Video: Ingraham returns slams the chilling effect of free speech

[Faun]

With 650,000 Twitter followers and suggesting a boycott, that is bullying. A tactic used by the Leftists.

The left calls bullying free speech and free speech bullying. It IS a mental disorder.

What happened to rightard cries of there is no free speech at work??

 

[Faun]

She bullied a child. The attack was personal and had nothing to do with his views or his politics.

I thinks it’s laughable that this stupid ***** is complaining that she’s being “bullied”.

What teenager refers to himself or his peers as a child let alone a 17 year old male? Conservatives are targeted by the Leftists and Hogg or his Leftist handlers counciled him to call for that boycott.

LOLOL

It cracks me up watching you moronic hypocrites ***** and moan because some folks on the left call for boycotts of sponsors of Laura Ingraham’s show — when folks like you boycotted the NFL in protest of players’ kneeling during the National Anthem.

So it’s ok for you to bludgeon your political foes with boycotts but it’s not ok for the left to do that?

We never called for NFL sponsors to stop advertising, we just stopped watching NFL games. Exercising our freedom of association.

Exactly how rightarded are you?? The hell you didn’t go after their sponsors.

The purpose of the NFL boycott was to drive down ratings which would scare off advertisers. You know this because you said it yourself...

Let's go after the sponsors of NFL games. Even the advertisers won't like a 10% loss of viewership.

So it was ok for you to do it but it’s not ok with you when the left does it.

You do it, and you call it, “freedom of association,” We do it, and you call it “bullying,” not freedom of speech. The whiney Ingraham even called it, “Stalinist.”

How does it feel having a spotlight shined on your hypocrisy for all to see?

Trump also called for people to stay home and not attend games. Definitely aiming for the pocketbook, same as a sponsor boycott.

The only difference between Hogg’s boycott and Trump’s boycott are the sides supporting the respective boycotts.

Back then, it was “patriotic,” now it’s “Stalinist bullying.” What a bunch of whiney hypocrites they are.

 

[joaquinmiller]

What teenager refers to himself or his peers as a child let alone a 17 year old male? Conservatives are targeted by the Leftists and Hogg or his Leftist handlers counciled him to call for that boycott.

LOLOL

It cracks me up watching you moronic hypocrites ***** and moan because some folks on the left call for boycotts of sponsors of Laura Ingraham’s show — when folks like you boycotted the NFL in protest of players’ kneeling during the National Anthem.

So it’s ok for you to bludgeon your political foes with boycotts but it’s not ok for the left to do that?

We never called for NFL sponsors to stop advertising, we just stopped watching NFL games. Exercising our freedom of association.

Exactly how rightarded are you?? The hell you didn’t go after their sponsors.

The purpose of the NFL boycott was to drive down ratings which would scare off advertisers. You know this because you said it yourself...

Let's go after the sponsors of NFL games. Even the advertisers won't like a 10% loss of viewership.

So it was ok for you to do it but it’s not ok with you when the left does it.

You do it, and you call it, “freedom of association,” We do it, and you call it “bullying,” not freedom of speech. The whiney Ingraham even called it, “Stalinist.”

How does it feel having a spotlight shined on your hypocrisy for all to see?

Trump also called for people to stay home and not attend games. Definitely aiming for the pocketbook, same as a sponsor boycott.

The only difference between Hogg’s boycott and Trump’s boycott are the sides supporting the respective boycotts.

Back then, it was “patriotic,” now it’s “Stalinist bullying.” What a bunch of whiney hypocrites they are.

Do they come any other way?

 

[deanrd]

It's only free speech when she does it.

When a kid does it, it takes away Laura's rights.

 

[Faun]

What's "chilling" is how fast Hogg has gone from front page news to irrelevant. He accomplish getting Ingram kicked off the air for 10 days but besides that has'nt accomplished dick. Congress is not giving a s*** about David Hogg.

Whos not winning?

Hogg is motivating 17 year olds to register to vote when they turn 18. For which party do you think the vast majority of them are going to vote in November? Are you really that stupid to think he’s irrelevant when all you imbeciles are doing by attacking him personally is inspiring him to march forward that much harder??

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What did she say?

She mocked him for being turned down by four of the colleges he applied to.

