Print 55 comment(s) - last by sfi2k7.. on May 4 at 8:14 PM

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is convinced that the media, Facebook, and the Government are in cahoots to steal money from you and start wars.  (Source: Daily Mail)

Assange is convinced that Facebook is violating its users trust, passing a wealth of spy information to the U.S. government. He produced no documents to support his position, though.  (Source: AP Photo)
Julian Assange still has plenty to say and most of it involves some sort of conspiracy

Julian Assange, founder of infamous internet site Wikileaks, punched his ticket to stardom with the release of videos showing U.S. soldiers accidentally killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan; cables from soldiers in the field, deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan; 250,000 U.S. State Department cables; and -- most recently -- a host of prisoner records from Guantánamo Bay.

Now that he's in the spotlight, he's relishing the attention and opportunity to air his thoughts on technology and what he perceives as a vast international conspiracy, headed by the United States.

In an interview with Russia Today, Russia's first all-digital TV network, Mr. Assange claims that when it comes to the U.S., "We only released secret, classified, confidential material. We didn’t have any top secret cables. The really embarrassing stuff, the really serious stuff wasn’t in our collection to release. But it is still out there."

He doesn't waste much time making his thoughts known on the world's largest social network and most used website, Facebook.  He thinks it's a shill for the U.S. government and complicit in a vast conspiracy (catch the theme?).  

He states:

Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations and the communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo – all these major US organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence. It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena. They have an interface that they have developed for US intelligence to use.

Now, is it the case that Facebook is actually run by US intelligence? No, it’s not like that. It’s simply that US intelligence is able to bring to bear legal and political pressure on them. And it’s costly for them to hand out records one by one, so they have automated the process. Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook, they are doing free work for United States intelligence agencies in building this database for them.

On the topic of Libya Mr. Assange seems to have mixed thoughts, first complaining of French, U.S., and British involvement, stating, "When outside forces from very, very far-flung countries start to take an aggressive role in a regional affair, then we have to look a bit more and say that what is going on is not normal. So, what’s happening in Libya, for example, is not normal."

He then turns around and complains that Britain is doing wrong by harboring the sons of controversial leader Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, stating, "It’s an example of true liberalism in the United Kingdom: everyone come here, and we’ll protect you. On the other hand, there does seem to be a disconnect. Is it really supporting free-speech activists like me who come to the UK? But, on the other hand, it is supporting people like sons of Gaddafi."

He also complains about what he says is a profit-driven conspiracy at The New York Times and his former ally turned foe, British newspaper Guardian.  He explains:

What they have done with this cable-cooking in this incredible over-redaction of cables is they have pushed the right of the people to know to the very, very edge. And what they are concerned about is any possible attack on them.

But we have seen this sort of abuse of the material that we have provided several times. The Guardian is the worst offender, but we saw it also by The New York Times. The New York Times redacted a 62-page cable down to two paragraphs. And this is completely against the agreement that we originally set up with them on November 1, 2010. That agreement was that the only redactions that should take place are to protect people's lives. There should be no other redaction, not to protect reputation, not to protect The Guardian's profits, but only to protect lives.

After a discussion of his possible extradition to Sweden to face sex crimes charges, and the possible effort by the U.S. to extradite him to face trial on some sort of espionage charge, Mr. Assange turns back to his old talking point -- conspiracy.  He concludes:

One of the hopeful things that I’ve discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media could've stopped it if they had searched deep enough; if they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could've stopped it. But what does that mean? Well, that means that basically populations don't like wars, and populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don't willingly, with open eyes, go into a war. So if we have a good media environment, then we also have a peaceful environment.

Let's just hope Facebook and the war-mongering media don't join forces.  Or then Mr. Assange might really lose some sleep.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

things have changed
By zinfamous on 5/3/2011 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 3
Part of me maintains a bit of respect, some understanding of necessity for what Assange does, but always a bit of anger for his leaking militarily sensitive documents.

In light of the revelation that one of his leaks a few weeks ago involved US intelligence having tracked Bin Laden to the Abottobad compound, I have completely reversed my track. Briefly imagine what would have happened had those SEALS (DELTA) arrived at the compound and no one was home. Or if intel reported leading up to the operation that they had lost track of him.

%^$! Assange.

