The fact that you even think this way is messed up. People are dead. Families and friends are mourning. There is nothing political in that. AT ALL. 

You must have been okay with all the republicans who died on 9/11, all who have been killed in OIF and OEF, all who die just because they see things differently than you do, politically speaking. That's what your statement sounds like. You're as jacked up as she is.

Consider the source of his post.. Disease minded liberal.. One of the many reasons why he'll never be taken seriously

"Disease minded liberal" is nothing but mud-slinging.  People sling mud at the other side in order to avoid an actual discussion of actual issues.   Your thought-leaders are trying to persuade you to refuse to engage intellectually with anyone who disagrees with you.   They're trying to make your default position: "people who don't think like us are evil and have no good ideas.  Clap your hands over your ears and don't listen."   Do you not see this? When you sling mud like that, you show yourself as intellectually WEAK and AFRAID. And all it does is muck up this message board with a bunch of stupid trash-talk.

---

You should read what I actually wrote. 

Are you are suggesting that she wouldn't have been fired if she was surrounded by like-minded people? There a difference between thinking something vs. saying it out loud for everyone to hear.

I'm saying all we know is she was fired. You are arriving at a conclusion based on bias, not facts. Do you not see the irony?

We also know what she said to get fired.

My conclusion was based on logical reasoning. Since your bias excludes considering that possibility, I will spell it out for you below. If there is any "bias" on my part it is from observing similar politics from CBS in the past (i.e. "fake but accurate"), which in itself is a logical basis for my conclusion.

1. Her position at CBS implied that she was intelligent enough to know not to offend her colleagues.
2. She would have not said something that she believed would offend her colleagues.
3. Therefore, she believed her colleagues were like minded people.
4. She was also intelligent enough to know what her colleagues would find offensive.
5. Therefore, her colleagues were like minded people.

I could be wrong about 1, 2, or 4, but I judge those highly likely to be true.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Consider the source of his post.. Disease minded liberal.. One of the many reasons why he'll never be taken seriously

"Disease minded liberal" is nothing but mud-slinging.  People sling mud at the other side in order to avoid an actual discussion of actual issues.   Your thought-leaders are trying to persuade you to refuse to engage intellectually with anyone who disagrees with you.   They're trying to make your default position: "people who don't think like us are evil and have no good ideas.  Clap your hands over your ears and don't listen."   Do you not see this?   When you sling mud like that, you show yourself as intellectually WEAK and AFRAID.   And all it does is muck up this message board with a bunch of stupid trash-talk.

Are you suggesting that someone who posts understanding for the comment “Republican gun toters who did not deserve sympathy" in reference to the shooting victims should be addressed in a well thought out logical manner?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I'm saying all we know is she was fired. You are arriving at a conclusion based on bias, not facts. Do you not see the irony?

We also know what she said to get fired.

My conclusion was based on logical reasoning. Since your bias excludes considering that possibility, I will spell it out for you below. If there is any "bias" on my part it is from observing similar politics from CBS in the past (i.e. "fake but accurate"), which in itself is a logical basis for my conclusion.

1. Her position at CBS implied that she was intelligent enough to know not to offend her colleagues.
2. She would have not said something that she believed would offend her colleagues.
3. Therefore, she believed her colleagues were like minded people.
4. She was also intelligent enough to know what her colleagues would find offensive.
5. Therefore, her colleagues were like minded people.

I could be wrong about 1, 2, or 4, but I judge those highly likely to be true.

First of all, you're basing your bias as being logical based on something that happened in the news division of CBS 13 years ago. Hayley Geftman-Gold was a lawyer and a Senior Counselor in the business end of CBS, had been there a year and may well not have known how her co-workers would feel about her remarks.

