Federal Law, State Law & The Constitution
5 hours ago
Friday, October 08, 2010
GOP Candidate Art Robinson Takes Down Rachel Maddow's Smear Campaign
What with MSNBC now clearly serving as a political arm of the Left, it doesn't make much sense for any GOP'er to ever go on the Left's leading network. Yet if any Republican would to dare go on MSNBC they outta take a cue from Art Robinson. This is a classic takedown of the liberal media's smear campaign against the Right. Indeed, conservatives everywhere should be proud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Uhm, wow. What a creep that guy was.
ReplyDelete5 minutes in, he's using the standard technique of talkingtalkingtalking, going over the material he wants to, all while completely ignoring the question he's been asked, and making the host need to interrupt him in order to get him back on subject (or else he'd ramble on all darn night).
He's spending his time claiming that Maddow is misrepresenting what he has said, while ignoring the many opportunities she gave him to actually EXPLAIN what he believes.
Maddow quotes from HIS newsletter about statements he made about AIDS in 1995. For the record, there wasn't much debate over the cause of AIDS by then; it was 1995, not 1895. If there were a debate, what he wrote would still sound half-assed and unscientific. And, yes, her source was entirely accurate - it was his words taken from his own freaking newsletter, that he writes and edits. No way he was taken out of context.
So, now we're 11 minutes in and he's rattling off attacks on his opponent, rather than respond to anything Maddow's asked. He's repeating, "Your viewers know what you are." to Maddow - which could be taken as misogynistic, homophobic, or a combination of the two. Then he tries to claim, "You could not understand it" if he explained hormesis, which is just completely effing patronizing and insulting. Jerk.
Then we have his repeated complaints that she's being sarcastic ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."), because he's apparently never been asked a question before. So, Maddow, taking pity on her possibly senile guest, tries to explain to him how satellite interviews work, and he says - get this - there IS no delay, that it's speed-of-light. Are you freaking kidding me? *I* know there's a delay, so how does Mr. Good Scientist not know it?
Then he goes back to calling her a liar as she quotes from his own newsletter, while somehow simultaneously claiming that he can't remember his own beliefs that he obviously wrote on extensively.
And you think this lunatic ass-hat is someone to be admired? Maddow was confronted with a belligerent man with a chip on his shoulder who wanted to use her show as a soapbox, rather than engage in a give-and-take discussion, and who would rather bitch and moan FOR MINUTES than use that time to refute whatever the hell he thought she was saying. Now I see why some interviewers will cut off their guests. I was silently begging for her to cut his mike. But then the fringe would, of course, try to say that he wasn't allowed to have his "say."
Any retard that votes for this awful man deserves what they get.
I'm sure Rachel Maddow is a nice guy once you get to know him.
DeleteUhm, wow. What a creep that guy was.
ReplyDelete5 minutes in, he's using the standard technique of talkingtalkingtalking, going over the material he wants to, all while completely ignoring the question he's been asked, and making the host need to interrupt him in order to get him back on subject (or else he'd ramble on all darn night).
He's spending his time claiming that Maddow is misrepresenting what he has said, while ignoring the many opportunities she gave him to actually EXPLAIN what he believes.
Maddow quotes from HIS newsletter about statements he made about AIDS in 1995. For the record, there wasn't much debate over the cause of AIDS by then; it was 1995, not 1895. If there were a debate, what he wrote would still sound half-assed and unscientific. And, yes, her source was entirely accurate - it was his words taken from his own freaking newsletter, that he writes and edits. No way he was taken out of context.
So, now we're 11 minutes in and he's rattling off attacks on his opponent, rather than respond to anything Maddow's asked. He's repeating, "Your viewers know what you are." to Maddow - which could be taken as misogynistic, homophobic, or a combination of the two. Then he tries to claim, "You could not understand it" if he explained hormesis, which is just completely effing patronizing and insulting. Jerk.
Then we have his repeated complaints that she's being sarcastic ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."), because he's apparently never been asked a question before. So, Maddow, taking pity on her possibly senile guest, tries to explain to him how satellite interviews work, and he says - get this - there IS no delay, that it's speed-of-light. Are you freaking kidding me? *I* know there's a delay, so how does Mr. Good Scientist not know it?
Then he goes back to calling her a liar as she quotes from his own newsletter, while somehow simultaneously claiming that he can't remember his own beliefs that he obviously wrote on extensively.
And you think this lunatic ass-hat is someone to be admired? Maddow was confronted with a belligerent man with a chip on his shoulder who wanted to use her show as a soapbox, rather than engage in a give-and-take discussion, and who would rather bitch and moan FOR MINUTES than use that time to refute whatever the hell he thought she was saying. Now I see why some interviewers will cut off their guests. I was silently begging for her to cut his mike. But then the fringe would, of course, try to say that he wasn't allowed to have his "say."
Any retard that votes for this awful man deserves what they get.
I apologize for the duplicate.
ReplyDeleteRachel Maddow is a hack journalist. sorry. She did not ask one question regarding the issues and focused on writings that obviously are above her pay grade. As a person wo works with 8 physicists, believe a journalist would not understand. I have read the HIV newsletter and it was dealing with the politicization of AIDS and the skewing of statistics. Robinson never stated that AIDs was a conspiracy; he was addressing the same issue that has corrupted the whole global warming debate and that is the conflicts of interests or sway caused by lucrative government funding, pharmaceutical research grants/foundation monies and of course the $120 billion plus HIV drug business. Is it not possible that there was a rush to judgement in classifying early deaths to AIDs. The forward of a hypothesis is just that, to invite discussion and debate. AND NO, Rachel was not debating nor allowing Robinson to respond. There are no absolutes in the world and unfortunately that's what scientists are taught to accept. Unfortunately for the LEFT and many of you, the absolutes lead to politics of destruction because you are fearful of the whooping you ar about to receive. Peace.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Rachel Maddow is a nice guy once you get to know him.
ReplyDelete