The Best 15 or so Minutes of TV I Have Ever Seen

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobber205, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #1
    Was on Rachel Maddow this evening. Just now finished.

    She interviewed Art Robinson, the R candidate for my district. JESUS CHRIST ON A CRUTCH.

    The craziest person I've ever seen. He's running for CONGRESS?! :eek:

    This man was insane. He even had the gaul to tell Rachel "I doubt you're smart enough to understand a complicated theory like hormesis".
    :mad:

    I'll post with the online video version as soon as I can.

    Video can be found here.
     
  2. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    My favorite television is David Attenborough the private life of plants. Hard to choose a specific 15 minutes. Perhaps the bit about the Rafflesia because i'd like to see one in the wild one day.
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    I like how he showed several times that he doesn't have quite an understanding of things he says he does.

    When she tried to point out the satellite delay (which is known to actually occur by anyone that ever watches the news) he interupts repeatedly making comments about how it should be instant because its the speed of light :p

    Also, the repeated "I'm a good scientist" statements make me think he's an egotistical jerk.

    Also how he continually did nothing but interrupt, refused to even listen to the "do you still believe this?" part of her questions, then chastises her for interrupting his answers (while phrased and jilted in such a way that you could tell he realized he had been doing the same thing the whole time), complete agonizingly hilarious TV right there.
     
  5. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    Quite honestly, I think she was a little off her game. Yes, the guy seems to be unbalanced, and you probably ought to be out on the streets doing everything you can to get Defazio re-elected (he has always been a good man), but Rachel looked a little too much like she was trying to trap or antagonize Mr. Robinson. This footage almost makes her look as bad as him, since her jb really is about being fair, or at least appearing to be.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    I agree that she rode this a little hard.

    She should have stopped, let him ramble, then explain quickly (before he interrupted again) that she's trying to find out if now that more knowledge on these issues had come to light if his views had changed on them. She tried several times, but never in a quick enough way to make sure she said everything before he started again.

    She did let me down a bit in this interview.
     
  7. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    It's amazing how he kept accusing her of lying when she was reading his OWN WORDS. :p
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    I want that 15 or so minutes of my life back. :mad:

    What a waste. :(

    I think I just lost half of my brain cells. :mad:
     
  9. Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #9
    I gotta say, although I don't agree with Maddie, I enjoy watching her and respect her intelligence.

    I think she lost tonight. She had no control of her show and no idiot could knock her of her game. He may have looked crazy but he actually came off as very intellectual. He is a scientist, they make theories and discuss ideas, And I couldn't help but think she was taking cheap shots. She even got so distressed that she encouraged to to talk about Hormesis which has NOTHING to do with anything. It was also clear that she was reading a definition of the word which I find another cheap shot.

    Idk. I think maddow is smart, but I feel like she got worked this time.
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    If intellectualism is measured solely by the number of words that come out of one's mouth than I'd have to agree with you.
     
  11. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #11
    Woo New Zealand got a mention!

    Tax haven, hardly.
     
  12. Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #12
    They both did alot of interrupting and alot of talking. I found it interesting that he stood up to her and was able to continue to stand up to her throughout the whole discussion.
     
  13. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #13
    He has a point, her interview style is very questionable.
     
  14. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #14
    3/4 of what she said was her repeating QUOTES from papers he's published in his OWN newsletter. He refused to address any of them and kept claiming she was lying. How is that intelligent? And he thinks satellite communication operates at the speed of light? Is there some kind of test you have to pass to be able to call yourself a "scientist"? He seems like a bag of complete fail to me.

    He in no way come across polite, let alone intelligent.
     
  15. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #15
    Wow, never become a political analyst.

    Or TV producer.
     
  16. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #16
    So I take it that you were offended by her quoting his published works? Verbatim? I agree the interview was rough, but I think that was mostly because this man refused to answer a single prompt or question. He attacked her over and over, even calling her not smart enough to understand hormesis. She responded quite politely to that insult even. I would have probably said "This interview is over good sir."
     
  17. pknz macrumors 68020

    pknz

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Location:
    NZ
    #17
    Offended not at all.

    I didn't really see in this political interview what was relevant about bringing up what she claims he published 15 years ago to the degree she did.

    That basically became her sole focus for the interview. I don't quite see how that is a political issue...

    Science is always discovering new things, man once thought earth was flat and the centre of the universe.
     
  18. ntrigue macrumors 68040

    ntrigue

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    #18
    How ridiculous. I'd rather have him than a 12-term incumbent!
     
  19. Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #19
    The argument was rough for maddow, the other guy was having a blast.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    Yes, the whole point of bringing up said things was to find out if he still believed them now that new science had come to light. She could have gone about asking better, but the man did nothing but stick to his own talking points (repeated at least a dozen times) and continually call her a liar or that he wrote those years ago (again without commenting on his views now).

    He tried to make it about his opponents views, and that is not the point of a one on one interview.
     
  21. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #21
    That's right. We learned not a thing about this guy's views. But we did learn he's afraid to talk about them. From the looks of it, he's a very irresponsible "scientist" with an obvious right wing agenda. What he wrote about AIDS was absolutely vile and politically motivated. The guy is a turd. He would not explain any of his beliefs or "research".

    And any "scientist" who says that satellite feeds move at the "speed of light" is an absolute idiot.
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #22
    I just didn't understand why he never made the logical jump (and a very short one at that) from his defense, "That was 15 years ago", to elaborating on what had changed.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    All he had to say was was that he no longer believed them, or say that he did. Oregon, you vote for this fool, and you get what you deserve.
     
  24. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #24
    Technically he is right about the "speed of light", but if you actually sat down and did the math and calculated the time it takes for the signal to reach the satellite way up in outer space and then back down to earth, you'd quickly discover that there is a short delay due to the distance the signal travels. And that's not even taking into account the delay caused by encoding and decoding the video signal at each end. Speed of light != instantaneous and any scientist who doesn't know that probably really isn't a scientist. And I'm not a scientist, just someone who paid attention in 8th grade science class.

    I wouldn't worry about that. Fivethirtyeight gives the Democrat a 100% chance of winning.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    He totally ducked the questions about hormesis by saying that he'd have to go into a deep and lengthy scientific discussion in order to give a fair view of the issue.

    What are the chances that his newsletter included this deep and lengthy scientific discussion? Slim and none I'd bet.

    I'll wager that when he sells the idea he's more than content to gloss over details, but when he's pressed to defend it he retreats into his "it's too complicated" shell.
     

Share This Page