When Paramount offers her a show and people protest her bigotry, she offers an apology for making such harsh comments.
Then I got this in e-mail today:
I will grant you that stopdrlaura.com is hardly an unbiased news source, but I have no reason to doubt this isn’t true.
I know, I know, this is like the 10th thread on this bitch, but I couldn’t resist. I really can’t stand her. I’m not saying she shouldn’t have a show, but the blatant spreading of misinformation is pretty shoddy on Paramount’s part IMHO. Plus, she’s not even entertaining - Hell, at least I laugh at Howard Stern from time to time. She’s just a boor.
Does anyone else have any good shit on this bitch? My girlfriend loves her, and tends to quote her often. I think she’s an idiot, and preys upon the weak minded.
I don’t know that she’s a hypocrite. She may not believe that having ex-gays is “creating or contributing to an environment of hurt, hate or intolerance.” Thus, no hypocrisy. She probably thinks she’s helping to bring gays ‘into the fold’, however you want to interpret that.
She may be self-righteous, bombastic and many other things, but I don’t know that this is hypocrisy.
Believe me, as an atheist she’s no friend of mine. I apparently am unable to live a moral life because I have no invisible pink unicorn to tell me what is right and wrong. I used to listen to her when her show was all about “What are you doing sleeping with your secretary when you have a six month old child?” and “What are you doing sleeping with a 45 year old when you are 17?”, but I got a little tired of all the crusades she goes on.
Still, though, she does seem self-consistent. Don’t worry - I hear the show will suck, and I bet she sinks into obscurity with three years.
conner, i hope you are not saying that your girlfriend is weak minded, she might take it personally
her show, which i have listed to 4 or 5 times is basically common sense, and most of the time the answers are so damn obvious to everyone except the caller… i assume the caller knows the right thing to do but the right thing is not always the easiest thing so they need some support
if she manages to help people and not give messed up advice, then i guess she does someone somewhere some good.
personally i cant stand her, her show etc. and her views on homsexuals are beyond insane and i hope she goes off the air
Esprix, I agree that her opinions about homosexuality are wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ay off base, and she is quite the shrew, but even you have to admit that only a small fraction of her show is given over to talking about gays. From what I’ve noticed (I tune into her show to listen to her opening speeches… after that, it’s too repetitive), most of the time that she talks on the subject, she seems to be defending her position against the latest “Dr. Laura is evil because of this obscure reason”.
Like I said in the GD thread… Dr. Laura gets so much airtime on the subject because people take too much offense to what she says… even though she’s just spouting right-wing conspiracy crap.
As for her show… it’s not going anywhere. Remember when Rush Limbaugh had his own show? (I must have been only 11 or 12 when that was on… really young). As far as I remember, it didn’t make much difference in political opinions… Dr. Laura, I imagine, would have a similar experience. She’s not nearly as fun as Rush is.
(Apologies to douche bags the world over… I was young and foolish then…)
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, one week, three days, 12 hours, 49 minutes and 0 seconds.
1621 cigarettes not smoked, saving $202.67.
Life saved: 5 days, 15 hours, 5 minutes.
Well, with talk-show topics along the lines of incest sex, changing sex, being confused about sex, in-law sex, multiple-partner sex, auto-sex, sex in autos, anonymous sex, ad nauseum, I can hardly get up in arms over “used to be gay but now I’m not sex.”
As a general rule, any doctor or lawyer that comes on one of these daytime garbage-fest shows needs to be considered for what they are. I mean, would you trust a psychologist that showed up to analyze the guests on Springer?
Hitler was a Nazi!
Pat Robertson is a Fundamentalist Christian!
Ghandi practiced frequent meditation!
Al Gore is a Democrat!
Esprix is a (gasp!) homosexual!
** Exprix, ** is the ‘gay community’ against the ideals that Dr. S upholds?
The ideal for rearing children is their mother and father.
That once married couples should keep working actively on staying married, unless there is her three 'A’s =Abuse, Addiction, or Adultery which would nullify their contract.
That children need spiritual training.
That people should honor what they say, be loyal to their friends when they do well, but be courageous enough to speak up, when wrong-doing is being witnessed.
When confronted with irresponsibility, own up to it, and seek to repair the damage.
She uses vulgar language and I don’t listen to her anymore because of it, my son is home, and I don’t want him to think I’m condoning her way of speech. I don’t. She disappointed many people who at least agreed with her ideals when she lied saying the nude photos that were published were not her. When she finally did admit to it, * if there was an apology for the lies, * I wasn’t aware of it. She’s a flawed person, like all the rest of us. But, as has been pointed out already, a hypocrite is one who preaches one thing and is actively doing the opposite, usually secretly. That she is ** not.**
I think you are mistaken in your approach and judgment of ‘vulnerable Americans’. You don’t like her, that’s fine, don’t listen to her. But to call her names doesn’t justify your position. It weakens your whole argument. The ‘vulnerable’ people listening to her will work harder on their marriages and their families. How would that be a bad thing for this country?? Or their sad vulnerable states will make them tune out fairly quickly, and your problem with her is solved.
She is harsh, I know if I had a problem, I sure wouldn’t call and want salt poured into the wounds that I would already be struggling with, so, the bottom line is,I wouldn’t call. But, I wouldn’t ignore that she has made a huge impact on the prioritizing of families that listen to her advice. Most of it seems like common sense to me, but in this world of ever increasing mobility, parents frequently turn to strangers to help them with child rearing difficulties rather than their mom’s and dad’s in what my son calls ‘the good old days’.
You don’t agree with her stand on homosexuality, that’s fine, don’t listen. But, it seems odd to me, ‘the gay community’ so sensitive to bigotry and censorship has no problem with wielding that particular weapon when it suits them. Is that fair? Her discussion of gays is less than even one percent of what she talks about with her listeners anyway. She has never advocated violence against anyone, and only takes a hard line on pedophiles, anyone care to step forward and tell me how wrong that is?
It sounds like to me, the beef you really have is with Paramount, if indeed, they had promised the gay activists something that they are not going to deliver. That is where the lies and hypocrisy are emanating from in this situation.
I don’t mean to sound like I’m one of the callers ‘I’m my kid’s mom’. Though, I AM my kid’s mom! I’d just like to have another side thought of in this discussion. Let those who listen be the ones who judge and decide whether she is worth listening to in the long run.
Yep. You should be getting your toaster oven delivered in the next week or so. The Homosexual Agenda will be mailed to you under seperate cover.
Anti Pro asks:
I don’t think anybody’s seriously against points 4 and 5.
1, 2, and 3, however, are not automatic givens. Are you suggesting two men or two women can’t be as loving and do just as well a job as a man and a woman? If not, why not? Can you cite real life examples, not just what some televangelist said on the 700 Club? Who decides what mutually contradictory superstions the child will be trained in? What if the child wants no part of it? Is it permitted to tell the child that one can be ethical without subscribing to any organized religion? What if a married couple doesn’t have any abuse, addiction, or adultery – but have just grown to loathe each other? Do they stay together “for the sake of the children” and rear them in an environment where there’s little love or nurturing to be found?
“Dr.” Laura’s prescriptions are simplistic one-size-fits-all answers that don’t take anything but her own narrow opinions into account. Stark black-and-white issues might bring in the radio audience, but I think we’ve all come to understand that real life isn’t quite that simple.
I don’t disagree with you on this point, Greg. People are too complex to be summed up in a few moments and on to the next commercial.
I AM saying, I don’t think you have to throw out the baby because the water is now sudsy and dirty.
She is being villified because of beliefs that differ from yours, that’s really the heart of all of the controversy. My point, is, so what? I don’t believe the same things as Sam Donaldson, but I don’t keep slinging mud at him, because his beliefs and mine don’t coincide. I don’t call him names, I don’t write hate mail to him, I just disagree with him.
Since we both agree that life isn’t so simple as a sound bite would have us believe, they why the attacks?
I’m not going to go for the ‘bait’ about ‘the contradadictory superstitions’. It MAY be superstition if you have no beliefs, but it still amounts to name calling, and I’m not going to do that, even in the pit.
**
** Exprix, ** is the ‘gay community’ against the ideals that Dr. S upholds?**
Well, there is no more cohesion of ideals, beliefs and ideals in the gay community that there is among the white community, but I’ll toss my $0.02 in.
**
The ideal for rearing children is their mother and father.**
No, I don’t believe that. I think the ideal for rearing children are two adults who would instill their child with ethics, work ethics, independence, and common sense. I believe that tw women and two men can just as well as an opposite gender couple.
I have seen the studies that are commonly used against homosexual parenting. They almost always are studies looking at “fatherless” or “motherless” homes. In other words, single parent homes. If I ever seen some serious studies that compare two parent heterosexual homes to two parent homosexual homes and it’s revealed that the homosexual homes are inherently harmful, then I’ll change my view. So far, that hasn’t happened.
