GG Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 That's not true, it's also once again straying away from your original point. Google at its inception was designed to invade privacy and was government backed. I don't work in media. So you're 0-2 on your assertions that I'm profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. Of course you've already amply demonstrated you don't know how my industry works and now you've shown you can't even define it. Plus you're arguing my case for me by using Google, so for your Gatorman level logic. False, unless you group tech companies with government roots into "media". Then you're correct -- but it's about as stupid as it gets in terms of making the case you're trying to make. Keep digging. It's working great for you. Speaking of Gatorman logic. Thinking that Google is a DoD company because it had early stage contracts with the government is like saying that Facebook is a prominent university because it was started at Harvard. Do you even realize how stupid (and a bit defensive over the dirty money you're taking) you sound? Who cares about Google's early contracts. We're discussing what the company is now. And it's not just Google. Every media company that makes its money selling advertising, does so by gaining as much information on its customers as possible. In that vein, they collect, keep and analyze far more personal and identifiable data on ordinary individuals than any government program. Speaking of being blind to it.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Author Posted October 5, 2016 Speaking of Gatorman logic. Thinking that Google is a DoD company because it had early stage contracts with the government is like saying that Facebook is a prominent university because it was started at Harvard. It's completely relevant when you're trying to use Google as an example of a private company breaching people's privacy more than any government action. It's deceitful not to point out that Google is, in fact, an entity of the US intelligence apparatus. But that's your game. You got nothing to go on here. You're wrong about what I do, what industry I work for and what Google really is. Of course a smart man would realize this and just admit you were wrong, but your ego is too big for that. You have to keep digging. It's hilarious to witness. Every media company that makes its money selling advertising, does so by gaining as much information on its customers as possible. In that vein, they collect, keep and analyze far more personal and identifiable data on ordinary individuals than any government program. Speaking of being blind to it. I don't work for "media". Your original point was that I was being hypocritical somehow. The reality is you just don't know what you're talking about. At all. Like warning us about the coming police state, when there's nothing remotely supporting it. While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man. But I'm the jingoistic one.
GG Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 It's completely relevant when you're trying to use Google as an example of a private company breaching people's privacy more than any government action. It's deceitful not to point out that Google is, in fact, an entity of the US intelligence apparatus. But that's your game. You got nothing to go on here. You're wrong about what I do, what industry I work for and what Google really is. Of course a smart man would realize this and just admit you were wrong, but your ego is too big for that. You have to keep digging. It's hilarious to witness. I don't work for "media". Your original point was that I was being hypocritical somehow. The reality is you just don't know what you're talking about. At all. Gee, I must have mistaken you with another poster who was arguing vociferously about what's happening to Hollywood & writers, because I'm not in the industry and that poster was. Apologies for that mistake
Dante Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) You've been called out as a Tinfoil conspiracy dude from numerous posters on this board and you have the gall to criticize others? Conspiracy Theorist= Questioning Known Liars. You would be crazy if you didn't wouldn't you? 1950’s: “Haha, you think the government is trying to subvert your little social action group? Why would they care? You stupid conspiracy theorist!” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO 1960’s: “Haha, you think the government is experimenting with mind control on it’s own innocent people? You stupid conspiracy theorist!” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra To be continued… Edited October 5, 2016 by Dante
Magox Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Conspiracy Theorist= Questioning Known Liars. You would be crazy if you didn't wouldn't you? 1950’s: “Haha, you think the government is trying to subvert your little social action group? Why would they care? You stupid conspiracy theorist!” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO 1960’s: “Haha, you think the government is experimenting with mind control on it’s own innocent people? You stupid conspiracy theorist!” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra To be continued… You're in good company, Greggy Edited October 5, 2016 by Magox
