Yep, but what you’re really pointing out is how trigger-happy people can be when a commenter doesn’t use quotation marks, so let that be a lesson. Not everyone who reads MT is as judicious as he is. Thank God we have him. But for crissake Racketeers - take a chill pill!
I actually make myself sit thru CNN and MSNBC occasionally, but I must admit it’s usually to hard to stomach. I remember reading, free, The Economist for a while until I couldn’t take their bias and then alas my WSJ subscription I canceled about 6 years ago when the opinion section journalists were being threatened by their coworkers. I had read that paper for 30 years. See what TDS can do? I’m really trying to see the full and true picture. I guess that’s what led me to Matt. 🙏answered.
Didn't Matt just quote NR in this article?
Yep, but what you’re really pointing out is how trigger-happy people can be when a commenter doesn’t use quotation marks, so let that be a lesson. Not everyone who reads MT is as judicious as he is. Thank God we have him. But for crissake Racketeers - take a chill pill!
I actually make myself sit thru CNN and MSNBC occasionally, but I must admit it’s usually to hard to stomach. I remember reading, free, The Economist for a while until I couldn’t take their bias and then alas my WSJ subscription I canceled about 6 years ago when the opinion section journalists were being threatened by their coworkers. I had read that paper for 30 years. See what TDS can do? I’m really trying to see the full and true picture. I guess that’s what led me to Matt. 🙏answered.
Or maybe some people gloss through, or even ignore the narrative to go straight to comments. Attack without context.
I confess I have done that lol although not on taibbi articles
That's the only way I can read Peggy Noonan in the WSJ. Can be quite entertaining.
She's still at it? I wonder what the appeal is. Unless it's exactly as you suggest--people want to watch the debate on whatever she wrote.
"Racketeers". I love it.