No, she did not. She mocked him for whining about it. She also said it was no surprise he didn't get into UCLA given their low acceptance rate, even with his high GPA.

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news. She didn't say anything that warranted this firestorm.

 

[joaquinmiller]

She mocked him for being turned down by four of the colleges he applied to.

No, she did not. She mocked him for whining about it. She also said it was no surprise he didn't get into UCLA given their low acceptance rate, even with his high GPA.

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news.

"Whining" was her characterization, and it was intended to demean.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

She didnt even do anything out of line IMO Dont get involved if you cant take it. I mean, what kind of dumbass...?
It just shows what thin skin that child has. Also, those advertisers that got manipulated or towed that little twats line, is just as pathetic.

She didn't do anything out of line? Not for you or me dropping our turds of wisdom on USMB, but she is a professional adult pundit on national television. They are not supposed to cross the line into personal attacks of their opponents. Any who do should NOT be your hero.

All she did was mention that he whined about not getting into a few colleges. She also added that it was tough for anyone to get into UCLA, even with his GPA.

I'm sorry but I fail to see what all the noise is about.

Really? If it were your son that she was broadcasting to the world had been turned down to four colleges, would you feel that way?
We all know exactly what she was saying--that the kid is a loser.
I agree with the posters here who said it's time for everyone to move on. He's going to move on to knocking on doors and getting out the vote during the midterms. His moment in the spotlight is over, if I'm not mistaken. Ingraham and the rest of 'em need to let go of their grudge against him. Here at USMB I never enter a gun thread unless I'm ready for a good thrumping, but it shouldn't be like that in PUBLIC, on teevee. No.

Hogg himself broadcast to the world that he was turned down by four colleges. All she did was point out that he whined about it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, she did not. She mocked him for whining about it. She also said it was no surprise he didn't get into UCLA given their low acceptance rate, even with his high GPA.

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news.

"Whining" was her characterization, and it was intended to demean.

Even if it was, his remark that politicians are "pathetic fuckers who want to see more children killed" was not intended to demean? And Jimmy Kimmel's mocking of Melania's accent was that not intended to demean? I don't hear any of Ingraham's critics even mentioning that.

 

[Tilly]

No, she did not. She mocked him for whining about it. She also said it was no surprise he didn't get into UCLA given their low acceptance rate, even with his high GPA.

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news.

"Whining" was her characterization, and it was intended to demean.

Ruin her career, quick!!!

 

[joaquinmiller]

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news.

"Whining" was her characterization, and it was intended to demean.

View attachment 187326
Ruin her career, quick!!!

If she puts in a little effort, she can do that all by herself.

 

[Dragonlady]

She bullied a child. The attack was personal and had nothing to do with his views or his politics.

I thinks it’s laughable that this stupid ***** is complaining that she’s being “bullied”.

What teenager refers to himself or his peers as a child let alone a 17 year old male? Conservatives are targeted by the Leftists and Hogg or his Leftist handlers counciled him to call for that boycott.

Whether he calls himself a child is irrelevant. It’s what he is.

Hogg “targeted” Ingraham AFTER she launched her PERSONAL attack against him. Not because she’s a conservative, or because she was idealogocially opposed to what he was saying, but because she tried to bully him.

I realize Trump supporters love that Trump calls people silly names and insults them, and this is what now passes for political discourse by conservatives, but it’s crude and does nothing to advance anyone’s agenda.

If it takes children to get Republicans to stop flinging insults and bullying the opposition, I don’t care. It just has to stop. It accomplished nothing.

Bullying isn’t “free speech”. It’s just bad manners and lack of intellectual capability. It’s been the “go to” tool by the right for a long, long time.

 

[Faun]

She mocked him for being turned down by four of the colleges he applied to.

No, she did not. She mocked him for whining about it. She also said it was no surprise he didn't get into UCLA given their low acceptance rate, even with his high GPA.

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news. She didn't say anything that warranted this firestorm.

Hogg felt that it was a personal attack. You’re welcome to disagree with him but you’re in no position to tell him how to feel about it.

 

[Faun]

That was then...

Let's go after the sponsors of NFL games. Even the advertisers won't like a 10% loss of viewership.

This is now...

We never called for NFL sponsors to stop advertising, we just stopped watching NFL games. Exercising our freedom of association.

... any questions?

 

[OldLady]

. Any who do should NOT be your hero.

