OUTRAGEOUS: NBC News Host Calls Laura Ingraham 'Right-Wing Slut'

reply to post by mishigas


well thank you. i would like to think of my self as one but sadly today a "normal american" is divided. its turned into a sport. one team verses an other and the trophy is our lives and country.

i decided to devise a pledge of allegiance that better suits the times we live in

I pledge allegiance to the television of the divided people of America.
and to the Federal government for which it is controlled.
One nation, under the police, widely divided with social justice and debt for all.

sounds about right?

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

Both sides do # like this.

Does that somehow make it right?

I mean, doesn't Rush Limbaugh pull crap like this all the time on his show?

You don't listen to Rush, it's obvious, or you wouldn't make such a (false) statement.

How about when Glen Beck threw a temper tantrum and yelled down that lady about Healthcare reform on his radio show?

Did he call her a slut? Hotly debating an issue is not the same as calling a female a slut.

Who cares, as far as I can tell Laura Ingraham is a pretty horrible person.

You mean, "as far as what other people have told me", don't you? Otherwise you'd list what makes her horrible.

And once again (man, I'm getting tired of saying this!), how does that make it right to call her a slut?

Also, as far I can tell the radio format for both sides is nearly identical, in personalities, format, etc. Just further proof that it's a rigged two party system. It's like really bad theater.

Stick with the theater. Politics and manners are not your forte'.

Did they ever figure out whether she is?

reply to post by Lysergic


Whether she is what?

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by caladonea

 

It makes me wonder.... if he has (maybe several times) propositioned her for an intimate encounter...and she has continuously turned him down...thus his anger towards her...I'm just saying..

Possible, possibool...I'm sure he has had a lot of experience handling rejection.

Your thought process is totally off the wall. Undisciplined and subjective, highly-partisan conjecture like this is nowhere near a "truth", by any means.
What average man, with a normal testosterone level, would fantasize about any intimate encounter with this emasculating "entity"??? Please...

mishigas, he actually called her a "right-wing slut" and "talk slut" whatever the hell that even means. I'm just a little bit tired of people acting outraged over stupid crap like this. Both of them are public figures that have over the top personalities and say inflammatory stuff. I've seen enough of Laura Ingraham on TV to form my own opinion of her thank you very much. She comes across as very rude, condescending etc. and I sure don't feel sorry for her and I really doubt she even cares, in fact she probably loves the attention it's getting her. These people are not like you or I.

As far as Rush goes, here is a sampling -

“[African Americans] are twelve percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

To a black caller: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (NOT offensive AT ALL! :lol

“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act… This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” (WTF? People listen to this guy?)

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too."

I just don't understand how people can still, in this day and age swear blind allegiance to one of the two major parties to the point where something like this gets them so angry. It's scary stuff! As far as politics go, maybe politics aren't my forte, I honestly wish they didn't impact my life at all, but that's not the case.

reply to post by QueSeraSera

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by caladonea



It makes me wonder.... if he has (maybe several times) propositioned her for an intimate encounter...and she has continuously turned him down...thus his anger towards her...I'm just saying..

Possible, possibool...I'm sure he has had a lot of experience handling rejection.

Your thought process is totally off the wall. Undisciplined and subjective, highly-partisan conjecture like this is nowhere near a "truth", by any means.
What average man, with a normal testosterone level, would fantasize about any intimate encounter with this emasculating "entity"??? Please...

Wow! Did we touch a nerve?

As for your question, some men like strong, capable women. They consider them partners in life. And some men are intimidated by an intelligent, successful woman, and feel emasculated by them. They tend to seek out mousey, submissive women that they can control. It makes up for a lack of control they feel in their lives.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

mishigas, he actually called her a "right-wing slut" and "talk slut" whatever the hell that even means. I'm just a little bit tired of people acting outraged over stupid crap like this.

