Not to be taken as a threat, although any and all manipulation of public dialogue very much is a literal threat to the lives of each member of the public.

So although I did and am saying that you should die for doing that, I only mean to say so by the dynamic of it being found to be true that to manipulate free speech is a threat to the lives of the members of the public and in the same way that it was done blatantly and a clear message in everybody's faces, and I only mean to say that it should occur by professional officers of the law and the trained officers who uphold the safety and defense of our public and are licensed to take upon themselves such acts, entrusted by the state to do so.

I myself detest violence and don't believe in violence. But I do believe in justice and honoring of the life and well-being of the innocent.

Can it be denied that those who threaten our lives would of course deserve to have their lives threatened back? Well, then you would have to admit that you threatened our lives now wouldn't you? Since I've responsibly stated the disclaimer that I am only suggesting there be a threat to your life if the underlying condition of your actions of manipulating and hindering free speech of the citizens is being a threat to the people's lives and factually true as being that - then it also becomes dependent on that prerequisite factor being admitted by you that you at Yahoo have been a threat to our lives - in order for Yahoo to claim that my suggested threat to theirs is at all an actual suggestion of threat. This is an important moral issue and it is not epistemological so much as our responsibility to the sincerity of our aim for justice, and the upholding of justice in society, if we do in fact honor justice. I demand an answer to this dilemma, and I do stand by my conviction and of course, would testify that under the conditions of the organizations' mannerisms being a threat to my life, and the lives of the members of the public, I do indeed state that it would then be the members of that organization - not limited to Yahoo, but any organization - whom should die instead of the public, and as it is in many cases of legally derived acceptance of the killing of persons it is only ever always under the specific context of saving the lives of the innocent members of the public that such actions by law enforcing agencies and officers are deemed justified in the action followed through.

Therefore, for an agency to direct snipers to take out the initiating and enforcing members of Yahoo for their threat to the public - if indeed it cannot be denied reasonably that the hindering of free speech and manipulation of free speech is, in fact, direct threat to the lives of the public - would be the same thing as those same snipers taking out members of a terrorist organization who threaten the public with the threat of loss of life in any other way.

What do you think? Please do offer your logical reasoning as this is a very pressing issue that we as a community with open dialogue and free speech should talk about.

Nazi propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels was astonished by the effectivness of his "Big Lie" tactic. After the war, the Soviets copied and improved on Goebbels Big Lie. And now U.S. media elites, who famously bragged that they could "sell ice cubes to Eskimos," have improved on the Big Lie tactic by refusing to publish any comments. That way there can be no facts or opinions that contradict the blatant propaganda that pretends to be news reporting.

What we're left with is no different than Herr Goebbels Nazi propaganda, or the erstwhile Soviets annual claims that their 5-year agricultural Plan would again exceed projections.

What is Yahoo afraid of? That someone, somewhere might post a good idea? Or that a reader might be critical of a "news" report? Here's a current example, from today's Yahoo news feed:

New York City's "...Board of Elections has managed to vindicate the self-serving and politically corrosive mendacity of Donald Trump."

With that kind of "news," why would Yahoo even need opinion articles? To bash readers over the head again, with the same kind of hyper-partisan propaganda?

Yahoo used to provide a forum for everyone to post their opinion. Has the price of pixels increased so much that Yahoo can no longer afford a reader comment section? Or is indoctrinating the public too much fun?

Bring back the Comments section, or Ima skedaddle — to somewhere that lets me vent after I read the news.

Because we don't need propaganda spoon-fed to us, we get that everywhere else. Let us comment, or lettuce Romaine!