In short, your "logic" is full of holes and is really nothing more than a rationalization of your personal bias.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Consider the source of his post.. Disease minded liberal.. One of the many reasons why he'll never be taken seriously

"Disease minded liberal" is nothing but mud-slinging.  People sling mud at the other side in order to avoid an actual discussion of actual issues.   Your thought-leaders are trying to persuade you to refuse to engage intellectually with anyone who disagrees with you.   They're trying to make your default position: "people who don't think like us are evil and have no good ideas.  Clap your hands over your ears and don't listen."   Do you not see this?   When you sling mud like that, you show yourself as intellectually WEAK and AFRAID.   And all it does is muck up this message board with a bunch of stupid trash-talk.

Ugly people bag on pretty people. Dumb people bag on the intellectuals. People who are angry at their lot in life bag on everyone and everything that is not what they see in themselves. It comes down to a distinct lack of empathy nor care for the human condition in others.

---

"Disease minded liberal" is nothing but mud-slinging.  People sling mud at the other side in order to avoid an actual discussion of actual issues.   Your thought-leaders are trying to persuade you to refuse to engage intellectually with anyone who disagrees with you.   They're trying to make your default position: "people who don't think like us are evil and have no good ideas.  Clap your hands over your ears and don't listen."   Do you not see this?   When you sling mud like that, you show yourself as intellectually WEAK and AFRAID.   And all it does is muck up this message board with a bunch of stupid trash-talk.

Are you suggesting that someone who posts understanding for the comment “Republican gun toters who did not deserve sympathy" in reference to the shooting victims should be addressed in a well thought out logical manner?

He suggested nothing. He out right said what he thought about a disgusting comment from a disgusting person. Of course, you and your ilk would need to show a shred of consistency  to be outraged by one disgusting comment and not the other. The selective outrage from the right regarding anything they can split along party lines is the height of hypocrisy.

---

"Disease minded liberal" is nothing but mud-slinging.  People sling mud at the other side in order to avoid an actual discussion of actual issues.   Your thought-leaders are trying to persuade you to refuse to engage intellectually with anyone who disagrees with you.   They're trying to make your default position: "people who don't think like us are evil and have no good ideas.  Clap your hands over your ears and don't listen."   Do you not see this?   When you sling mud like that, you show yourself as intellectually WEAK and AFRAID.   And all it does is muck up this message board with a bunch of stupid trash-talk.

Ugly people bag on pretty people. Dumb people bag on the intellectuals. People who are angry at their lot in life bag on everyone and everything that is not what they see in themselves. It comes down to a distinct lack of empathy nor care for the human condition in others.

---

Are you suggesting that someone who posts understanding for the comment “Republican gun toters who did not deserve sympathy" in reference to the shooting victims should be addressed in a well thought out logical manner?

He suggested nothing. He out right said what he thought about a disgusting comment from a disgusting person. Of course, you and your ilk would need to show a shred of consistency  to be outraged by one disgusting comment and not the other. The selective outrage from the right regarding anything they can split along party lines is the height of hypocrisy.

Personally, I put agreeing that it's good the victims were killed because they are white Republicans in a class a lot more disgusting than calling someone a "disease minded liberal."

But that's just me. Disease minded liberals probably have a different opinion.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

We also know what she said to get fired.

My conclusion was based on logical reasoning. Since your bias excludes considering that possibility, I will spell it out for you below. If there is any "bias" on my part it is from observing similar politics from CBS in the past (i.e. "fake but accurate"), which in itself is a logical basis for my conclusion.

1. Her position at CBS implied that she was intelligent enough to know not to offend her colleagues.
2. She would have not said something that she believed would offend her colleagues.
3. Therefore, she believed her colleagues were like minded people.
4. She was also intelligent enough to know what her colleagues would find offensive.
5. Therefore, her colleagues were like minded people.

I could be wrong about 1, 2, or 4, but I judge those highly likely to be true.

First of all, you're basing your bias as being logical based on something that happened in the news division of CBS 13 years ago. Hayley Geftman-Gold was a lawyer and a Senior Counselor  in the business end of CBS, had been there a year and may well not have known how her co-workers would feel about her remarks.