What an odd position to take. You get tired of people's reactions to rude behavior, and you further excoriate the victim in this incident, but you don't say a word about ES or his behavior? It sounds like you condone his behavior, or even support it because she is such a 'horrible person'?

As far as Rush goes, here is a sampling -

“[African Americans] are twelve percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

I agree. So what? Who cares how many there are?

To a black caller: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.” (NOT offensive AT ALL! :lol

I don't know the whole context of this, although it does sound funny! I'll have to research it.

“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act… This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” (WTF? People listen to this guy?)

You obviously never did any more looking after your kneejerk reaction, did you. Michael actually said he sometimes doesn't take his medicine so that the effects of his disease would be 'enhanced'.

"Too many whites are getting away with drug use...Too many whites are getting away with drug sales...The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them, and send them up the river, too."

What exactly is wrong with that statement?

I just don't understand how people can still, in this day and age swear blind allegiance to one of the two major parties to the point where something like this gets them so angry. It's scary stuff!

What does that mean? Are you trying to imply that only Republicans got upset about this? Tell me that's not what you are saying, please. I would hate to think that is the case.

I can't stand the guy. Period.
However, he did apologize, and it certainly seemed sincere.

reply to post by Oaktree


It looks like your link is messed up...

Quite an apology, I actually felt sorry for him.
I do wonder if that was an effort to save his job?

Is he now off the show?
Indefinitely?

mishigas, I'm not condoning what he said, I'm not a fan of Schultz. My point is I find it a little ridiculous that people act outraged over stupid things like this (two on-air personalities going at each other). It's all (really bad) theater to further divide people, and it sure seems to be working with you.

"I don't know the whole context of this, although it does sound funny! I'll have to research it." Yeah, it's real funny if you're a racist maybe!

So you don't find that obvious racist comment offensive at all? But you find Schultz's comment about one person, who happens to be a public on-air personality offensive? This is the scary stuff I'm talking about!

As for his comment about white drug abusers, Rush is a drug abuser. So I guess he should be locked up according to his own words, right? Republicans are all about personal responsibility, right?

You totally missed my point in the last paragraph. You could try to re-read it but I don't know if it would do any good.

What do you expect from a fat ugly small-peckered asshat ?

Schultz's tiny brain with low IQ really has no capability to produce an intellectually constructive debate format, thus he has no other alternative except ad hominems and logical fallacies.

This comes as no surprise.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

mishigas, I'm not condoning what he said, I'm not a fan of Schultz. My point is I find it a little ridiculous that people act outraged over stupid things like this (two on-air personalities going at each other). It's all (really bad) theater to further divide people, and it sure seems to be working with you.

How do you know what is false outrage and what is genuine? Maybe this is one of the first experiences a young person has had with media rudeness. What are they to think?

"I don't know the whole context of this, although it does sound funny! I'll have to research it." Yeah, it's real funny if you're a racist maybe!

So you don't find that obvious racist comment offensive at all? But you find Schultz's comment about one person, who happens to be a public on-air personality offensive? This is the scary stuff I'm talking about!

As I said, context. How do I know that Rush and his caller weren't old friends who good naturedly used racial epithets against each other? Haven't you ever heard a white guy say "Hey, n_____ ! to some black guy just before they clasped hands in one of their weird handshakes?

Don't be so scared of everything, friend. And I fully expect you to come back with an "I'm not your friend!" so just know I use the term congenially.

As for his comment about white drug abusers, Rush is a drug abuser. So I guess he should be locked up according to his own words, right? Republicans are all about personal responsibility, right?

I guess so, though I'd hate to see that happen.

You totally missed my point in the last paragraph. You could try to re-read it but I don't know if it would do any good.

I don't think so..it's pretty obvious you were classifying this as false rage, and segmenting it according to party affiliation.

Something about his apology made me laugh.

He said he tells his kids that, 'you have to be a decent person
to be successful in life'.

Here on Earth the person who is decent doesn't succeed, I've never
seen a truly nice person in any really successful or important position.

The old saying goes, "nice guys finish last" and it is a truism.

