OWS protesters branded as terrorists by our lovely government

[Billo_Really]

[email protected]

AttackWatch!!

What's your fuckin' problem, asshole?

If I wanna email the White House, I'll do it myself!

I don't need you setting cyber bear traps, just to fuck with me!

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly as I suspected.

So eat shit.

You think someone threatening a government official with violence, is not domestic terrorism.

Okay, let's just call it a crime and leave the T-word out of it.

Happy now?

 

[Billo_Really]

Didn't I tell you that prog horseshit was not allowed?

What's a "prog"?

 

[Billo_Really]

Look it up yourself......there are a ton of them.

I gave 3 examples (of why he's not a liberal) to back up my claim, you've provided none to back up yours.

The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence, not me.

 

[daveman]

[email protected]

AttackWatch!!

What's your fuckin' problem, asshole?

If I wanna email the White House, I'll do it myself!

I don't need you setting cyber bear traps, just to fuck with me!

Just as I though: Too stupid to get it.

The left supports dissent ONLY when they're the ones doing the dissenting. Otherwise, they want it stamped out.

 

[daveman]

Exactly as I suspected.

So eat shit.

You think someone threatening a government official with violence, is not domestic terrorism.

Okay, let's just call it a crime and leave the T-word out of it.

Happy now?

Who, specifically, was threatened?

 

[daveman]

Didn't I tell you that prog horseshit was not allowed?

What's a "prog"?

A progressive. A far leftist who yearns to recreate the Soviet Union in America.

 

[Billo_Really]

Read up on how Occupy Oakland (really, Oakland as the epicenter of Wall Street Power - give me a frelling break) vandalized the city.

Occupy Oakland Violence: Peaceful Occupy Protests Degenerate Into Chaos

Occupy Oakland


A simple search will yield a lot of results.

Those were cops doing the vandalism!

Didn't you notice the OWS protestors were not wearing masks, or hear them telling the cops to "stop that", when they were spray painting the walls?

 

[Billo_Really]

A progressive. A far leftist who yearns to recreate the Soviet Union in America.

Since you're defending the Soviet-style crackdown on dissent, it's not me who wants to re-create it hear.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who, specifically, was threatened?

Congress!

Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection

In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if "this Congress keeps going the way it is."

If you think her statement was a little over the top, as I do, I see no reason to label it with the T-word and simply call it, "irresponsible".

But if you want to defend this kind of language as acceptable, then yes, the T-word applys.

 

[Connery]

Degree of difficulty: Use RATIONAL sources, tenderloin. Not your usual prog horseshit.

There are no more credible sources than the people who were there.

See above for the source.

There are more credible sources and you have not provided any. Just more nonsense from disaffected crybabies.

 

[daveman]

A progressive. A far leftist who yearns to recreate the Soviet Union in America.

Since you're defending the Soviet-style crackdown on dissent, it's not me who wants to re-create it hear.

You're really not very bright, are you? (As if there was ever any doubt. )

You support the government cracking down on dissent. That's plain.

I support individuals fighting for their freedoms against tyranny. You do not.

Clear now?

 

[daveman]

Who, specifically, was threatened?

Congress!

Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection

In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if "this Congress keeps going the way it is."

If you think her statement was a little over the top, as I do, I see no reason to label it with the T-word and simply call it, "irresponsible".

But if you want to defend this kind of language as acceptable, then yes, the T-word applys.

Thanks for proving me right. You oppose people defending their liberty against oppressive government.

Good little Brown Shirt.

 

[Billo_Really]

You're really not very bright, are you? (As if there was ever any doubt. )

You support the government cracking down on dissent. That's plain.

I support individuals fighting for their freedoms against tyranny. You do not.

Clear now?

And this is based on what?

 

[Billo_Really]

Thanks for proving me right. You oppose people defending their liberty against oppressive government.

Good little Brown Shirt.

Threatening government with violence, is not defending liberty, its a call for insurrection.

 

[Billo_Really]

There are more credible sources and you have not provided any. Just more nonsense from disaffected crybabies.

Where's your source, proving my source, was lying?

As it stands now, your objection would be thrown out in a court of law as being frivolous and without merit.

 

[daveman]

You're really not very bright, are you? (As if there was ever any doubt. )

You support the government cracking down on dissent. That's plain.

I support individuals fighting for their freedoms against tyranny. You do not.

Clear now?

And this is based on what?

Do you see anything wrong with [email protected] or the ATTACK WATCH!! website? Did you oppose the government labeling conservative Christian gun-owning veterans who support small government as "potential domestic terrorists"? Do you oppose the idea of "Second Amendment Solutions", even though that was exactly the idea that freed us from the oppressive English monarchy?

 

[daveman]

Thanks for proving me right. You oppose people defending their liberty against oppressive government.

Good little Brown Shirt.

Threatening government with violence, is not defending liberty, its a call for insurrection.

And that proves my point.

You would have informed on the Revolutionaries to King George. Undeniably.

 

[Connery]

There are more credible sources and you have not provided any. Just more nonsense from disaffected crybabies.

Where's your source, proving my source, was lying?

As it stands now, your objection would be thrown out in a court of law as being frivolous and without merit.

I have never said you were lying. Further, I am not the one who has the burden to prove a fact, you do. Beyond that your position is nothing more than talk.

 

[Billo_Really]

I have never said you were lying. Further, I am not the one who has the burden to prove a fact, you do. Beyond that your position is nothing more than talk.

I've satisfied that burden! I've provided testimony from the people who were there. Once I've done that, the burden of proof shifts to the objector, to prove their objection has merit. All you've provided, are ad hominem attacks on the sources I used, which is not a valid rebuttal.

So cut the foreplay and pony up the evidence; otherwise, apologize to this forum, for wasting its bandwidth.