Uh...yes, he's the villain. I said that.
How does that change, anything. No one denies he's the villain the fact is that you're making the argument he represents Occupy, and you SAID JUST THAT, literally. YOU said:
"CoD is owned by Activision, a company that is worth $130.9 Billion dollars according to its stock value and total shares. This is exactly the size company the occupy protestors are opposing.
...
Now, not too long after the SOPA incident, but definitely long enough after to have conceivably written a script involving it, CoD comes out with the villains being firmly connected to Occupy, with online protest being shown as the primary vehicle for the group's popularity."
Now, unless you want to retract something, YOU made the claim that Activision is directly lampooning Occupy. I, meanwhile, asked for your reasoning (you still refuse to give it, instead going off on tangents about what you perceive trailers to "mean" despite the fact I PRESENTED YOU with cases which disprove your theory) and then you went on to further speculate:
"99% basically calls forth the occupy movement specifically to mind in anyone who sees it. It is THEIR thing. Putting the '99%' into a spot in the first few seconds of the trailer is extremely significant."
No, it isn't, or more specifically YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN WHY.
I however presented several alternate explanations, including ties to the Militia movement, a previous game in production base don the TEA PARTY (i.e, Militia 2.0) and the fact the name has possible religious implications. YOU continue to dismiss this and respond by telling me that Raul Menendez is the villain...no shit Sherlock. TWIST ENDING! The villain is villainous!
Again I ask--present evidence that Activision is attacking Occupy, or retract the damn statement. You're either wrong, and purposely obfuscating the situation to keep from admitting this, or you're incapable of understanding these themes existed long before and will continue long after Occupy, or both. And either way I suspect you wouldn't give a damn if it wasn't the hated, dreaded Call of Duty.
So, AGAIN, put up or shut up...you say they're based on Occupy, where is the statement that confirms this? Because the populist bullshit Occupy says is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the populist that the Militia movement says, and they've been around longer, are ACTUAL terrorists, and more likely to call themselves "Fortress of God" (assuming the other website was correct in that translation) than Occupy.
I get the feeling you're purposefully bullshitting me to keep from simply admitting you're wrong.
How does that change, anything. No one denies he's the villain the fact is that you're making the argument he represents Occupy, and you SAID JUST THAT, literally. YOU said:
"CoD is owned by Activision, a company that is worth $130.9 Billion dollars according to its stock value and total shares. This is exactly the size company the occupy protestors are opposing.
...
Now, not too long after the SOPA incident, but definitely long enough after to have conceivably written a script involving it, CoD comes out with the villains being firmly connected to Occupy, with online protest being shown as the primary vehicle for the group's popularity."
Now, unless you want to retract something, YOU made the claim that Activision is directly lampooning Occupy. I, meanwhile, asked for your reasoning (you still refuse to give it, instead going off on tangents about what you perceive trailers to "mean" despite the fact I PRESENTED YOU with cases which disprove your theory) and then you went on to further speculate:
"99% basically calls forth the occupy movement specifically to mind in anyone who sees it. It is THEIR thing. Putting the '99%' into a spot in the first few seconds of the trailer is extremely significant."
No, it isn't, or more specifically YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN WHY.
I however presented several alternate explanations, including ties to the Militia movement, a previous game in production base don the TEA PARTY (i.e, Militia 2.0) and the fact the name has possible religious implications. YOU continue to dismiss this and respond by telling me that Raul Menendez is the villain...no shit Sherlock. TWIST ENDING! The villain is villainous!
Again I ask--present evidence that Activision is attacking Occupy, or retract the damn statement. You're either wrong, and purposely obfuscating the situation to keep from admitting this, or you're incapable of understanding these themes existed long before and will continue long after Occupy, or both. And either way I suspect you wouldn't give a damn if it wasn't the hated, dreaded Call of Duty.
So, AGAIN, put up or shut up...you say they're based on Occupy, where is the statement that confirms this? Because the populist bullshit Occupy says is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the populist that the Militia movement says, and they've been around longer, are ACTUAL terrorists, and more likely to call themselves "Fortress of God" (assuming the other website was correct in that translation) than Occupy.
I get the feeling you're purposefully bullshitting me to keep from simply admitting you're wrong.