Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what enrages so many of the people who so strongly express their dislike for Rachel Maddow is: she's an intelligent, articulate woman ... who is also a Lesbian. An intelligent, articulate lesbian. Whew! That'll get the blood boiling, in many.
In this link, where Rachel Maddow talks about or more descriptively asks questions about value of understanding the motivation of various people who have committed attacks, she does not do what the OP claims. She mentions the claimed motivation of the Boston attackers. Clearly she could have also included references to white supremacist attacks or Nazi groups attacks. She did include whether it matters if the attackers were motivated by anti-gay hatred. Her question is is there any strategic importance to the motivation.
im bored, so im just going to go through these to prove a point about politifact. i already did the first one.
Quote:
Maddow-Fox News "said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama."
here is Politifacts own responds to claiming this one was false
Quote:
Maddow would have been correct if she had simply said that Fox's coverage was more extensive and hyperbolic than other networks.
Quote:
Needless to say, since Obama won by more than 8 million votes, it's not like one guy with a nightstick at a single polling place swung the election.
They are saying that Maddow is wrong, not because her claim is wrong, but because of how she worded it and the fact that it is impossible for one guy to swing an election(basically saying it doesnt matter, but FOx claimed it was going on all over the nation)
Maddow - Gov. Sarah Palin "got precisely zero support for her call for Alaska's Democratic Senator Mark Begich to resign because Ted Stevens' corruption conviction was overturned."
Poltifact's own research
Quote:
Then on April 1, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the government would move to dismiss Stevens' indictment, citing several instances of Justice Department prosecutors withholding evidence that should have been provided to the defense.
A day later, Palin did indeed endorse the idea of Begich resigning so the state could have a do-over of sorts.
So the left wants to minimize the Muslim connection. The younger bomber brother has already admitted it was a religious reason for the attack. But is it meaningless as the left is trying to spin?
If it was a white supremacist that had blown up a black church would it be meaningless? If a Nazi group had blown up a synagogue would it have been a meaningless motive?
I think in these two cases the left would have been yelling until their vocal cords were broken about how the motive did mean something. But when its Muslim it suddenly is not meaningful.
What is it about the left that they so desperately try to protect the Radial Muslims?
So you quite strongly believe that Maddow speaks for each and everyone on the left?
So you quite strongly believe that Maddow speaks for each and everyone on the left?
She didn't say it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