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 Gee, I must have mistaken you with another poster who was arguing vociferously about what's happening to Hollywood & writers, because I'm not in the industry and that poster was. Apologies for that mistake Yeah, and the industry I work in isn't "media" -- certainly not the way you're trying to wedge Google into that category. And as we learned in that previous thread, you don't know anything about how the Hollywood system works, let alone understand it well enough to define it as "media". It's not. And Google isn't "media" either. But please go on and telling me about my life. This is why you're getting your ass handed to you in this discussion. You made a blindingly stupid comment in hopes of making me look hypocritical, got called out for said blindingly stupid comment, but instead of admitting your error, you've doubled down on it. Now you're trying to tell someone else what they do for a living (the same person you've already admitted you don't know much about) and about their industry (an industry you've demonstrated you know little about), of course because of that you're getting all that information completely wrong but instead of admitting that when called out on it, you just dig deeper. All of this is done because you're too proud to say three simple words about your bullshite statement: "I was wrong". Try it, you might feel better about yourself. At least then we could move back to the other question you keep dodging (going on three weeks now of dodging) because you think questioning American policy and actions is un-American and pro-Putin... because you're jingoist clinging to an imploding geopolitical philosophy. You're in good company, Greggy I know I am. You think calling me a conspiracy guy is an insult, when it comes from someone who thinks Alex Jones and the Intercept are the same thing, than that kind of insult becomes a compliment. Remember when you swore you were going to answer the question on the US bombing of Syrian troops? That was fun. Then you decided to run away and deflect instead of answering because you know the answers would be uncomfortable to your world view. Like GG, because you're both intelligent, you probably realize deep down that your geopolitical philosophy is a proven failure -- a dangerously outdated failure at that -- but rather than own up to that and do some serious soul searching, you've chosen a different, less honest path. Two jingoistic peas in a pod.
Magox Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 You're a tin foiled conspiracy nut who can't back up a thing he says.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 You're a tin foiled conspiracy nut who can't back up a thing he says. Good comeback. Keep running away. Coward.
Magox Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 Show us the proof that the US is purposely funding ISIS and Al Qaeda via proxy vs. the Russians and Assad. This is your claim, you stated it as fact, now show us, tinfoil nut.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 Show us the proof that the US is purposely funding ISIS and Al Qaeda via proxy vs. the Russians and Assad. This is your claim, you stated it as fact, now show us, tinfoil nut. I have. But after promising to address the question of the act of war committed by the US forces -- the original topic of discussion -- you've done nothing but prove your own ignorance by equating a cut out with a journalist and launching hilarious tin foil hat insults. You got nothing. And it shows to anyone paying attention. Like your failed Rubio prognostication, you're wrong. Shocking!
Magox Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 No, you haven't. All of you've done is hide behind links and then when asked to point out the part in the link you've provided to make your case, you make excuses, as always. Now show us the proof that the US is purposely funding or supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS to serve as a proxy to defeat or engage against Russia and Assad.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 No, you haven't. All of you've done is hide behind links and then when asked to point out the part in the link you've provided to make your case, you make excuses, as always. Now show us the proof that the US is purposely funding or supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS to serve as a proxy to defeat or engage against Russia and Assad. Wow, you really are afraid to answer that question. I wonder why? Because it was an inexcusable action perhaps that could potentially lead us into a shooting war with the world's largest nuclear power? Nah. You're making yourself look foolish in this thread. Only a completely uninformed person doubts that Syria is a proxy war between multiple nations and the secularists and extremists of the region. Then again, only an uninformed (or dishonest) person compares a cut out to a journalist. So I guess you're just further proving the point about how dishonest and/or uninformed you are on this topic. We shouldn't be surprised. You boasted Rubio was going to be the nominee and look how that turned out.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 So, no proof? Plenty of proof of your foolishness is filling up this thread. Keep it up. Your lack of a backbone is amazing.
Magox Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 Just like we thought, you are a tin foiled conspiracy nut who can't back up anything he says.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 Just like we thought, you are a tin foiled conspiracy nut who can't back up anything he says. You're really rattled. It's not a good look for you. Keep running. It's working. You're winning this debate, really you are.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 I think you drank all the proof this morning based on posts this morning.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 Soooo? No proof. I've linked dozens of articles addressing this. And you keep running from the original discussion topic. Wonder why that is? Could it be you're too busy touching yourself while you watch this:
Recommended Posts