Ah progressives

[meazza]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

 

Such hatred in this one.

[We Come In Peace]

"That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues."

[IDBillzFan]

Whitey must die. It's the only way.

[DC Tom]

Somebody invite him to this board, so we can flay him alive.

[meazza]

Somebody invite him to this board, so we can flay him alive.

 

You could B word slap him all you want on twitter. No lower form of human discussion than a twitter war.

[DC Tom]

You could B word slap him all you want on twitter. No lower form of human discussion than a twitter war.

 

Clearly you've never argued with Holcomb's Arm about math for 100 pages.

[KD in CA]

The headline is inflammatory and it contains a healthy dose of the usual Salon.com idiocy, but there is a good point in there that a white guy will be dismissed as a lone wolf while a Muslim will be seen as an extension of al Qaeda.

 

Of course, it's the media that makes most of such generalizations but naturally Salon isn't interested in pointing any fingers at their fellow lefties.

[Joe Miner]

Clearly you've never argued with Holcomb's Arm about math for 100 pages.

 

Was it really an argument when 1 side was so utterly wrong and incompetent?

[OCinBuffalo]

"stopping war"

 

Is there anything more naive? As though war is something that can be stopped by a giant kitty like this guy. That's just...hilarious. Talk about an over-inflated opinion of yourself.

 

"Oh, so let's see, I am a warlord in Africa...who can take over a whole country, or at least a large part of it, and make myself obscenely rich. But I will stop, because David Sirota said so. And, when I do take over, David will demand that the US recognize that people I send to the UN are more legitimate than the US Senate. David, you're an idiot, but I love you. Thanks, pal!"

 

Who in the world, who honest-to-God has the intention of starting war, is going to give 2 Fs what this guy, or any progressive, thinks?

 

Now that, ladies and gentleman, is the definition of hubris. Or, dare I say: narcissism.

[IDBillzFan]

The headline is inflammatory and it contains a healthy dose of the usual Salon.com idiocy, but there is a good point in there that a white guy will be dismissed as a lone wolf while a Muslim will be seen as an extension of al Qaeda.

 

Of course, it's the media that makes most of such generalizations but naturally Salon isn't interested in pointing any fingers at their fellow lefties.

 

Embarrassing headline = countless social media links to embarrassing headline = countless clicks on link to embarrassing headline = "Dear Mr. Advertiser, look how many people come to my site."

 

Yes, the author believes what he's writing, as do the countless sheep in the comments section, but the headline gets everyone in.

[KD in CA]

Embarrassing headline = countless social media links to embarrassing headline = countless clicks on link to embarrassing headline = "Dear Mr. Advertiser, look how many people come to my site."

 

Yes, the author believes what he's writing, as do the countless sheep in the comments section, but the headline gets everyone in.

 

No arguement there. As I said, that article is full of the usual Salon.com idiocy, which serves to make irrelevant any possible valid point they were trying to make.

[Azalin]

that was one of the most retarded things I've ever seen in print. too bad people like this have readers.

[TakeYouToTasker]

"Stopping war" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard uttered.

 

While no sane person is "against peace", war is often far more favorable than an absolutist national doctrine of zero-confrontation.

 

A doctrine of zero confrontation is pie-in-the-sky utopianism in which no outside aggressors exist, and all of the worlds ills are caused by US international policy. It is also a doctrine which must, by extension, hold no other beliefs such as: freedom of religion, press, speech, association, etc. dear, as ultimately all of those things pass by the way-side when someone who is willing to use violence to further their agenda takes them from your pacifist ass.

Edited April 17, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Large]

Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

 

Al Queda is very clear about their collective ideology, and chose attacks that represent it and take credit for it- we didn't assign the label on them, they assigned it on themselves. and they are not alone, there are many groups who are open about their mission and goals.

 

While Male Privilge? Didn't we start tracking the purchase of bomb materials becuase of McVeigh and the Una Bomber? Does the author honestly believe our intelligence depts are not profiling looking out for the next Lanza, Kleibold, Harris, McVeigh, etc.?

 

I like reading aritcles and reports from both sides of the ideological spectrum, but I would not be upset to never read a Salon article again....