Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Since spence refuses to answer me, I'll just start answering other people's questions for him...
"They weren't resorting to violence to stop war. Yes, they were using explosives, damaging buildings and causing fear throughout society. However, they would *call* before hand to warn people. Also, as I recall, they mostly put the bombs loud devices of protest into heating grates. No intelligent individual could consider a terrorist organization civil-disobedient group of people that plant bombs loud devices of protest as violent since no one died. (The people who died in the armor truck robbing don't fit my argument. For the sake of my argument, we can ignore that incident.
-spence"
Sound about right?
|
Hysterical.
Also, to the armored car thing...Spence would only admit that the now-distinguished Columbia professor was "implicated" in the robbery...that's exactly, and I mean exactly, what he said.
So it's not as if she was an active planner of the robbery, who was caught red-handed at the scene. Rather, she was only "implicated" when some sexist prosecutor (no doubt one of the early warriors of the conservative "war on women") fabricated evidence to connect her to that mass murder. Maybe the prosecutor was Oliver North...
So Spence didn't ignore that event due to the fact it didn't "fit his argument"...rather, he altered teh facts, and injected his own speculation, to make it fit his argument. He likes moving the goalposts around after the fact, so tp speak.
Other than that, you were spot on.
Threaded Mode