Laura Ingraham on EWTN Tonight

[TomPiltoff]

This is the Original Post which is an invitation to watch a talk show host who was a Supreme Court clerk, aid to a President, cancer survivor, and Catholic convert.
And you respond with a slur of Sean Hannity in an attempt to slur Laura.

First of all, the word ‘slur’ seems to suggest something misleading or false. I didn’t SLUR Laura Ingraham, I linked to a factual news article.

And again, her credentials and/or medical history are not relevant to this discussion. I’m simply pointing out something in the past she said. The fact that she once had cancer has no bearing on that.

You again slur Hannity in the following to condemn her by “guilt by association.” Do you condemn Hillary Clinton since she is a friend of the Doonesbury comic and he did something you condemn?

I don’t see Hillary Clinton appearing in Doonesbury. I see Laura Ingraham with Sean Hannity.

Criticize and disagree with her all you want. Considering your intellectual arguments so far, she probably would consider it a compliment. But cancer has a way of changing people. It changed Joe Biden. She shared how it changed her.

Again, how is that relevant to something she said about a Democratic vote line?

She doesn’t have to have 'em on her show; they’re all over the Senate.

I didn’t know you were a comedian.

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t quite get why people feel the need to randomly tell us all they don’t like someone with no explanation.

And special thanks to reganq for that podcast link! :dancing:

Would it not be more accurate to say that one does not agree with the philosophy of someone? Doubt anyone on this forum knows Laura personally.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

First of all, the word ‘slur’ seems to suggest something misleading or false. I didn’t SLUR Laura Ingraham, I linked to a factual news article.

That’s okay—certain ‘factual news articles’ do a great job of slurring all by their ownselves.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Would it not be more accurate to say that one does not agree with the philosophy of someone?

Some people yes, other people probably go too far and dislike the person. Mary, I bet you have a good heart to make the difference.

 

[YinYangMom]

Are you saying you don’t want to hear an opinion that is not your own? That’s no way to learn.

Except it exhibits a “close-mindedness” that doesn’t foster intellectual development. Only a person who understands the perspective of both sides is truly informed.

I don’t quite get why people feel the need to randomly tell us all they don’t like someone with no explanation.

OK, people, I guess this means you’ve all watched Michael Moore’s films before casting your opinion of their accuracy (or lack thereof). Oh, and you’ve listened to the various talk hosts on Air America. Let’s add to that mix Catholic comedians. We can even narrow it down to Catholic broadcasters in the liberal media, if that helps.

C’mon. Let’s just all agree that it is every person’s right to listen to or watch particular entertainers based on their own personal preferences. To exercise that right for yourself and the criticize others for exercising there is hypocritical.

I agree that one’s opinion about any of these entertainers gleaned solely from articles and news blips warrants taking such opinion with a grain of salt, but it certainly doesn’t warrant dismissing the opinion all together.

“Catholic”, whether magesterial or not, does not automatically make everything else about the person’s ideology or talent ‘wonderful’ and worth supporting. It’s quite possible to appreciate Laura’s EWTN interview and not appreciate the rest of her body of work as a talk show host.

 

[aimee]

OK, people, I guess this means you’ve all watched Michael Moore’s films before casting your opinion of their accuracy (or lack thereof). Oh, and you’ve listened to the various talk hosts on Air America. Let’s add to that mix Catholic comedians. We can even narrow it down to Catholic broadcasters in the liberal media, if that helps.

C’mon. Let’s just all agree that it is every person’s right to listen to or watch particular entertainers based on their own personal preferences. To exercise that right for yourself and the criticize others for exercising there is hypocritical.

I agree that one’s opinion about any of these entertainers gleaned solely from articles and news blips warrants taking such opinion with a grain of salt, but it certainly doesn’t warrant dismissing the opinion all together.

“Catholic”, whether magesterial or not, does not automatically make everything else about the person’s ideology or talent ‘wonderful’ and worth supporting. It’s quite possible to appreciate Laura’s EWTN interview and not appreciate the rest of her body of work as a talk show host.

I bet a lot of people have heard some of Air America and saw MM films
It doesn’t take long to get the message of what their about…

 

[TomPiltoff]

That’s okay—certain ‘factual news articles’ do a great job of slurring all by their ownselves.

Now you’re just lying.

I’m going to paste the entire article here, and I’d like you to point out what you consider to be a slur against Ingraham.

As FireDogLake has been reporting, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham today urged her listeners to obstruct efforts to protect voting rights by jamming a free voter protection hotline.

After playing a recording of DNC Chairman Howard Dean promoting the line to voters, Ingraham suggested her listeners call en masse:

Tell me if you think I’m crazy. This is what I’m thinking. I think we all need to call 1 888 DEM VOTE all at the same time.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO INGRAHAM
The DNC has released audio recordings of some of the prank calls to the hotline. Listen to one call HERE.

Digg It!

Full transcript:

DEAN (recorded): We have a hotline — 1 888 DEM VOTE — anybody can call that. If they feel like there are voting irregularities, we’ll send some folks over to the polling place in a matter of minutes.

(Phone ringing) OPERATOR: Leave a message with your question or press pound to be transferred at no extra charge to your local election protection team or the state Democratic Party. (Dialing) Your call cannot be completed at this time. Please try your call again later.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second! So — (Laughter) you call 1 888 DEM VOTE — otherwise ‘Dim Bulb Vote’ or ‘Dumb Vote’ — and all you do is get tranferred to muzak, then they cut you off. This is what I’m thinking. Tell me if you think I’m crazy. This is what I’m thinking. I think we all need to call 1 888 DEM VOTE all at the same time. And, by the way, when you call, when you call the number — and remember, it’s ‘Dem Vote’ not ‘Dumb Vote’ — when you call the number, as we did, and we got transferred, transferred, then we just got hung up upon. You know, we’re supposed to have these election teams within a matter of minutes, they’re supposed to be coming to the polls. Can you imagine what those people look like? Halloween all over again. So if you have trouble with the poll, you’re supposed to call, via 1 888 ‘Dumb Vote,’ and this is what you get.

OPERATOR: Thank you for calling 1 888 DEM VOTE. To continue in English, press 1. Para continuar in Espanol, oprima el dos.

INGRAHAM: Oh, and if you’re Saddam Hussein, no problem. Vote absentee, in Maryland or Ohio.

 

[Orionthehunter]

from Tom Piltoff: First of all, the word ‘slur’ seems to suggest something misleading or false. I didn’t SLUR Laura Ingraham, I linked to a factual news article.

I see your understanding of the English lanquage is lacking too. Slur means to denigrate. I can say you are a liberal or I can say you are a left wing nutjob. One is a slur. If I use the latter, it is irrelevant if I linked to a factual news article.

From Piltoff: And again, her credentials and/or medical history are not relevant to this discussion. I’m simply pointing out something in the past she said. The fact that she once had cancer has no bearing on that.

It was a component of the show. Anyone w/ empathy for people who have so suffered would have found that discussion meaningful. I found Joe Biden’s discussion about his brain cancer meaningful despite the fact I disagree with him on politics. Your attempt to dehumanize another is palpable. If you don’t care about her story, you could have just avoided this thread. You don’t need to denigrate a person just because you disagree with them.

From Tom Piltoff: I don’t see Hillary Clinton appearing in Doonesbury. I see Laura Ingraham with Sean Hannity.

So you have to see someone in person to denigrate by association?

From Tom Piltoff: Again, how is that relevant to something she said about a Democratic vote line?

It was a component of the subject matter of the show.

 

[YinYangMom]

I bet a lot of people have heard some of Air America and saw MM films
It doesn’t take long to get the message of what their about…

I bet a lot of people have heard some of Laura Ingrahm’s shows It doesn’t take long to get the message of what they’re about…

Precisely my point. The reactions to MM and LI and other left/right commentators are the same. Not choosing to follow their work is not a matter of a choice to remain ignorant. It’s a matter of personal preference.

Just because any of those commentators appears on a Catholic show representing Catholicism truthfully and respectfully doesn’t mean we are from that point forwarded expected to tune into or start paying money to see their bodies of work. Certainly it should give us pause to rethink our previous perceptions of the works and their authors, but that’s about all.

I’ve found that these talk show personalities ‘perform’ day in day out according to their ratings and pressures from the sponsors and executive producers. Having dinner with the people can be a totally different experience than listening to one of their shows or watching them on TV. In that sense it is perfectly logical to reject the performances and not the persons themselves.

 

[YinYangMom]

So, focusing on the original topic of this discussion - Laura’s interview on EWTN, I’ve gotta say, listening to it, her voice and her delivery kept me conjuring up Ann Coulter’s face and that made it difficult for me to keep listening. (Don’t give me any grief for not liking Ann)

However, what Laura said was right on the mark in many ways, so I applaud that particular interview.

However, reading the transcript in this thread from one of her radio show gives me pause about tuning into her program in the future. I see on her website there are archives of those. I won’t base an opinion on her work without listening to some of those. It’ll be interesting to see how she handles callers and poses questions to them.

 

[Lucania]

And again, her credentials and/or medical history are not relevant to this discussion.

Sorry, you are wrong. The original poster says in post #1: Laura Ingraham is on EWTN tonight. She is apparently going to discuss her Catholic faith, her bout with Cancer & her life’s mission. You are the one who took this thread in another direction. You said that she is a woman who has done “terrible things,” that she was idolized here and that you thought we should know about the things that she has done. You said she was best buds (who cares:shrug: ) with Sean Hannity, the" hate monger." You may want to go back to post one, start from the beginning…

 

[MarcoPolo]

OK, people, I guess this means you’ve all watched Michael Moore’s films before casting your opinion of their accuracy (or lack thereof). Oh, and you’ve listened to the various talk hosts on Air America. Let’s add to that mix Catholic comedians. We can even narrow it down to Catholic broadcasters in the liberal media, if that helps.

C’mon. Let’s just all agree that it is every person’s right to listen to or watch particular entertainers based on their own personal preferences. To exercise that right for yourself and the criticize others for exercising there is hypocritical.

I agree that one’s opinion about any of these entertainers gleaned solely from articles and news blips warrants taking such opinion with a grain of salt, but it certainly doesn’t warrant dismissing the opinion all together.

“Catholic”, whether magesterial or not, does not automatically make everything else about the person’s ideology or talent ‘wonderful’ and worth supporting. It’s quite possible to appreciate Laura’s EWTN interview and not appreciate the rest of her body of work as a talk show host.

I’m not sure how any of this relates to my posting, “I don’t quite get why people feel the need to randomly tell us all they don’t like someone with no explanation”. But bless you all the same!!

 

[YinYangMom]

I’m not sure how any of this relates to my posting, “I don’t quite get why people feel the need to randomly tell us all they don’t like someone with no explanation”. But bless you all the same!!

My apologies. On second reading, I see how I misread your post. I was a bit too quick on that quote button.

 

[reganq]

Well, that’s just lovely. First I find out about Catholic Forums, now I find out about a way to see EWTN shows I missed. I’LL NEVER GET ANYTHING DONE!!!

Just doing my part to help the world join me. I rarely get to bed before 2 AM because of CAF and EWTN.

The best is multitasking with EWTN and CAF at the same time.

 

[reganq]

Well, that’s just lovely. First I find out about Catholic Forums, now I find out about a way to see EWTN shows I missed. I’LL NEVER GET ANYTHING DONE!!!

Just doing my part to help the world join me. I rarely get to bed before 2 AM because of CAF and EWTN.

The best is multitasking with EWTN and CAF at the same time.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Sorry, you are wrong. The original poster says in post #1: Laura Ingraham is on EWTN tonight. She is apparently going to discuss her Catholic faith, her bout with Cancer & her life’s mission. You are the one who took this thread in another direction. You said that she is a woman who has done “terrible things,” that she was idolized here and that you thought we should know about the things that she has done. You said she was best buds (who cares:shrug: ) with Sean Hannity, the" hate monger." You may want to go back to post one, start from the beginning…

Yes, I meant that her having cancer is not relevant in regards to being open about something she said in the past. I shouldn’t have not posted that story because she’s a cancer survivor.

I see your understanding of the English lanquage is lacking too. Slur means to denigrate. I can say you are a liberal or I can say you are a left wing nutjob. One is a slur. If I use the latter, it is irrelevant if I linked to a factual news article.

See, I said the word slur would "seems to suggest something misleading" because it does.

 

[Graing]

Tom P.

I believe the slur in question was calling Sean Hannity a hate-monger. And subsequently implying that Laura Ingrahm is/must be just like him. I think they are far apart on spirtitual grounds. Laura, from all accounts is quite devout and takes her faith very seriously. You don’t think her cancer is relevant, but you think an old bit on air joking with her listeners is? Ok.

With all due respect Tom P., I have looked through your post history and see you defending Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Ahmadinejad speaking in the US, saying that you would take Sadam over the “insurgency”, saying that while you don’t like Dennis Miller - if it gets Michael Savage off the air - it’s great.

