Oughtsix<\/strong>, a commenter on a gun discussion board, was outraged by the\u00a0“Ruby Ridge Lessons for Fighting Extremism<\/a>”\u00a0article’s subhead (“\u201cWhen the government tries to squash anti-American ideas it doesn\u2019t like, the results are often destructive of American ideals.\u201d )<\/p>\n “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\u2026 pretty good huh?) and er, LYING than that.<\/p>\n Must pay pretty good to balm the conscience for looking in the mirror in the cold, gray light of dawn\u2026 on the day the gallows looms.”<\/p>\n ****<\/p>\n [Name redacted] sent me a Twitter message on Saturday on the “Hurricane Harvey Proves\u00a0Flood Subsidies Must End<\/a>” oped:<\/p>\n “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!!” <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Actually, I don’t think cigars work that way<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n ****<\/p>\n Columnist Ann Coulter<\/strong> kindly re-tweeted several tweets on the Ruby Ridge article, which she labeled “another great @Jimbovard article<\/a>.”\u00a0 Ann has a 1.7 million Twitter followers, not all of whom are fans:<\/p>\n black lives matter<\/strong>\u200f\u00a0<\/span><\/span>@MrBiebersGold<\/b><\/span><\/a> 1h<\/span>1 hour ago<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/small>\u00a0Replying to @AnnCoulter<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n ****<\/p>\n Other respondents scorned any discussion of the cold facts of Ruby Ridge:<\/p>\n DrysonB<\/strong>\u200f\u00a0<\/span><\/span>@DrysonB<\/b><\/span><\/a>3h<\/span>3 hours ago<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/small>\u00a0\u00a0Replying to @AnnCoulter<\/b><\/span><\/a>@JimBovard<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n That is typical Alt – Ring Wing insanity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ****<\/p>\n Trump-B-Gone<\/strong>\u200f\u00a0<\/span><\/span>@IamEdGToday<\/b><\/span><\/a>16h<\/span>16 hours ago<\/span><\/a> <\/small>\u00a0\u00a0Replying to @JimBovard<\/b><\/span><\/a>@AnnCoulter<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Too bad the same didn’t happen at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. All terrorists deserve harsh treatment.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Alternatively, the real problem was diagnosed as a shortage of servility:<\/p>\n John Bailey<\/strong>\u200f\u00a0<\/span><\/span>@JohnBaileyJ<\/b><\/span><\/a> 20h<\/span>20 hours ago<\/span><\/a> <\/small>Replying to @JimBovard<\/b><\/span><\/a>@AnnCoulter<\/b><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Failure to follow orders of a legal authority caused this mistake.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Anyone who the government decides to kill is apparently a terrorist who deserves killing:<\/p>\n Weaver was an American terrorist. What’s your point?<\/p>\n *************<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Let’s check out the article:\u00a0 “many people are demanding a crackdown on dangerous right-wing extremists.” Sound like that sentence is an opinion based on a gist that the author has after watching news on TV.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Aesop\u00a0<\/b> The original article is USAToday boilerplate.<\/p>\n Concerned American\u00a0 <\/b>It\u2019s the USA Today. Normies of low function<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Hybrid Slave: <\/b><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Pat701<\/strong>\u00a0 Looking to print more anti-gun shit fuck him. Write about Soros instead. ****<\/p>\n Responding on the USAToday.com page to the hurricane subsidy piece:<\/p>\n@<\/s>JimBovard<\/b><\/a> how’s about your ass gets banned too?<\/p>\n
\nA 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?<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.ar15.com\/images\/smilies\/smiley_smartass.gif\")
<\/p>\n