The other day, you published an email from one Frank Marshall, entitled, "WND: Corporatist manipulators!" In this email, Frank tells us who he thinks the worst and best presidents were that this country ever had.
He then lambasts WND, calling it a "propaganda-laden rag on behalf of the wealthy," and goes on a bit longer, attacking, attacking attacking … without a single word to support, or even to explain his thoughts.
I suppose this is a classically rhetorical question, but why do folks like Frank come on so strongly with their opinions, yet rarely offer any evidence whatsoever to back them up? He did not even support his claim as to those he called the greatest presidents, much less the worst.
Advertisement - story continues below
His closing statement, "You have been officially and permanently IDENTIFIED and DISMISSED," is meaningless, excepting, of course, as to how it applies to him and him alone.
His email reminded me of that old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto, the one where they found themselves surrounded by a huge number of Indians (or am I required to say "Native Americans"?). LR looks at Tonto and says something like this: "Well, Tonto, it looks like we're at the end of our trail!" Tonto looks at him and says, "What you mean, 'WE,' Kimosabe?"
So, Frank, when you say, "… and we turn away from you," let me ask: what you mean, "WE"?