Letters to the Editor
gekkobear
Published Letters: 3
-
Interesting
[Read the article: The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me see if I understand.
Leaks from the CIA, FBI, Army, or Government officials that show a Liberal slant; the proper response is to trumpet the leak, and ignore any illegalities involved in who the leaker was, what security issues are involved, or how that occurred... big picture.
Leaks from any of the above that show a Conservative slant; ignore the story, ignore the leak, ignore the information, pillory the leaker, the organization, and the conservatives in general. Call it a conspiracy if you can avoid laughing that long.
What a lovely double-standard you have here. Hopefully nobody minds if I stand here and clearly and blatantly express the obvious idiocy of your double standard and the hypocrisy you have to use to complain about leaks only when they have facts you don't want heard.
Or did you complain about the leakers when the leaks gave facts that you did want to hear? Did you? Anyone?
I thought not. Good to know your partisan viewpoint is trumping any logical thought, decency, common sense, or consistency. Thats the Glenn we've grown to know and love.
-
Of course
[Read the article: One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sp you personally stand by every post by every author on every blog you've ever linked to?
Or are you hypocritically attacking InstaPUNDIT for linking one InstaPUNK post; while another separate blogger on Instapunk wrote a separate post on a separate topic that got your panties in a wad...
So of course you blame EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER LINKED THAT BLOG EVER.
Nope, you're not hysterical, whiny, and psychotic; you're the rational one. And I'm sure you'll stand by the appropriateness and accuracy of every post on every blog you've ever linked to (and all their future posts) because you're just that kind of honest.
That or you're a deceitful lying sack of **** who couldn't honestly find a good reason to attack InstaPundit, so you decided to go for any vague tenuous link you could possibly find.
What, his mother-in-law's hairdresser wouldn't say something nasty enough, so you had to go with this link?
Seriously, when you've got something solid, go with it. When you've got something less solid than "his best friend's, roommate's, sister's, ex-boyfriend's, mechanic is a racist" you really need to do a bit more work.
That or you look this f***ing stupid. Which seems a common thread for you.
-
Given the definition...
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes. She's using violence to try to "persuade". Yes, this isn't "9/11 comparable"; but violence and threats of violence to attempt to force a populace to enact certain actions against their will = terrorism.
If you disagree, then maybe being beaten until you change your mind would help? Or having your possessions destroyed one by one until you change your mind?
Oh, that'd be wrong, it'd be like blackmail, using violence like that to attempt to force an opinion change. Not persuading people of the right/wrongness of an action, but persuading them that changing is easier than living with the repercussions (and violent acts) that disagreeing would bring.
Using and threatening violence, and encouraging and increasing the violent acts to attempt to forcibly sway a populace without debate into caving in to demands. I dunno, maybe it's just arson, reckless endangerment, and blackmail (of the general populace rather than an individual).
Well, that's terrorism in a nutshell. And a stupid persuasion methodology to boot. People generally don't feel the need to agree with violent thugs...
"There's a question of whether burning property is really the equivalent of flying a plane into a building and killing humans."
So either 9/11 is the low end of "terrorism" and anything must be as bad or worse to deserve the label; or this is a pointless semantic argument. Is there also a question of whether using violent acts to attempt to blackmail a populace is a crime?
Seriously, can we at least agree on that one?