Rachel Maddow taunts the chickenhearted conservatives who won't come on her show

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 06:46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DetS7ZFRM7Y   Posted on YouTube: October 07, 2010 By YouTube Member: StartLoving3 Views on YouTube: 310   Posted on DU: October 07, 2010 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 2879

 

[boycottfaux]

1. Rand Paul

Rachel managed to bitch-slap fake doctor Rand Paul in about 10
seconds after he won the primary . .

NEOCONS can't handle TRUTH, Rachel!!

I'd love to hear Rachel ask these RWers to defend this 'pay
for water' fake fire dept. in TN where they let innocent
animals die in that house [includes human beings, eh?] . .

[bherrera]

4. I don't think the Rand Paul interview had class

Dr Paul is an erudite, and she was rude and tried to keep the interview at a very superficial level. I researched the man's position regarding constitutional issues, and while I do not agree with him, I do understand he is highly intelligent and not what she painted him to be. After I saw her behavior, I realized she is only the mirror image of the right wing fanatics of the Fox News. Neither extreme is worth watching.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more

Rachel simply made him clarify his own position, which he still holds. He thinks property rights allow people operating in the public sphere to discriminate using public accommodations. That's fine, that is his right to think that, and it has a certain logic if you think that property rights trump everything.

But the Supreme Court, and most people in this country, disagree. They say it is wrong for public accommodations to discriminate based on race. Rachel simply got Rand Paul to state his position clearly in that interview. there was nothing "superficial" about it, and Rachel is not extreme or a mirror of Fox News.

[damonm]

8. Then you must have watched a different interview

from the one I saw.

[daleanime]

12. Huh?

She wanted an answer to a question that 'Dr Paul' didn't want to give. She simply wouldn't let him choose what questions he responded to. Which is what scares all repugs.:evilgrin:

[bherrera]

19. She crafted the question to get a simple minded answer

This is a trick extremists in the USA like to use. You guys like to boil politics to simple minded sound bites, which makes them puerile and the politics of simpletons and polarization. Dr Paul had used a controversial point to show the Constitution had some controversial points, because if the business owner can be compelled to serve to all persons because if he does not he violates their constitutional rights, then the business owner can not forbid persons who carry weapons to enter the business boundaries. Dr Paul does not advocate that persons with weapons be able to enter a business boundary, neither does he advocate discrimination against certain minorities. He wanted to point out the Constitution has a flaw. But this is not what Ms Maddow wanted, she wanted her sound bite, because American politics are increasingly designed for polarization, and not for serious engagement of serious and educated people.

I do not support Dr Paul, but I do like his position against the wars USA has pursued. And I also think the man has a serious approach which is quite different from the demagoguery and politics designed for morons which prevails in the USA. And this is why you have such terrible governments. Think about it.

[daleanime]

21. We have the best government money can buy....

every thing else is simply designed to provide cover for this.

Please don't make assumptions about me, I'm here because I like details not 'simple minded sound bites', but I also like direct answers. Ms Maddow has consistently showed that she is willing to invest time in complicated issues-this issue is not.

No business owner is 'compelled to serve all persons', but you can't turn people away because you don't like their hair colour. It's bad business.

[bherrera]

23. My observation

I saw this using the internet, when I saw it was creating controversy. The man (Rand Paul) tried to give her an answer to the question, and she interrupted him, seeking the answer she wanted. If we consider the time it takes to provide the full answer, which indeed is complex, and the time she took interrupting the man repeatedly, then the time used is the same. But she was trying to smear the man, not to seek an understanding of his position - which I did simply by reading what he said in other places. This also tells me she does very poor preparation for the show, or she prepares, ignores the complex questions, and then goes for the throat in an unethical fashion. She is similar to the right wing man on Fox, O'Reilly. He does his deception for a right wing audience, and she does it for a left wing audience.

And this is why the middle guys, who are so many, are sick of the two extremes. These extremists can not allow honest discussion of interesting topics, they want to make it trivial, the other side is evil, blah blah blah. And in the end, all you Americans achieve is a deeply divided nation ruled by incompetents. Which is demonstrated by the way you have been defeated in Iraq, and are being defeated in Afghanistan, the BP oil spill, the huge deficits you have, and other social diseases. Many other countries have serious problems, but no other country has serious problems and tries to export them the way you do. American way of life? Keep it.

[LanternWaste]

26. You can of course provide us with...

You can of course provide us with the precise and relevant instances of Maddow's alleged rudeness, yes?

[bherrera]

29. Title is "Rachel Maddow taunts"?

Does this not tell you she is rude? Taunting is rude. Maybe the lack of civil discussions in your television is so blatant, you do not feel taunting is rude. I know she makes a lot of money tauting. And I can point out she is rude and I think in the long term it hurts your country when you allow media personalities like Maddow and her counterparts like Hannity and O"Reilly to set the agenda you guys discuss.

A little more intelligent discussion, with a careful reading of your laws, may be better. If your Constitution requies change, which is what Dr Paul seemed to indicate, then you can change it. But insulting each other because you are unable to sit down and talk is going to hurt you. It already is hurting you.

[chervilant]

31. hmm...

That's the beauty of the internet, bherrera: you can visit utube, or many other websites, and watch Ms. Maddow's interview with Rand Paul in its entirety, as I just did. I did not see Ms. Maddow "interrupting" Mr. Paul repeatedly. You make an erroneous assertion to support your position regarding 'extremists.' Given the actual footage of the Maddow/Paul discussion, your argument is specious.

