"Ninety-nine people out of a hundred would interpret this language as threatening and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. Bottom line: It is un-American to threaten journalists," the letter said. [More]Where'd you take your survey sample from?
Real threats don't need interpretation.
2 comments:
"Analysts have speculated that the group is doing so to motivate existing members and recruit new members."
And the NYT and other groups feel "threatened." What a load of hogwash.
Typical liberals. They could never define what exactly is "threatening" that the NRA wrote. But, like hate speech; the Libs can't define it, but they know it when they see/hear it.
"Pantie-Wringer"s is the perfect description.
The lack of a Comments section tells you everything you need to know.
Post a Comment