Laura Ingraham vs David Hogg

[untermensche]

The woman is a complete asshole that appeals to complete assholes.

They gravitate around the Republican party.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Regardless of what you think of the politics of Ingraham or Hogg, there are some videos of of Hogg where is very abrasive. About as abrasive as Ingraham.

Seems like you're not even trying any more. Get back to us if he calls her a crack whore.

 

[fast]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the spirit of Holy Week, I'm praying to an imaginary deity that more sponsors bail on her.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The worst case scenario is that she'll have to leave television, and instead she'll make millions as a syndicated radio talking head, decrying the liberal media. As of right now, though, Fox News & Friends is standing by her, probably as some kind of compensation for all the Fox News & Friends men who harassed her.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the spirit of Holy Week, I'm praying to an imaginary deity that more sponsors bail on her.

The Chinese space station didn't crash into Mar-o-Lago, so... there is no god.

 

[RVonse]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

It does make you wonder if free speech is even the point. Entertainers like Ingram are probably just making calculated marketing (and financial) moves in what they have to say to get more audience versus what they can't say to keep the sponsors. And what they end up saying might not even be an authentic free speech position without regard to money considerations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Regardless of what you think of the politics of Ingraham or Hogg, there are some videos of of Hogg where is very abrasive. About as abrasive as Ingraham.

Seems like you're not even trying any more. Get back to us if he calls her a crack whore.

She called him a crack whore?

 

[ZiprHead]

Regardless of what you think of the politics of Ingraham or Hogg, there are some videos of of Hogg where is very abrasive. About as abrasive as Ingraham.

Seems like you're not even trying any more. Get back to us if he calls her a crack whore.

She called him a crack whore?

Yup. As was said, not even trying...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She called him a crack whore?

Yup. As was said, not even trying...

Well thats a lot worse than just making fun of him for not getting into his school of choice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She called him a crack whore?

Yup. As was said, not even trying...

Well thats a lot worse than just making fun of him for not getting into his school of choice.

Well thats a lot worse than just making fun of publicly ridiculing him out of the blue on Twitter, him a teen who was in the school that just had 17 people die in a massacre, for not getting into his school of choice, instead of offering some support, most likely because he dared to speak out against gun violence.

So much for "thoughts and prayers".

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

You cannot be serious. People who used to pay you to say whatever you want stop paying you and that's supposed be some infringement on your rights? Free speech is not 'expensive' - it's free. No one has a right to get paid for it.

aa

 

[repoman]

At any rate, the NRA and pro gun side should be more scared of Emma Gonzalez for the long term.

She is more cogent and persuasive than Hogg.

 

[fast]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

You cannot be serious. People who used to pay you to say whatever you want stop paying you and that's supposed be some infringement on your rights? Free speech is not 'expensive' - it's free. No one has a right to get paid for it.

aa

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not saying anything at all about rights being infringed upon. No one has done a single thing that alters anyone's right to speak as they please.

My little quip about free speech being expensive is right in line with what most people mean when they say that our actions are not without consequence. What a person says can cost them dearly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At any rate, the NRA and pro gun side should be more scared of Emma Gonzalez for the long term.

She is more cogent and persuasive than Hogg.

The NRA has nothing to worry about. They've trained their sheep very well.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I'm not up to speed on even the basics regarding the need for and flow of money regarding television shows as being discussed, but there is an apparent need to secure substantial advertising funds from sponsors, but if the successful continuation of a show depends in large part on securing those apparently much needed funds, and if successful people don't want to compromise in the sharing of their thoughts without their world crumbling down around them, they might want to put some better thought to their exposure to having a sponsorship makeup that can stand tough alongside them.

Like a marketing mix idea, there cannot be a whopsided squeamishness of sponsorship for continued success without having to self-impose a serious curtail to the expression of one's thoughts and views--again, without putting your financial world at grave risk.

Otherwise, free speech can be mighty expensive.

You cannot be serious. People who used to pay you to say whatever you want stop paying you and that's supposed be some infringement on your rights? Free speech is not 'expensive' - it's free. No one has a right to get paid for it.

aa

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not saying anything at all about rights being infringed upon. No one has done a single thing that alters anyone's right to speak as they please.

My little quip about free speech being expensive is right in line with what most people mean when they say that our actions are not without consequence. What a person says can cost them dearly.

Actions are not without consequence, that's true. But if you are being paid to speak, it was never 'free' to begin with.

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not saying anything at all about rights being infringed upon. No one has done a single thing that alters anyone's right to speak as they please.

My little quip about free speech being expensive is right in line with what most people mean when they say that our actions are not without consequence. What a person says can cost them dearly.

Actions are not without consequence, that's true. But if you are being paid to speak, it was never 'free' to begin with.

aa

Yeah, no one here is being paid to offer our opinions here.

What I think is funny is that fast is passive aggressively defending Laura for bullying comments she made on Twitter against a student at a school that was shot up... because he, himself, dared to speak his mind. Words he wasn't paid for.

 

[Elixir]

I never said anything of the sort. I'm not saying anything at all about rights being infringed upon. No one has done a single thing that alters anyone's right to speak as they please.

My little quip about free speech being expensive is right in line with what most people mean when they say that our actions are not without consequence. What a person says can cost them dearly.

Actions are not without consequence, that's true. But if you are being paid to speak, it was never 'free' to begin with.

aa

Yeah, no one here is being paid to offer our opinions here.

WHAT? You didn't get your check? Better contact Ziprhead!

What I think is funny is that fast is passive aggressively defending Laura for bullying comments she made on Twitter against a student at a school that was shot up... because he, himself, dared to speak his mind. Words he wasn't paid for.

Oh, but he was paid handsomely - with fame. Fortune to follow; just ask Ted Nugent (or any other Sinclair Broadcasting shill) whose "free speech" in the form of crappy so-called music has netted him lots of both.

 

[dismal]

Well, let's hope imbuing this kid with some special moral authority based on some random event works out better for the left than it did with Cindy Sheehan.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, let's hope imbuing this kid with some special moral authority based on some random event works out better for the left than it did with Cindy Sheehan.

We have faith in The Hogg. The Hogg will not fail us.