• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT dredges up old lie to play damage control

Chomsky said:
I'm not sure if anyone is in a position to claim the shooter ever saw or acted on Palin's cross-hair map.

But there's no denying she created and propagated it.
Click to expand...

And so what?! Criminey, the topic of this thread is the NYT stating unequivocally that the Palin poster contributed to Loughner's actions, and that is a lie. There is FAR more evidence that the shooter on Wednesday was drivin by left wing agitation and hyperbolic lingo because his Facebook page WAS actually plastered with that **** and he has been a violent agitator since the Occupy movement.

The reality that you refuse to accept is that we have concrete evidence of Hodgkins' anger being steeped in the vitriol of the left, and not a single ****ing shred of evidence that Loughner ever even saw the poster in question. This was nothing more than the NYT editors trying desperately to find a counterbalance to the leftwing violence of Wednesday and making up a bull**** narrative to do it. Loughner had a shoebox in his home that had a form letter sent to him by Giffords thanking him for a question he asked at a 2007 town hall where he asked her a crazy question about Government and word meanings and a scrawled note that said "Die Bitch" ... guess what was not in that shoe box? His friends stated that he had a long standing hatred of Giffords... guess who he never said anything about?

You are better than this, Chompsky, I have seen it. This kind of crap baseless connection is beneath you.
 
MTAtech said:
I note how the first post provided no link. Read the entire editorial.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/...exandria-virginia.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Click to expand...

Of course you know that's the corrected version, not the original.

And it's still complete BS.


the honest thing would be to delete the whole paragraph because only a complete moron would even think putting bullseye signs on a map is somehow a call for violence.

" Yes but that's what liberals tried to do"
" I rest my case"

LAFF Riot

If they weren't honest enough to delete they should have stated it thusly:

“But there turned out to be no connection between the map and the shootings, no matter how eager many liberals were to believe one existed and how impervious they have been to the debunkings of their vicious smears.”
 
Visbek said:
You sure about that?

c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636.jpg


That sure looks to me like a map, attributed to Sarah Palin's PAC, putting Giffords in the crosshairs. Just like the NYT said.

Who debunked what, exactly...?
Click to expand...

So obvious isn't it? She's not trying to target them for removal from office, she wants her followers to shoot them.

" Yeah I agree" -DOPE
 
Harshaw said:
What about it? Elucidate.
Click to expand...
The editorial then discusses the fact that the gunman had no business having a gun and the editorial ends with:

President Trump said just the right thing after the attack on Wednesday: “We may have our differences, but we do well in times like these to remember that everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, they love our country. We can all agree that we are blessed to be Americans, that our children deserve to grow up in a nation of safety and peace.”
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
The editorial then discusses the fact that the gunman had no business having a gun and the editorial ends with:
Click to expand...

So what?
 
MTAtech said:
So, I don't know what the OP is complaining about. It seems to be a fair and balanced editorial.
Click to expand...

If you don't know, then you just plain didn't read the OP. Oh, well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom