In situations like this (what looks like a mindless data dump), trust in WikiLeaks is meaningless, and expression of such trust reveals a certain level of, potentially willful, ignorance. It's not trust in WikiLeaks you need here; it's trust in every person that now has access to the personal, potentially private information of otherwise innocent individuals.

These aren't equivalent claims.

I can't blame him. I've seen someone describe it as "stepping in shit to dodge a bullet." The "bullet", of course, being a Trump presidency.

That's actually "only" 7 years. The war being investigated started 13 years ago.

This is not a good argument. It's similar (similar, mind you) to arguing that you just need to suck it up when someone breaks into your house, because clearly you didn't do enough to keep them out.

The simple fact that someone was able to bypass your security does not necessarily prove you negligent, nor does it absolve the perpetrator of all responsibility for any harm caused by their actions.

The solution to gun violence is not "more guns". Especially in a crowded and chaotic situation like this, where it would be damn near impossible to reliably distinguish the bad-guy-with-a-gun from the good-guy-with-a-gun.

I'm constantly amazed by how many people fail to understand this.

That may be the reason they resort to attempted insults, but I don't think it's the reason they choose that particular insult.

The reason, as far as I can tell, is that they think (rightly or wrongly), since atheist tend to view religion negatively, they'll shock the atheist into acceptance of religion by labeling atheism as the very thing that atheists view with disdain.

Of course, not everyone has likely thought the insult through that far; to them, it's probably more akin to, "Yeah, well... you're a poopy-head, too!" An implicit acceptance/admission that there's something bad about "religion".

Like guns and the conservativeness of Republican presidential candidates, if they fail... it's because there wasn't enough.

Who's this "we" you're referring to? I don't recall ever having a say in the current rules.

Two things: 1) If you think real estate doesn't need to get cozy with the government, you're missing something. 2) You don't solve the government-business problem by skipping the middleman and electing the business interest directly to the Presidency.

You're going to have to support this with some references, because I'm finding contradictory information that appears to be more credible than your assertions:

Rick Santorum’s misguided view of gun control in the Wild West

Homicide Rates in the American West

This is interesting, because Dodge City, with its very strict gun control according to the previous article, had an incredibly high homicide rate. And yet... the towns without gun control were apparently even more violent, also according to the previous article.

This is incorrect. Here's Wikipedia summary, but here are some choice quotes

'One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.' (Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society, by Freeman Dyson)

'In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science.' (from the above linked Wikipedia article)

He doesn't appear to be making any claims about the math.

My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me. (Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment)

I've heard it claimed that they openly expressed support for ISIS, but I also know that was refuted by the FBI. I haven't followed this closely, but I've not heard of any other claims directly linking them to a particular terrorist group or terrorist activity, and I can't find any such claims that haven't already been refuted.

Do you have a source for the above claim?

Some people use "free speech" in essentially the same way as "free market": let the masses decide how worthy your ideas are. If you can convince a large number of people that forcing an entire group of people out of your country is the right way to go, kudos to you!

Truly free speech has, in my opinion, the very same problems as a truly free market. Both require a highly informed populace. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen. Both ideologies are open to abuse by people who are skillful at convincing large numbers of people of the merit of their ideas, regardless of the actual merit of those ideas. And it's unlikely that the masses will be aware anything's gone wrong until damage has already been done.

It's not actually very different from the regulation that people advocating for truly free speech/market rail against. Both paths result in a small number of people "in control".

Tough call...

The consequence of this attitude is that people, who have had no say in their being brought into the world, must earn their own existence. There's absolutely nothing wrong with working to pay your bills, but... I didn't ask to be here. But now I'm being asked to prove to the world that I'm of some value to them; that my birth was "worth it".

And if I'm unable (or even just unwilling) to do so, well... what then? Should I have my existence revoked? Should my parents be forced to support my existence, since they're responsible for it? What if the financial burden is too much for them and, instead of one life in jeopardy, there are now three?