RE: things have changed
By web2dot0 on 5/3/2011 1:04:41 PM , Rating: 5
Don't buy into this "gov't secrets". When Wikileaks revealed the information they found ... most of that the other countries ALREADY know about ... it's not like they revealed troop deployment locations, and location of secret compounds .... there's nothing like that in there.

It revealed America's relationships with other countries. I don't think it's all that secretive. We just don't know about it.

Everytime people get into this discussion people always refer back to "military sensitive documents". If you play it by the book, any dealings between Wall St. and Treasury are "gov't secrets" because revealing those infomation could change outcome of the stock market. That excuse can be used for anything .....

I don't agree with everything he does, but I also wouldn't mind knowing how the OUR gov't conducts things. We need whistleblowers and watchmen to make sure the people in power are kept in check!

RE: things have changed
By In2Boost on 5/3/2011 9:13:33 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with your points.

Far too many use that term (sensitive) blindly. Albeit it is essentially and completely arbitrary.

The problem here is the method of information delivery, and how best to distribute this information amongst our fellow red, white, and blue blooded Americans, while excluding - well, why don't we join the bandwagon and use the label "terrorists." This much is blatantly obvious.

So who is to decide this threshold? Well, our system of choice dictates certain individuals or groups within our governmental security agencies decide for us.

Julian really does have noble intentions, and I'd like to think we as a people share those particular qualities.

Julian, AFAIK, is not employed by our federal government.

My problem Julian, is when one of these leaked "secrets" enables one of these "terrorists" to directly or most likely indirectly, infer and piece together certain data and ultimately use this information to directly or most likely indirectly EFF up my life or the life of someone I know or love.

That being said, let me lay any naivety to rest with respect to certain individuals or groups mentioned above; Moral and ethical lines are interpreted as fuzzy, while in practice, neither are.
The bare fact that this controversy exists indicates that a solution is needed. How best to conceptualize and develop that solution, well, that's why our elected officials get paid the big bucks - News flash (@ politicians!). The citizens who have a genuine concern for the well being and legacy of this country would like you to focus your efforts on things like this, NOT these meaningless filler projects that appeal to the LCDs of our society. Please.

Ok, all done! Thanks!

RE: things have changed
By In2Boost on 5/3/2011 9:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
PS - I think this is my second or third post over years of reading...and I cannot believe it was in response to a Jason Mick article! ROFL

Sincerely, though - not bad, Jason! ::thumbup::

RE: things have changed
By Cypherdude1 on 5/4/2011 4:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
It is true that we, the USA, were lied into Iraq. NOTHING President Bush said about Iraq was true. The "conservatively speaking" 100 tons of WMD's, the biological warfare trailers, the "meeting" of Saddam's agents with al-Qaeda in Prague, the airliner model training camps, the uranium cake (I love chocolate cake) purchases, al-Qaeda being in Iraq before the invasion, it was all lies.

President Bush really should have been impeached. The Democrats simply didn't have the stomach for it. What this means is, in the future, we'll be lied into another war. Until there are real consequences for a President for lying the USA into wars, it will continue to happen the same way President Johnson lied to us about the second Gulf of Tonkin incident:

BTW, about Osama Bin Laden. If President Bush had not been focused on Iraq, if he had dropped the US Army Airborne into the eastern Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan, we would have killed OBL in late 2001, early 2002. We had to wait nearly 10 years to eliminate OBL.

Before Sunday, the Republicans always had the edge regarding terrorism. After Sunday, that's all gone and they simply look incompetent.

RE: things have changed
By rcc on 5/3/2011 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 5
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone cares what this bozo thinks or says.

Unfortunately, one of the blessings and curses of the information age is that anyone with an attitude, some money, and a decent web page can become famous.

In critical thinking it's referred to as an "appeal to inappropriate authority". A bit like taking some fluff headed actor/actresses word that product "X" rocks.

RE: things have changed
By callmeroy on 5/3/2011 2:36:19 PM , Rating: 1
I lean mostly to the side that thinks this guy is a nut job...

HOWEVER -- I myself have wondered at the times we live in ...we really are just handing over all our information, in many cases, quite eagerly and without a second thought to it.

Maybe I'm too cynical for my own good at a times but is it odd to anyone else or just me -- how almost "happy" people are to write anything thing and everything with great detail on Facebook? Every look at the profiles on those sites...people actually fill them out completely --- name of family history....hobbies...musics..and on and on....I just find that amazing....

For people who are into stealing ID's social networking sites must be a dream come true.

