Ingraham announced she will be taking next week off.
Run, run, you hateful piece of shit.
A business provides a product or service and is fundamentally dependent on the goodwill of its customers. It doesn’t get to dictate what the consumers think of them, nor where they spend their dollars.
Funny, but I’ve owned guns for decades, I also believe in the 2nd Amendment. Not only am I not insulted, I don’t see a conflict between that and regulation. How is what Hogg says an insult to you, personally?
(Fully expecting the same ol’ slippery slope line.)
Like the time right-wingers rallied to discredit and destroy ACORN? The organized effort to attack Planned Parenthood?
What about when a person with a powerful position uses that power to attack a business or person? Say, the President of the United States using social media to call out a specific business by name to smear them?
Sounds like you are putting trump in the firing line of a new law. “malicious call to action to inflict financial harm” is a great way to describe him, and his party. Describing HS kids? No way.
Don’t for get he called for a boycott of Macy’s and Starbucks during the campaign.
“Jobs” Trumpcheered the news of Macy’s laying off during the Christmas season.
[QUOTE]
No.
I looked up Hogg’s age and birthdate on wikipedia and noticed it was not available. Curious. Perhaps, it is being kept hidden because he would be accountable for his words if he were an adult.
David Hogg is a political human shield like Cindy Sheehan and Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father, who can say anything due to their victim status and will be tossed to the side by liberals once their usefulness has ended.
No, the people behind the Ingraham boycott are liberals who are bitter at the success of Fox and cannot tolerate a single contrarian voice. Fox only has three million viewers. That’s less than 1% of the US population and still it bothers liberals.
Can you read the minds of everyone, or just liberals?
Well, the username is correct. There’s a serious need for brains here.
Ours minds are simpler, master a couple of concepts like “equality” and “justice”, you’ve pretty much got it all.
Those won’t count in the mind of people like LAZombie because mumble liberals mumble dark side.
Hogg is simply better at social media fights than Laura Ingraham. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ingraham picked the fight. She started it. If you start a fight, and lose, it’s your fault and no one else’s. If I pick a bar fight with Conor MacGregor, and he kicks my ass, it’s my fault my ass got kicked. I’d have to be a whiny sucky-baby to say it’'s unfair MacGregor is better at fighting than I am.
Is Hogg hard to fight on social media because he’s a kid? Yes. he is. He has a natural advantage. So it was extremely stupid of Ingraham to pick the fight. What a fool she was.
Funny you didn’t mention Patricia Smith. Remember her? She was the mother of the man killed in Benghazi. Went public, big time, against Obama, and the RNC pushed her pretty hard. Do you remember how Obama was humiliated in his argument with her… oh, no, you don’t, because he wasn’t an idiot. He decided NOT to get into a fight with Smith, since that was not a battle he could win. He respectfully kept his yap shut and let her have her say. He was very wise in this regard.
Only an idiot fights pointlesss, unwinnable battles. Ingraham, simply put, acted like an idiot. She had no reason to pick on Hogg’s college application status, but she did, and got what was coming to her. Tough shit.
Unlike some people, all my beliefs are not always hype-partisan. The POTUS would not be above the law. But since boycotts are currently acceptable, you should treat Trump’s call for boycotts the same way you treat Hogg’s.
I return to my restaurant example. Let’s say the owner of the restaurant decides to run for mayor and campaigns on limiting the height of hedges to five feet. Supporters of his opponent decide to organize a boycott of the restaurant as a way of forcing him out of the race. Do you think that is fair?
I think it is perfectly fair. If there are enough people that feel strongly enough about their hedges to join in a boycott, then what’s the problem? OTOH, I don’t think that it would get very far. Most people would not think that the hedge controversy is worth altering their consuming habits.
You do realize that boycotts are carried out by consumers, right? The people who get to choose what businesses to spend their money at? You don’t just “organize a boycott”, and suddenly they are out of business. The person has to have done something that people agree is anti-social enough to alter their behavior.
What restrictions would you place upon free speech to prevent this?
It doesn’t matter if it’s fair. It’s legal. The first amendment means that anyone can criticize a business, including recommending to others that they not shop there. If you want to advocate for jailing or fining people for criticizing a business, go right ahead, but I think you’ll run into a significant barrier in that it’s very obviously not constitutional.
Same goes for Trump. I think his attacks on the media are mostly bullshit, but he has the right to do so. And I have the right to call him shitty for doing so. That’s free speech.
Trimming hedges isn’t a matter of basic human decency; taunting a survivor of a school shooting is. I’m a little concerned that you can’t seem to understand the difference.
You sound like a communist.
Just curious…did you call out these guys for calling for a boycott of Dick’s Sporting Goods when Dick’s announced their restrictions on gun sales?
LAZombie, you say there should be limits on boycotts. There are. If you boycott someone for no reason, or for a bad one, then most other people will see that there’s no good reason, and so they won’t go along with the boycott, and so it won’t be very effective. If you manage to get a lot of people involve in your boycott, enough to make a difference, it’s because a lot of people agree with you that the business being boycotted is doing something bad. It’s a direct manifestation of power of the people, wielded by means of the principles of capitalism and the free market. I don’t know about you, but I think that capitalism is great.
Boycotts are a form of political activism that has existed ever since there was politics, the name itself going back to Captain Charles Boycott in the 19th century. It’s a form of activism intended to influence or change behaviors, no more and no less, and has been used by all sides of the political spectrum, and has been especially beloved by conservatives in the alt-right Trump era.
As for personally “being insulted” simply by calls for the kind of reasonable gun controls enacted in the whole of the civilized world, that seems to bespeak some kind of irrational pathology and some kind of emotional connection to your guns rather than a reason-based and utilitarian view of the gun as a regulated and dangerous tool. That pathology is in fact part of a major gun problem in American society. These kids are asking that they and their fellow students be better protected against getting shot by random lunatics who can get any number of almost any imaginable guns just about as easily as they can get bubble gum. It’s perplexing and unfortunate that you don’t agree with that. Why are you so afraid of these kids who just want a chance at life, and to live in a less violent society? What do you think they’re going to do to your precious guns?
That’s enough of that, now.