Far Left MSNBC interviewer, Ms Rachell Maddow, gets much more than she bargained for when she decided to take on Mr Art Robinson, the Republican Candidate for The House who is running against a tax and spend Democrat in Oregon. Ms Maddow begins her usual assault by suggesting there is a dark and mysterious third candidate of ill dispute in the race who providing financial support for Mr Robinson’s campaign. Mr Robinson would have none of that and gave the bias liberal much more than she bargained for.
This is another fine example of just how far MSNBC will go in order support of their hard left-wing Socialist agenda. Ms Maddow treats Democrat politicians with kid gloves. She showers them with compliments and tosses them softball questions that they provide well scripted answers to. occasionally she will go off script and ask something difficult like ‘boxers or briefs’, but for the most part her interviews are straight down in support of the Socialist Democrat Party line.
In this particular interview Ms Maddow is not seeking to do anything other than to make Mr Robinson seem like some type of right-wing lunatic, with outrageous views, who is being supported by some dark unnamed source that should not be trusted. She provides absolutely no proof for this accusation, but takes great strides in attempting to paint the entire made up issue as something dark and sinister. Just business as usual for the drive by media.
Not having access to the source of her claims in regards to Mr Robinson’s scientific research papers, one can only assume that she was reading from the hypothesis being researched and not the conclusions. Let me explain.
When a scientist is given a hypothesis they first explain it, then explain the reasoning, then test it for accuracy, then provide their conclusions. So, someone says the Earth is flat because a, b, c, d and e. That is their hypothetical conclusion based on a thought, idea or what they experienced.
A scientist is required to offer the hypothesis and all supporting information prior to testing. This is done in an attempt to alleviate bias. Only an unbiased study will produce dependable results. Once the issue is defined and relevant studies in support of the issue are identified, the scientist can begin testing the hypothesis. During the study he will publish each conclusion throughout each experiment. At the end of the study the scientist will publish his conclusions. Normally, it will be in the conclusion that the scientist’s true thoughts and opinions on the reliability of the hypothesis will be revealed based on the results of the study.
Taking a hypothesis as a scientist’s belief is just plain foolish. If a scientist did not state every probability of results, then test for it, then the results are not proven. As Sherlock Holmes once said ‘when you have disproved all other theories, then whatever is left, however improbable, must be true’. Unless of course, you did not include all the theories.
That being said, I have to offer kudos to Ms Maddow. She is used to interviewing political types who will provide political answers. Going against a scientist who is not afraid to speak his mind had to be a total shock to her. She is not used to people calling her on her over the top bias and accusing her of doing exactly what she was attempting to do. She handled it well.
Olberdummy would have never done this interview, Hissy Matthews and the others would have screamed bloody murder and cut off Mr Robinson’s microphone so no one could hear him speak. They are reknown for doing so. They only support free speech for Socialist Liberals.
Ms Maddow however, though condescending throughout the interview, hung in there and attempted to get her Democrat supporting talking points and false accusations out. She lost, but she lost well 🙂