But that alone isn't why I think about this stuff....but rather as everyone knows....when you teach something over time...people accept it more and more....

So all the sites today that ask you for all this info...perhaps years ago folks were hesitant to fill it all though its the "social norm" its the "in thing" so there's very little apprehension....therefore the "facebook generation" crowd who always had no problem giving away their info...will so easily be persuaded to give up their info for any new thing that comes down the road.....not to mention if you are that care free with your information, it probably doesn't take the greatest con man in the world to get it from you either.

Now excuse me I have to update my facebook that I had a salad from Wawa for lunch...brb! :)

RE: things have changed
By MrJim on 5/3/2011 6:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not Delta, it was SEAL team six, DEVGRU.

RE: things have changed
By croc on 5/3/2011 10:06:28 PM , Rating: 3
What revelation? Where was this 'revelation' from? Any links to it?

I'm curious, as a fellow Aussie I follow wikileaks fairly regularily and have never seen a posting that names names, operational details, or any such info. Since wikileaks only receives information, then if indeed such information was received and posted I missed it.

Sounds like some mis-information to me...

RE: things have changed
By Uncle on 5/4/2011 12:42:53 AM , Rating: 3
You picked one item that pissed you off,then you go into a hypothetical rambling and you get upset at Assange for your imagination.

Seems unlikely
By Flunk on 5/3/2011 11:22:37 AM , Rating: 5
If there really was a conspiracy of that magnitude, why is Assange still alive? This is the biggest issue I have with the really big conspiracy theories. If there was a secret that big and controversial why wouldn't they just kill the person who found out about it before they told anyone else.

RE: Seems unlikely
By Menoob on 5/3/2011 11:41:33 AM , Rating: 5
Well if you paint the person as a lunatic then everything the person says would be considered lunacy. It also prevents others from sharing or voicing a similar point of view in fear of being labelled a lunatic. I am not saying these theories are true but it more effective if these claims were true to make the messenger appear insane than it is to kill them.

RE: Seems unlikely
By sfi2k7 on 5/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: Seems unlikely
By sfi2k7 on 5/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: Seems unlikely
By sfi2k7 on 5/4/2011 8:14:11 PM , Rating: 2

About suicide attacks:
Keeping the context, a building full of blacks blows up and reason that is told is that it was done by a black man because he hates white people. So white people have to kill more "extremist" blacks to save Black people.

It may read ridicules but that is what we have been back and forth for last 10 years. 95% of people who were killed in last 10 years are Muslims still more Muslims are being killed by the drone to save Muslims from extremist who hates west. A man in pakistan bombs an embessy in pakstan and killes 22 muslims to protest the bad treatment of muslim in that country.
If you do not see the problem there you have no hope then. You could say those extremist are crazy that does not make the problem go away. You could also keep making up the reasons as to why we were attacked as bush did every year.

Why now though? First suicide attack was in 1983. Where were those crazy Muslims for last 1400 years.

RE: Seems unlikely
By croc on 5/3/2011 9:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
Bernie Madoff was one of those 'false profits', eh?

RE: Seems unlikely
By sfi2k7 on 5/4/2011 7:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
Peace, liberty and Justice are the slogans of invading armies but destruction, misery and death is what they leave behind.

So they qualify for false prophet.

RE: Seems unlikely
By gamerk2 on 5/3/2011 2:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
If he were to...mysteruiously die, for instance, wouldn't that cuase even MORE conspiracy theories about his death?

The saddest part is his argument makes a lot of sense; it does make more sense to automate information requests then it does to handle it via courts. Just saying...

RE: Seems unlikely
By Targon on 5/3/2011 4:26:14 PM , Rating: 3
It might generate some new conspiracy theories, but the world would be a better place without that lunatic spouting off conspiracy theories.

Oh the irony
By DXRick on 5/3/2011 2:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
He obtains and releases classified government info and then accuses the government of spying on us via FaceBook.

I am trying to imagine how they can use FaceBook to catch criminals and terrorists but am coming up empty. Are criminals using it to share their nefarious plans and associates? Are terrorists using it to communicate? Some how I doubt it.

RE: Oh the irony
By JakLee on 5/3/2011 3:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
No Hassan, I will NOT help you with your "master plan" until you send me another goat for farmville.

