• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You agree with this posterH

Your choices are/


  • Total voters
    51
There is a standard already, those people who hire have the right to fire. It's very simple, no legislation is required. Firing him would be seen as squelching free speech.

:2rofll:
 
more gaping stupidity

tsk tsk.

Coulter graduated near the top of her class at Cornell (far higher than say Bill Maher for example)
then she was a NON RESIDENT successful applicant to Michigan Law (getting into U M as an out of state applicant in 1983 was about the same as getting into Stanford or Harvard). There she graduated as an editor of the law review and order of the coif and then she clerked for the second highest court in the land and then on to the DOJ Honors program. Her academic credentials are equivalent to most tenured professors at places like Duke, Cornell or Columbia Law schools.

Yeah, but all that was probably back when (s)he was still a man.
Seriously, with those credentials what the hell happened to her self-esteem. Maybe it's not just the price or the glitter, maybe she actually likes the company she's keeping now.
Bless her empty head.

Far far smarter than the liberal talking heads who bash her. far far smarter than most of the people on this board

I'm very, very impressed. Really, really. I'll never, ever misunderestimate her again.
 
1. He should have been fired.
2. He can shove the apology up his ass.
3. Neither 1 nor 2
4. I Don't care.

Whether or not he should have been fired is entirely up to his superiors, and is nobody else's domain.

As for his apology, the man spent 2 rather eloquent minutes prostrating himself before the viewing public. I'm satisfied.
 
tsk tsk.



Yeah, but all that was probably back when (s)he was still a man.
Seriously, with those credentials what the hell happened to her self-esteem. Maybe it's not just the price or the glitter, maybe she actually likes the company she's keeping now.
Bless her empty head.



I'm very, very impressed. Really, really. I'll never, ever misunderestimate her again.

Its fun watching lefty haters post idiocy about people who are smarter than the lefty idols
 
Its fun watching lefty haters post idiocy about people who are smarter than the lefty idols

Funny too, watching turtles backpedal from personal insults to generic slurs. It's a little unclear, though- am I a lefty who hates or do I hate leftys? I'd hate to have a sinister misunderstanding.
 
Funny too, watching turtles backpedal from personal insults to generic slurs. It's a little unclear, though- am I a lefty who hates or do I hate leftys? I'd hate to have a sinister misunderstanding.


You just posted something stupid about a very smart conservative
 
My only comment is that if anyone on FOX ever said anything like this the libs would be calling for his head on a platter.

And I bet Fox would have fired them on the spot.
 
I know it comes down to opinion, but this sounds pretty vile to me.


Definitely hard hitting - definitely controversial - but vile? Not in my view.

She was asked a question about the content of one of her books and she spoke about the issue rationally and passionately and her argument seemed to be pretty good. Lauer clearly wanted her to bend to his view and she had no intention of doing so. I thought she was fine until the end when she started to whine and claimed Lauer was "getting testy with her". That's usually the MO of the liberal who's losing an argument and doesn't look good on a confident conservative woman.

I think her point is an interesting one. Don't you find it a little disconcerting that the media and liberals love to use people who suffer tragedies as props for their political agenda? They do it all the time. Just recently, it was the Sandy Hook parents as props for gun control.

Liberals believe every discussion can be won by silencing opposition - and their favorite MO for silencing opposition is to use people in this emotional way. I find Coulter's comments about as uncomfortable as I find using the parents of dead children. Neither, however, is vile, in my view.
 
Definitely hard hitting - definitely controversial - but vile? Not in my view.

She was asked a question about the content of one of her books and she spoke about the issue rationally and passionately and her argument seemed to be pretty good. Lauer clearly wanted her to bend to his view and she had no intention of doing so. I thought she was fine until the end when she started to whine and claimed Lauer was "getting testy with her". That's usually the MO of the liberal who's losing an argument and doesn't look good on a confident conservative woman.

I think her point is an interesting one. Don't you find it a little disconcerting that the media and liberals love to use people who suffer tragedies as props for their political agenda? They do it all the time. Just recently, it was the Sandy Hook parents as props for gun control.

Liberals believe every discussion can be won by silencing opposition - and their favorite MO for silencing opposition is to use people in this emotional way. I find Coulter's comments about as uncomfortable as I find using the parents of dead children. Neither, however, is vile, in my view.
You lost me when you started generalizing an entire political party. That's a petty tactic that shuts down all rational discussion. She could have made her argument without being disrespectful to the woman who lost their men. Her lack of respect for them is what's vile. People who suffer tragedies should be able to have opinions without being called "props" because their views align with a particular party. I guess the moral of the story is when someone suffers a traumatic event, and they have an opinion on it, they best keep their mouth shut if it the right or the left agrees with it.
 
You lost me when you started generalizing an entire political party. That's a petty tactic that shuts down all rational discussion. She could have made her argument without being disrespectful to the woman who lost their men. Her lack of respect for them is what's vile. People who suffer tragedies should be able to have opinions without being called "props" because their views align with a particular party. I guess the moral of the story is when someone suffers a traumatic event, and they have an opinion on it, they best keep their mouth shut if it the right or the left agrees with it.

