Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Skip what part; you called me a fake libertarian with zero to back it up, at least I have your asinine attempts to defend violent anarchists as a reasonable incite into what you truly feel about politics. You being an anarchist wouldn't be a stretch, you're a conspiracy theorist too afterall.
You're a fake liberal. Easy to prove. Your view is bigger government control, we see that here and in the bank bailouts.
False. Bank bailouts are widely considered sensible among liberals
and conservatives (traditional or neoconservatives) because the pure business and economic sense says bailing out in rare instances is the overwhelmingly superior alternative to doing
nothing.
I'm sure if I cared enough I could dig up more.
You can't, because you just don't have a clue what's going on.
I defend the anarchists right to protest. They were not violent, another twist by your liberfake mouth. They are ACCUSED of "conspiracy", not the actual act of violence. Someone of your intelligence should be able to differentiate the two. But I guess your agenda doesn't allow for truth, only to obfuscate.
For the 3rd or 4th time already; if you don't have evidence that the accusations of the undercover agents isn't true, shut the fuck up. Secondly, I'll repost again what these guys did, because quite clearly it isn't getting through that thick skull of yours: "A separate affidavit from undercover agents who infiltrated the group said members had
discussed stretching chains across a nearby highway, kidnapping delegates and disrupting the convention with burning tires, urine and feces, and explosives including Molotov cocktails".
If you are suggesting the undercover agents shouldn't have done anything about it, again, I cannot help that your thinking skills are that poor. The alternative would have been to
let them hurt convention personnel before arresting them, which is clearly a
worse alternative to simply arresting them before they did any violent harm, which is what they did and clearly the right decision.
Prove I am an anarchist or STFU.
You should follow your own standards for calling me a "fake" libertarian kid. Besides, your pathetic sympathy for these lunatics is already well documented in this thread. Of course, that could just be your poor critical thinking skills bearing themselves out and not necessarily you being a true anarchist. But my evidence for you being an anarchist is about as strong as me not being a libertarian. Do you get it yet? Christ I hope so. :laugh:
As for me being a conspiracy theorist, maybe, but who gives a fuck? Why do you give a shit?
Being a conspiracy theorist shows you lack basic reasoning and reading skills.