Post acts as instigator with misleading ‘thug’ cartoon

Salisbury Post, Is it embedded into your business model? Was it an oversight? Do you not think about how things will be perceived before printing? Or, is it jump on the bandwagon when instigators parade it by you?

The “cartoon” in Thursday’s “newspaper” summed up your position nicely. One side shows a man holding a sign with four riot-equipped law enforcement officers behind him ready to pounce. The cartoon mocks the use of the word “thug.”

First, this picture doesn’t resemble the people referred to as “thugs.” If everyone acted like this guy, no one would have been called thugs. The “thugs” were throwing rocks and bottles, stealing and damaging property, and injuring the people the cartoon portrayed as bad guys. The same people who would, without hesitation, risk losing their lives to save anyone in your building and to protect the space you use to produce this nonsense from the very people you are siding with. Being a law enforcement officer, I can recognize thugs when they appear.

Second, I am a motorcycle enthusiast. That picture does not represent 99 percent of people who consider themselves enthusiasts.

Readers, don’t be fooled. The Post is an instigator. They continue feeding you propaganda that promotes behavior like rioting. This makes them money. They know that having only good news to report will not keep them rich.

Salisbury Post, though you should report the news without bias you have continuously created sides to be chosen like an elementary school child. You have offended me twice in one cartoon. Do you care? I doubt it. Hopefully other readers will. Shame on you. “Inequity in Profiling”? You have unfairly profiled law enforcement officers, motorcycle enthusiasts, and peaceful protesters and at the same time chosen to be on the side of criminals.

— G.M. Hannold

Salisbury

The rest of the amendment

In response to the letter from Emma Labovitz in Sunday’s Post (“Officials’ sectarian prayers violate rights”): She quoted just part of the First Amendment to our Constitution that reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” She failed to conclude with the part that says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In my opinion, that means our government and all branches of our government should keep their nose out of religion. There is nothing wrong with even politicians having a right to pray when, where and how they want to.

— Leroy Earnhardt

Kannapolis