Saturday, October 09, 2010

Turning The Tables

It's always fun to see someone take the highly overrated Rachel Madcow to task about something.... and expose her as the fool she is. It's absolutely hilarious to watch 18 minutes of such an event.

In this clip, she appears to be utterly exasperated for not being able to get this man off message, that is... off the issues that his opponent does not want to talk about in public. She would rather try to take something he wrote during the course of scientific debates that occurred 15 years ago, than speak about the present.



Utterly brilliant job... and done by a man who is much smarter and a thousand times wiser than she is. It must really get her goat.

8 comments:

Chuck said...

If all that she asserts (and I cannot make this a big enough if) is true, he sounds like he could possibly have some questions to answer. I don't really know much about him. I will say though that:

-while HIV is a real disease, it has been politicized and used to promote agendas

-with the low level radiation, who knows. It sounds a little far-fetched but we find as science advances that some things we believe are bad for us are ultimately beneficial.

With all of this said, she is a thoroughly despicable person. I have never seen her to any great length, I am one of a very very large number of people who do not watch her. She misleads. She sets up her questions with her own personal spin on the answer. She sets the question up to where it is virtually impossible to defend it, kind of like "when did you stop beating your wife" type of questions.

She said she interviewed Defazio but notice she never said she tried to get to the bottom of his failings or held him to the same standards, she just interviewed him.

One has to assume that the interview, likely more than one to help support him, had a considerably different tone to it.

LASunsett said...

//If all that she asserts (and I cannot make this a big enough if) is true, he sounds like he could possibly have some questions to answer.//

Like you said later in your comment, she is a vile despicable excuse for a journalist and asks questions that cannot possibly be answered without making yourself look like a fool.

This guy has probably written so much stuff during the courses of many debates that occurred in the scientific realm. As a true scientist, you must ask every possible question you can if you are wanting to learn about a given subject. Sometimes those questions can be taken out of context, by not showing the later material where you have addressed the results.

That's why he wanted a copy of what he wrote 15 years ago before he commented. That's why he wanted to redirect her back to the issues that were important in the campaign. She didn;t want that, she wanted to make him look like a bigot and a fool, but she only made herself look that way.

Chuck said...

Notice how he tried to answer the question about the nuke disposal later and she did not want to let him? This is a big tactic by leftist journalists. Get something out there, true or not, then move on. If it is not disputed (if she doesn't let him do it) then it must be true.

Good point on the scientific process.

LASunsett said...

//Notice how he tried to answer the question about the nuke disposal later and she did not want to let him? //

She tried everything in the book to get him to break, but he didn't do it. He refused to play by her rules and exposed her for what she is, an ignorant hack with no credibility whatsoever.

Mustang said...

Fifteen years ago, it does make sense—in attempting to understanding the onset of HIV, to examine the number of infected persons and their lifestyles. Now you can tell me that this scientist, rocking back and forth in his chair appears somewhat infantile, and you can tell me he drinks too much, or even that as a physical scientist, he’s probably not contributed to anything most people can easily understand. However, none of this changes the paradigm: more homosexual men died from AIDS than heterosexual men. Even if he is a drunk, he was speaking the truth. Rachael “Mad Cow” doesn’t hide the fact that she is a rabid leftist, and I do think that her intention was to demean this man, and if you can diminish his written hypotheses, then it is possible to diminish his credibility in the minds of people who don’t even know who the Vice President of the United States is … It is a time-worn Alinsky protocol. Art Robinson is right about one thing … she attempted to defame him in her introduction to the “news item” and her first question. I wonder why she isn’t embarrassed about that?

LASunsett said...

//Now you can tell me that this scientist, rocking back and forth in his chair appears somewhat infantile, and you can tell me he drinks too much, or even that as a physical scientist, he’s probably not contributed to anything most people can easily understand.//

You are right.

We can say all of this, but we cannot say for a certainty what the man thinks about the important issues of the day....at least not based on Madcow's interview.

But we do know about Madcow.

We do know she objects to anonymous donors, despite the fact that Obama got money from Gaza in the 2008 campaign. We do know that she has a rabid pro-gay agenda based on her own sexuality. We do know that she has NO interest in learning anything about hormesis and wants to dig up 15 year old irrelevant material to smear someone she disagrees with.

The people of Oregon will have to decide if he is the man for them or not, they will have to determine where he stands on overtaxation, overspending, and loss of personal liberties under this present government.

A.C. McCloud said...

This is a perfect example of why novices should not go on these national shows. Her goal is never to listen to actual views but to trap them into fulfilling her pre-conceived notions about conservatives in general. Agree with Mustang--she won a few points in that area based on him not being media coached. Maybe it won't hurt in this cycle because the voters are mad as hell at incumbents and she's a well-known entrenched hack--her viewers would never vote for him anyway.

I am more interested in her contention about a dummy third candidate giving him stealth help. How often does that occur?

LASunsett said...

//she won a few points in that area based on him not being media coached.//

Maybe he didn't want to be coached. I thought he did fine without it. In this cycle, the fresh nonpolitical experience approach is the victor.

In the end, he was smiling and she was ready to bang her head against the wall. I think he won this round.