RE: Oh the irony
By sviola on 5/3/2011 4:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there are some criminals that are dumb enough to use Facebook. For instance, last an Italian mobster that was on top of Interpol most wanted list, checked in Facebook from his hideout. A couple hours later, he was arrested, due to monitoring that was being made to his Facebook profile. And, if I'm not wrong, in February, a rape crime (comitted by a group of young men that raped a drunk girl in a party) was solved because a witness (and friends to the group) posted a video link on Facebook.

By AnnihilatorX on 5/3/2011 10:40:10 AM , Rating: 3
I can't find a more fitting video source for this!

Onion News had predicted this a month ago!

By AnnihilatorX on 5/3/2011 1:38:15 PM , Rating: 1
Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations and the communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence.

Mr. Assange obviously had been watching too much Onion News:

After years of secretly monitoring the public we are astounded so many people will willingly publicize where they live, their religious, political views, and advertise list of all their friends, personal e-mail addresses, phone numbers, hundreds of photos of themselves, and even status updates of what they are doing moment to moment. It is truly the *dream come true* for the CIA.

"[Facebook is] the most powerful population control tool ever created" - Mark "Overlord" Zuckerberg

"CIA calls Facebook the reason we invented the Internet"

Quality writing as always from Onion :)

By geddarkstorm on 5/3/2011 5:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
It is, however, true to an extent. And I don't just mean for the CIA, but for everyone. Think before Facebook, or even before the internet was all that prevalent (if people have memory spans that long). How did you look up someone and find information on them? Most commonly you used a phone directory, provided you knew their name and at least a rough area that they lived in, and then you had to usually contend with the multiple people with the same name (unless you could narrow down the area they were in). And even then, that didn't tell you their friends, associations, or where they'd worked and gone to school or had lived previously, or how nice their toilet seat felt last night.

Now, we can all easily get that information and more in a convenient, hassle free, effortless form. It isn't a conspiracy at all, as people are VOLUNTARILY giving up all this information and status. But never the less, the CIA or any one else can now, in this age of Facebook, twitter, and other social networking, find out an immense amount of detail about a person with only a few clicks of a button. Profiling and doing personality analysis of people is easy when they are listing everything they are doing every 10 minutes, including exactly how they felt spiritually as they bit leisurely into their morning piece of toast.

Again, it's no conspiracy, and it isn't wrong what so ever for the CIA or anyone else to use the information (if most of it can even be called that) people are freely spewing onto the interwebs however they want; but that doesn't change the fact that intelligence gathering on par with the best analysts from fourty years ago can be done by an overweight WoW addict in ten minutes.

By SunTzu on 5/3/2011 11:34:10 AM , Rating: 5
How is this a conspiracy theory? This is entirely possible, and probably true. Just look at how the US telecom industry bent over for illegal wiretaps for a very long time, and that was a far bigger thing then this. Standard Mick vs Assange trashtalking imo.

RE: Conspiracy?
By Solandri on 5/3/2011 7:18:33 PM , Rating: 1
How is this a conspiracy theory? This is entirely possible, and probably true.

"Entirely possible" and "probably true" doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory.

To not be a conspiracy theory, you have to have valid non-circumstantial evidence. Until you get that, it's a conspiracy theory.

You might be mentally inept if...
By SiliconJon on 5/3/2011 11:49:47 AM , Rating: 5 use the word conspiracy in place of : corruption, ulterior motives, hidden agendas, team work, groupthink, corporate culture, social behavioral norms, private corroboration...etc

AND imply the additional meaning of "fictional" as if the above were strictly fabrications of the mind when in fact the above are common and it is denial thereof that is a fabrication of the mind.

By Solandri on 5/3/2011 7:32:02 PM , Rating: 1
Back the truck up. If there's evidence the government is doing this, then present it. It's as simple as that. Otherwise it's just speculation.

you use the word conspiracy in place of : corruption, ulterior motives, hidden agendas, team work, groupthink, corporate culture, social behavioral norms, private corroboration...etc
All the things could just as well be used to support the theory that the government is hiding alien bodies from a flying saucer that crashed at Roswell. Until you get some real evidence substantiating this charge, a conspiracy theory is exactly what it is.

(Normally it'd just be a theory. But since for the theory to be true, hundreds, if not thousands of people in the government and at Facebook need to be in on it and keep it secret, it's a conspiracy theory.)

Collusion with Facebook...?
By delphinus100 on 5/3/2011 11:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Facebook in particular is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented.

As if no one but the US Government itself, would have reason to gather information on its citizens...

