Confirmed Government employing Internet Trolls

And look out for the new Google Chrome Laptop. They don't have Hard Drives. They store all your information via Internet. You wont be able to access your files unless you're online. Now does anyone really trust Google for privacy? They might be phasing out Hard Drives all together. Scary thought huh?

First off, you're right about storing all your personal info on the internet is a really BAD idea. The Amazon cloud going down and the Playstation Network getting hacked are two really good examples of why storing personal data anywhere not in your control is a generally bad idea. You're basically trusting other people with your information and that they will be honest with you if it is ever compromised or that the data will always be there for you when you need it.

Hard drives or other local storage mediums will always be around. There will always be people who don't want to rely on their internet connection to get to their stuff and a lot of times the stuff they want to get to is "inconvenient" to access over the web due to size. I have close to 18 TB of disk storage at home that stores my movie collections. I couldn't imagine the headaches of trying to put that in the cloud somewhere.

I was just reading about the Apple IPads only storing information via the Internet too. This could be where they're taking us. No more Hard Drives at all. Everything will be stored and only accessed via the Internet. When i see Google doing this i get very nervous because in my opinion they're just a Government Spy apparatus. I hope i'm wrong and you're right. I would much rather stick with a Hard Drive. I guess we'll see though.
 
I was just reading about the Apple IPads only storing information via the Internet too. This could be where they're taking us. No more Hard Drives at all. Everything will be stored and only accessed via the Internet. When i see Google doing this i get very nervous because in my opinion they're just a Government Spy apparatus. I hope i'm wrong and you're right. I would much rather stick with a Hard Drive. I guess we'll see though.

The iPad stores stuff locally. That is why you have 8-16-32 gig versions. It has apps that will store stuff in the cloud such as dropbox, but that is not the norm.

And hard drives will never go away as long as there is a consumer demand for them. As file sizes grow, they continue to make storing files in the cloud impractical.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the government would be interested in that you might store (intentionally or not) out on the internet? Or is it just a matter of principal?
 
What did happen to Suzie? :eusa_shhh:

she attended a class on the Constitution and was put on no fly list

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz9dZPJKhEo]YouTube - ‪Prime example of a policed state‬‏[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRAwgaVxhdQ&NR=1]YouTube - ‪USA Patriot Act used against its own citizens - Think it can't happen to you? THINK AGAIN!‬‏[/ame]
 
Hahaaaa!
I almost have them!
They'll soon all be buying BABs and Chryslers even though they'll fall apart five minutes after the warranty expires.

Wait...did I type that out loud...fuck...where's the 'Off' butto...
 
Why is this on the Conspiracy Theories board?

Because the claim that everyone who argues against the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a paid internet troll is nothing but a conspiracy theory. I've been called an agent many, MANY times, yet I am not. It is just the desperate attempts by the truthtards to come up with an excuse as to why they are always getting their butts kicked. We have the truth on our side and the truth will always expose the flaws in the lies. That can be very frustrating for those who try to lie to push an agenda.
 
Why is this on the Conspiracy Theories board?

Because the claim that everyone who argues against the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a paid internet troll is nothing but a conspiracy theory. I've been called an agent many, MANY times, yet I am not. It is just the desperate attempts by the truthtards to come up with an excuse as to why they are always getting their butts kicked. We have the truth on our side and the truth will always expose the flaws in the lies. That can be very frustrating for those who try to lie to push an agenda.

The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.
 
Why is this on the Conspiracy Theories board?

Because the claim that everyone who argues against the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a paid internet troll is nothing but a conspiracy theory. I've been called an agent many, MANY times, yet I am not. It is just the desperate attempts by the truthtards to come up with an excuse as to why they are always getting their butts kicked. We have the truth on our side and the truth will always expose the flaws in the lies. That can be very frustrating for those who try to lie to push an agenda.

The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Truthtards are not "seeking the truth". If they were, they would look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence they wish to focus on and pretend is relevant. Ignoring evidence is a sure sign someone is lying and KNOWS they are lying. Take your hero Ruppert for instance. He KNOWINGLY lied to you and you blindly believed him vs. going off and seriously looking for the truth. When presented with the truth, you changed the subject. How is that "seeking the truth"?
 
Why is this on the Conspiracy Theories board?

