Liberal Fox Contributor Says Michelle Malkin Is Angry & ‘Probably Needs to Get Laid’

Liberal Fox News legal analyst Tamara Holder said Thursday that fellow network contributor Michelle Malkin is “angry” and “probably needs to get laid.”

“I don’t know her personally but I am not a fan of her debating style, I think that she probably needs to get laid,” Holder told host Don Imus on Fox Business Network. “She’s very angry.”

“Well not so well, but I’m not angry,” Holder said. “I cope with it in other ways.”

I think anyone who is desperate enough to sleep with Jessie Jackson Sr has no business lecturing anyone about their sex life.

Fox News Analyst (TAMARA HOLDER) Accused of Affair with Reverend Jackson
www.RushLimbaugh.com ^ | May 18, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:20:51 AM by Yosemitest

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2885581/posts

I am teaching argument to my AP class and I guess I let that filter into my thought process. Today’s idea of “argument” is shouting the other side down, destroying both their “argument” (if one is even presented) and, if possible, the person in the process. I use to refer to this as the “Phil Donahue” approach. Whoever shouts the loudest, gets the last word in, wins. These “arguments” make you feel good, but achieve next to nothing. It impresses the easily impressionable, gains a temporary foothold in the minds of those who choose not to think much on matters, but does not win them over to your side on any lasting terms.

If we are talking about true debate, you don’t win with pure pathos. I showed a film clip of Malkin “debating” Marc Lamont Hill from an O’Reilly segment (see link below) and, guess what? For all his wrong-headedness, for all his dearth of substance, the entire class deemed him the winner. Michelle was cutting him off (they acknowledged that he was doing the same, but felt that her disruptions were more egregious), she was raising her volume, she was snarling, her line of “reasoning” lacked a proper degree of inductive reasoning (sabotaging her ethos in the “debate”). Watching it, I had to agree with them. Michelle was embarrassing. I always enjoy reading her columns, but her inability to rein in her passion during televised segments (and I think this is true for many on our side), takes away from the strength of her reasoning. Just my view, to be sure. Watch the clip decide for yourself.

I’m not saying you EVER win a debate with a liberal, especially one who averts attention from the real point of argument. What I am saying is, if you want to win the argument, if you want to impress the judges; impress those who have come to hear both sides of the argument; impress those who look to the legitimacy of the arguments on both sides; win over those who are straddling the issue, you MUST NOT stoop to the level of the other side and become overly zealous. Heat burns; light illuminates.

This could be purely from an academic standpoint, but heat without light in an argument makes you the loser (if nothing more, a loser of a potential undecided turned ally), whether you think so or not.

Link to Malkin - Hill debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkWxcXGlnPc

"MarDav said: "We need to learn how to argue with less heat (and more light). " I don't agree. You can't debate sensibly with a liar. Liberals are liars. The liberal media are liars. We are seeing the solution to liberalism unfolding before our eyes. Indebtedness is spiraling out of control EVERYWHERE. Liberals are angry because they can't have their cake and eat it too. If you think people like me are angry, wait until the next generation gets going. When they realize how liberal Baby-Boomers have spent away the prosperity that should be theirs, their anger will know no bounds. I truly think that the day of reckoning is approaching. "

Agree 100%! The ONLY persuasive method true leftists understand is brute force. Leftists do not have any legitimate diplomatic facet in their makeup because they are dishonest about their true agenda which is to rule over other peoples lives with an iron fist.

Leftists all fall into one of two categories. The deceivers or the deceived. Tamara Holder is obviously the latter.

We should no longer even recognize these people in debate. The debate was over 200 plus years ago. We want to live free, and we must INSIST!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.