**
2. That once married couples should keep working actively on staying married, unless there is her three 'A’s =Abuse, Addiction, or Adultery which would nullify their contract.**
Do I think that marriages fall apart too easily nowadays? Ys. Do I think broken marriages can have negative effect on children? Yes. Do I think there are only three “legitimate” reason to divorce. No. I believe that a tense and hateful home can be just as harmful as a broken one.
She has also stated that widows shuld never remarry. I definitely disagree with that.
**
3. That children need spiritual training.**
I believe that children need ethical training and that can be achieve with or without a belief in God. 4. That people should honor what they say, be loyal to their friends when they do well, but be courageous enough to speak up, when wrong-doing is being witnessed.
5. When confronted with irresponsibility, own up to it, and seek to repair the damage.
No disagreement here.
and only takes a hard line on pedophiles
Taking a hardline on pedophiles is fair and admirable, but let me ask you this do you believe her statements?
[ul]
[l1]“pedophilia is more common among members of the gay community than the heterosexual community”
[l1]“pedophilia has to do with being gay”
[l1]“a majority of gay men are predatory towards boys”
[/ul]
Tell me, why shouldn’t gay people take those comments personally? She’s essentially calling me, Esprix, Sqlcub, etc. pedophiles with no statistics to back her up. Why should I care? Well, someday I’m going to have a child and I’d rather not have my neighbors constantly reporting me for molesting my child because they believe a majority of homosexuals are pedophiles.
Do I think she will be the cause of people believing that? No, it’s already a pretty common misconception and she’s just helping it along. However, that is no reason why I shouldn’t publically challenge her comments and to fight against public mis-information The more people who realize that gays are not inherently evil creatures, the better in my opinion. If you want to label that censorship, go right ahead.
Just for the record to be set straight, ** beakerxf, ** Esprix said he was speaking for the gay community, I didn’t say it, I just repeated it in quotes.
I have no problem with you doing whatever you wish as far as demonstrations are concerned. I’ve never heard her say what you claim she has. It has long since been on record that pedophiles prey on children and they aren’t that picky as to which sex as long as they are within the age of the criminal’s ‘choice’. Most are heterosexual, my father was one. Because I’ve not heard her say it, I’m not going to comment on it.
However, let me make this point AGAIN. I’m against the name calling no matter from which side it emanates. Period. I’m not Dr. S’s lawyer, friend or confidante. I’ve already said that I stopped listening over a year ago because of her language. I got involved in this discussion as I did over at Opal’s Forum for one reason. The bigotry and hatred that is flung at Dr. S is just as abhorrent to hear as what is supposedly coming from her.
So, I’m not going to keep ‘defending’ her. I’ll defend the ideals that she has held to in the past, when I DID listen.
Ditto with the widow not remarrying business. I’ve never heard it. It’s difficult to believe she would say it, since there is no Biblical injunction one way or the other. Paul exhorts those who are still single or widowed to remain so to help them concentrate and work harder in their communities, but that was a personal outlook, not a command.
she has NO formal training in psychology or psychiatry
i guess she thinks her silly certificate in counseling is sufficient to interrupt, belittle and hang up on her guests…
[quote]
I don’t believe the same things as Sam Donaldson, but I don’t keep slinging mud at him, because his beliefs and mine don’t coincide. I don’t call him names, I don’t write hate mail to him, I just disagree with him.
[quote]
the difference is that sam isnt leading a crusade to have you and your way of life eliminated…
and incidentally, “dr” laura and rush shouldnt be lumped into the same group- there is no way you could identify him as part of the fanatical religious right
smarty
**
Just for the record to be set straight, ** beakerxf, ** Esprix said he was speaking for the gay community, I didn’t say it, I just repeated it in quotes.**
You’re a fair minded poster AntiPro and I didn’t assume anything. I was just making it clear that I was speaking for myself, but not for homosexuals at large.
However, let me make this point AGAIN. I’m against the name calling no matter from which side it emanates. Period.
No disagreement here. I have never called Dr. Laura a hypocrit. Oh, I definitely don’t like her and feel there are people who would be better suited to be the voice of common sense. However, I don’t know enough about her personal life to make any value judgments on her.
However, she has “set the bar high” for her listeners, so it does catch my notice whenever she does something that falls short of her morals. (quote taken from Larry King Live)
Ditto with the widow not remarrying business. I’ve never heard it.
