my two cents. I would not change a thing. Lis provides ample opportunity for you to expose feminist hypocrisy, feminist lies, and feminarcissm. That is her role and you use her well. In Gonzman’s parlance-a target rich environment. You and Lis have good chemistry in your debating presence and for the masses that need entertainment to keep their interest, I believe this suffices. But the real value is the cluster bombs you can fire off whenever Lis provides you with the previous said opportunities. That is how a shift in thinking can occur with the viewers and THAT is where the real value lies. Posters here and across MND have reached a point where they have nothing better to do but discuss endless minutia instead of being real doers themselves. For them that is easier than taking action while at the same time allowing them to believe that they have actually accomplished something. You don’t need any Monday morning quarterbacking.

btw-you are still up 61% v 39%

Several people here commented on getting rid of Lis. Why? Because she’s not very good. End of story. Basically, if you can’t see it, they were complimenting you by stating that she’s not at your level. Do you always argue with people who are complimenting you? Or do you think you’re a lousy debater as well?

Besides, it was just a half-serious remark (not every comment has to have hours of thought to back it up). Again, I do not care at all whether or not Lis is replaced. I just think she is a lousy debater. Also, in case you didn’t notice (which it seems apparent that you didn’t) I also added that I don’t think you find a more worthy adversary anyway.

So, in summary, you’re making a big deal out of nothing. Case closed.

You have no definition or objective, you put no thought into replacing Lis, yet you commented anyway. Case closed.

Wiehl (whale?) is a woman. Thanks to “affirmative action” she probably gets paid more.

Maybe her head bobbing back and forth, complete with goofy looking grin, is because she had too much to drink before beginning the show.

Which is good for our Mr. Rudov. No matter who is in the other video box, he has a target-rich environment.

1. Quit being condescending. I read it. I don’t need to reread it. I didn’t much need to read it in the first place. I get it. We all get it. It ain’t that hard to get.
2. I have no strict definition. In fact, I don’t really care that much who your opponent is. My only point was that Lis is an awful debater. That’s all. Her best (perhaps only) arguments over the past two weeks were to tell you to “lighten up.” I never took a debate class in college, so I can only assume that such “arguments” are not exactly considered to be of the highest quality.
3. I have no objective. Again, I don’t really care. On the one hand, it would be nice to see you win a debate by actually having the arguments (which you do) and the ability to articulate them (which I haven’t been convinced of yet) on your side (Lis has neither) rather than simply winning by the equivalent of a forfeit as a result of having a such lousy opponent. There’s little satisfaction to be gained from a forfeit. To put it another way, it’s more satisfying to beat the Red Sox than the Devil Rays. On the other hand, a win is still a win, so whatever…Congratulations, you win. You beat Lis.

Anyway, I just think Lis is a poor debater. Case closed. I didn’t really put a great deal of thought into the implications of replacing her, nor do I care to.

I have three requests for you:

1. Reread my tutorial on TV 101 (see comment #34)
2. Define more-worthy adversary
3. Articulate your objective in replacing Lis as my adversary.

It is not a “dead asset”. It is typically the most valuable and important investment a man can make….and it is typically handed over to the woman in divorce.

And calling a house, the one asset virtually guaranteed to appreciate in value a “dead asset” should have resulted in a loss via instant disqualification. Seriously, do 39% of the viewers really think that women get “stuck” with a house after the divorce? That the guy, who just spent who knows how many years paying for the house and will likely be forced to continue paying on the house even though he no longer lives there, as well as for his own much smaller apartment, is the one who benefits from this situation? If the house is such a burden and a “dead asset,” why ask for it in the divorce proceedings? Seriously, the fact that even 39% of the viewers think she won this debate saddens me.

Regarding having a more-worthwhile adversary, I have two comments:

1. 39% of America believes Lis is right on. Yesterday, I spoke with a woman who, with her friends, is part of that 39%. They don’t think Lis is at all bitchy in her behavior with me.

2. If FNC presents me with a logical, reasonable, even-tempered adversary, she cannot, by definition, be a feminist. Moreover, she will tend to agree with me; there will be no debate and no ratings.

A little lesson in TV 101: good television is all about divisiveness, which yields ratings. So far, the “Marc vs. Lis” series has been a surprise success. Ratings, ratings, ratings. If people don’t like it, they will turn it off. They are turning it ON!

Lis is a prototypical feminist and the PERFECT adversary. She uses all the feminist touchstones, talking points, and lies — and becomes overly emotional and dramatic. I couldn’t dream of a better adversary. She helps make women look bad and men look good.

Don’t Get Married!

It’s a Lie – It’s a Trap
Marriage isn’t what you think it is. It’s a license you give the government that allows greedy opportunistic lawyers to steal everything you own. Here in America there are a lot of people making a lot of money splitting up relationships hunting for people like you to suck you dry.

The show would indeed be more interesting if Marc had a more worthy adversary.

Good call.

