Ingraham has also now challenged LeBron to come on her show to debate.
Lebron should not entertain her. He should take a swipe at her and say something about her nazi salute.
Ingraham has also now challenged LeBron to come on her show to debate.
Ingraham has also now challenged LeBron to come on her show to debate.
Scariest part is, how calculated this is. They know for a fact, that a significant percentage of the audience will eat this up.
Even if he did go on her show she would mute his mic and kick him out. Just like what she did to Tariq Nasheed he called her out on her slick comment and they got off air quick.
Ingraham has also now challenged LeBron to come on her show to debate.
No fucking way is this is a mistake. What a despicable, miserable human being.You should see it in motion. The way she tries to play it off just does not work.
That was 100% intentional.Jup she pretty much tried hiding it as a "wave"and then as a "point at you guys!". Like she suddenly realized "Fuck there are cameras" or that she wanted to give a short "shout out to her peeps in the NAZI party". I mean look at that face she pulls with it at front, that makes it more seem like a shout out than a mistaken:"Whoopsie cameras". She is showing people that it is with them, vile disgusting people.... :(.
I've been trying really, really hard to not see this as intentional and it's not working.You should see it in motion. The way she tries to play it off just does not work.
What causes a person to be that rotten? That is some serious bitterness.Fun fact about Laura Ingraham. When she was at Dartmouth in the 80s, she had someone secretly tape the meetings of the Gay Students Association, outed some of the students in print, and sent the tapes to some of their parents.
Know whatFun fact about Laura Ingraham. When she was at Dartmouth in the 80s, she had someone secretly tape the meetings of the Gay Students Association, outed some of the students in print, and sent the tapes to some of their parents.
Fox News: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS REALLY IMPORTANT STOP GETTING SO EASILY OFFENDED
Fox News when a black person says something they don't like: I HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH STOP TALKING SHUT UP I'M OFFENDED
Ingraham has also now challenged LeBron to come on her show to debate.
Ingraham has also now challenged LeBron to come on her show to debate.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Either it was on purpose as a shout out to her peeps in the NAZI party (which seems far more likely to me) or... she forgot that she was filmed. But I mean... really the control? It was on purpose. In Germany this would have gotten her a fine, at the least.That was 100% intentional.
He actions were perfectly controlled, the look on her face says it all. Stern during her salute then all fake smiles as she smoothly and simultaneously transitioned into the normal wave.
Most transparent news network in AmericaFox News: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS REALLY IMPORTANT STOP GETTING SO EASILY OFFENDED
Fox News when a black person says something they don't like: I HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH STOP TALKING SHUT UP I'M OFFENDED
The best thing to do is for Lebron to completely ignore this fucker but you already know that the sports media will bring their dumbass questions to Lebron asking if he'll do it.
Why do people care so much about what someone from Fox News is saying if you already hate Fox News?
This isn't gonna make anyone that watches Fox News stop watching so what's the point of blowing this up? To bring more attention to her and her show?
Why is that? People already know what they're getting from Fox News. This is really just free advertisement for a new show.It's important to unmask the blatant racism embedded in organizations of this size that have influence on people .
Why is that? People already know what they're getting from Fox News. This is really just free advertisement for a new show.
It just seems worthless to call out Fox News every week for what someone is saying on there that will only offend non-viewers.
This is like all the people giving so much attention to Alex Jones and Info Wars that makes them look legitimate.
You don't. No ones gonna change. They don't care if the "fake news" is calling them a racist. It should be obvious to anyone by now that regular Fox News viewers aren't gonna be changing the views they've held their whole life.Then how exactly do you potentially change someone's outlook who does subscribe to the Fox propaganda, without calling to attention their blatant racism and dismantling their
hypocrisy?
Why is that? People already know what they're getting from Fox News. This is really just free advertisement for a new show.
It just seems worthless to call out Fox News every week for what someone is saying on there that will only offend non-viewers.
This is like all the people giving so much attention to Alex Jones and Info Wars that makes them look legitimate.
What is speaking up going to do other than make Info Wars a household name?Know what else makes them look legitimate? The president giving them press credentials.
The problem is not enough people speak up.
Too many find their hate and lies comforting, in part because they back up their religious delusions.
Exactly, he's definitely not gonna go and probably won't even acknowledge her. People on his side will respect that and people on her side will see him as a coward like you said then people will forget about until Tucker or Hannity makes headlines a week later.This is a no-win situation.
If he goes - he gets baited no matter how articulate and how HARD he dunks on them.
If he doesn't go - "hahahaha STAY IN YOUR LANE you dumb athlete!!! He's a COWARD!"
Why is that? People already know what they're getting from Fox News. This is really just free advertisement for a new show.
It just seems worthless to call out Fox News every week for what someone is saying on there that will only offend non-viewers.
This is like all the people giving so much attention to Alex Jones and Info Wars that makes them look legitimate.
To you, maybe. To others they've found a new outlet dedicated towards them that they otherwise wouldn't know about.jones and info wars are laughing stocks because they were exposed. It didn't happen accidentally.
What causes a person to be that rotten? That is some serious bitterness.
As editor of the conservative Dartmouth Review in the mid-1980s, I had ignited a major campus controversy when I sent an undercover reporter into a publicly advertised meeting of the Gay Students Association and then printed a transcript of the meeting (but only the names of student officers who had already publicly identified themselves as gay).
Part of what we did was journalistically justifiable: The group received college funding but, unlike every other student group receiving a college grant, refused to make public its membership or budget. We wanted to find out how student funds were being spent and to demonstrate the double standard Dartmouth had created by funding the group. But in doing so, we adopted a purposefully outrageous tone -- occasionally using, for example, the word "sodomites" to describe campus gays.
. . .
But at the same time, in the 10 years since I learned my brother Curtis was gay, my views and rhetoric about homosexuality have been tempered -- not because Curtis proselytizes on gay rights, but because I have seen him and his companion, Richard, lead their lives with dignity, fidelity and courage. By refusing to give in to bitterness or defeat in the face of a relentless disease, they have shown me what C.S. Lewis meant when he wrote that our ideology and faith must leave room for tolerance and empathy. I now regret that at Dartmouth we didn't consider how callous rhetoric can wound -- how someone like Barney Frank must have felt -- not to mention how it undermined our political point.
When Curtis, at age 29, told me he was gay, I was just out of college and working as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration. I had thought about homosexuals only as part of an organized political force on the other side, and while I knew a professor who was gay, I didn't have any gay friends. My first thought was to wonder whether Curtis was embarrassed -- not about being gay, but about me, my politics and my past. At the time of the controversy, his only reaction was to remind me not to let the hullabaloo at the newspaper overtake my studies. Once I knew he was gay, I braced for the "Dartmouth Review conversation." Even his silence felt like a form of admonishment.
. . .
Before I had seen for myself how AIDS ravaged Richard's vibrant mind and body, I had thought it was just like any other disease. To me, the incessant calls for more federal funding for AIDS research were just part of a gay crusade for political affirmation and acceptance.
On Saturday, Ingraham released a statement defending her comments.
"In 2003, I wrote a New York Times bestseller called 'Shut Up & Sing,' in which I criticized celebrities like the Dixie Chicks and Barbra Streisand, who were trashing then-President George W. Bush. I have used a variation of that title for more than 15 years to respond to performers who sound off on politics," Ingraham said. "... If pro athletes and entertainers want to freelance as political pundits, then they should not be surprised when they're called out for insulting politicians. There was no racial intent in my remarks -- false, defamatory charges of racism are a transparent attempt to immunize entertainment and sports elites from scrutiny and criticism."