Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 55,873
- 56,205
- 3,605
The festivities in Ferguson, MO, and the media's reaction to the events there have been decidedly favorable and sympathetic to the "protesters" (some people would call them looters, but to-may-to, to-mah-to). Suddenly, we hear (rightful, in my opinion) calls for the demilitarization of police forces. We have CNN "reporters" doing live stand-ups in front of the house of the police officer who shot this common thug in self-defense. CNn even broadcast his home address, thus endangering not only him, but his family, friends, and neighbors - by daring the rioters to bring the violence to the police officer's street.
In short, every national broadcast network has suddenly become anti-government.
Contrast this coverage with the coverage of the Bundy Ranch standoff with the Bureau of Land Management. Citizens assembled peacefully against government aggression. These people who stood ready to resist government overreach were widely derided in the media as "right-wing nut jobs", "extremists", "domestic terrorists", and worse.
That coverage was very pro-government.
The rioters in Ferguson have destroyed property, have caused economic disruption in the area, have sought to create anarchy.
The Bundy Ranch protesters were defending private property from government overreach by exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms and freely assemble.
So. We have the media sympathetic to people resisting government on the one hand, and very pro-government and anti-liberty when another group of people prevents government overreach. What's the difference?
Could it be that liberals are race-baiting scum? Is there another explanation?
In short, every national broadcast network has suddenly become anti-government.
Contrast this coverage with the coverage of the Bundy Ranch standoff with the Bureau of Land Management. Citizens assembled peacefully against government aggression. These people who stood ready to resist government overreach were widely derided in the media as "right-wing nut jobs", "extremists", "domestic terrorists", and worse.
That coverage was very pro-government.
The rioters in Ferguson have destroyed property, have caused economic disruption in the area, have sought to create anarchy.
The Bundy Ranch protesters were defending private property from government overreach by exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms and freely assemble.
So. We have the media sympathetic to people resisting government on the one hand, and very pro-government and anti-liberty when another group of people prevents government overreach. What's the difference?
Could it be that liberals are race-baiting scum? Is there another explanation?