In short, your "logic" is full of holes and is really nothing more than a rationalization of your personal bias.

Maybe in your world people still don't know how one's co-worker would feel after a year. In the places I've worked it only took a few weeks. 

And, if anything, CBS has swung way more to the left than they were 13 years ago. One thing Trump achieved was to sucker the mainstream media into giving up all pretense of objectivity.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

First of all, you're basing your bias as being logical based on something that happened in the news division of CBS 13 years ago. Hayley Geftman-Gold was a lawyer and a Senior Counselor  in the business end of CBS, had been there a year and may well not have known how her co-workers would feel about her remarks.

In short, your "logic" is full of holes and is really nothing more than a rationalization of your personal bias.

Maybe in your world people still don't know how one's co-worker would feel after a year. In the places I've worked it only took a few weeks. 

And, if anything, CBS has swung way more to the left than they were 13 years ago. One thing Trump achieved was to sucker the mainstream media into giving up all pretense of objectivity.

You're still on a disconnect between what is reported in the news division and the personal feelings of a legal counsel in their corporate office.

If anything, Trump has duped millions into discounting any criticism of him as fake news.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Maybe in your world people still don't know how one's co-worker would feel after a year. In the places I've worked it only took a few weeks. 

And, if anything, CBS has swung way more to the left than they were 13 years ago. One thing Trump achieved was to sucker the mainstream media into giving up all pretense of objectivity.

You're still on a disconnect between what is reported in the news division and the personal feelings of a legal counsel in their corporate office.

If anything, Trump has duped millions into discounting any criticism of him as fake news.

To be honest, it's hard for me to believe in this day and age of social media usage that her coworkers didn't have a clue as to her opinions. It's not she was hiding behind a fake name or a pseudonym. And lawyers are pretty assertive/aggressive by nature and love sharing their opinions so no one knowing just doesn't ring true. Add to that,  there are employers who can and will check social media accounts before they hire someone. Too many things to point in the opposite direction of your statement.

---

You're still on a disconnect between what is reported in the news division and the personal feelings of a legal counsel in their corporate office.

If anything, Trump has duped millions into discounting any criticism of him as fake news.

To be honest, it's hard for me to believe in this day and age of social media usage that her coworkers didn't have a clue as to her opinions. It's not she was hiding behind a fake name or a pseudonym. And lawyers are pretty assertive/aggressive by nature and love sharing their opinions so no one knowing just doesn't ring true. Add to that,  there are employers who can and will check social media accounts before they hire someone. Too many things to point in the opposite direction of your statement.

And yet, she was fired. Again, she doesn't work in the CBS news division, how is the perceived bias of CBS news any indication of co-worker acceptance of what she said? If they knew of her opinions, does that imply automatic agreement? Did her bosses know? Anyway, even if they did, show me a recent display of media bias at CBS so egregious it leads one to believe the corporate atmosphere encourages statements like what she made. Referring to all MSM as purveyors of fake news is easy, right?

Given Malabar's "logic", there were no "fine people" marching in protest against the removal of Confederate era statues in Charlottsville, because those chanting racist slogans felt comfortable their co-marchers were of like mind.

Wait a minute...maybe he's on to something.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Maybe in your world people still don't know how one's co-worker would feel after a year. In the places I've worked it only took a few weeks. 

And, if anything, CBS has swung way more to the left than they were 13 years ago. One thing Trump achieved was to sucker the mainstream media into giving up all pretense of objectivity.

You're still on a disconnect between what is reported in the news division and the personal feelings of a legal counsel in their corporate office.

If anything, Trump has duped millions into discounting any criticism of him as fake news.

1. A CBS employee made a hateful statement. JFC supported the sentiment behind the statement. Do you also support the sentiment behind her statement?

