[nawgz]

> There's doublespeak in what the article is reporting on.

Right, so the interesting thing that can be discussed and inspire our curiosity that is contained in the article is supposed to be what exactly?

> The article isn't; do you have a difficulty distinguishing the two?

You are leaning on this single observation so overtly it makes me wonder if you understand what the point of an article is - are you here to discuss the author's prose or the subject the writing describes?

> > We seem perfectly aligned.

> Do we, now?

I suppose I have to agree with you now. You seem to think this type of article will foster interesting discussion; I think it's only likely to flair emotions and surface a few people who have fallen for the propaganda. Certainly, I don't think anyone will have a new and interesting observation on the topic or any adjacent ones. The content of the thread would support my stance, and the fact your only participation in it is posting meta-defense of the article staying up rather than discussing the article perfectly aligns with my point: clown politics where might makes right are inherently boring to discuss, displeasing to think about, and when they are as insignificant and absurd as this action they will bring no insights to either the reader or the commenter.