Conservatives are now attacking survivors of school shootings

[otto105]

Wow, need a tissue?

Why? None of US are desperate to be relevant to people who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

YOU might need a tissue with a side of Prozac, though.

Dude, you're desperate enough to stick a tongue up trump's ass.

 

[Faun]

Ask Laura Ingraham how well that worked for her?

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.

However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

Dumbfuck....

Bill O’Reilly’s ratings are soaring after the sexual harassment allegations

Is that supposed to be some sort of point?

LOLOL

Yeah. That you don’t get the point is not a good reflection on you.

 

[Faun]

Personally? I really don't give a shit what you believe. I always knew the brain-dead right wasn't attacking them for the positions they're actually taking.

Riiiiiight. You're telling us over and over again, "But they SAID they didn't want to repeal, so that should be good enough!" because you "don't give a shit" whether we believe that. Oookay, you go with that, Sparky.

Imbecile... you said the right is attacking them based on the right's delusions of what they think the Parkland kids' stand for -- not for what they actually stand for. Which is good of you. It represents a tacit confession on your part for why the right is so disturbingly attacking these kids who went through an unimaginable hell that no teenager should ever have to face.

No, I said the right is responding to their REAL agenda, despite their lies about their intent. I'll thank you not to try to force your ignorant words into my mouth.

I understand what you're saying but I've been exposed to rightardism long enough to know that it's completely deranged. You [the right, not necessarily you specifically] don't attack what they say; you attack what you think they mean.

And you [again, the right, not necessarily you specifically] do so because you can't reasonably attack their actual position so you have to invent a boogeyman the base will rally behind. Passing sensible gun regulations isn't going to rile the base and squash these kids like a bug; but convincing the base these kids are after your guns will.

You've played this same hand far too many times for it to cintinue working.

Like I said, ask Laura Ingraham how its working out for her.

I heard "I've been disagreed with enough to be convinced that anyone who does so is completely deranged." Was that what you meant to say?

We attack BOTH what they say, and where they're eventually trying to go with it. And no, we are not obligated to pretend that isn't their goal simply because they say so.

We do so because, unlike the left, WE actually have memories that go back farther than five minutes ago. We can remember the things various leaders on the left have said. We can remember the left's fondness for incrementalism. We can remember all the times we've been told, "We JUST want . . .", only to have the left come back over and over and over and "just" demand more each time.

To put it bluntly, we remember that you're a bunch of liars who can't be trusted. And we don't trust you.

To borrow your own phrase, you've played this same hand far too many times for it to continue working.

Like I said, the best thing you dimwits could have done for Laura Ingraham is to "destroy" her. And somehow, you never catch on to how "powerful" you aren't.

When it comes to liars, check out a mirror sometime. Meanwhile, all you have are you delusions of what you think they mean because they are not saying what you think they mean. And attacking them personally based upon your delusions is what rightards do. See Laura Ingraham for an example.

 

[Faun]

Wow, need a tissue?

Why? None of US are desperate to be relevant to people who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

YOU might need a tissue with a side of Prozac, though.

Aww, poor baby.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow, need a tissue?

Why? None of US are desperate to be relevant to people who wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire.

YOU might need a tissue with a side of Prozac, though.

Dude, you're desperate enough to stick a tongue up trump's ass.

DUDE, I never concern myself about the opinions of illiterates. If you could read well enough to matter, you would be able to tell that a) I'm not a dude (unless you know a lot of male Cecilies, uh duhhh) and b) my sig lines make it clear that I hold only slightly less disdain for Trump than I do for you.

So tell me, on a scale of dog shit to rancid dog shit, how much should I value your kneejerk "Trump supporter!" screeches?

Make that a tissue, a dose of Prozac, and an ESL tutor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her viewership went up 25%, so I'd say it worked pretty well for her.

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.

However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

Dumbfuck....

Bill O’Reilly’s ratings are soaring after the sexual harassment allegations

Is that supposed to be some sort of point?

LOLOL

Yeah. That you don’t get the point is not a good reflection on you.

That you think you have a point to get is not a good reflection on you.

 

[Faun]

Viewers don't pay her network, advertisers do.

First of all, Laura Ingraham doesn't do what she does to please the advertisers. She does it to have people listen to her. So if you really think it's meaningless to her that her viewership has gone up, you're a moron.

Second of all, the advertisers don't pay her network because they like her or they like Fox. They do it because she has a large audience they want to connect with. Which means that if the boycott is actually making her audience GROW, former and prospective advertisers are going to suddenly be a whole lot less interested in David Hogg's pissing and moaning about her.

However much you leftists want to congratulate yourself on how you "got" Laura Ingraham, the fact is that your little tantrum had the exact opposite effect. She still has a show, she has a larger audience listening to her viewpoint than before, and therefore she still has advertisers.

So why don't YOU tell ME "how well that worked" for YOU? What was it you folks achieved, again?

Dumbfuck....

Bill O’Reilly’s ratings are soaring after the sexual harassment allegations

Is that supposed to be some sort of point?

LOLOL

Yeah. That you don’t get the point is not a good reflection on you.

That you think you have a point to get is not a good reflection on you.

Ah, squawking back like a mindless parrot. Beats thinking, I suppose.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This thread has run its course. Closed