Because the claim that everyone who argues against the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a paid internet troll is nothing but a conspiracy theory. I've been called an agent many, MANY times, yet I am not. It is just the desperate attempts by the truthtards to come up with an excuse as to why they are always getting their butts kicked. We have the truth on our side and the truth will always expose the flaws in the lies. That can be very frustrating for those who try to lie to push an agenda.

The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

there is a difference between a story being incomplete and filling it in with conspiracies so vast that only the extraordinarily stupid or mentally ill would believe them.
 
Because the claim that everyone who argues against the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a paid internet troll is nothing but a conspiracy theory. I've been called an agent many, MANY times, yet I am not. It is just the desperate attempts by the truthtards to come up with an excuse as to why they are always getting their butts kicked. We have the truth on our side and the truth will always expose the flaws in the lies. That can be very frustrating for those who try to lie to push an agenda.

The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

there is a difference between a story being incomplete and filling it in with conspiracies so vast that only the extraordinarily stupid or mentally ill would believe them.

There is ALSO a difference between positing a conspiracy theory based on REAL facts and basing one on DENIAL of real facts.


I sort of LIKE conspiracy theories although I tend not to sign onto most of them.

AFter all what are most conspiracy theories?

They are an attempt to make sense of the narrative when we KNOW we have incomplete data.
 
The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

there is a difference between a story being incomplete and filling it in with conspiracies so vast that only the extraordinarily stupid or mentally ill would believe them.

There is ALSO a difference between positing a conspiracy theory based on REAL facts and basing one on DENIAL of real facts.


I sort of LIKE conspiracy theories although I tend not to sign onto most of them.

AFter all what are most conspiracy theories?

They are an attempt to make sense of the narrative when we KNOW we have incomplete data.

Lots of people, myself included, enjoy playing "what if" scenarios. It is part of human nature in my opinion.

Truthers do not, however, try to make sense of the narrative. They throw away anything and everything that disagrees with their theory du jour. That isn't making sense of the narrative, but rather completely rewriting the narrative.

Here is a good example:

Many truthers recently (Jones, Tinmore and CD for example) are claiming the planes were flown into the buildings via remote control. In order to believe this theory, they have to ignore tons of known, irrefutable facts such as the flight attendants that were talking with co-workers on the ground throughout almost the entire hijacking, the flight data recorders, the voice recorders, the interaction between the planes and ATC, the calls to loved ones from the planes, and the complete lack of physical evidence of remote control hardware.

Now, if they were playing "what if", that would be one thing, but they are not. They are claiming their theories are fact and that people should ACT upon their claims. This is the danger of not standing up for the truth; the fact someone is going to act upon the paranoid delusions of the conspiracy theorists. An example would be Timothy McVeigh who blew up the Murrah building in OKC because of the conspiracies surrounding Waco. Do we know everything that happened at Waco? No. There are holes in the "official story" and some of those holes don't make sense. Conspiracy theorists fill in those holes with outlandish theories that don't fit the known facts and pretend it is truth. Some actually believe the bullshit.
 
Wait, I could get paid for this?

Do you support Barack Obama blindly?

Like if this is really going on.. it completely started under Obama. :cuckoo:..

I would be willing to bet that government "trolls" have been "trolling" since the creation of message boards, blogs, and social media.

But keep ignoring everything that happened under Bush.. throwing it all off on Obama is the cool thing to do :thup:!
 
The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

there is a difference between a story being incomplete and filling it in with conspiracies so vast that only the extraordinarily stupid or mentally ill would believe them.

There is ALSO a difference between positing a conspiracy theory based on REAL facts and basing one on DENIAL of real facts.


I sort of LIKE conspiracy theories although I tend not to sign onto most of them.

AFter all what are most conspiracy theories?

They are an attempt to make sense of the narrative when we KNOW we have incomplete data.
We all believe one conspiracy or another.

Whether a bunch of guys with box cutters conspire4d to hijack three planes or Project Northwoods was pout into motion- either way, it's a conspiracy on someone's part.

People just disagree on who the guilty party is
 
Beware of the Government/Corporate Industrial Complex. It is real. Government and Corporations have merged and have become one entity. Large Corporations like Google & Facebook are the Government. And they are spying on you. It's not just a crazy Conspiracy Theory. It is happening. The Government does employ Internet Trolls to push the Party-Line and spy. It's fact.
 
Because the claim that everyone who argues against the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a paid internet troll is nothing but a conspiracy theory. I've been called an agent many, MANY times, yet I am not. It is just the desperate attempts by the truthtards to come up with an excuse as to why they are always getting their butts kicked. We have the truth on our side and the truth will always expose the flaws in the lies. That can be very frustrating for those who try to lie to push an agenda.