And it's not too 'appalling,' when we give it up freely. (And I say this as an FB user)

NOT a conspiracy
By WinstonSmith on 5/4/2011 9:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Why do his statements on this seem to make everyone think he's talking about a conspiracy?

ALL of the information at those social networking sites could easily be MINED without any of those sites ever knowing about it. THAT is what he's talking about.


He's wrong about war
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/4/2011 9:54:59 AM , Rating: 2
"Populations don't willingly, with open eyes, go into a war."

I dont think that is true. After 10 years of depression, the US was ready for WWII. So were most other countries. So it will be with WWWIII. How exactly we convince ourselves to go to war is just a matter of semantic games. When we were being prepped for Iraq in 2002, anyone with a brain knew that the media was shoveling out a bunch of lies. But truth doesnt matter because lies are what bring home the bacon. The reason we get into these wars is because there is too much funny money being shoveled into the hands of people who are willing to lie, especially on tv. But most of that funny money comes from our own pockets, so who are we to complain? This happens because the economy stagnates, deflation begins to creep in, and war is of course the easiest cure for deflation. So we as a society do whatever we must to convince ourselves that war is necessary, including swallowing another big lie.

Similarly, in the weeks before pearl harbor, the US knew about the japanese fleet. You're an idiot with absolutely no understanding of 1930's technology if you deny that obvious truth. It took that fleet weeks to cross the pacific, and in that time they were detected multiple times, including by many other foreign governments, who all warned us many times. Those cables are still out there. It is all a matter of public record. But that doesnt matter, because the propaganda story is what we all swallow to feel good about war.

If you really dont want war then you have to cut the roots of war out before they can grow. Those roots are companies that spy, and people that lie. Facebook, Apple, Google, you can rest assured these companies will be responsible for millions of deaths in WWIII. just like IBM in WWII.

Poor, poor Ass-Ange
By Beenthere on 5/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: Poor, poor Ass-Ange
By Azethoth on 5/3/2011 3:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
Lets not get crazy here. The 2 charges against him if I understand correctly are:
1) A condom broke during sex.
2) There was a lack of a condom but they had sex anyway.

1) Is some kind of weird bullshit charge.
2) This one has a vague merit but I would need the conversation to go something like - lets do it - got a condom? - no - I don't want to do it without a condom - followed by an actual rape. I am just gonna guess that likely they did it anyway and she used the morning after pill, or was using birth control or whatever. It seems highly unprobable there was a rape in the sense that most people understand it.

Disclaimer: I do not care for Asange personally based on his attitude in interviews. He seems to have issues. But neither is this wiki-leaks thing so terrible. I would like it if we just told some dumb dictator that he sucks right to his face. Yeah, I am looking at you Gadaffy, and I think Seal Team 6 needs to do the saying to face part.

RE: Poor, poor Ass-Ange
By Beenthere on 5/3/2011 5:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
The charge under Swedish law is rape, which is why he must be returned to face his accusers. Amongst other activities he had sex with a young girl- without her consent - who was passed out. The point of extradition is to prevent criminals from escaping punishment for their crimes.

RE: Poor, poor Ass-Ange
By SunTzu on 5/3/2011 6:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
The charge is that he continued sex after the condom broke, and the woman claims she then made it clear she did not want to continue. But yes, its a bullshit charge, and if it goes to trial he will most likely beat the charges.

Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By masamasa on 5/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By snyper256 on 5/3/2011 11:07:58 AM , Rating: 3
I think the point is to let people know what they don't already know.

By bug77 on 5/3/2011 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
Out of context snippets does not an information make.

By Sahrin on 5/3/2011 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
That Julian Assange is a creeper?

Mission Accomplished.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By hughlle on 5/3/2011 11:36:39 AM , Rating: 1
probably something todo with the other countries not running around picking wars with everyone and breaking every law they come across in the name of "freedom"..America is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world so far a i'm concerned.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By mdogs444 on 5/3/11, Rating: 0
By mcnabney on 5/3/2011 3:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Julian should watch himself. Team 6 might be in his neighborhood. Who's up for a twofer?

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Aloonatic on 5/3/2011 11:38:50 AM , Rating: 3
His point might be that the US goes around the world pointing it's finger at other countries, invoking sanctions on them, invading them, "liberating" them and such like, seemingly claiming that it itself is whiter that white and that the whole world would be better if everyone was as free as the the US citizen. Making all their warmongering justifiable as they have the moral high ground, which isn't really all that true.

