Rachel Maddow Says Gifford's Shooting is Sharon Angle's fault
Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
2011/01/09 05:23:33
That crazy ass Rachel Maddow just posted this on her blog. Talk about
liberals whp can't accept facts. So, first the libs want to blame Palin,
and now Maddow wants to blame Sharon Angle.
First MSNBC reported that Giffords was dead at the hands of a Tea Party activist shooter. Then they said it's Palin's fault for posting cross-hairs in a map. Now Maddow is saying its Sharon Angle's fault.
Boy, those clowns at pMSNBC just can't get their shit together.
"As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the
alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns
out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again
there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What
we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes
after an election season that was marked by the language of violence,
like Sharron Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies. And so today's
literal violence in a political context will inevitably raise questions
about the effect of violent rhetoric."
liberals whp can't accept facts. So, first the libs want to blame Palin,
and now Maddow wants to blame Sharon Angle.
First MSNBC reported that Giffords was dead at the hands of a Tea Party activist shooter. Then they said it's Palin's fault for posting cross-hairs in a map. Now Maddow is saying its Sharon Angle's fault.
Boy, those clowns at pMSNBC just can't get their shit together.
"As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the
alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns
out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again
there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What
we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes
after an election season that was marked by the language of violence,
like Sharron Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies. And so today's
literal violence in a political context will inevitably raise questions
about the effect of violent rhetoric."
Top Opinion
-
RTHTGakaRoland 2011/01/09 05:38:24
+19Obama is the only prominent politician or public figure that I recall clearly and actively inciting violence and gun play.
What you posted is from "The Maddow Blog," yes- but it wasn't written by Rachel Maddow. If you look under the headline of that article, you'll see that the author was Laura Conaway, a regular writer for the blog. So far as I know, Rachel Maddow doesn't write anything on there.
My additional complaint would be that you quoted a paragraph from Conaway's post, and spoke of it as if it illustrated your point- that "[Laura Conaway] says Gifford's shooting is Sharon Angle's fault," when the paragraph you posted explicitly counters that notion.
"As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the
alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns
out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again
there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What
we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes
after an election season that was marked by the language of violence,
like Sharron Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies. And so today's
literal violence in a political context will inevitably raise questions
about the effect of violent rhetoric."
The first half of that paragraph in and of itself addresses and refutes what you're promoti...
What you posted is from "The Maddow Blog," yes- but it wasn't written by Rachel Maddow. If you look under the headline of that article, you'll see that the author was Laura Conaway, a regular writer for the blog. So far as I know, Rachel Maddow doesn't write anything on there.
My additional complaint would be that you quoted a paragraph from Conaway's post, and spoke of it as if it illustrated your point- that "[Laura Conaway] says Gifford's shooting is Sharon Angle's fault," when the paragraph you posted explicitly counters that notion.
"As several commenters have noted, there's no indication that the
alleged shooter was politically motivated. Even if the perpetrator turns
out to have been seriously involved in political causes, which again
there's no evidence of, his actions will likely remain senseless. What
we can say is that today's shooting, whatever its motivation, comes
after an election season that was marked by the language of violence,
like Sharron Angle's call for Second Amendment remedies. And so today's
literal violence in a political context will inevitably raise questions
about the effect of violent rhetoric."
The first half of that paragraph in and of itself addresses and refutes what you're promoting as her claim. There's no causal blame being placed on Angle.
On top of that, what Rachel Maddow actually DID say about the shootings on Saturday was this, from her Twitter:
"There is nothing to be gained from speculating on the motives and affiliations of AZ shooter w/o facts."
So, in conclusion, the blog wasn't written by Maddow, and both the blog and Maddow herself didn't blame Sharon Angle, which is the entire premise of the post.
Whether Maddow posted that message or not does not relief her of the responsiblity of the words spoken from her blog.
My hope, though, is that you'll also be willing to dispatch with the rationalizations regarding the overriding point of this article. Even granting your complaint about "call for second amendment remedies," that doesn't change the core realities about all the things you got wrong in posting this. Even accepting your complaint, that doesn't turn the statement into saying the shooting "is Sharon Angle's fault." The first half of the pa...
My hope, though, is that you'll also be willing to dispatch with the rationalizations regarding the overriding point of this article. Even granting your complaint about "call for second amendment remedies," that doesn't change the core realities about all the things you got wrong in posting this. Even accepting your complaint, that doesn't turn the statement into saying the shooting "is Sharon Angle's fault." The first half of the paragraph still succinctly and wholly refutes that. If you'd brought up your issue with her phrasing from the get-go, that'd be another matter, but your actual, originally stated claim that there's some causal blame here remains unfounded.
Secondly, I don't know that it's particularly realistic to expect the host of a weeknight TV news/opinion show, which takes a lot of industriousness to produce, will be able to maintain strict executive oversight over the show's companion blog, but that's a disagreement I think we can settle on. What I object to, though, is what I see in your response as a complete unwillingness to cop to your complete misrepresentation of this article's origin. Regardless of your view of Maddow's responsibility in delegating jobs to her staff, those words are not Rachel Maddow's. There's no disputing that. And yet you quite demonstrably presented them as if they were.
"Rachel Maddow Says Gifford's Shooting is Sharon Angle's fault"
Now, if you had known she didn't write it, this would be a deliberate lie. Your initial confusion as to who Laura Conaway was suggests to me you didn't know this, which speaks to a lack of pre-research before you posed this to this forum. This in and of itself isn't a disaster, it's just a mistake you made. Seeing as this mistake has whipped up a number of people in these comments to make any number of crude and uninformed remarks about Maddow herself, who's own words, again, were,
"There is nothing to be gained from speculating on the motives and affiliations of AZ shooter w/o facts,"
I would suggest that it's critical to your integrity to admit the mistake, and therefore concede to the people reading this thread that the core of your argument was tainted from the get-go. It's demonstrably false by the woman's own words. Even if you honestly feel that she should be held responsible for every word written on that blog by somebody else (which we would disagree about, but hey), that doesn't literally supplant Maddow's actual, easily searchable opinion on the topic.
I was more than willing, as I care about reason and don't fear contrition, to cede to your point on Conaway's phrasing. I hope you'll do the same in coming clean about what happened here.
I was merely repeating the Maddow/Conaway blog. And you have to admit that Maddow has been trying ever since the day she got the job of cub reporter at pMSNBC to be another Olbermann. So I take everything she says with the same level of hate as he exudes. But wiht a much greater visual of immaturity.
"There is nothing to be gained from speculating on the motives and affiliations of AZ shooter w/o facts." For further ease of reference, her Twitter link is http://twitter.com/#!/maddow. It's a few tweets down now, but you'll find it.
I don't much like Keith Olbermann as a political commentator, so I don't have much to say about him. My honest opinion is that Maddow is substantively more informative, impartial and fair than Olbermann, and that to conflate the two is silly, and you obviously disagree. None of that matters to what I'm saying, though. You posted this, and a whole bunch of people in here clearly responded as if they literally think Maddow said this. Either you admit the mistake, to yoursel...
"There is nothing to be gained from speculating on the motives and affiliations of AZ shooter w/o facts." For further ease of reference, her Twitter link is http://twitter.com/#!/maddow. It's a few tweets down now, but you'll find it.
I don't much like Keith Olbermann as a political commentator, so I don't have much to say about him. My honest opinion is that Maddow is substantively more informative, impartial and fair than Olbermann, and that to conflate the two is silly, and you obviously disagree. None of that matters to what I'm saying, though. You posted this, and a whole bunch of people in here clearly responded as if they literally think Maddow said this. Either you admit the mistake, to yourself and those who believed it, or I can't take you seriously as a reasonable commenter. I'll be left with no choice to assume you are either incapable of admitting to an honest mistake, which isn't a good quality, or that you view this through such an ideological prism that you'll honestly concoct such thin rationalizations to push a self-evidently false claim.
You must be a totally blithering liberal idiot to think now that you people can demand that dissenters dissent the way you demand.
So you can just take your assumptions and jam them right up the part your umptions that are lacking.
Aggressively worded retorts don't intimidate me, nor do they wash away your error, and your painfully strident refusal to acknowledge it in any honest way. You even leapt to my defense earlier when another commenter misquoted Dupnick with words Gabrielle Giffords had actually said, so I had hopes d that when the mistake was pointed out you'd acknowledge and retract it, instead of attempting to avoid it by spinning into arguments that Laura Conaway constitutes a "ghostwriter."
I'm not making demands on your dissent; I'm just pointing out that the crux of this particular dissent is untrue.
Every one of your whinings has nothing to do with what I said.
"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."
"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,"
-- Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik
However, the stupid ass troll above was too much of a coward to stick around after he made as ass of himself and he blocked after one post.
In the meantime, we are facing a national tragedy, people are dead and others are struggling for life. This discord seems disrespectful, and here I am taking the "bait"; shame on all of us for this.
Rachel madcow is a loony, and she needs to go to whatever rock she came out from under.
If woman are rom Venus and men are from Mars then this biatch is from pluto.
Palin's Facebook page now carries a map featuring 20 gun sights, one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.
Likewise, Palin's rhetoric is decidedly militant. "We'll aim for these races and many others," she wrote on her Facebook page. "This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight.
So be a good little drone and STFU!
I was just using what the liberals tell me all the time.