Posted on 07/13/2016 10:01:46 AM PDT by PROCON
All available evidence suggests that when Micah Johnson sniped police officers in downtown Dallas on Thursday, he intended it as a political act.
During the ensuing standoff, he told police negotiators that he was angry about the recent apparently unwarranted killings of black men by police, and “stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers,” according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown.
Johnson could not have reasonably believed that he’d shoot enough cops to actually diminish the capacity of law enforcement agencies to unjustifiably kill black people. He did it to send a message, to arbitrarily terrorize cops in the way that he felt arbitrarily terrorized by them.
Am I arguing, then, that journalists (like me) should be calling Johnson a terrorist?
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
No, even though I think the dictionary definition of that word clearly applies to him.
A breathtaking journey into the mind of a liberal "journalist."
Not a “political act”. He clearly stated his motives.
Same-same ‘journalist’.
Journalists is now a term for fiction writers and spin doctors. It’s an obsolete and hateful term and we should quit using it.
The terrorist who murdered five cops was engaging in violence for political objectives - terrorism. #BLM criminals act like thugs when they block traffic, rob, burn, loot, assault civilians, and attack cops. If Obama-voters don’t like being called “thugs” and “terrorists”, perhaps they could stop acting like thugs and terrorists. Otherwise, their actions fully justify the so-called bias in words that accurately describe them.
OK...not a terrorist. Got it.
He was a black soldier in a black war against whites.
Agreed. They are paid shills of liberal leftwing and Democratic Party interests. Unfortunately the fiction parades around as fact and objectivity.
~ Am I arguing, then, that journalists (like me) should be calling Johnson a terrorist? No, even though I think the dictionary definition of that word clearly applies to him. ~
A breathtaking journey into the mind of a liberal “journalist.”
A quote from Søren Kierkegaard (not verbatim, I am relying on memory) “No profession, in the eyes of God; is lower than that of ‘journalist’.
Yep, time for some redefining.
Journalist = Propagandist...
Journalist is now a biased term. But I have no issues using it.
The word Journalist is dead and gone. We no longer have them. What they were replaced with is corrupted biased propagandists.
Except when it comes to Christian businesses who won’t serve the GAYSTAPO who deliberately target them.
No, Adam of the article, terrorist isn’t a biased word; it’s a meaningless word, along with all of the other words used as the usual knee-jerk, hackneyed, worn out through reckless overuse pejoratives by the left to describe one who dissents from their orthodoxy. It joins racist, nazi, fascist, and all the other favorites describing conservatives, but which are more illustrative of the left’s intellectual bankruptcy.
These whorespondence are complicit and enablers of terrorism. They’re traitors to the people and the Republic.
Spoken by a member of the terrorist leftist media.
So what should we call journalists now?
Web Spinners. Journalism is dead. As for terrorists, expect Obama to start calling them unacknowledged attention seekers. The English language gets mangled by community attention seekers like Obama.
Public Liars would be more accurate.
Well, bless your little pea-pickin heart, you vomitous worm, for instructing us on language use to suit you! My, equally valid. suggestion is to replace your use of the term 'journalist' with the more appropriate term of 'hack', as in a hack writer, someone who putzes around with words but has no real skill!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.