We are all pretty aware of how bad other governments are, and most people in the west might be a bit cynical about their governments, but it's not like our governments are going to point all this stuff out themselves.

From the US to North Korea, they're all up to the same old that has been going on forever. People in power will always end up being twisted by it to some extent and it might not do us any harm to have someone pointing out what is going on within our own borders, from time to time.

We have things pretty good in the west, don;t get me wrong, but it's far from perfect. Yes, other places are worse, but it doesn't mean that things are all rosey here and can't be improved.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Chaser on 5/3/2011 1:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
And I'm sure Wikileaks is the pristine, reputable, unbiased vehicle to promote positive change in the U.S.

By HrilL on 5/3/2011 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying its the best but they do release the info. And I think you're buying into Media and Government propaganda with demonizing them. I honestly don't trust any Organized organization. Not one has ever existed without some type of ulterior motive.

By Aloonatic on 5/3/2011 3:38:06 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't realise that I said that Wikileaks were perfect.

If you only listen to people/organisations who are pristine, reputable, unbiased.... Then you might as well cut your ears off, as they are no use to you and are just creating drag when you walk.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Ammohunt on 5/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By augiem on 5/3/2011 2:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
"Having things pretty good (yet not perfect)" can include a whole lot more than personal wealth. Money ain't the end all be all.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Ammohunt on 5/3/2011 2:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Never said money was the determining factor; again you prove my point with your comments. Its obvious you are clueless about how good you have it.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Aloonatic on 5/3/2011 3:32:59 PM , Rating: 3
Welcome to DT math 101

Presumptuous, patronising comment

Pretty good? don't get out of your country much do you?
+ contradicting comments
even the poorest among us in the west live like kings compared to 90% of the rest of the world.
Never said money was the determining factor; again you prove my point with your comments. Its obvious you are clueless about how good you have it.
x (for good measure) an extra patronising and condescending comment
Typical college educated idiot with no clue on how the world works.
= 1 x lol

It's a good job that there are super intelligent people like you around to save us college educated morons who don't know how the big wide world really works.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Ammohunt on 5/3/2011 5:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
So how exactly did your college derived art degree prepare you for the "real world" ? I run across ignorant college types almost daily expecting money to fall from the sky. case in point my neighbor(nice guy) has a masters in architecture and works at a brewery lugging cases of beer...wondering why an architecture firm won’t hire him and make his dream come true of creating vertical communal housing ala hippie commune style. He suspects it’s the evil corporation’s corperating! that keeps him from being hired. It couldn’t be the fact that he is a white dude with dreadlocks right out of college in a market saturated with architects coupled with local governments and major corporations made so broke by the very same Marxist ideas they spew on college campuses(and repeated by him BTW); the same fail boat ideology implemented by the current administration that they(Corporations and Local government) can’t afford to build buildings. College teaches you how to perform well in college and does nothing to prepare you for the world.

RE: Sure seems to have a thorn in his side
By Aloonatic on 5/3/2011 6:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you are being serious. Or that you really think that I have an art degree, and that you know this to be true because you are a mentalist who can "read" people and know all about them and their life from a single comments on web site.

I am also wondering how you are so sure that people who a have degree know less about the world than people without them, seeing as almost everyone in our governments is educated to at least degree level, as are most people in the higher levels of the corporate world, with the odd exception.

Do you really believe that you people who have "street smartz" rather than a degree (assuming that these 2 groups are mutually exclusive), or those with a bad case of inverse snobbery or those who have a very large chip on their shoulder (as you seem to) makes them right and that they are the only people who can can see the truth?

As for your rant about the architect. It's sad, but people make all sorts of decisions in their lives, and at least he is working for a living. Your argument might make sense if everyone who doesn't have a degree is succeeding like Donald Trump, but that's not the case. The world isn't that simple.

Anyway, at least he isn't wasting his life away arguing on this website, so he's (perhaps) got something over the both of us :o)

By Ammohunt on 5/4/2011 2:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
Anyway, at least he isn't wasting his life away arguing on this website, so he's (perhaps) got something over the both of us :o)

Thats a very good point! but its so fun! admit it!

By Gondor on 5/3/2011 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Making all their warmongering justifiable as they have the moral high ground, which isn't really all that true.

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

(some dead guy with a funny name, circa alot BC)


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki