I reacted in an honest way. Like I said, I don't think that kind of poorly thought-out hackery deserves a lot of thought or engagement.
You later backed off and called it a "conversation starter," but there is an old saying: say what you mean, and mean what you say. There is nothing to support the idea that people are refraining from calling it terrorism because then Obama would have to actually do something...it's the kind of biased speculation that extreme partisans throw out there with frequency, but not something I would consider a serious discussion topic, at least not on this planet.
Please. I didn't "back off"...
It's the regular pattern.
1. I say something that I think will generate conversation (I like it when people use the board) that also is a bit controversial but also falls within my opinion vector.
2. You come along and say "hack" and run away.
3. I point out that your ad hom does nothing to address what was at hand and ask you to engage me in conversation.
4. You don't, but others do.
5. Along the way you jump back in and say, "What you said here is not exactly the same as what you said there!" I point out that what I said there was just the start of a long conversation in which there was much context and the ideas were fleshed out along the way.
6. You say, "Hack" and run away again, to come back later and say "hack" some more.
7. I point out that saying "hack" is not an argument and does nothing to prove your assertions and ask you to engage me in conversation.
8. You say that you engage others in conversation, but are dismissive of anything I might say, and add one more quick "hack" because, like a tourette's patient, you can't help it.
For best results rinse and repeat...
