Skip to comments.Ingraham Nails Pitiful Rangel
Posted on 08/18/2011 9:54:24 PM PDT by LALALAW
Laura Ingraham vs. Charlie Rangel - smack down debate - The Factor - 8-18-11
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Laura tore him up. Rangel tried his usual blabber (which always works with O’Reily), and she just kept pressing him. He responded with a sexist remark. Laura does far better than O’reily, and you can bet he’ll dump her as a guest host, especially after his pal Charlie complains.
Congressman, just answer the question, PLEASE!! @5:51 a “pretty girl”? Do I sense a tinge of objectification, if not sexism here? Give ‘em hell Laura!!
THE INGRAHAM FACTOR!!!! to hell with liberal orielly.
She went after and dressed down Rangel as well as she went after the Tea Party during the debt ceiling debate.
What a friggin Moron,How do these people keep getting elected,They are dumb as a box of Rocks,Also the RATS created this economy,They had the House since the 06 Mid-terms and NEVER get called on it!
After Whoraldo got into it with Michele Malkin and said he wanted to spit on her. the Bloviator said nothing, and she said she would never do his show again.
The first thing the snake said after Ingraham asked the first question, was something about Harriet Tubman, which had nothing to do with the question.
For the rest of the interview, he pretended to be flustered by her bringing up too many things, too many different questions, including Harriet Tubman!
You have to listen to the interview to really appreciate the incompetent duplicitous BS coming out of an escaped criminal.
By far - best exchange ever -
When he says “We haven’t passed your budget”
and she says “But - its not MY BUDGET - it’s yours!”
She will be fired for this.
“How do these people keep getting elected”
That one’s easy: look at their constituents.
Poster child for all that is wrong with liberalism.
Why she doesn’t have her own FOX show is beyond me.
Well done Laura!
Marking for later....
It was priceless. For one or two segments before, each time ahead of the commercial breaks, she mentioned Allen West and Charlie Rangel coming up, saying “Set your DVRs”. She wasn’t lying! I thought it would be a debate between W and R (which would’ve been great), but this was just as good (maybe better in some ways).
Rangel fancies himself quite the smooth charmer, so when he called her a “pretty girl” and Laura smacked down the remark as sexist, the look on his face was hilarious.
With Rangel, Waters, Jackson-Lee, Cleaver et al, you need only look at their districts and the mentality of the residents, to see how and why they keep getting re-elected.
“How do these people keep getting elected,They are dumb as a box of Rocks....”
Simple. Have you ever seen his constituency?
You can’t nail a piece of Jello. ‘Nailing’ Rangel is like water off a duck’s back. He may have been speechless at that instant but that’s just another excuse for him to say later on “Racism”.......he doesn’t have to convince you or me of anything; all he has to do is convince his ‘constituents’ if you want to call them that.
"Rangel is as much of a Slave owner.. as any Southern Slave Owner could ever be. Slavery is the ownership of the fruits of a man's labor, against his will. That's what the Democrats advocate in their insatiable appetite for TAXES. The CHAINS are not visible. But the THEFT of the fruits of our labor are just as binding as the chains wielded by Democrats of 200 years ago. Modern day slavery is what Rangel and his ilk still advocate.. still demand.. and still fight the Republicans over." (by GetitrightnowUBoob)
Own show? I fear she will never be a guest host on Ted Baxter’s show again. Baxter is trying to prop up his show by bringing in a bunch of demmocommies. Remember when he had Sharpton on almost every week till they had some falling out? He gives them a platform and almost never challenges them. Laura challenges and provokes with direct questions and that is why none of the rats will ever appear on her radio show and from here out she will not be on Baxter’s either.
If only Laura could be Ted Baxter’s permanent replacement.
So the new exemplar of Catholic Conservative Motherhood is the single mom?
That’s not a good thing.
And I wonder what the new exemplar of Catholic Liberal Motherhood now is? A gay single father?
Be careful with words, they have meaning.
Rangel dancin a jig around the question. Typical lib. He’s one of the plantation owners. And why isn’t he in Federal Penitentiary for tax evasion?
“Uh, their districts are the box where the dumb rocks reside”
Fox is chickensh!t!
I like the way Wrangel yawned just as Laura was introducing him.
Do you have a problem with a wealthy, attractive, intelligent (but single) Catholic woman adopting orphans and abandoned kids?
Or do you just have a problem with blondes adopting kids?
I’m lost - what are you referring to?
Is adoptive single motherhood the BEST thing? no, it isn’t. But Laura was dealt a raw deal with a fiance jilting her when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Should she not know the joy of motherhood, and in the process provide a loving, FAITH FILLED home to 3 children who would not otherwise have one, just because God’s plan didn’t include a husband for her? I think the Lord will understand, regardless of whether moralistic, imperfect Freepers do or not.
Ditto to xsmommy’s response on this subject.
How do these people keep getting elected,They are dumb as a box of Rocks....
Simple. Have you ever seen his constituency?”
Too get a drivers license you have to pass a test,same as running for office,they need to be tested!
They have Somalia-asized their City areas.
(1) Yes, I do object to policies of adopting kids into single parent, or homosexual parent homes. (I do not call widows or widowers single parents.) Gender, religion, purported intelligence level, purported wealth level, purported attractiveness level have nothing to do with this.
(2) This is not an answer, that was not a question.
I think the Lord will understand, regardless of whether moralistic, imperfect Freepers do or not.Do you have any more to add?
my complete answer speaks for itself, as does your opinion stand on its own. i think that will do.
I’m sorry, but don’t understand a word of the rest of your answer. I pulled out and quoted the part that is very clear.
Do you have anything you would like to add to it, or can you rework the other stuff you wrote in some other way of putting it, perhaps that might clarify it?
And feel free to add any thing else you’d like to address in what I have said. Or about the pluses and minuses of promoting adoption by Murphy Browns.
I’m sorry if you have reading comprehension issues but my answer was clear and understood by others on this thread. I have no interest in arguing with you.
Laura Ingraham is a faith filled devout Catholic endeavoring to do Gods will. I applaud how she’s chosen to serve Him.
Words do have meaning.
In your case, they are decoupled from anything remotely resembling rational thought.
Laura got jilted while dealing with Cancer. And remained faithful, despite those difficult circumstances.
I guess you were sleeping this Sunday past.
Gospel Mt 15:21-28 At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon. But Jesus did not say a word in answer to her. Jesus disciples came and asked him, Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us. He said in reply, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But the woman came and did Jesus homage, saying, Lord, help me. He said in reply, It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs. She said, Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters. Then Jesus said to her in reply, O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish. And the womans daughter was healed from that hour.
As a example of a conservative Murphy Brown she’s a bad example. What so hard about finding a husband and father if she is so wealthy and educated?
I blame the Voting Rights Act. Here’s some probably liberal thoughts about it, though even liberals can’t hide that the whole concept was racist to the core: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/redistricting-race-and-the-voting-rights-act
So your religious impulse drives you to end with “STFU”?
Wonderful, oh thank all the saints and angels! /sarc
Clearly my words do sting you. But how do you react?
Is that yet another great example of modern Catholic mores?
What if it’s Gods will that she remain single? He has a plan for each of us, and it’s incumbent upon the faithful to seek His will. Single, celibate nuns have raised children in orphanages for eons, doing Gods will. She didn’t seek a sperm donor to create new children to mother, she took on the unwanted.
Twenty years ago I was contracting in DC at that five-sided building. One of the strangest things I encountered there, among a number of strange social behaviors, was that the well-heeled young professionals were putting off marriage indefinitely, and instead charting a single life trajectory, but also adopting children.
Marriage takes an effort. Finding a spouse takes an effort. These people, I saw, were too selfish and afraid of failure to make the effort.
I live in nova and work in dc, I know precisely the types you are referring to. I do not believe Laura fits that description. She was committed to someone she was to marry. He callously jilted her while she was undergoing chemotherapy. She appears not to have met anyone else to make a life with. Knowing she is a faithful Catholic to whom her faith is important, it’s likely that after prayerful consideration she’s felt led to do this. You presume selfish shallow motivations. Taking what we know of her life, ideology, devotion to religious precepts, I see her motivations differently. Let God be the judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.