Laura Ingraham losing advertisers after knocking David Hogg

[fskimospy]

Quite balsy of the same people who argue that businesses shouldn't have to sell to gay people if it violate their beliefs, now arguing that it's wrong to not advertise with someone if it violate their beliefs!

Almost have to admire them for executing such blatant dishonesty, and getting away with it. On the one hand maybe Democrats could win more elections if they adopted these vile tactics, but I'm not sure I'd want that. Actaully, I think it mainly works when your core message is demonizing supposed enemies, it probably wouldn't work as well for the Dem's message.

It's pretty par for the course as far as I can tell as conservatives think in tribal terms, not in terms of principle. They aren't worried about freedom of speech, they are worried about freedom for conservative speech. Conservatives hate it when people use their freedom of speech and association to not associate with businesses who prop up people like Laura Ingraham. Please note though that conservatives are perfectly comfortable with boycotts so long as conservatives are not the target of them.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

conservatives are perfectly comfortable with boycotts so long as conservatives are not the target of them.

#neverforget

 

[Vic]

It's pretty par for the course as far as I can tell as conservatives think in tribal terms, not in terms of principle. They aren't worried about freedom of speech, they are worried about freedom for conservative speech. Conservatives hate it when people use their freedom of speech and association to not associate with businesses who prop up people like Laura Ingraham. Please note though that conservatives are perfectly comfortable with boycotts so long as conservatives are not the target of them.

Conservatives are comfortable with anything so long as conservatives are not the target.

 

[Paladin3]

It's pretty par for the course as far as I can tell as conservatives think in tribal terms, not in terms of principle. They aren't worried about freedom of speech, they are worried about freedom for conservative speech. Conservatives hate it when people use their freedom of speech and association to not associate with businesses who prop up people like Laura Ingraham. Please note though that conservatives are perfectly comfortable with boycotts so long as conservatives are not the target of them.

Don't both "sides" do the exact same thing? I find hypocrisy evenly and thickly spread across the entire political spectrum.

 

[bshole]

It's pretty par for the course as far as I can tell as conservatives think in tribal terms, not in terms of principle. They aren't worried about freedom of speech, they are worried about freedom for conservative speech. Conservatives hate it when people use their freedom of speech and association to not associate with businesses who prop up people like Laura Ingraham. Please note though that conservatives are perfectly comfortable with boycotts so long as conservatives are not the target of them.

Interestingly enough, two black conservative women are accusing of Facebook of censoring them. Right wing radio is in full outrage mode over it.

More than 1.3 million Facebook users like the Diamond and Silk page, which features commentary from Fayetteville-area sisters Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway and Rochelle “Silk” Richardson. The page was created in December 2014.

The sisters said that they have been corresponding with Facebook since September about “bias censorship and discrimination,” alleging that Facebook is not sending notifications of new content to people who like or follow their page.

According to an April 6 post by Diamond and Silk, after months of back and forth communication, Facebook’s policy team told them in a message sent a day earlier that it had determined their content was “unsafe to the community.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...ns-blogs/under-the-dome/article208450464.html

 

[soundforbjt]

Interestingly enough, two black conservative women are accusing of Facebook of censoring them. Right wing radio is in full outrage mode over it.



http://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...ns-blogs/under-the-dome/article208450464.html

That’s the ones I referred to in post #170.

 

[fskimospy]

Interestingly enough, two black conservative women are accusing of Facebook of censoring them. Right wing radio is in full outrage mode over it.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/po...ns-blogs/under-the-dome/article208450464.html

Of course they are, members of the tribe are being censored and in this case, particularly high value tribal members because they can use it to shield conservatism from accusations of racism.

Again though this is all about the ends, not the means. They have no problem with censoring people, they have a problem with censoring conservatives.

 

[bshole]

That’s the ones I referred to in post #170.

Yea I typically don't read whole threads just the last page or two. Sorry if I stole your scoop.

 

[zinfamous]

Don't both "sides" do the exact same thing? I find hypocrisy evenly and thickly spread across the entire political spectrum.

see, that's your problem. The weight on either side isn't in any observable way equal.

 

[kage69]

#neverforget

Nope, doesn't count. Anyone who disagreed with Cheney and Dubya back then was a liberal.

Seriously though, republicans eat their own when convenient. Rolling away from proudly held principles is what they do, see Nov 2016. Eski is correct, and past boycott fallout in CA, ID, UT, and GA during Obama's office (which I've linked in this forum before) proves it.

 

[mikeymikec]

If this has already been posted, my apologies:

 

[FerrelGeek]

This is hilarious as libs do the same thing; but you're the holy and righteous ones, so it's all good. Hogg is putting himself out there in the arena of ideas, backed up by whoever is feeding him his lines and bankrolling his travel expenses when needed. He's fair game to be criticized for what he says and his actions. It's completely disingenuous for him to shoot his mouth off, then claim he's exempt from any form of criticism / rebuttal because he's just a child and a victim. Libs are the ones right now, especially millennials, trying to put the brakes on speech that they don't like.

I have a very dear friend who's the director of a large county library system on the east coast and is a staunch liberal; so much so that they nearly had a nervous breakdown the night Trump won the election. They recently attended a big library convention. We talked about and one of the things mentioned was a discussion on how librarians should, or shouldn't, take sides in the ongoing political mess that's going on right now. The older attendees were for staying neutral, providing equal information. The younger ones were of the opposite persuasion; they wanted to take sides and limit information that didn't conform to their (liberal) viewpoint. My friend was very concerned about their viewpoint.

I certainly have my issues with conservatives, but libs are bloody self-righteous hypocrites. The lib elites laugh when non libs bring up Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, but anyone with 2 honest brain cells can see that the current lib power brokers use that playbook masterfully.

It's pretty par for the course as far as I can tell as conservatives think in tribal terms, not in terms of principle. They aren't worried about freedom of speech, they are worried about freedom for conservative speech. Conservatives hate it when people use their freedom of speech and association to not associate with businesses who prop up people like Laura Ingraham. Please note though that conservatives are perfectly comfortable with boycotts so long as conservatives are not the target of them.

 

[fskimospy]

This is hilarious as libs do the same thing; but you're the holy and righteous ones, so it's all good. Hogg is putting himself out there in the arena of ideas, backed up by whoever is feeding him his lines and bankrolling his travel expenses when needed. He's fair game to be criticized for what he says and his actions. It's completely disingenuous for him to shoot his mouth off, then claim he's exempt from any form of criticism / rebuttal because he's just a child and a victim.

Straw man.

No one has said Hogg should not be criticized, simply that an adult mocking him for not getting into college is childish and unprofessional. What colleges he does or does not get into have no relationship to his views on gun control. If Ingraham wanted to rebut his views on gun control no one would have lifted an eyebrow. Instead, when she herself comes up for criticism she shrieks about how she's being oppressed and censored. Why? Because conservatives don't care about censorship or criticism. They care about conservatives being criticized.

Libs are the ones right now, especially millennials, trying to put the brakes on speech that they don't like.

Liberals are speaking out against speech they don't like, which is itself an exercise in free speech. As I predicted, you're totally supportive of free speech unless that speech is against conservatives.

 

[Amused]

If this has already been posted, my apologies:

Hypocriny: The act of being ironically hypocritical.

 

[HomerJS]

This is hilarious as libs do the same thing; but you're the holy and righteous ones, so it's all good. Hogg is putting himself out there in the arena of ideas, backed up by whoever is feeding him his lines and bankrolling his travel expenses when needed. He's fair game to be criticized for what he says and his actions. It's completely disingenuous for him to shoot his mouth off, then claim he's exempt from any form of criticism / rebuttal because he's just a child and a victim. Libs are the ones right now, especially millennials, trying to put the brakes on speech that they don't like.

I have a very dear friend who's the director of a large county library system on the east coast and is a staunch liberal; so much so that they nearly had a nervous breakdown the night Trump won the election. They recently attended a big library convention. We talked about and one of the things mentioned was a discussion on how librarians should, or shouldn't, take sides in the ongoing political mess that's going on right now. The older attendees were for staying neutral, providing equal information. The younger ones were of the opposite persuasion; they wanted to take sides and limit information that didn't conform to their (liberal) viewpoint. My friend was very concerned about their viewpoint.

I certainly have my issues with conservatives, but libs are bloody self-righteous hypocrites. The lib elites laugh when non libs bring up Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, but anyone with 2 honest brain cells can see that the current lib power brokers use that playbook masterfully.

Go ahead and defend the woman who outed gay kids in college. Sent letters to their parents. Ingraham is a vile human being

 

[mikeymikec]

I certainly have my issues with conservatives, but libs are bloody self-righteous hypocrites.

Says the guy who just spouted the conservative viewpoint with regard to Ingraham vs. Hogg without even the vaguest hint of critical analysis or independent thought, despite the fact that it's been countered a multitude of times already. Nice balanced viewpoint there.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is hilarious as libs do the same thing; but you're the holy and righteous ones, so it's all good. Hogg is putting himself out there in the arena of ideas, backed up by whoever is feeding him his lines and bankrolling his travel expenses when needed. He's fair game to be criticized for what he says and his actions. It's completely disingenuous for him to shoot his mouth off, then claim he's exempt from any form of criticism / rebuttal because he's just a child and a victim. Libs are the ones right now, especially millennials, trying to put the brakes on speech that they don't like.

I have a very dear friend who's the director of a large county library system on the east coast and is a staunch liberal; so much so that they nearly had a nervous breakdown the night Trump won the election. They recently attended a big library convention. We talked about and one of the things mentioned was a discussion on how librarians should, or shouldn't, take sides in the ongoing political mess that's going on right now. The older attendees were for staying neutral, providing equal information. The younger ones were of the opposite persuasion; they wanted to take sides and limit information that didn't conform to their (liberal) viewpoint. My friend was very concerned about their viewpoint.

I certainly have my issues with conservatives, but libs are bloody self-righteous hypocrites. The lib elites laugh when non libs bring up Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, but anyone with 2 honest brain cells can see that the current lib power brokers use that playbook masterfully.

Do you ever get tired of fighting the Great Straw War, year after year after year after year? Are you not ready to hand over the torch to a new generation of freedom fighters?

 

[Sunburn74]

If this has already been posted, my apologies:

Lol. Absolutely hilarious. The sheer hypocrisy of these guys. You can't make it up.

 

[kage69]

Klepper and Co. are bringing it! Saw this and felt it deserved a post.

Really says a lot about these talking heads and the attention span they expect from their prime demo - that Kathy Griffin thing wasn't long ago at all.

"Boycotts are like sexual assault allegations - they should only have consequences for liberals."

Bwa bwaa bwaaaaaaaaa

I like how he's trolling Alex Jones with the 'non organic energy suppositories' line lol

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Meanwhile Ace Hardware reversed their earlier decision to pull ads from her show.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Meanwhile Ace Hardware reversed their earlier decision to pull ads from her show.

Ace is the place with the homophobe hardware man/woman

 

[ch33zw1z]

Meanwhile Ace Hardware reversed their earlier decision to pull ads from her show.

I typically go there first for local stuff, but don't have to by any means, so I'll skip 'em for a while.

 

[dawp]

Lol. Absolutely hilarious. The sheer hypocrisy of these guys. You can't make it up.

that and the first amendment only prevents the government from making laws restricting speech, not the boycotts that results form said speech and righties always complain about free speech when the boycotts hit them.