Quantcast

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."
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • RTHTGakaRoland 2011/01/09 05:38:24
    RTHTGakaRoland
    +19
    Obama is the only prominent politician or public figure that I recall clearly and actively inciting violence and gun play.

    prominent politician public figure recall actively inciting violence gun play

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • AL 2011/02/23 07:53:50
    AL
    +1
    Yes sir and Tinker Bell shot Goofy in the ass as well!
  • DougE 2011/01/24 15:17:09
    DougE
    +1
    I thought she got cancelled, oh I must be confusing her crappy show with Olberman's. Does anyone pay attention to her?
  • ChrisLawrenceTognotti 2011/01/11 06:02:56
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    +1
    Now there's actually a show been aired in which the real Rachel Maddow, instead of Laura Conaway who was falsely claimed of mistakenly claimed to have been Maddow when she wrote the above blog piece, has voiced her thoughts. Anybody who's speaking to the original topic on this thread would do well to watch it, and consider the lengths she goes to to make it clear that she is not ascribing blame on these people for what Jared Laughner did. An honest analysis of her show, I believe, bears out both that she too an extremely nuanced an insightful position, and in no way- NO WAY- was guilty of anything this post suggests, even looking at the things she actually said instead of what she was claimed to say.
  • Allbiz ... ChrisLa... 2011/01/12 03:06:07
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    I don't know anything about a show or about Laura Conaway. But what I posted came from Maddow's own blog.
  • ChrisLa... Allbiz ... 2011/01/12 05:55:03
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    +1
    The show I'm referring was yesterday's episode of The Rachel Maddow Show.

    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...





    The show I'm referring was yesterday's episode of The Rachel Maddow Show.

    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.
    (more)
  • Allbiz ... ChrisLa... 2011/01/13 03:23:25
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    First of all, to say that Angle called for 2nd Amendment remedies was an accusation.

    Whether Maddow posted that message or not does not relief her of the responsiblity of the words spoken from her blog.
  • ChrisLa... Allbiz ... 2011/01/13 10:21:33
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    +1
    You're right, I'll give you that one. "Call" for second amendment remedies is too powerful a term, I'd more consider them impartial musings. In her position, I don't find her comments even remotely acceptible even in the full context, especially as she repeated them in a couple different places, and has not impressed a dissatisfation with the possibility beyond a relatively coy implication to the effect of (paraphrasing) "I hope it doesn't happen, I hope the vote solves the Harry Reid problem." That doesn't strike me as a statement befitting a mature adult seeking public office, but you are right, to term it a "call" for second amendment remedies isn't really true. I imagine you'd agree, though, that she at bare minimum expressed a surprising level of nonchalance towards the concept, certainly relative to how a political centrist would speak of it.

    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...











    You're right, I'll give you that one. "Call" for second amendment remedies is too powerful a term, I'd more consider them impartial musings. In her position, I don't find her comments even remotely acceptible even in the full context, especially as she repeated them in a couple different places, and has not impressed a dissatisfation with the possibility beyond a relatively coy implication to the effect of (paraphrasing) "I hope it doesn't happen, I hope the vote solves the Harry Reid problem." That doesn't strike me as a statement befitting a mature adult seeking public office, but you are right, to term it a "call" for second amendment remedies isn't really true. I imagine you'd agree, though, that she at bare minimum expressed a surprising level of nonchalance towards the concept, certainly relative to how a political centrist would speak of it.

    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.
    (more)
  • Allbiz ... ChrisLa... 2011/01/14 04:09:26 (edited)
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    AFirst of all, I was not the one alleging that Sharon Angle was at fault. Maddow was. ( Or left to the confidences of a ghost writer, at lerast she was.)

    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.
  • ChrisLa... Allbiz ... 2011/01/14 08:58:29
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    I don't know what more to say. I laid out in explicit, unassailable detail the extent to which every step of the argument you tried to make, you messed it up. To say kow as if you were merely quoting the Maddow/Conaway blog is a disingenuous backpedal. You specifically claimed Maddow, Rachel Maddow herself, not some attribution of her intent through a staffer you didn't even know existed (who was not a ghostwriter, you just didn't bother reading her name at the top of the article), blamed Sharon Angle for the Gifford's shooting. Maddow, in reality, said the exact opposite. Again:

    "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...
    I don't know what more to say. I laid out in explicit, unassailable detail the extent to which every step of the argument you tried to make, you messed it up. To say kow as if you were merely quoting the Maddow/Conaway blog is a disingenuous backpedal. You specifically claimed Maddow, Rachel Maddow herself, not some attribution of her intent through a staffer you didn't even know existed (who was not a ghostwriter, you just didn't bother reading her name at the top of the article), blamed Sharon Angle for the Gifford's shooting. Maddow, in reality, said the exact opposite. Again:

    "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.
    (more)
  • Allbiz ... ChrisLa... 2011/01/15 04:08:21
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    Who the F__k do you think you are to tell me what and how to publish in my polls?

    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.
  • ChrisLa... Allbiz ... 2011/01/15 09:35:22
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    I don't have any power over you, nor (clearly) have I silenced you. I'm pointing out that your post was at best a mistake, at worst a deliberate lie, and that the defense you've mounted of it in spite of unambiguous evidence of this undermines your seriousness as a worthwhile source of information.

    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.
  • Allbiz ... ChrisLa... 2011/01/15 20:50:49
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    I will just have to accept the fact that you are diseased with liberalism.