[LanternWaste]

25. he had ample opportunity to qualify his answers and positions at his own convenience

She did not interrupt him, therefore he had ample opportunity to qualify his answers and positions at his own convenience to her "simple minded" questions.

His answers came across as sound bites because they were sound bites. :shrug:

I would query that if he, like O'Donnell, cannot react with both authority and dignity to simple questions, and simply run from any "hostile" encounter, how would they react in the face of an actual crises?

[chervilant]

17. Oh, dear,

you are seriously delusional if you think that Ms. Maddow was 'rude' to Rand Paul, and that she is 'only the mirror image of the right wing fanatics of the Fox News.' There are numerous resources you can explore to help you with your apparent cognitive dissonance. I suggest that you pursue professional assistance and avoid DU until you get a clue.

[azmesa207]

28. You don't think

Rand Paul interview had class ? Sounds to me that your a Libertarian that believes his smoke screen and lies . The fact that he lied about his qualifications and the fact he want to do away with Medicare just a few thing that was brought out in the interview made it a great interview

[Diclotican]

2. ProfessorPlum

ProfessorPlum

I have to say it, that woman is more classy day for day.. He uses irony, and humor, to really show the "other side" what a gang of idiots they really are..

Not that they wil understand it, or accept her invitation, anytime soon

Diclotican

[KansDem]

3. Craven conservatives...

Don't care that their campaign cash is coming from foreign countries, but will refuse to debate "The Liberals"

[life_long_dem]

6. ReThugs can't defend their hypocrisy and they love their Communist Cash.

[indimuse]

5. Love it!

knr.

[MightyAfrodite]

9. As is usually the case ...

Rachel makes them all look real stupid. Keep up the great work, girl!! :yourock:

[littlewolf]

10. what is her draw .... what kind of numbers is she pulling

[MightyAfrodite]

11. I don't know ....

To hear those on the right speak about Rachel, her show sucks, she's got no viewership, and she picks on them for ratings. My question is if nobody is watching her show, why is her name on the lips of GOPers and teabaggers 24/7?

[Uncle Joe]

13. Because Rachel Maddow is among the most effective in a very small field of

journalist/pundit/television interviewers; that actually oppose the radical right agenda.

They want to marginalize her to prevent their followers from paying attention to Maddow's legitimate criticism.

It's all part of the Republican platform, either dumb the people down or put them to sleep, the vast majority of the corporate media tow the Republican corporate supremacist line, with Maddow pushing the envelope away from that trend.

[okieinpain]

15. that is what kills me, how can some one be proud to be stupid n/t.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Pride isn't the real driving emotion, their "pride" is more like whistling past the graveyard.

I believe the prime emotions are fear and hatred.

Naturally people; having different levels of abilities also possess subconscious doubts about them selves.

The corporate media; knows this, using this information to perfect the marketing skills necessary to sell their products, point of view or candidates.

The corporate media; as an institution are true experts in human psychology, marketing and sociology, countless dollars and human hours have been spent studying these sciences as a means to increase media profit.

They've also perfected and used these sciences to sell the American People down the river because they know that enlightening or lifting up the people may actually work against the corporate media's best interests at times, unfortunately those "times" have become virtually non-stop.

So most of the corporate media provides those doubtful, fearful or hate filled people a safe zone, there is no need for their audience to go through the discomfort of growing, learning and changing, they can just demonize words, ideas and people without thought.

The corporate media; by demonizing words, ideas and people put a fear/hate filled buffer up preventing their target audience from even being receptive to different ways of thinking and much of the time, the corporate media; camouflage these tactics as being "pride" based, making it more palatable for their audience.

[Guilded Lilly]

14. The fear goes in the other direction with them...

while most of them build their political houses on platforms of fear and denials, or outright embracing ignorance, they could not handle the fear they would feel and show when confronted with straightforward questions from Rachel. The fear they promote so willingly would come back to bite them in the arses!

And they can't handle it.

[activa8tr]

16. Rachel is cute and funny here. And that is EXACTLY what makes all of

the teahadist neocon flunkies angry. They know she's calling their bluff, and they can't stand it.

[chervilant]

18. And,

She ruffles their wee 'anti-intellectual' feathers because they have no CLUE how to refute her erudite assertions. She makes them want to stamp dey widdle feets and whine, "I know you are, but what am I?!"

[Karenina]

22. Some complained about her body language with the young man

the ONLY CO'D supporter willing to go on record with her but who is registered to vote in PEdoubleN-SYL-VANIA_A... :rofl: THAT was a HOOT!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl: What her body language revealed to me was a profound empathy. She exposed him, maybe even to himself, in a compassionate way. IMHO.

[activa8tr]

27. I love that, too! Rachel is adorable, not like some other people on Fox and CNN who

cut people off, ask foolish questions, blow their own horn.

Being cute and compassionate, how dare she???? :sarcasm:

[DFW]

24. One other little detail

Karl Rove and Roger Ailes have certainly informed the Teahadists that Rachel Maddow's IQ is greater
than theirs--probably cumulatively. I know their voters wouldn't watch MSNBC (they'd rather be blinded
with thorns) anyway, but just the thought of a sliver of those voters who vote Republican out of habit
and no matter what, but still have a brain, getting a look at such an interview and voting Democratic
for once in their narrowly sheltered lives, must give Rove and Murdoch stomach pains greater that what
they would feel if they had swallowed a pound of powdered glass.

[janewin]

30. Git Git

lets rought talk em and get em out of here. You go Rachel