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.
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.
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?
When "racism" is the reason, then it's VERY important. But when Islam is, not so much.
Based on the number of lefties who need links, Maddow must not have much of an audience. None of them seem to be watching, and righties only watch for amusement.
Her typical ratings are higher than CNN but less than FOX. In the 25-40, she's not much behind Hannity.
So are you saying that OPED which if you want to be an anal ass mean Opposite Editorial? Its used many times as Opinion Editorial? Did you miss the whole point that Maddow is more of a no is a opinion editorial and not a news broadcast? Did that go over your head? Next time jump.
You do realize that an OPED is something that is written out and the entire thing would not be sprawled across a TV screen so that the viewers could read it, right ?
that is the point that zoomed right over your head. And you still havent provided a link.
You should read the captions under the meters, All you have proven is that politifact took a couple of sentence out of context.
The very first one on the page
Quote:
"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year."
is hilarious, especially when you click on the link and watch the video. She never claimed their was a budget surplus, she claimed the Walker administration said there was a surplus, which was TRUE !!!!!
They didnt even refute her claim, they just basically say, "Maddow's claim was made 5 months ago and today, Gov Walker agreed to say it was a 137 million dollar deficit. "
so Maddow is lying only because the article was written after Walker finally acknowledged the budget short fall 5 months later.
next time try Factcheck.org, not politifact. less bias, more truthful.
The media is not saying that it was motivated by religion but they acted alone. They are desperately trying to separate the actions of the kids from Radical Islam. I am hearing the left wing press, he was a normal kid, he smoked pot and just got mixed up. He is on a ventilator, waaaaaaa. Lets start the Bomber the younger fund raising. Who will pay for his medical? This is going to cost thousands of dollars. LMFAO
Any links to the "media" information you're referring to? Thanks.
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.