You mean like Maher, Griffin, Colbert, or the SNL Writer Katie Rich who attacked Baron Trump - an 11 year old kid, or how about .........etcetra and so fortgh ... right got it ... now stfu Mary Poppins

I have been watching Colbert and SNL for months and never have heard them say a word about Barron. Don't know who Maher or Griffin are.
If you've got examples I should see, can you link them?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, she did not. She mocked him for whining about it. She also said it was no surprise he didn't get into UCLA given their low acceptance rate, even with his high GPA.

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news. She didn't say anything that warranted this firestorm.

Hogg felt that it was a personal attack. You’re welcome to disagree with him but you’re in no position to tell him how to feel about it.

To begin with, I never said or suggested in any way that Hogg should feel one way or the other. Secondly, Hogg took it as a mocking of his not getting into these colleges and it simply was not. He conflated her words and meaning into something entirely different. So you'll forgive me if I'm not moved by his tantrums.

 

[joaquinmiller]

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news.

"Whining" was her characterization, and it was intended to demean.

Even if it was, his remark that politicians are "pathetic fuckers who want to see more children killed" was not intended to demean? And Jimmy Kimmel's mocking of Melania's accent was that not intended to demean? I don't hear any of Ingraham's critics even mentioning that.

One has nothing to with the other, but I encourage you to go after Jimmy Kimmel if you want.

Hogg said, "It's disappointing," and Ingraham characterized that as "whining" to devalue him and his opinions. He "hit back", as Trumpkins like to say. She had her say, he had his. I really don't get why righties are upset about it. If Ms. Ingraham is going to throw cow patties in cyberspace, she has to learn to take her lumps.

 

[Dragonlady]

She made the comment about UCLA in her “apology”, wherein she tried to justify attacking a 17 year old.

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news. She didn't say anything that warranted this firestorm.

Hogg felt that it was a personal attack. You’re welcome to disagree with him but you’re in no position to tell him how to feel about it.

To begin with, I never said or suggested in any way that Hogg should feel one way or the other. Secondly, Hogg took it as a mocking of his not getting into these colleges and it simply was not. He conflated her words and meaning into something entirely different. So you'll forgive me if I'm not moved by his tantrums.

And then you go on to tell us how Hogg should have interpreted her remarks.

While you’re entitled to defend her bullying any way you want, I’m free to think that she intended to shame and humiliate Hogg and expose him to ridicule. IMO, he responded in a much more mature, thoughtful and effective manner than Ingraham did.

See how I managed to make my point without calling you names and ridiculing your opinions. Ingraham should try that. This isn’t the first time she’s used her program to bully those she disagrees with, but I hope it’s the last.

 

[Tilly]

Wrong. This is the text of the original Tweet that sent Hogg over the edge:

"David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA...totally predictable given acceptance rates.)"

She mocked him for whining about it and even went on to acknowledge his high GPA.

To which he was offended and then exercised his freedom of speech to motivate folks to boycott her sponsors. Which she then framed as a “Stalinist” maneuver to rob her of her First Amendment rights. She’s actually bitching about the left employing thuggish vernacular to shame the right into silence by resorting to thuggish vernacular herself to shame the left into silence; because when the left spoke up against her, it hit her where it hurts — her pocketbook.

Irrelevant. I'm not disputing anyone's rights or excusing Ingraham's later words and actions. If Hogg and so many others had not misconstrued what she said and overreacted in the first place, it would have just been a hiccup in the news.

"Whining" was her characterization, and it was intended to demean.

Even if it was, his remark that politicians are "pathetic fuckers who want to see more children killed" was not intended to demean? And Jimmy Kimmel's mocking of Melania's accent was that not intended to demean? I don't hear any of Ingraham's critics even mentioning that.

One has nothing to with the other, but I encourage you to go after Jimmy Kimmel if you want.

Hogg said, "It's disappointing," and Ingraham characterized that as "whining" to devalue him and his opinions. He "hit back", as Trumpkins like to say. She had her say, he had his. I really don't get why righties are upset about it. If Ms. Ingraham is going to throw cow patties in cyberspace, she has to learn to take her lumps.

The bad lady said I whined. Bwahhhhhhhh.
Ruin her career, now! Bwahhhhhhh.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

HOGG is a WPOS.