2. Corporate (her colleagues) are the ones who oversee the network. If the news division is biased, then corporate approves. This is not a difficult concept. Do you really not see that CBS has veered even further toward the left than they were 13 years ago?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

To be honest, it's hard for me to believe in this day and age of social media usage that her coworkers didn't have a clue as to her opinions. It's not she was hiding behind a fake name or a pseudonym. And lawyers are pretty assertive/aggressive by nature and love sharing their opinions so no one knowing just doesn't ring true. Add to that,  there are employers who can and will check social media accounts before they hire someone. Too many things to point in the opposite direction of your statement.

And yet, she was fired. Again, she doesn't work in the CBS news division, how is the perceived bias of CBS news any indication of co-worker acceptance of what she said? If they knew of her opinions, does that imply automatic agreement? Did her bosses know? Anyway, even if they did, show me a recent display of media bias at CBS so egregious it leads one to believe the corporate atmosphere encourages statements like what she made. Referring to all MSM as purveyors of fake news is easy, right?

Given Malabar's "logic", there were no "fine people" marching in protest against the removal of Confederate era statues in Charlottsville, because those chanting racist slogans felt comfortable their co-marchers were of like mind.

Wait a minute...maybe he's on to something.

If she had not said anything on social media then she'd still have her job. Actions have consequences. That really is the bottom line no matter how you look at it. 

As for her working for the network as opposed to the news division, does it really matter? No. What she said was extremely unprofessional and as someone who represents CBS as legal counsel..... Would you want your legal counsel publicly spouting that garbage? Even if it was said in private, if I found out someone who worked for me had those opinions regarding anyone of any political leaning they would be fired. This is the kind of crap (and those who defend it) that is infecting this country and dividing us more and more. 

I've thought since 9/11 that a foreign country or terrorists would destroy this nation, but we seem to be doing a fine job of it all on our own.

---

And yet, she was fired. Again, she doesn't work in the CBS news division, how is the perceived bias of CBS news any indication of co-worker acceptance of what she said? If they knew of her opinions, does that imply automatic agreement? Did her bosses know? Anyway, even if they did, show me a recent display of media bias at CBS so egregious it leads one to believe the corporate atmosphere encourages statements like what she made. Referring to all MSM as purveyors of fake news is easy, right?

Given Malabar's "logic", there were no "fine people" marching in protest against the removal of Confederate era statues in Charlottsville, because those chanting racist slogans felt comfortable their co-marchers were of like mind.

Wait a minute...maybe he's on to something.

If she had not said anything on social media then she'd still have her job. Actions have consequences. That really is the bottom line no matter how you look at it. 

As for her working for the network as opposed to the news division, does it really matter? No. What she said was extremely unprofessional and as someone who represents CBS as legal counsel..... Would you want your legal counsel publicly spouting that garbage? Even if it was said in private, if I found out someone who worked for me had those opinions regarding anyone of any political leaning they would be fired. This is the kind of crap (and those who defend it) that is infecting this country and dividing us more and more. 

I've thought since 9/11 that a foreign country or terrorists would destroy this nation, but we seem to be doing a fine job of it all on our own.

I'm not sure we are arguing with each other here, she should have been fired, and was. What Malabar was claiming was that she would have never tweeted what she did if she didn't think her co-workers agreed with her. I'm not sure what part of her getting fired supports this.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You're still on a disconnect between what is reported in the news division and the personal feelings of a legal counsel in their corporate office.

If anything, Trump has duped millions into discounting any criticism of him as fake news.

1. A CBS employee made a hateful statement. JFC supported the sentiment behind the statement. Do you also support the sentiment behind her statement?

2. Corporate (her colleagues) are the ones who oversee the network. If the news division is biased, then corporate approves. This is not a difficult concept. Do you really not see that CBS has veered even further toward the left than they were 13 years ago?

If the news division is generating profits, the corporate office approves. If you think they are driven by anything other than profit, you're naive.

I don't watch CBS news enough to know where they've veered. All I know is they had an employee lose her job for doing something stupid. Thjat's all you really know, too.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

If she had not said anything on social media then she'd still have her job. Actions have consequences. That really is the bottom line no matter how you look at it. 