    Every one of your whinings has nothing to do with what I said.
  • concerned dude 2011/01/10 15:02:37
    concerned dude
    +1
    Rachel Maddow has a screw missing. There is no doubt she was left here by aliens from planet nutcase.
  • David 2011/01/09 20:36:22
    David
    +1
    "crazy ass" "clowns" and terrible interpretation. This is the mentality that promotes hatred and in turn justifies violence. Thanks and here is a little clarification about who said what when.

    "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
  • ChrisLa... David 2011/01/10 12:56:48
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    +1
    I think your second quote was actually Rep. Giffords herself, last year.
  • Allbiz ... ChrisLa... 2011/01/11 04:25:34
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    You're correct. In fact she said that on FOX News in an interview with Greta Vansusteren.

    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.
  • Patriot Unit 2011/01/09 19:56:13
    Patriot Unit
    +2
    Well, I am so glad that Rachel has so much insight. Maybe she should have warned everybody, prior to the incident. What a hater and bigot this Which is.
  • VictorMagilke 2011/01/09 19:24:17
    VictorMagilke
    +4
    Rachael Maddow is a disgusting lesbo, atheist and a Christian hater. She and others on MSNBC spew out liberal nonsense causing hatred for white Christians. Obama referred to the Tea Party as the enemy and said we punish our enemies, it's their turn to ride the back of the bus. More bitter hatred and racist comments from the liberal Marxist leader. No matter how unfounded the charges are or what the outcome of this tragedy is, the Obama socialists will place the blame on Tea Party conservatives.
  • Boo VictorM... 2011/01/09 19:43:24
    Boo
    +2
    If violent rhetoric in fact turns out to be behind the motivation for this shooting, there is plenty of blame to go around, beginning with a leader who has the ability to speak eloquently, but often chooses to speak divisively.
  • ChrisLa... VictorM... 2011/01/11 06:59:52
    ChrisLawrenceTognotti
    +1
    She sure casually references god a lot for an atheist. Did it in tonight's episode. Believe me, I'm an atheist, I'd be thrilled to think she was too. But it seems unlikely.
  • Piper 2011/01/09 19:21:23
    Piper
    +1
    The effect of violent rhetoric IS hurting our country, and that is all that was implied in the quote you highlighted. While I take what I hear from MSNBC commenters with a "grain of salt", because I KNOW they are biased for my "side", thank goodness we have a channel to offset the extreme bias of Fox. Evidently, those who listen to Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh DON'T recognize that they are biased and inflammatory, on purpose. This is so sad, this division of our country, when we have so many issues that concern all of us.
    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.
  • ibow2no1 2011/01/09 19:17:48
    ibow2no1
    +2
    Next she will blame G. W. BUSH. or John Boener.
    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.
  • VictorM... ibow2no1 2011/01/09 19:25:55
    VictorMagilke
    +2
    You said that right. Maddow is a filthy piece of dung.
  • Green 2011/01/09 19:04:11
    Green
    Of course we have to blame the "enemy". And what is this "logic" you speak of?
  • Wayne 2011/01/09 17:45:54
    Wayne
    +4
    These people are the root of the problem, in their zest for attention they actually creating an incubator of more violence! SICK LEFT WING LYING PATHETIC FOOLS!!!!!!
  • VictorM... Wayne 2011/01/09 19:31:36 (edited)
    VictorMagilke
    +3
    Wait untill moron Olbermann and the other imbecile, Chris Matthews ,get through running their mouths with left wing bias, all the blame will be on Palin. These liberals are sick.
  • michaelteigen 2011/01/09 17:23:20
    michaelteigen
    +1
    Sarah Palin is targeting -- yes, with gun sights -- House Democrats facing tough reelection fights who voted for health care reform.
    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.
  • ibow2no1 michael... 2011/01/09 18:58:10
    ibow2no1
    +3
    OH STFU! You have been proven wrong on every post that you have gone into.
    So be a good little drone and STFU!
  • VictorM... ibow2no1 2011/01/09 19:37:12
    VictorMagilke
    +1
    That's telling the little liberal puke. They keep this rhetoric up, inciting violense, and guess what, there will be violence.
  • ibow2no1 VictorM... 2011/01/09 19:56:40
    ibow2no1
    +1
    I never said i was going to kick the crap out of him.
    I was just using what the liberals tell me all the time.
  • David VictorM... 2011/01/09 20:40:50
    David
    There has already been violence so why do you threaten people? Are you that much of a narrow minded person that you can't decide your own path? You follow the ramblings of others and act as if you're unique, That's pretty damn sad. Take a step back and realize that yesterday's actions are so much bigger than your hateful postings.
  • DanaR David 2011/01/09 21:57:33
  • David DanaR 2011/01/09 22:08:26
    David
    ....and I'm sure you know this for a fact. I'm sorry but I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. take care.
  • DanaR David 2011/01/09 22:33:38
  • DanaR michael... 2011/01/09 21:58:03
  • Lily Bl... michael... 2011/01/10 02:32:59
  • DanaR 2011/01/09 16:57:14
  • michele... DanaR 2011/01/09 19:17:54
    micheleT BN-O
    +1
    You are totally correct
  • VictorM... DanaR 2011/01/09 19:41:56
    VictorMagilke
    +2
    Maddow's viewing audience is only the gay community, I'm really not that concerned about them. What are they going to do, sick Barney Frank on me or hit me with their purse?
  • DanaR VictorM... 2011/01/09 21:55:07

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/20 08:15:50

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals