Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Free Speech - And Laura Ingraham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Free Speech - And Laura Ingraham

    I was curious about Laura Ingraham. I've never watched her. So I went looking and came across this video:



    I found myself somewhat surprised. I was in agreement with a significant part of her message: free speech and open debate are indeed at risk in our country. But she makes several errors as she spoke:

    1) She attributed all of this to the left. Every example she gave of "constraining free speech" was an example from the left, but she completely ignores all of the parallel examples from the right. The left is not targeting the right; the two sides are targeting each other. The concept of "loyal opposition" is lost. So the left wants to see gun control enacted - that makes them "anti-constitution" and "unamerican." The left does the same thing in the opposite direction. The left does get more opportunity to do it, because they dominate colleges and universities and they are simply greater in number. But the problem is a bilateral one: intolerance for opposing points of view. As I have noted before, I am regularly (about 50% of the time) barred from conservative groups and websites for voicing and opposing point of view. I have never been barred from a liberal one for doing the same thing.

    2) Boycotts are wrong! Horse hockey. Boycotts have existed as long as there has been commerce, and provides a mechanism for people saying "we're not going to support your business if you espouse views we find unacceptable." The entire attempt of the right to defund planned parenthood is a form of boycott: they don't want their tax dollars going to support something they find unacceptable. The lesson for businesses is either a) don't be politically vocal if you are the face/voice of a business, or b) if you are going to be vocal, be prepared to have your market limited to those who concur with you. Boycotts are a form of vote - a mechanism for trying to drive the marketplace in a particular direction. If you don't like the direction it is being driven, then invest in or buy from those companies that reflect your values.

    3) She keeps using the term "free speech" in the context of the constitution and her first amendment rights. The 1st amendment does not protect your free speech from my "shouting you down." That is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The first amendment protects your free speech from the government prohibiting your expression of it. So you cannot be shut down, incarcerated, or otherwise silenced by the government for something you say. Because we have that amendment, the concept of free speech has permeated our society, and we Americans tend to (or at least we used to tend to) value letting people say what they believe. Here I agree with Ms. Ingraham - the inability for the modern generations to listen to points of view they do not agree with is concerning. "Free speech" is an easy thing to adhere to when the speech is what you agree with - it is really tested when it is not. So what do we do with the man/woman who wants to stand up and show how he has proven that blacks are inferior? Do we shout him down? Prevent him from talking. "Not on my campus?" I think that is a mistake. What it does is give the person with such an odious point of view exactly what he/she wants: attention and conflict. After all - negative publicity is still publicity, and will probably sell things. Ask Trump. He has mastered this science. So what to do? If I were in college today, my response to such things would be to organize a "silent protest." Get as many tickets as possible to the venue, show up, occupy the seat, and listen silently. If the speech becomes obviously something that you feel will provide no value and will just get your blood boiling, pop in some earbuds and listen to some good music or an eBook. But if you can, listen to the entire thing. Knowing what kinds of odious things are being said/proposed prepares us to fight them in the marketplace. When the speech is over, ask no questions, and be the last to leave. What have you accomplished? You've denied the speaker their audience, the attention they seek, and reduced the size of the audience that might actually walk away somewhat poisoned by the odious view. In the process - you might actually learn something.

    Of course, that could just be "carpesplaining"
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  • #2
    It is odd for a conservative commentator to oppose the concept of boycotts. The standard argument for free markets promoting ethical business behavior is that consumers will vote with their feet. It seems she's salty from being boycotted herself but she is extrapolating way too much.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      I think, line pretty much any "commentator" who derives their income from their craft, left or right, she "preaches to the choir". I'm not a fan.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I was curious about Laura Ingraham. I've never watched her. So I went looking and came across this video:



        I found myself somewhat surprised. I was in agreement with a significant part of her message: free speech and open debate are indeed at risk in our country. But she makes several errors as she spoke:

        1) She attributed all of this to the left. Every example she gave of "constraining free speech" was an example from the left, but she completely ignores all of the parallel examples from the right. The left is not targeting the right; the two sides are targeting each other. The concept of "loyal opposition" is lost. So the left wants to see gun control enacted - that makes them "anti-constitution" and "unamerican."
        If they want to do it by any means other than repealing and replacing the Second Amendment, which at least until very recently has almost always been the case, she's right.


        The left does the same thing in the opposite direction. The left does get more opportunity to do it, because they dominate colleges and universities and they are simply greater in number. But the problem is a bilateral one: intolerance for opposing points of view. As I have noted before, I am regularly (about 50% of the time) barred from conservative groups and websites for voicing and opposing point of view. I have never been barred from a liberal one for doing the same thing.
        I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Her whole point is the one you simultaneously mention, and yet seem to miss: The left gets "more opportunity" to silence the right, and it happens more loudly and publicly (e.g. colleges and universities, compare to "web sites").

        There is also the fact that the left uses uncivil bullying tactics ("shouting down," among other things), as opposed to just "barring."

        2) Boycotts are wrong! Horse hockey. Boycotts have existed as long as there has been commerce, and provides a mechanism for people saying "we're not going to support your business if you espouse views we find unacceptable." The entire attempt of the right to defund planned parenthood is a form of boycott: they don't want their tax dollars going to support something they find unacceptable.
        This is a stupid comparison.

        The lesson for businesses is either a) don't be politically vocal if you are the face/voice of a business, or b) if you are going to be vocal, be prepared to have your market limited to those who concur with you. Boycotts are a form of vote - a mechanism for trying to drive the marketplace in a particular direction. If you don't like the direction it is being driven, then invest in or buy from those companies that reflect your values.
        This is ignorant and evil. No one should be denied the ability to make a living because of expressing certain political or theological views. In addition, boycotts have become weaponized to an absurd extent. "We don't like this one minor remark Laura made and apologized for, so we want people to stop watching her show. But that is not nearly good enough. We want them to boycott companies that dare to even ADVERTIZE on her show."


        3) She keeps using the term "free speech" in the context of the constitution and her first amendment rights. The 1st amendment does not protect your free speech from my "shouting you down."
        She was a practicing attorney and clerked for Justice Thomas, so I think she's vaguely aware of the reach of the First Amendment. But yeah, like the vast majority of people, she does not always speak precisely about that.

        That is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The first amendment protects your free speech from the government prohibiting your expression of it. So you cannot be shut down, incarcerated, or otherwise silenced by the government for something you say. Because we have that amendment, the concept of free speech has permeated our society, and we Americans tend to (or at least we used to tend to) value letting people say what they believe. Here I agree with Ms. Ingraham - the inability for the modern generations to listen to points of view they do not agree with is concerning. "Free speech" is an easy thing to adhere to when the speech is what you agree with - it is really tested when it is not. So what do we do with the man/woman who wants to stand up and show how he has proven that blacks are inferior? Do we shout him down? Prevent him from talking. "Not on my campus?" I think that is a mistake. What it does is give the person with such an odious point of view exactly what he/she wants: attention and conflict. After all - negative publicity is still publicity, and will probably sell things. Ask Trump. He has mastered this science. So what to do? If I were in college today, my response to such things would be to organize a "silent protest." Get as many tickets as possible to the venue, show up, occupy the seat, and listen silently. If the speech becomes obviously something that you feel will provide no value and will just get your blood boiling, pop in some earbuds and listen to some good music or an eBook. But if you can, listen to the entire thing. Knowing what kinds of odious things are being said/proposed prepares us to fight them in the marketplace. When the speech is over, ask no questions, and be the last to leave. What have you accomplished? You've denied the speaker their audience, the attention they seek, and reduced the size of the audience that might actually walk away somewhat poisoned by the odious view. In the process - you might actually learn something. ...
        I agree with your perception that "the concept of free speech has permeated our society," to the point that I come into some conflict with fellow conservatives. In cases where the freedoms addressed by the First Amendment come into conflict with "private ownership" rights -- i.e. in employer-employee matters -- I favor allowing employees freedom, even to say and do things the employer finds utterly repugnant, so long as it does not demonstrably and materially interfere with the operation of the business.

        However, on the matter of "shouting down" in its various forms -- What are we going to do about this? The usual understanding of "rights" is that my rights exist only until they clearly impede your rights. When, e.g., Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak at a college, why do those who object have a "right" to "speak" in such a way as to impede him from speaking, and his audience from hearing?
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Federalist.

        Nationalist Christian.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

        Justice for Matthew Perna!

        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          I was curious about Laura Ingraham. I've never watched her. So I went looking and came across this video:



          I found myself somewhat surprised. I was in agreement with a significant part of her message: free speech and open debate are indeed at risk in our country. But she makes several errors as she spoke:

          1) She attributed all of this to the left. Every example she gave of "constraining free speech" was an example from the left, but she completely ignores all of the parallel examples from the right. The left is not targeting the right; the two sides are targeting each other. The concept of "loyal opposition" is lost. So the left wants to see gun control enacted - that makes them "anti-constitution" and "unamerican." The left does the same thing in the opposite direction. The left does get more opportunity to do it, because they dominate colleges and universities and they are simply greater in number. But the problem is a bilateral one: intolerance for opposing points of view. As I have noted before, I am regularly (about 50% of the time) barred from conservative groups and websites for voicing and opposing point of view. I have never been barred from a liberal one for doing the same thing.

          2) Boycotts are wrong! Horse hockey. Boycotts have existed as long as there has been commerce, and provides a mechanism for people saying "we're not going to support your business if you espouse views we find unacceptable." The entire attempt of the right to defund planned parenthood is a form of boycott: they don't want their tax dollars going to support something they find unacceptable. The lesson for businesses is either a) don't be politically vocal if you are the face/voice of a business, or b) if you are going to be vocal, be prepared to have your market limited to those who concur with you. Boycotts are a form of vote - a mechanism for trying to drive the marketplace in a particular direction. If you don't like the direction it is being driven, then invest in or buy from those companies that reflect your values.
          I think boycotts are a valid way to express your disagreement.

          3) She keeps using the term "free speech" in the context of the constitution and her first amendment rights. The 1st amendment does not protect your free speech from my "shouting you down." That is not a violation of the 1st amendment. The first amendment protects your free speech from the government prohibiting your expression of it. So you cannot be shut down, incarcerated, or otherwise silenced by the government for something you say. Because we have that amendment, the concept of free speech has permeated our society, and we Americans tend to (or at least we used to tend to) value letting people say what they believe. Here I agree with Ms. Ingraham - the inability for the modern generations to listen to points of view they do not agree with is concerning. "Free speech" is an easy thing to adhere to when the speech is what you agree with - it is really tested when it is not. So what do we do with the man/woman who wants to stand up and show how he has proven that blacks are inferior? Do we shout him down? Prevent him from talking. "Not on my campus?" I think that is a mistake. What it does is give the person with such an odious point of view exactly what he/she wants: attention and conflict. After all - negative publicity is still publicity, and will probably sell things. Ask Trump. He has mastered this science. So what to do? If I were in college today, my response to such things would be to organize a "silent protest." Get as many tickets as possible to the venue, show up, occupy the seat, and listen silently. If the speech becomes obviously something that you feel will provide no value and will just get your blood boiling, pop in some earbuds and listen to some good music or an eBook. But if you can, listen to the entire thing. Knowing what kinds of odious things are being said/proposed prepares us to fight them in the marketplace. When the speech is over, ask no questions, and be the last to leave. What have you accomplished? You've denied the speaker their audience, the attention they seek, and reduced the size of the audience that might actually walk away somewhat poisoned by the odious view. In the process - you might actually learn something.
          If the public doesn't allow free speech by shouting down or disrupting someone else then they are infringing on the rights of others, which is wrong. If I take away your freedom for example, I am committing a crime even though I am not the government. As far as speech goes, it is a delicate line. You can protest what someone else says, but you can't just stop them using any means necessary. You can hold a competing rally, or protest next to them, peacefully, but you can't start blockading their speech, or starting a riot to stop their speech, or shout them down so they can't be heard. That is being disruptive and disturbing the peace, which is against the law.
          Of course, that could just be "carpesplaining"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            If they want to do it by any means other than repealing and replacing the Second Amendment, which at least until very recently has almost always been the case, she's right.
            I think there is room for differences of opinion on the meaning and application of the 2nd without accusing people of being "anti-constitutional." But it does appear that the best way to resolve the gun issue is to repeal the 2nd.

            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            I'm not sure that's a good comparison. Her whole point is the one you simultaneously mention, and yet seem to miss: The left gets "more opportunity" to silence the right, and it happens more loudly and publicly (e.g. colleges and universities, compare to "web sites").

            There is also the fact that the left uses uncivil bullying tactics ("shouting down," among other things), as opposed to just "barring."
            At colleges and universities, I agree. But one look at the Trump rallies of 2016 should be enough to convince people this problem is bilateral, not unilateral.

            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            This is a stupid comparison.
            Thanks for the nuanced assessment.

            I find the two essentially identical. Depriving a business of revenue is analogous to depriving an organization of funding.

            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            This is ignorant and evil. No one should be denied the ability to make a living because of expressing certain political or theological views. In addition, boycotts have become weaponized to an absurd extent. "We don't like this one minor remark Laura made and apologized for, so we want people to stop watching her show. But that is not nearly good enough. We want them to boycott companies that dare to even ADVERTIZE on her show."
            You seem to be of the impression that people are somehow conferred a right to be successful in a given business venture. I'm not sure where THAT right is written into the constitution. My wife refuses to invest in companies that produce munitions or arms of any kind. Some people refuse to invest in companies that produce fossil fuels. If an organization promotes something that runs counter with your value system, then it is entirely ethical to "vote with your feet." That includes, IMO, the advertisers associated with those companies or organizations. Indeed, if the KKK began a 30-minute nightly promotional television show, I would immediately boycott its advertisers and campaign to encourage others to do so as well.

            If that is "evil," then color me evil.

            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            She was a practicing attorney and clerked for Justice Thomas, so I think she's vaguely aware of the reach of the First Amendment. But yeah, like the vast majority of people, she does not always speak precisely about that.
            Happens a lot, AFAICT.

            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            I agree with your perception that "the concept of free speech has permeated our society," to the point that I come into some conflict with fellow conservatives. In cases where the freedoms addressed by the First Amendment come into conflict with "private ownership" rights -- i.e. in employer-employee matters -- I favor allowing employees freedom, even to say and do things the employer finds utterly repugnant, so long as it does not demonstrably and materially interfere with the operation of the business.
            The First Amendment says nothing about employer-employee relationships, unless the employer is the government itself. A business is free to put any policies in place, and dismiss people for actions on their Facebook page if they so choose. Some states places limits on this, but the federal government does not. I favor allowing a business to hire the people they want to create the culture they want in the business environment. If an employee wants a job, they should adhere to the policies of their employer. If they don't like those policies, they should find another job.

            Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
            However, on the matter of "shouting down" in its various forms -- What are we going to do about this? The usual understanding of "rights" is that my rights exist only until they clearly impede your rights. When, e.g., Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak at a college, why do those who object have a "right" to "speak" in such a way as to impede him from speaking, and his audience from hearing?
            This is not a "freedom of speech," issue so much as it is a basic human decency issue. If someone asks me who has the most right to speak, Ben Shapiro or the people protesting against Ben Shapiro, one can just as easily say that "shutting up" the protesters is as much an abridgment of their freedom of speech as "shutting up "Ben Shapiro." But the result is more and more of an unwillingness to hear a message one does not want to hear, and the line keeps moving as more and more things are added to the list of "things I don't want to listen to." And, as I noted, most outlandishly hateful speakers (e.g., Coulter, Limbaugh, Yiannopoulos, etc.) just THRIVE on the negative publicity, so those demonstrating are giving them exactly what they want. They are, in essence, "feeding the trolls." There are better ways to deal with such people.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I think boycotts are a valid way to express your disagreement.
              Agreed... ... but also...

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              If the public doesn't allow free speech by shouting down or disrupting someone else then they are infringing on the rights of others, which is wrong. If I take away your freedom for example, I am committing a crime even though I am not the government. As far as speech goes, it is a delicate line. You can protest what someone else says, but you can't just stop them using any means necessary. You can hold a competing rally, or protest next to them, peacefully, but you can't start blockading their speech, or starting a riot to stop their speech, or shout them down so they can't be heard. That is being disruptive and disturbing the peace, which is against the law.
              We're close on this one, but not exactly on. The constitution gives people the right to speak without the government infringing on that right. It says nothing about what happens between individuals. People shouting down a speaker on private property (e.g., a private college), cannot be accused of "disturbing the peace" unless the property owner complains or unless the disturbance extends outside the property. In general, however, I agree that it is not legal for someone to use illegal means to shut down a speaker (e.g., starting a riot, throwing objects, noise levels above what local statutes permit, etc.).

