or the left.
|
You have no clue about what you're talking about.
His videos weren't edited in any way? LOL. Or his website photos not completely illogical? LOL? Doesn't present information in such a way as to influence you? LOL. Colbert exposed this idiot. He is just like Breitbart. Assange is not even American. This shit won't harm his country.
Hopefully his mole gets put away for a number of years for serving this propagandist foreigner.