How was that not a complete sentence?
ps: You've called me Turkana boy for over a year, and it still makes no sense.
This would be a game changer. We will see if it comes to pass. There have been such claims for more than twenty years. Interestingly, should it be true, EV Sales would tank until this battery hit the market.
"I disagree. I think the crime was done by Manning. I don't think the publishers of the info committed a crime."
Of course it's a crime. It's no different than my bank robbery scenario. You don't get handed stolen information, publish it and have no responsibility for it. More so when he knew it was illegal to even have it.
Just like I said, your friend robs a bank and hands you the money, you don't get to spend it, you either turn it in, or you are just as guilty as the guy who did the robbery.
"And this speech didn't endanger people."
Yes it did! You can say it didn't all you want, it won't change the fact it placed many people in Afghanistan in mortal danger.
"That's why Assange let the pentagon review the info before he released it."
Complete fabrication of the facts.
"This information didn't get anyone killed according to the pentagon"
I'd love you to link any proof of this. I have friends over there who will claim the opposite. Look at the Koran burning incident in the last few weeks. Over a dozen people have been killed over that. What do you think the release of all the documents, and video of an airstrike that accidentally killed 97 civilians did??? Are you that out of touch with the reality of the situation over there?
Sure, no one in the US was killed over it, but if you think no one over there was, you are deep in denial.
"I love Santorum. He's doing everything in his power to make the republican party completely irrelevant."
- Santorum isn't going to win the nomination, so he is the one that's irrelevant. If gas prices keep going up, and the economy slips back down even the slightest bit Obama has no chance at a second term no matter who his opponent is.
"Of course it's a crime. It's no different than my bank robbery scenario. You don't get handed stolen information, publish it and have no responsibility for it. More so when he knew it was illegal to even have it." Sorry, I just don't see it that way. It's not the same as a bank robbery. And if it was a crime, why hasn't he been charged for it? "Yes it did! You can say it didn't all you want, it won't change the fact it placed many people in Afghanistan in mortal danger." Ok. This is bizarre. Do you believe the pentagon is conspiring with Assange when they said that it didn't put people in danger? Your willingness to ignore reality even when it is right in front of your face is amazing. Why would the pentagon be lying on the behalf of Assange? ""That's why Assange let the pentagon review the info before he released it."
Complete fabrication of the facts." So the pentagon is lying? Why? "I'd love you to link any proof of this. " I've already linked you an article. I can not force you to read it. If you choose to ignore it, I can not help that. < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/review-wikileaks-docs-sees-no-smoking-gun/#.T1RcmvEgd14 "Review of WikiLeaks docs sees no smoking gunPentagon still reviewing records, but so far finds no threat to U.S. security" "WASHINGTON, D.C. — An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday." How much more clear can it be made? I really can't help it that you have an aversion to reality. Think what every you want. If you to ignore the truth that's up to you.
1) Voters punish or reward the party in power depending how the economy has been lately.
2) Voters tend to vote for Democrats in bad economic times when many of them fear they might lose their jobs and require welfare or assistance. In good times, voters are content they won't be needing gov't help and tend to vote Republican.
According to 1) If the economy fades it hurts Obama.According to 2) If the economy fades it helps Obama.
Go back and look at FDR. While he was in office the economy remained bad. He was not punished. Instead, he was reelected 3 times. Perhaps the voters thinking things were so bad they might very well need government assistance, so they voted Democrat because that party was more more prone to introduce government aid programs (safety nets).
Do not be so sure if the economy turns worse it will tend to hurt Obama. Or if it gets much better if will tend to help him. Maybe, maybe not. There are two opposite direction principles. Either one might wind up being more determining than the other.
I have no issue with compromise. It is the way to serve both sides of the equation. My issue with you has been how easily you jump to the conclusion that what Big Corporations have done is evil, and what the Government did with GM was simply a compromise. I think what we have done has been a great compromise to our employees and customers, and we are still in business in the USA. And yes, our Union took wage cuts to do this.
Frankly, what we did, and most Corporations did is way better than what GM did. We did not need a bailout to remain competitive!
When Big Business on their own make strategic efforts to remain competitive you call this "an excuse" and evil.
When the Governement drives essentially the same steps:
(1) Wage concessions(2) Factory closings to utilize capital more effectively(3) Reduction in pensions
you call this a "needed compromise" and a good thing.
Can there be anything more clear to point out how you are a left leaning hypocrite?
"Pentagon still reviewing records, but so far finds no threat to U.S. security"
1. You kept saying that he had the Pentagon review the documents BEFORE he released them to make sure there was nothing in it. That is 100% wrong and your link proves it. They had to review the information AFTER he let it go out.
That was also a "preliminary review"...
2. The story said 'no threat to U.S. security', it wasn't the US that was put into danger, it was Afghanistani informants that were placed in danger.
3. That story was posted on 7/26/2010, shortly after the documents were released, not exactly current information is it?
"Do you believe the pentagon is conspiring with Assange when they said that it didn't put people in danger?"
Again, they did not review the documents before he released them, it was after the fact. If I pull a gun on someone and shoot, but miss the target did I no longer commit a crime? The ends (even if you believe the 2010 MSNBC story) do not justify or clear the act.
"So the pentagon is lying? Why?"
The pentagon also said Iraq had WMD's... Why?
"I really can't help it that you have an aversion to reality."
You believe what you want to believe. Keep your head in the sand if your life is better that way.