She said it to Larry King two weeks ago. She was talking about stepparents and the harm they can have on children. King then mentioned that his mother had been widowed, but never remarried. Dr. Laura stated the Mrs. King had done the right thing by staying single. King seemed surprised by this and they discussed further for a few more minutes. The comment sticks out in my mind because it seems to contradict what she has said about the need for two parents. As far as I know, she was speaking from a psychological point of view and not a biblical one.
That’s why I try not to get too tangled up into the Dr. Laura debate… One minute she claims to be speaking from a “clinical context” and the next she saying that they are religious views. So on one hand, calling her comments into question would seem like a debate of psychology. However, the minute she claims that they are actually stating religious views, her opponents become religion bashers.
Go, Smartypants, I agree. Rush’s comments come more from a political standpoint… Dr. Laura comes from more of a religious standpoint.
And I’m also with Antipro on the name-calling bit (as I said over in the Dr. Laura GD thread)… is it really necessary to call her a hypocrite (which I disagree with) and challenge her “right” to run an advice show? Do people really need a degree to dispense advice? I offer advice to people all the time (most recently to Sentinal)… should I be berated since I don’t have a degree?
Her show’s about entertainment, and it’s still on the air because a lot of people consider it entertaining. So say that she’s off base, say that she’s on an ego trip… but why bother challenging her right to call herself “Dr.”? Why bring up the crap about what she did when she was young?
She is a hypocrite inasmuch as she slammed gay people everywhere, then apologized for the statement, then plans on putting on a show on how to cure them.
i1055 wrote:
And here lies the problem - she gives messed up advice, often. Bad advice does more damage than no advice at all.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:
Yes, but the rest of her “advice” ain’t exactly winning her radio broadcasting awards.
divemaster wrote:
It’s not her shock tactics that are at issue - after all, Jerry and Howard excel at them - it’s her claiming to be an expert. Every acknowledged professional psychological organization has said no, you can’t change your sexual orientation. Now she’s planning a show that says yes, you can. This is a woman who dispenses advice to people for a living. In this case, she is dispensing factually inaccurate psychological advice that she’s touting as “professional.” This is irresponsible at best.
SingleDad wrote:
You take that back, you, you, you… you breeder!
Anti Pro wrote:
Um, let’s set this record straight first - please point out to me where I said I speak for the gay community. What I posted was a news article from http://www.stopdrlaura.com, and then my opinions on it.
To continue:
As has already been pointed out, a mother and father is great, but the ideal family is one that gives love to each other, and to set an ideal of parents of both sexes inherently labels gay and lesbian parents (and single parents and every other non-traditional family) as second class.
Although the three reasons listed are good reasons to end a marriage, to make such black and white delineations for every possible permutation of a marriage is absurd and very bad and dangerous pop psychology.
Children need guidance, not religious brainwashing.
This one I agree with, but this isn’t really about my opinions of the woman.
OK, now here I want to thank you for pointing out her hypocrisy for me yet again. Touting “ex-gays” as a viable psychological alternative is irresponsible, so when is she going to own up to it and repair the damage?
The pictures were taken, she knew about them, she preaches against that kind of behavior, they come out, she denies them, and then admits to them. I’d say this is just about the definition of hypocrisy - she preaches how bad pornography is, yet she actively participated in it, and then lied about it to keep it secret. (If anyone has the details on these pictures, I’d love to read up on it, as I’m sure the story is out there in spades.)
I was just pointing out a fact - so far no one’s disproven to me that she isn’t.
She’s lying on the air, and touts it as fact. Gay men and women are not pedophiles. Gay men and lesbians cannot change their sexual orientation. I don’t care how little or much of her show is devoted to gay topics - if Dan Rather came on the news and said, “Black people are inferior,” or “all Chinese men have little dicks,” the man would need to be taken off the air. Why does Schlessinger get a TV show for saying the same type of irresponsible things?
This isn’t some personal vendetta against her. As I’ve stated before, Howard Stern just about in the same category in my opinion, but the difference is that she claims to be some kind of expert, touts her views as facts, and has so far been wrong on everything concerning gay men and lesbians. Frankly, I’m afraid to listen to her show to hear what else she got wrong. Lying on the air and saying it’s the truth is irresponsible media.
Cowboy Greg wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree.
beakerxf wrote:
Yet another problem, and further evidence of her hypocrisy.
If Jimmy the Greek gets pulled for saying blacks are genetically bred to be better athletes, and a DJ gets fired for saying Lauren Hill should be dragged behind a truck, this kind of irresponsible and damaging programming should not be allowed on the air.
Funny. Jewish people don’t normally bother me. I hate to generalize, but the ones I’ve met were much more open minded than many Christians I know. Oh well.
