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

I'm not to sure that this warrants such media attention. It has to be quite the burden to make up news and lie to the public all day long. People won't even remember this in a couple of weeks anyway.

i dont think this should even make news. plus its not like it was the worst thing said to hurt someone on tv. actually the worst things on tv arent what is said by tv news hosts but what they imply.

MSNBC forced their moronic lap-puppy Ed to grovel in self loathing to try to avoid any further loss of the literal tens and tens of viewers of their network.

If you have ever heard how Ed so readily trashes others on his program in the past, you would know why there is NO measure of "understanding" displayed for this shivering massive fat ass now.

RIP, Ed

reply to post by Kitilani

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.

Here's something I heard today: NBC was recently bought by Comcast. NBC was much more tolerant of, and even encouraged bad behavior from their talking heads. Comcast is much less tolerant; they fired Olbermann and suspended Schultz. You should see MSNBC clean up their act over the next few months.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Yours was an interesting theory. But what was Rachel Maddow's involvement? I'm not familiar with that whole dynamic...

Originally posted by mishigas
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.

Sorry sweetie, I'm not a man, if that was your assumption. I basically agree with your assessment concerning some men's personal choices in their own relationships. To each their own. I leave those flawed souls in the dust myself. However, your snide and personally subjective one-size-fits-all response in automatically assuming "male rejection" being the issue in the Ed case was totally and personally biased on your own part, and, I'm sorry, but totally subjective as well. I stand by my original statement. Best you recognize your own prejudices.

reply to post by QueSeraSera

Sorry sweetie, I'm not a man, if that was your assumption.

I did think for a moment that you were relating to Ed, thus your excessive response. But that could be either sex...

Maybe you had a thing for Ed?

If I would have been confronted with a choice, I would have said female, based upon your userid. It is kind of feminine.

I basically agree with your assessment concerning some men's personal choices in their own relationships. To each their own. I leave those flawed souls in the dust myself.

Now that is interesting! Please, tell me more about leaving them in the dust!

However, your snide and personally subjective one-size-fits-all response in automatically assuming "male rejection" being the issue in the Ed case was totally and personally biased on your own part, and, I'm sorry, but totally subjective as well. I stand by my original statement. Best you recognize your own prejudices.

You need to lighten up a little, darling, and realize when somebody is trying to make a funny. Perhaps I should have used some of those lulz emoticons?

Nice talking with you. Don't be a stranger.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by LadySprings

 

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by mishigas

Laura Ingraham is what she is...Period!



It's about a man calling a woman a sexist tag. It's the same reason why I flipped on the old H site in Current Events when you and that nic BretM were throwing around the "C" word.

At any rate she is a far right radical neo con www.wrightmills.com... That term can be invoked as www.wrightmills.com... can be used as a unisex term. This even though I share Laura Ingrahamwww.wrightmills.com... 'S position on Global Warming, and no, the far radical left does not get their new cover all term Climate Change used by King B here....... me.

PS Quit buying countless look alike pairs of shoes, and let Dave buy what he wants. He is an overworked underpaid aerospace engineer after all. So stop spending his money on needless things.

You can now return back to conversing with Mishibear, I mean, Mishigas.

As I sit here and ponder the unknowable, i.e., whatever happened to basic manners?, my first attempt at deciphering your post shows you calling Laura Ingraham a whore, cutesy image notwithstanding. Am I right? I wouldn't want to misinterpret you...

Let me be more clear.

Laura Ingraham is a pro billionaire hating the middle class media www.wrightmills.com...

It was definitely uncalled for but I'd expect her to do what millions of other people do when they're insulted: get over it. I don't think what the guy said will hurt her image at all- only his own. Everyone needs to admit that you have smug jackasses on every news network. In all honesty, they're more like actors than experts. I use Glenn Beck as an example because that's about the only TV news broadcast I watch... and that's only because my parents have his show running every time I sit down to eat dinner. The dramatic pauses, adding water droplets during photo-shoots to look like he's been sobbing, and cheesy props: come on.

Now I'd be more than willing to accept that the same things happens on MSNBC or CNN. I'm just sick of people acting like THEIR side of politics is exempt. These news anchors are all pretty radical and, if we want to get back into conspiracies, it seems like they want Americans to think in terms of black and white. People forget that politics don't have to be so bi-polar.

reply to post by LadySprings

Let me be more clear.

Laura Ingraham is a pro billionaire hating the middle class media www.wrightmills.com...

Still hesitant to use the real word? I don't blame you.

She's pro-billionaire? What is that? I think that you must then be anti-billionaire, eh?

And she hates the middle class? What makes you say that? Or do you have unassailable facts such as "I feel like she is"?