All of them, huh?
Snort.
My thoughts exactly. Half of modern news stories are like this though - their headlines purport to be telling us how some group thinks/reacts about something. The rest of us are supposed to find this significant, apparently. Of course, you dig into the article and they have quotes from like 2-3 people, mostly professional grievance mongers and/or political hacks, from that group justifying the headline. Meaning, of course, that this is really an article telling you what the news reporter thinks, and the news reporter decided to use the group as a prop/sock-puppet in which to cloak his opinion.
It's gotten so that I expect it. Interestingly, my immediate reaction to seeing "Group X Angered by Y's Statement" headlines is that my opinion of Y increases. He must have really ticked off the propagandist news reporter, after all.
Another thing that always comes to mind: if I were a member of the group that is supposedly "angered" (or whatever), I'd feel offended and patronized by this propaganda approach. Because the subtext is that this group is a monolithic blob, of one mind about everything.
Thompson angers state Hispanics
All of them, huh?
Snort.”
Thompson is correct.
Angering someone who has no legal status in this country doesn’t bother me one iota.
Fred will get my vote if he keeps after these topics.
At this point, illegal immigration is the elephant in the kitchen.