The man responded appropriately. He was constantly interrupted and showed that he had more self-respect than to subject himself to that kind of treatment. (Those idiots who support the idology of Fox will rationalize the demonstration of bullying by the Fox people as being on the right side--there is no way to get through to them and this man knew better than to try.) I am certainly he knew that he was going into a hostile environment but some people won't put up with that kind of hostility for long. I saw it as more of a statement of finality--as in, his final appearance on Fox.
Further, to follow the advice of Pakman--to interrupt the hostile one and then storm off in a huff--would make the idiots on Fox the sympathetic ones and paint the one who left as the bully, turning it into a "take my ball and go home" situation.
Some people like to be combative and some like to be conversational; this man seemed to be more of the latter and responded appropriately. Conversely, the Jeremy Glick piece linked by another poster, shows how allowing the true bully--whose name is on the show--one to drone on and on while sitting and tacitly showing apparent deferrence and respect will always backfire as they will edit and outright disregard the actual discussion and use it to assassinate the character of whomever they wish.
Too bad the rubes will fall for the spiel this guy is going to use about his "courage" in facing the liberals and their "leader", Maddow.
My two cents is, Rachel, don't bother with this kind of crud any more: The idiots are unteachable and the rest of us--the majority of Americans--already get it. Just keep on giving us some real, substantive investigative pieces.
She didn't have the guts to say, "That CNN is still giving a piece of crap like you more and more exposure."
Plus, I was irritated by her referring to O'Keefe as being known for the "ACORN video, dressed up like a pimp." Not the FAKED video, not the propagandized video, not the debunked video; just, "the ACORN video", giving it credibility by default by not being more accurate in describing it.
"We know that the United States is a very religious country; it's a nation of believers."
No, it's a nation of claimers, as in, a lot of people who claim to be religious. What needs to be studied is why so many people feel a need to claim religiosity but follow so little of it.
Funny how they did not make the connection that, for some people, the more they know about religion, the less faith they have in it.
(And, trust me, I loves me some Christian-bashing), but it seems that these particular women are coming to their positions from a Christian orientation. It seems to me that they are not corrupted by a "traditional" lust for power. It seems that their drive for political position is pushed by their buck-shot proselytizing and religiosity.
Also, Dean's prediction of the elections: Reasonable optimism. I have been vacillating on deciding to vote because of my lack of enthusiasm for Obama (and a healthy "up yours" for all the "you want a pony" responses); Dean has influenced me to make the effort, along with my own political stance: I am not a Democrat, I am anti-Republican.
If these rights are given by some "god" then how can they possibly be taken away?
I'm sick of the proselytizing: Stop jumping up and down in front of cameras and telling how good your religiousness is and live it--very quietly--in your own life. Or, better yet, get in the faces of the people who bring disrepute to your religiousness in the name of your own faith: They are the ones who need to hear it, no one else does.