The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Truthtards are not "seeking the truth". If they were, they would look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence they wish to focus on and pretend is relevant. Ignoring evidence is a sure sign someone is lying and KNOWS they are lying. Take your hero Ruppert for instance. He KNOWINGLY lied to you and you blindly believed him vs. going off and seriously looking for the truth. When presented with the truth, you changed the subject. How is that "seeking the truth"?

Take your hero Ruppert for instance. He KNOWINGLY lied to you and you blindly believed him vs. going off and seriously looking for the truth.

OK, specifically what did he say that was not true and give evidence to back up your position.
 
there is a difference between a story being incomplete and filling it in with conspiracies so vast that only the extraordinarily stupid or mentally ill would believe them.

There is ALSO a difference between positing a conspiracy theory based on REAL facts and basing one on DENIAL of real facts.


I sort of LIKE conspiracy theories although I tend not to sign onto most of them.

AFter all what are most conspiracy theories?

They are an attempt to make sense of the narrative when we KNOW we have incomplete data.

Lots of people, myself included, enjoy playing "what if" scenarios. It is part of human nature in my opinion.

Truthers do not, however, try to make sense of the narrative. They throw away anything and everything that disagrees with their theory du jour. That isn't making sense of the narrative, but rather completely rewriting the narrative.

Here is a good example:

Many truthers recently (Jones, Tinmore and CD for example) are claiming the planes were flown into the buildings via remote control. In order to believe this theory, they have to ignore tons of known, irrefutable facts such as the flight attendants that were talking with co-workers on the ground throughout almost the entire hijacking, the flight data recorders, the voice recorders, the interaction between the planes and ATC, the calls to loved ones from the planes, and the complete lack of physical evidence of remote control hardware.

Now, if they were playing "what if", that would be one thing, but they are not. They are claiming their theories are fact and that people should ACT upon their claims. This is the danger of not standing up for the truth; the fact someone is going to act upon the paranoid delusions of the conspiracy theorists. An example would be Timothy McVeigh who blew up the Murrah building in OKC because of the conspiracies surrounding Waco. Do we know everything that happened at Waco? No. There are holes in the "official story" and some of those holes don't make sense. Conspiracy theorists fill in those holes with outlandish theories that don't fit the known facts and pretend it is truth. Some actually believe the bullshit.

Many truthers recently (Jones, Tinmore and CD for example) are claiming the planes were flown into the buildings via remote control.

I have never said that.
 
The truthers are merely seeking the truth. There are too many holes in the official story.

Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. Truthtards are not "seeking the truth". If they were, they would look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence they wish to focus on and pretend is relevant. Ignoring evidence is a sure sign someone is lying and KNOWS they are lying. Take your hero Ruppert for instance. He KNOWINGLY lied to you and you blindly believed him vs. going off and seriously looking for the truth. When presented with the truth, you changed the subject. How is that "seeking the truth"?

Take your hero Ruppert for instance. He KNOWINGLY lied to you and you blindly believed him vs. going off and seriously looking for the truth.

OK, specifically what did he say that was not true and give evidence to back up your position.

Already did. Thanks for proving you didn't even bother to read my reply to the video you claimed stated what you believe which you then renounced. :lol:

Ruppert claims everyone was lying because when Giulliani called the Whitehouse at 9:41, the man at the Whitehouse claimed fighter jets were launched a little over ten minutes earlier. Ruppert PRETENDS these were the fighters from Otis which were launched a lot earlier, and thus pretends everything is a conspiracy because the times don't add up. Yet for someone who claims to have done his homework, why did he conveniently not know about the fighters from Langley that were originally heading up to NYC at almost exactly the time the Whitehouse claimed?

The times of the fighter launches from Otis and Langley are well documented. The fighters were launched from Otis at 8:52, and from Langley at 9:30. Now, when Ruppert ignores the Langley fighters, the Whitehouse statement to Giulliani makes no sense and causes a huge discrepancy. When one takes into account the Langley fighters and the fact they were indeed originally headed for NYC before being diverted back to Washington, the timelines line up perfectly and Ruppert's claims are exposed for the lies that they are.

This is a blatant and aggregious lie from Ruppert, and one that cannot be dismissed without also destroying all of Ruppert's other claims as his lie is one of the cornerstones of both his books and the video you presented.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top