Rachel Maddow got owned on Maher

Did anyone catch Real Time Friday? Nick Gillespie, a libertarian, and even Maher himself ripped poor little Rachel to pieces over her partisanship. She almost broke down and cried when they both ganged up on her. I'll post a video as soon as it shows up.

Nick asked her point blank, have you ever in your life, ever, supported anything on the right, anything. She couldn't answer the question. Then he asked her point blank if she supported "Romney Care" in Massachusetts being that it's essentially the same thing as "Obama Care" and that's when they basically broke down and almost started crying.

 

I watched it earlier this morinig. I can't stand Maddow and almost didn't watch the show because she was on. I'd put her as the most unpleasant political commentary host right now and that's saying something. She's a self righteous tool.

 

Here are the videos:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CvmhsEm680U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ClGCGyKV_Co" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Gilesspie basically smacked the shit out of all of them, for the entire show, with a little help from Zuckerman, its pretty funny that Maddow tried to say she only reports the news and doesnt give her own opinion.....

Yet another example of a far left liberal who is so deluded that they are unwilling to admit that their beliefs are actually left wing.

Im really starting to wonder if there is something wrong with liberals, that they are so delususional that they dont think they have a slant. We have already seen tons of examples of this all over ET, hell you even have jackasses like Brass who try to claim Stalin and Mao were right wingers..... Apparently this kind of ridiculous thinking is not limited to the far left on ET, as all the MSNBC clowns seem to have the same problem admitting they are left wing.......

If liberalism is really this ideology, that is so much smarter, and so much better than conservatism, as they claim, why is it that the vast majority of liberals will not admit they are left wing?

I have said it many times, while there isnt a goddamn thing I agree with Ricter over, I like him, and respect him, cause he is one of the only ones on this site to come out and admit that he is a full blooded commie. I got no problem admitting that when it comes to fiscal issues I am so far right im almost falling off my chair, so whats the deal? Why do the "smartest people in the room" have such a tough time analysing themselves?

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/114260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BILL MAHER, HOST: Mitt Romney said on the campaign trail last week, he said, “We're going to get rid of ObamaCare and return to personal responsibility.” This is the return to personal responsibility is ObamaCare.

MARK RUFFALO, ACTOR: Which is why it was RomneyCare in the first place.

MAHER: Exactly.

NICK GILLESPIE, REASON: Wait, so now, so this is, to go back to the question, RomneyCare is something that you would agree with? You would say that’s a great Republican policy.

RUFFALO: Yes.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: You don't know anything about me.

GILLESPIE: I’m just asking.

MADDOW: You should start making your arguments in places other than, “Here’s the thing I’m assuming about you."

GILLESPIE: I’m sorry, it’s because I haven’t read your book or anything you’ve written.

RUFFALO: Why do you keep picking on her?

MADDOW: Just start from a…

MAHER: Wait, you're not for RomneyCare?

MADDOW: Start from something that’s not about me. Make it on your own terms.

GILLESPIE: Wait, so are you a fan of RomneyCare?

MADDOW: What, make your point.

GILLESPIE: I'm sorry, I'm asking.

MAHER: You're not for RomneyCare?

GILLESPIE: You’re not for RomneyCare?

MADDOW: Leave me alone about RomneyCare, all of you.

GILLESPIE: That’s a f—king no to me. I don’t…

MADDOW: Listen, my job is to cover these things, not to tell you how I like them or not.

MAHER: Oh.

EDIT: I was typing out a response, and maverick appparently posted it....

 

What i found funnier than the Maddow one where she tells eveyone to leave her alone, was the claim by both Maher, and Maddow that they are not partisan hacks....it starts at about 7:30 of this video..... that had to be the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.....

 

Another line that made me shake my head from the show....

Bill Maher: "What bothers me about this country is that we punish failure so much, we dont punish success, we punish failure, look at solyndra"

What fucking planet is he living on? Half of Corporate America just got a bail out, and everyonre who got canned is living off the government, We Punish Failure too much? Participation trophies for everyone..... and we now have a president, and an entire group of people in OWS going around the country complaining that the people who have succeeded need to pay even more....

Really Bill? We Punish Failure?

Which one between Carolla and Maher really seems like he knows what is going on?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ib-59D6J7HY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Gillespie is a smart guy and interesting to listen to. His view against labeling of GMO products didn't make much sense but he still made his argument polite and intelligent.
Maher has one of the best shows on TV. If you get a chance watch the one with Kevin Nelan, that one was a funny show.

 

I know, I got a kick out of that line too. He rails against corporate subsidies and the bailouts and then says we are too hard on failure.

I love how he and Rachel's partisanship is so out of control that they actually become pro-war, pro-money and overlook Obama's drone campaign, civil liberty violations and the facetious regime they have on the war on drugs. It's hysterical.

 

Kevin did two shows, one this year and one last year. The one last year was classic.

 

Actually what he said about GMO's makes perfect sense, though admittedly he didnt stress the main point of the argument very well.

The fact of the matter is that these "non genetically modified" foods are now incredibly hard to produce, and the liberals are trying to increase the standard for the amount of genetically altered material that is allowed in the food, Without labelling, down to only 0.5% genetically altered substance allowed, thus drastically increasing the cost of produce. The food that is non-genetically altered, ends up costing much more then the food that is, and it costs a hell of alot more to label these foods as well.