His apology was a nice piece of acting though, kudos on that
performance.

reply to post by mishigas


I happen to agree, he should be dismissed over this.

Not because he's WRONG, mind (except that sluts have fun; she's a different four-letter word that sorta rhymes with "bundt pan") but because it's a severe lack of professionalism to be so blunt about it. I mean c'mon, some things you have to be a little subtle with. even if they're completely true and obvious to all observers.

You know... a lot of this could be resolved if people would just listen to half the people they "hate" on.

I've listened to Beck, Hannity, Savage, Bortz, and Ingraham - I don't always agree with everything, and Beck always used to annoy me when he would take a low pass by performing various antics in the background of an audio clip he was making fun of. It was for entertainment purposes - but I really didn't find it entertaining.

Savage can't stand Beck, and is pretty heavy-tongued when it comes to speaking his mind. Just don't bring up barbeque and you'll be fine... otherwise you'll hear about how it causes stomach cancer for half an hour before he settles back down.

Bortz is pretty level headed and is one of my personal favorites to listen to. He gets it - genuinely - he's a backer of the Fair Tax proposal and likes to keep issues of the government in government issues and out of moral issues (he's not of the opinion the government should get involved in abortion or gay marriage - and often says the republicans need to drop that issue or get eaten alive in debates and polls). He knows the political game.

Hannity is a little more into the same category as Bortz. Hannity seems a bit younger than Bortz and seems to fall victim to a little more idealism - but the two occasionally appear on each others' shows to a pretty interesting effect. The only down side to listening to Hannity is that he's just big enough to require advertising support - and I get kind of tired of hearing scripted advertisements come out of his mouth - even if he does slip them in at very clever times. It is what it is - but it kind of detracts from the show.

Ingraham is often too caught up in chasing ideals for me, and occasionally takes a low pass by mocking an audio-clip... not nearly as childish as the way Beck did - but I don't see it as being true to her demeanor. Though Michelle Obama's mother occasionally calls into the show, so that is rather interesting.

Everyone gets a little carried away at times and says things they shouldn't. You would think people who get air time would have a little stronger of a filter between their brain and mouth that forbid such gross insults to other people - but, broadcast hosts and hostesses just aren't made like they used to be.

Let's face it - if we all had a microphone on us for an hour of the day, every day, we'd have some pretty hateful things that could be played back for us. It happens.

Getting all wound up about "right wing" and "left wing" is just silly. We each have political ideological differences. As a conservative - I can end the argument by saying that liberals are simply misguided and incorrect in many of their political views. We don't need to jump all over them every time they make a verbal slip up, too.

Originally posted by mishigas
There are only a couple of reasons someone would change that drastically. Maybe the network gave him big bux to talk lib-way. Or maybe he has undergone a life-changing event which made him angry at the right? Foreclosure, and he blames it on Bush?

That does not sound like an accurate assessment of what I have seen. This happened slowly, over time. It is not at all beyond imagination to believe that his ego was directly impacted by the change from broadcasting your own radio show to being treated special as a television show host. Now he has a lot more than just his wife telling him how right he is. Over time, his personality became more self righteous and abrasive. I started to think a while ago that he was a decision that both MSNBC and Rachael Maddow would come to regret. I think that time is getting closer. Then again, maybe this will knock him back down a little. Time will tell.

MSNBC is obviously reactionary to FOX but for the most part I think Ed is the worst of the bunch and at least way back in the old days, I could listen to him and even...agree... from time to time.

The poor woman ...
Have any of you guys seen this video with Alex Jones interviewing Evelynn the Rothschild?
Now that is one embarassing..

I can't find it on youtube anymore though...

More on cue mind fodder to get distracted by and with.
It diverts attention away from the knife thats pressed against your back.
Its sensational and emotive and still overpowers logic and focus, a great and useful tool to divide.
It works well.
They all get paid for their services provided, then discarded.
True fools all of the talking heads.