Comment: I am usually classified as a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It Was Obvious Long Ago... (see in situ)

I am usually classified as a

I am usually classified as a "conspiracy theorist". I am skeptical about the first thing I hear and try to investigate as many possibilities as I can before I make my decisions. I've believed 9-11 to be a fraud for quite some time, although I've never asserted any specifics of that fraud, merely pointed out that things do not add up. I find myself in a very similar spot for Sandy Hook. So for me to believe a government operative acted like they were on our side to further their cause is not that difficult.

The difficulty I have is that Ron Paul did not help the establishment. He massively improved our cause. I do not agree with your assertions. You have clearly not come up with enough evidence to even cast doubt on the mighty Ron Paul.

What I have found is that when I argue my "conspiracy theories" I am usually reasonable and logical and calm (not to claim this all the time by any means), while the entities disagreeing with me are emotional, illogical, and angry. If I do slip into emotion and fallacy I find it's usually either because the other person is repeatedly ignoring my points and I need to move on, or because I find myself arguing something that is wrong.