You clearly didn't understand what she was saying or you didn't listen to the comments she made. She didn't disrespect them for their opinions - she disrespected them for using their loss as a cudgel against any who disagreed with their opinions. They were paraded out by Democrats to speak against all kinds of Bush era initiatives as if their personal loss made them unassailable experts on every policy topic going forward. These women were respected and honored for their loss, as were many others who suffered loss that day, and their grieving their loss was widely respected - as was and is the loss suffered by parents and family members who lost children or loved ones at Sandy Hook. It is objectionable to me and others when the Democrat party then persuades these individuals or these individuals allow themselves to be used as props - yes props - for the liberal/Democrat party agenda. And to be clear, these women were not just used by Democrats to speak about 9/11 - they were also used as props to speak against a large number of tangential national security issues, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other Democrat party agenda items.

It's far more vile, in my opinion, to use those who have suffered loss in such a way than to point out the absurdity of them being used as props.

BTW, you've actually done a pretty good job of proving Coulter's point and my point too. You jump to the emotional dismissal of any counter argument by trying to shame people into silence against the words of someone who "suffers a traumatic event".
 
That's your answer? A subject about something someone said on MSNBC and you respond with "blah blah Fox".

Some moderate. Denial is an ugly thing.

I don't condone what was said. I'm simply pointing out that it seems irrational to bash one side while their own is doing the same exact thing. MSNBC is a load of trash, so if anybody takes what is said there seriously then they need to loosen up.
 
I don't condone what was said. I'm simply pointing out that it seems irrational to bash one side while their own is doing the same exact thing. MSNBC is a load of trash, so if anybody takes what is said there seriously then they need to loosen up.
I take it as serious trash, which loosens me up every time I sit down on my porcelain throne. ;)
 
So you say, when I was at Ft. McPherson the boots were made in china. There was talk about them making our uniforms too. I am retired now so I don't know how that worked out, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Boots in the PX or the boots being issued? There's a difference. You can buy open market boots that will meet Army specs that are made in China in any PX. I'm talking about issued gear that the DOD has purchased.
 
Its fun watching lefty haters post idiocy about people who are smarter than the lefty idols

I don't care how smart she is. She's a vicious, bile-spewing asshole.
 
Boots in the PX or the boots being issued? There's a difference. You can buy open market boots that will meet Army specs that are made in China in any PX. I'm talking about issued gear that the DOD has purchased.

I was talking clothing sales. I have no idea what they issue in reception stations. Actually at Ft. McPherson before they closed the post down and FORSCOM moved to Ft. Bragg, the PX took over clothing sales. The boots were made in China.
 
I don't care how smart she is. She's a vicious, bile-spewing asshole.

you forgot one thing

She's a very RICH vicious bile spewing asshole
 
Multiple choice


1. He should have been fired.
2. He can shove the apology up his ass.
3. Neither 1 nor 2
4. I Don't care.

He should have been fired. No questions asked. I mean come on...they fired Alex Baldwin for using anti gay slur...this guy did something 10 time worse...and wasn't even suspended for it :doh
 
Boots in the PX or the boots being issued? There's a difference. You can buy open market boots that will meet Army specs that are made in China in any PX. I'm talking about issued gear that the DOD has purchased.

They seem pretty much the same. I kept one pair from basic even though I replaced my primary pair. Other than being obnoxiously more heavy...there's not much difference lol

Now I need to replace the pair I was using :(
 
And that's the only thing that matters, right? C.R.E.A.M. Dolla dolla bill y'all.

she is a success at what she does. Coulter is very bright. If she wanted to-she probably could have been a chaired law professor at schools she attended such as Cornell or U of M. she probably could have been a Circuit Judge. She instead chose to be a bomb thrower. and she is good at it.
 
she is a success at what she does. Coulter is very bright. If she wanted to-she probably could have been a chaired law professor at schools she attended such as Cornell or U of M. she probably could have been a Circuit Judge. She instead chose to be a bomb thrower. and she is good at it.

Good at it?

Who new is she convincing? She is simply reassurance and comfort for those already on the far right and I suspect most of them were there before she ever showed up. And I suspect you do not have to be "good at it" to reassure that crowd of extremists to keep them marginalized like they are.
 
Good at it?

Who new is she convincing? She is simply reassurance and comfort for those already on the far right and I suspect most of them were there before she ever showed up. And I suspect you do not have to be "good at it" to reassure that crowd of extremists to keep them marginalized like they are.

she keeps people who feel as you do agitated. That is what she is good at. she is very wealthy due to the turmoil she causes among the left-wingers
 
she keeps people who feel as you do agitated. That is what she is good at. she is very wealthy due to the turmoil she causes among the left-wingers

She has no impact upon me at all. She is only wealthy as she makes money from the kind of partisan vitriol that comes from the far right. She gets not a penny from me.
 
She has no impact upon me at all. She is only wealthy as she makes money from the kind of partisan vitriol that comes from the far right.

I guess you are unaware of the far left vitriol that comes from far less academically successful Cornell alums-Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann as well as that from Chris (I jazzed my shorts thinking of Obama) Mathews or Rachel MadCow
 
Back
Top Bottom