If people at the grocery store demanded that all of their food was not genetically altered, there would be a market for it, but the fact is that the stuff that isnt genetically altered is much more expensive, thus creating less demand for it, if people wanted all their food to be non-genetically modified, then it would be that way..... This is just another liberal "environmentalist" witch hunt, that makes zero sense, and only goes to hurt the consumer, and hurt the poor.....

Here is a great article on the subject from the site "Freakenomics"


How California’s GMO Labeling Law Could Limit Your Food Choices and Hurt the Poor

The American Medical Association resolved this week that “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”
The association has long-held that nothing about the process of recombinant DNA makes genetically engineered (GE) crop plants inherently more dangerous to the environment or to human health than the traditional crop plants that have been deliberately but slowly bred for human purposes for millennia. It is a view shared by the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., the European Commission, and countless other national science academies and non-governmental organizations.

And yet Californians will consider on their November ballots a law that mandates cigarette-like labeling of food derived from GE plants. Proponents claim to promote opportunities for consumers to make informed choices about the foods they eat. But to build support for the measure, they have played on consumer fears about a promising technology that is nevertheless prone to “Frankenfoods” demagoguery. If successful, they may well imperil the ability of Californians, and consumers around the world, to choose a technology that scientists contend could end hunger and malnutrition, lift hundreds of millions from poverty, and reduce the environmental impact of feeding an evermore populous world.

“Currently available genetically modified foods are safe to eat.” That was the conclusion of a 2003 inquiry by the International Council for Science, an NGO representing the national science academies of 140 countries, including the U.S. It is a finding repeatedly made by the U.S. National Research Council. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. EPA all regulate the use of genetically engineered plants in the U.S. according to a philosophy endorsed by the scientific community that the content and characteristics of plants and foods should govern their regulatory scrutiny, not the process by which they are made.

Voluntary certified organic labels already allow consumers to avoid GE foods. Given the dramatic fissure between scientific opinion and public perception—only one in four consumers thinks GE foods are “basically safe”—a mandatory labeling regime is likely only to cripple crop science by reducing market share and revenues to GE food producers.

More devastating than the label itself, could be the cost of avoiding the label on non-GE foods that may nevertheless contain trace amounts of GE material. In the U.S., the highest-grade corn can contain as much as 2% foreign material, like crop residues. In Europe, a food product can contain as much as 0.9% genetically engineered material and avoid a GE label. But the California law would impose a nearly twice as stringent purity standard, tolerating only 0.5% GE content in non-GE food.

Such a high purity standard would likely require farmers to invest in separate planting, harvesting, storage, hauling, processing, and packaging equipment for GE production in order to avoid revenue losses and liability from contaminating their non-GE operations or those of competitors. Because the costs of risk reduction generally increase exponentially in the level of safety, California’s stringent purity standard may be a death sentence to GE producers who could spread the high fixed costs of contamination avoidance across only the low levels of production that the market would initially support.

Food prices would rise and consumer choice would be diminished.
Facing diminished revenue prospects and high fixed costs to prevent even trace contamination, processors may abandon GE production altogether. Farmers would stop planting GE crops, and scientists would stop agricultural biotechnology research. Much as a decade-long moratorium on GE crops in Europe caused the agricultural biotechnology R&D pipeline to contract around the world, a labeling regime in the most populous state of the world’s most aggressive GE-adopting country could cause firms to shelve potentially life-saving innovations. Food prices would rise and consumer choice would be diminished.

Existing applications of agricultural biotechnology allow better control of pests by encoding plant DNA to either produce a naturally occurring and widely used insect toxin or generate immunity to a relatively low toxicity, broad spectrum herbicide marketed as Round-Up. By improving the control of insects or weeds, the technologies reduce crop damage, raising crop yields, lowering food prices, and saving natural habitat from cropland expansion.

An exhaustive review by the National Research Council in 2010 concluded that existing GE technologies reduce insecticide applications, support the substitution of low toxicity herbicides for more toxic alternatives, and encourage the use of no-till operations that reduce soil erosion and support soil carbon sequestration. They also permit double-cropping, a practice whereby farmers successively plant two crops per growing season, essentially doubling the productivity of existing land.
Forthcoming and prospective GE crops hold greater promise. They include staple crops with improved nutrient content to reduce malnutrition in the developing world and field crops that tolerate the climatic extremes experienced in some of the poorest parts of the world.

Norman Borlaug was the 20th century savior of the poor and hungry. Wearing coveralls and toiling in Mexican fields with conventional breeding techniques, he launched the Green Revolution and saved millions of lives, for which he received the Nobel Peace Price in 1970. His 21st century counterparts wear lab coats and stare into microscopes on university campuses and in the research departments of multinational corporations. They advance the same science to which Borlaug devoted his life and do work that he whole-heartedly endorsed unto his death. For many of today’s crop scientists, his goals are theirs. But their tools are better and their potential is greater.
If only Californians will give them a chance.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06...ld-limit-your-food-choices-and-hurt-the-poor/