              But there is the larger question of how we deal with people trying to propagate a message we consider truly evil, and perhaps dangerous. White supremacy is actually gaining ground in the U.S., largely due to the Internet. So when a white supremacist speaks, how do we find that line between "permitting speech" and "voicing opposition." More importantly, how do those of us concerned that such a cancer CAN and DOES grow if people do nothing fight such speech?

              I don't have any easy answers.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Agreed... ... but also...



                We're close on this one, but not exactly on. The constitution gives people the right to speak without the government infringing on that right. It says nothing about what happens between individuals.
                Agreed but weren't you telling me "we are the government?"

                People shouting down a speaker on private property (e.g., a private college), cannot be accused of "disturbing the peace" unless the property owner complains or unless the disturbance extends outside the property. In general, however, I agree that it is not legal for someone to use illegal means to shut down a speaker (e.g., starting a riot, throwing objects, noise levels above what local statutes permit, etc.).
                if they are shouting down someone on a college campus A> In most cases it has not been on private colleges but publicly funded ones and 2> The person they are shouting down has the permission of the college so yes, they are disturbing the peace and actually trespassing.

                But there is the larger question of how we deal with people trying to propagate a message we consider truly evil, and perhaps dangerous. White supremacy is actually gaining ground in the U.S., largely due to the Internet. So when a white supremacist speaks, how do we find that line between "permitting speech" and "voicing opposition." More importantly, how do those of us concerned that such a cancer CAN and DOES grow if people do nothing fight such speech?

                I don't have any easy answers.
                Education, peaceful counter protests and Christ.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Speaking of Ingraham and the boycott...







                  And at least one of the advertisers that left came back saying they based their reaction on "incomplete" information and apologized.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not only are Ingram's ratings way up, but advertisers who stuck with her are seeing strong sales.

                    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...ship-jumps-20/

                    This reminds me of the failed Chik-Fil-A boycott. It would seem that quiet support is more effective than a noisy temper tantrum.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Agreed but weren't you telling me "we are the government?"
                      Yes - the government arises from us...so it is fellow citizens in government.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      if they are shouting down someone on a college campus A> In most cases it has not been on private colleges but publicly funded ones and 2> The person they are shouting down has the permission of the college so yes, they are disturbing the peace and actually trespassing.
                      Then someone should file charges and let the courts handle it.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Education, peaceful counter protests and Christ.
                      Education, yes.
                      Peaceful counter protests, absolutely.
                      I'll leave the "Christ" part to you guys.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Yes - the government arises from us...so it is fellow citizens in government.




                        Then someone should file charges and let the courts handle it.

                        Doesn't change the fact that it is wrong even if they don't though. If a man beats his wife but she doesn't press charges, has he still done something wrong?



                        Education, yes.
                        Peaceful counter protests, absolutely.

                        I'll leave the "Christ" part to you guys.
                        That's is our job.

                        Glad you agree.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Not only are Ingram's ratings way up, but advertisers who stuck with her are seeing strong sales.

                          http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...ship-jumps-20/

                          This reminds me of the failed Chik-Fil-A boycott. It would seem that quiet support is more effective than a noisy temper tantrum.
                          So what, and Chik-Fil-A is a poor analogy. Fox isn't going to care what her ratings are if there are no advertisers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post



                            Doesn't change the fact that it is wrong even if they don't though. If a man beats his wife but she doesn't press charges, has he still done something wrong?
                            We are not in disagreement here. I too advocate for peaceful protest. I think doing anything else is simply feeding the trolls. It is ill advised and doesn't achieve much of anything except to give the speakers more free air time than they otherwise would have had.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                            That's is our job.

                            Glad you agree.
                            I definitely agree the "Christ part" is someone else's job, though I do find value in a fair number of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                              So what, and Chik-Fil-A is a poor analogy. Fox isn't going to care what her ratings are if there are no advertisers.
                              But there are advertisers, and Ingram's ratings are up, so...
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              142 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              391 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              113 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              365 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X