• COLUMN ARCHIVE
• Supreme Court: Landmark Decision Highlights Equal Pay for Equal Work
• Two Wrinkles on the Tanning Addiction: Skin Cancer and Lawsuits
• The Skinny on Job Discrimination
• Lis on Law: Questions Answered!
• Wedding Norms Challenged as Women Question Changing Names

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287723,00.html

Lis Wiehl joined FOX News Channel (FNC) as a legal analyst in October 2001. Currently an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law, Wiehl also serves as a legal commentator on National Public Radio’s All Things Considered.

Prior to joining FNC, Wiehl served as a legal analyst for KIRO-TV (CBS). From November 2000-February 2001, she provided legal analysis for NBC News. Before that, Wiehl held the position of principal deputy chief minority investigative counsel for the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Judiciary. Additionally, from 1990-1995, she served as an executive assistant at the United States Attorney’s office. Wiehl began her career as a litigation associate for Perkins Coie law firm.

Wiehl received her undergraduate degree from Barnard College in 1983 and received her Master of Arts in Literature from the University of Queensland in 1985. In addition, she earned her Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School in 1987. She is also the author of The 51% Minority — How Women Still Are Not Equal and What You Can Do About It.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77671,00.html
—

Selective opinions about Lis’ two books —

“The saddest part of this sorry book is the fact that it pretends to be written by an experienced trial lawyer. Ms. Wiehl has less experience at trying cases than most first year district attorneys. Wiehl has an amazing ability to sell herself. The problem is that there is very little to be gotten from such shallow waters. Worse still is the utter irrelevancy of so-called “lawyer lessons” given that lawyers suffer inordinately high divorce rates, alcoholism, depression and other stress-related illnesses. The best advice may well be that lawyers should tend to their garden and leave the rest of us to learn our own lessons. Now that is a winning strategy!”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0345469208/sr=1-1/qid=1183930222/ref=cm_rev_next/103-7756070-8931066?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11&qid=1183930222&sr=1-1

—

A Dim Bulb Speaks, June 8, 2007
By K. Keyes “git player” (Longmont, CO) – See all my reviews

“I’ve seen Lis on Fox debating Marc Rudov and others and she’s just not quick on her feet. She enters with a pre-planned argument and is quickly off balance when it deviates. If she were a good enough Manhattan lawyer she wouldn’t bother being on TV, but she gives good face.

I wouldn’t want her representing me in small claims court, let alone 51% of the population in the “Feminism 2.0″ movement.

The fact that she thinks she can perpetuate the myth that women make less money and are thus treated unfairly in a typically lawyer-esque fashion, with vague suppositions backed up with little data, gives one more of a hint of her grrrl power rather than actual brains. To her this would be a preponderance of the evidence for an all female jury to decide the verdict. “We find the defendant, every man that’s ever been born, guilty as charged!”

Woooooeee! You go girl!”

http://www.amazon.com/51%25-Minority-Women-Still-Equal/dp/0345469216/ref=bxgy_cc_b_img_b/103-7756070-8931066?ie=UTF8&qid=1183930222&sr=1-1

—

My opinion remains the same.

Marc needs a better girlfriend to facilitate his master debating.

Lis is just jerking him off….

“I hope you are joking about the chivalry comment.”

It’s too bad you have not read me as much as I have read you.

I-R-O-N-Y my comrade. I will be less subtle in the future. (Though that usually gets me banned…)

Ah well, you have Lis to deal with. My problems are trivial in comparison.

But then again, I’m not trying to sell any books. Or my brand.

(Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

I agree with you that… ” A woman has equality..”

What She lacks is a sense of justice.

Take Lis on about her comfort with seeing men debased, disgraced, and legally disenfranchised.

Ask her how she feels about her fellow cheerleaders — the elite high school skanks — being distressed about not finding husbands. Their “dreams?”

It’s her nonsequitors that reveal Lis’ true nature.

It’s a long shot Marc —

I’m asking you to provoke Lis into a momentary realization of her vacuous self.

She’ll smile… when you do that.

I hope you are joking about the chivalry comment. If you believe in chivalry, you are inviting massive trouble into your life. Good luck with that.

Listen to Tom Leykis read and discuss for one hour my article: “Chivalry Died in the Garden of Eden.” (If you do not have Windows Media Player, CLICK HERE)

A woman has equality; that means she has the right to say anything and behave any way she wants — and then deal with the resultant consequences. This is the life of an adult. If Lis wants to trash men on the public airwaves, she deserves the consequences.

If a man feels he must protect a woman from the realities and pains and costs of equality, it means he is insecure and doesn’t want her to have equality. Unfortunately, most male lawmakers, DAs, and judges are in this camp — which is why they constantly kill our civil rights.

“there is absolutely zero benefit for men to get married.”

A man needs marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.

i know, its not a nice way to conduct myself, but i am just a weak neanderthal, mired in my own insensitive maleness.