And the right-wing derp continues!
1. How dare they ban me for breaking their rules!
Right-wing blogger Thomas Lindaman stated:
"I got banned by a FB page because...I posted links to support my argument against their notion Christians were more of a threat than radical Muslims.
Was it something I said? :-)"
Thomas Lindaman: "Of course, they said it was because I went against their guidelines, but I think it was more because I was better informed than they anticipated and knew my stuff."
Thomas Lindaman: "Yeah, the same folks who post pictures get touchy about links?"
Thomas Lindaman: "Yep, and I don't think they liked the fact I called them out on their intellectual dishonesty and outright inaccuracy..."
Thomas Lindaman: "Here's their 'no links' rule verbatim:"
'3. Don't post links, there have been virus threats to our readers. We will delete them and you will be instantly banned. Regardless of how insightful you remarks have been. It doesn't matter if you're for or against our thought process, if you're too ignorant to follow this simple rule, we care little for what you have to say.'
So, in other words, they don't like links because it might expose them to ideas outside of their bubble where hating Christians is encouraged, but don't you DARE be a Christian calling out their hate!"
No, LIAR. "In other words" they clearly posted a rule not to post links. You posted links in direct violation of their rules. You got banned because you BROKE A RULE.
You could have made your points without having to post links. For example, you could have posted the relevant text from your source, and then state what the source was without embedding a link.
As for the Christian/Muslim claim: Notice also how Lindaman doesn't actually prove anything that he's saying. What else is new?
The only difference between Muslim radicals and Christian radicals is that Muslim radicals are a pit bill, and Christians are a pit bull that NOW has a muzzle on it.
2. Real vs Fake Petitions
Did you actually see the clip? He quickly buzzes over the "fourth" part and speaks a LOT of leading comments before shoving the pen in their hands.
And here's REAL petitions signed by right-wingers, that know exactly what they are doing:
http://fox6now.com/2012/11/14/wisconsin-joins-other-states-filing-secession-petitions-post-election/ FB July 14th, 2013
Lindaman: "Really? It's one thing to disagree with a verdict. This is not the way to react.
Yawn. You of all people should know internet trolls when you see them. Birds of a feather.
We shall patiently wait for your protesting these right wing threats:
Nah, you won't do that. Scratch that.
Not to mention the fact that soccer fans have done worse. lol
Lindaman: "The whole situation was ridiculous, and the prosecution and the judge made it even more so with gross misconduct."
Lindaman backs this up with nothing.
Lindaman: "It was, however, an indictment of sections of our society where the kinds of activities from Zimmerman and Martin are condoned and even championed."
"And Martin"?!? What the hell did Martin do? He was walking with Skittles and tea!
Oh, that's right. For reasons we did not witness, Martin punched Zimmerman flat at the T intersection, which is why his corpse was over 40 feet away from it. And it's Martin's fault that Zimmerman's clearly not the one screaming for help on the 911 call.
"Sorry, but racism isn't the cause of the situation, but it certainly had a role in the escalation."
Yep, since the racism is why they didn't arrest Zimmerman in the first place.
Meanwhile, since the verdict, Zimmerman has been in trouble involving guns twice now. I'm sure you're proud.
4. They didn't add fangs to the picture!
Lindaman states: "I remember a time when Rolling Stone put out an issue about 9/11 where they had people from all walks of political life commenting on the event.
Now, they have a terror suspect on their cover looking "dreamy"?
What in the red, white, and blue hell were you thinking, Rolling Stone?????"
They put a picture of a terrorist on the cover and right there on the cover they called him a monster. And?
You don't even have to open the damn magazine to see that he is being called a "monster". Not all of us have your short attention span and thin skin.
The picture in question was already reproduced hundreds of times in newspapers around the world.
This is nothing new, you're just trying to find poutrage that isn't there.
Take a look at this, Lindaman:
See the picture in that link? OMG THEY SHOWED A PICTURE OF HIM SMILING. THEY'RE GLAMORIZING HIM AND IT'S OFFENSIVE TO EVERYONE. QUICK, LET'S BOYCOTT TPM AND BURN SOME OF THEIR STUFF LIKE ROLLING STONE. SO MUCH OUTRAGE!
People are upset at the idea that a terrorist might look like one of us. People want the media to present the facts in a way that fits the narrative in their heads. America doesn't like the fact that he looked like an average white boy who wouldn't be out of place in their suburb instead of Osama bin Laden. Tsarnaev looks like a nice ordinary 19-year old kid your daughter would date or your son would hang out with; he's cute and non-threatening; and that makes people mad.
People want one-dimensional villains, but that's not often the case, so we act like anything associated with them must be just as horrible and ugly. This cover bring that cognitive dissonance to the surface.
Some people think that Rolling Stone is just a celebrity and entertainment magazine that has articles about cute pop stars and cool movie actors. But those people don't actually read the magazine. Rolling Stone does investigative journalism too. This "controversy" is more about ignorance of Rolling Stone's normal content than anything else. Rolling Stone is one of the very few US publishers of journalism that still throws resources into investigative reporting.
It was a good article, and definitely isn't setting him up as a "hero" or whatever some such nonsense the ignorant right-wingers are saying.