With this in mind, would you find a better place for discourse over at the Daily KOS or Firedoglake or something? Or if you want to get all foamy at the mouth, maybe peruse Little Green Footballs? Seems that you are much more active in the political than the religious. And maybe I am way off base and you like to read a lot about the Catholic faith (this IS a Catholic forum after all), but feel you have more to actually contribute - or feel more strongly - about political matters. I would just say that from your past collection of postings, you have a definite political slant and/or agenda.

Bottom line here is that you are not giving Laura Ingrahm a fair shake here because of your obvious political slant. It’s a shame really. Her new book is all about the decay of morality in our culture and how we can take it back. A return to the Judeo-Christian values and morals that built this great country. Something very much in line with her faith - a faith she practices proudly.

 

[aimee]

So, focusing on the original topic of this discussion - Laura’s interview on EWTN, I’ve gotta say, listening to it, her voice and her delivery kept me conjuring up Ann Coulter’s face and that made it difficult for me to keep listening. (Don’t give me any grief for not liking Ann)

However, what Laura said was right on the mark in many ways, so I applaud that particular interview.

However, reading the transcript in this thread from one of her radio show gives me pause about tuning into her program in the future. I see on her website there are archives of those. I won’t base an opinion on her work without listening to some of those. It’ll be interesting to see how she handles callers and poses questions to them.

something tells me you won’t like her show…she is quite conservative

 

[YinYangMom]

something tells me you won’t like her show…she is quite conservative

Yeah, I’m expecting not to, but as I said, she handled the EWTN interview right on the mark, near as I could tell. She was right about illegal immigration, she was right about the media, she was right about families, and her delivery was direct and to the point. There wasn’t sarcasm, nastiness or name calling involved.

I’m not opposed to conservative ideals in and of themselves.
I’m opposed to how some media personalities deliver the message.
It’s the same with the liberal issues.

If people would just stick to the talking points and leave the inflammatory, antagonistic attitude out of the delivery we might actually realize both sides have more in common than they think.

I don’t like Bill O’Reilly’s delivery and format for his show, but I’ve seen him interviewed on other shows (including The Daily Show) where he delivers the same message in his ‘real’ persona and what a difference! He admits that he takes on a caricature and he’s expected to do so on his show, and I just find that a shame. I think he’d reach more people if he could just speak as Bill O’Reilly.

I can’t stand Ann Coulter’s approach but I can’t stand Janine Garafolo or Randi Rhode’s either. I try to listen to both sides, I really do. But both sides have poor representatives of the issues. I’m tired of both sides coming off so angry, pointing the finger at each other and name calling. I don’t need the volume, the intensity in my home or car, especially when neither side has a real solution to the problem.

I’ll give Laura a show through the archives and see where I stand later.

 

[TomPiltoff]

You don’t think her cancer is relevant, but you think an old bit on air joking with her listeners is? Ok.

People are trying to play the cancer card as if it makes her above criticism. It does not.

With this in mind, would you find a better place for discourse over at the Daily KOS or Firedoglake or something? Or if you want to get all foamy at the mouth, maybe peruse Little Green Footballs? Seems that you are much more active in the political than the religious. And maybe I am way off base and you like to read a lot about the Catholic faith (this IS a Catholic forum after all), but feel you have more to actually contribute - or feel more strongly - about political matters. I would just say that from your past collection of postings, you have a definite political slant and/or agenda.

I have no agenda, believe me. I’d rub against the grain even more at DailyKOS than I do here.

I post here because most of you have differing points from my own, and I like to discuss them.

Bottom line here is that you are not giving Laura Ingrahm a fair shake here because of your obvious political slant. It’s a shame really. Her new book is all about the decay of morality in our culture and how we can take it back. A return to the Judeo-Christian values and morals that built this great country. Something very much in line with her faith - a faith she practices proudly.

I don’t know much about Laura Ingraham. I’ve never listened to her show and I don’t have to because I am not judging her as a person. I’m not discussing her show.

All I did was link to a story. That’s it!

To hopefully end the confusion, this is all I was trying to say by linking to that story:

1.) Laura Ingraham should not be listened to as an independent 3rd party. She is obviously conservative leaning, and unfortunately took part in the same kind of games that you usually hear Hannity or Coulter playing.

2.) If she wants to be taken seriously by people like me (and I’m not saying she does or should care), she’d speak out against ideologically similar but absolutely hateful people like Hannity, especially when she’s appearing on his show.