As for her working for the network as opposed to the news division, does it really matter? No. What she said was extremely unprofessional and as someone who represents CBS as legal counsel..... Would you want your legal counsel publicly spouting that garbage? Even if it was said in private, if I found out someone who worked for me had those opinions regarding anyone of any political leaning they would be fired. This is the kind of crap (and those who defend it) that is infecting this country and dividing us more and more. 

I've thought since 9/11 that a foreign country or terrorists would destroy this nation, but we seem to be doing a fine job of it all on our own.

I'm not sure we are arguing with each other here, she should have been fired, and was. What Malabar was claiming was that she would have never tweeted what she did if she didn't think her co-workers agreed with her. I'm not sure what part of her getting fired supports this.

Gotcha. She should not have tweeted regardless, for sure.

---

If the NFL weren't taking the ratings pounding it is she would probably have retained her job. It seems the people have drawn a line in the sand on how far the Left can push, and the corporate powers aren't willing to cross it if it means another ratings hit. Everyone sees that America's cash cow isn't bulletproof when they really anger the public and that resets the playing field somewhat.

And when 9 out of every 10 members of the media are Democrats it's hard to believe the industry is anything but the party's house organ. And they PROVE it all the time.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If the NFL weren't taking the ratings pounding it is she would probably have retained her job. It seems the people have drawn a line in the sand on how far the Left can push, and the corporate powers aren't willing to cross it if it means another ratings hit. Everyone sees that America's cash cow isn't bulletproof when they really anger the public and that resets the playing field somewhat.

And when 9 out of every 10 members of the media are Democrats it's hard to believe the industry is anything but the party's house organ. And they PROVE it all the time.

What the hell does the NFL anthem controversy have to do with a reaction to the Las Vegas incident?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Ugly people bag on pretty people. Dumb people bag on the intellectuals. People who are angry at their lot in life bag on everyone and everything that is not what they see in themselves. It comes down to a distinct lack of empathy nor care for the human condition in others.

---

He suggested nothing. He out right said what he thought about a disgusting comment from a disgusting person. Of course, you and your ilk would need to show a shred of consistency  to be outraged by one disgusting comment and not the other. The selective outrage from the right regarding anything they can split along party lines is the height of hypocrisy.

Personally, I put agreeing that it's good the victims were killed because they are white Republicans in a class a lot more disgusting than calling someone a "disease minded liberal."

But that's just me. Disease minded liberals probably have a different opinion.

Both can be bad then I already noted you lack consistency. You also lack decency apparently. You guys continue to top your ability to parody yourself... It would be impressive if it was not so revolting but then, you know it is. That's why you said it.

---

If the NFL weren't taking the ratings pounding it is she would probably have retained her job. It seems the people have drawn a line in the sand on how far the Left can push, and the corporate powers aren't willing to cross it if it means another ratings hit. Everyone sees that America's cash cow isn't bulletproof when they really anger the public and that resets the playing field somewhat.

And when 9 out of every 10 members of the media are Democrats it's hard to believe the industry is anything but the party's house organ. And they PROVE it all the time.

What the hell does the NFL anthem controversy have to do with a reaction to the Las Vegas incident?

I'm sorry, who broadcasts NFL games on CBS? Surely it's not The WB...

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Personally, I put agreeing that it's good the victims were killed because they are white Republicans in a class a lot more disgusting than calling someone a "disease minded liberal."

But that's just me. Disease minded liberals probably have a different opinion.

Both can be bad then I already noted you lack consistency. You also lack decency apparently. You guys continue to top your ability to parody yourself... It would be impressive if it was not so revolting but then, you know it is. That's why you said it.

You were (and apparently still are) equating the two.

But just because you disagree that stating one is happy that Americans were killed because they were in a different political party is no worse than calling someone a "disease minded liberal" does not make you a disease minded liberal.

And I'm not exactly sure how the term "liberal" is considered an insult in your worldview.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"