Last week’s articles in USA Today spurred lots of helpful suggestions from thoughtful readers. Admittedly, not everyone liked the articles.
Oughtsix, a commenter on a gun discussion board, was outraged by the “Ruby Ridge Lessons for Fighting Extremism” article’s subhead (““When the government tries to squash anti-American ideas it doesn’t like, the results are often destructive of American ideals.” )
“In the context of that article and its obvious bias, I have never seen a better example of rhetoric, cognitive disconnect, hypocrisy, journojizmic orgiasty (I made that up… pretty good huh?) and er, LYING than that.
Must pay pretty good to balm the conscience for looking in the mirror in the cold, gray light of dawn… on the day the gallows looms.”
[Name redacted] sent me a Twitter message on Saturday on the “Hurricane Harvey Proves Flood Subsidies Must End” oped:
“Your article about not continuing to rebuild Texas houses is insensitive, crude, poorly timed and confirms my opinion that you are a libtard – if not a complete ass. Do the world a favor: stick a lit cigar up you butt and blow yourself to hell!!”
Actually, I don’t think cigars work that way
Columnist Ann Coulter kindly re-tweeted several tweets on the Ruby Ridge article, which she labeled “another great @Jimbovard article.” Ann has a 1.7 million Twitter followers, not all of whom are fans:
@JimBovard how’s about your ass gets banned too?
Other respondents scorned any discussion of the cold facts of Ruby Ridge:
That is typical Alt – Ring Wing insanity.
Too bad the same didn’t happen at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. All terrorists deserve harsh treatment.
Alternatively, the real problem was diagnosed as a shortage of servility:
Failure to follow orders of a legal authority caused this mistake.
Anyone who the government decides to kill is apparently a terrorist who deserves killing:
Weaver was an American terrorist. What’s your point?
Let’s check out the article: “many people are demanding a crackdown on dangerous right-wing extremists.”
A source for this statement? how many is many? 14? 22,000? I’d like to hear these many people and their exact demand? Who did they demand this of?
Sound like that sentence is an opinion based on a gist that the author has after watching news on TV.
sorry, could not read further. Couldnt get past the first sentence. Sounds like what I’d write for a junior high essay and didnt do any research.
Aesop The original article is USAToday boilerplate.
Concerned American It’s the USA Today. Normies of low function
Although I agree with most of the basic content about the wrong doings of the feds, it seems difficult for me to discern the writers political lines, based on just the article, what with siding and defending Weaver (+1 as far as I’m concerned), and the writer’s seemingly speaking out for the 1st Amendment.
But I become confused:confused: by the use of the divide tactic of name calling; especially because, as I recall (correct me if I’m wrong), the Ruby Ridge murders occurred during the (here with the labels again :rolleyes:) left wing Clinton/Janet Reno administration (I voted for “Papa Bush”, to my everlasting shame). But, I digress.. so I’m just a bit confused as to exactly who the writer believes to be the “bad guys” or what side the writer is on. Maybe he’s not exactly sure of either himself.
Pat701 Looking to print more anti-gun shit fuck him. Write about Soros instead.
Responding on the USAToday.com page to the hurricane subsidy piece:
Tommy Martin · Lexington, Kentucky: Besides being ignorant just how f****ing stupid is James Bovard? Not all of the the homes that were damaged are in what is considered a flood plain.”
I guess Mr. Martin didn’t catch the part of the article that talks about how FEMA & Congress screw up flood maps.
I also heard lots of friendly comments from folks who liked the pieces. I much appreciated that feedback!
Thanks to Pixabay.com for the royalty-free images.