About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Ingraham to immigration activist: "La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you"

March 19, 2009 9:22 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by PurpleState (March 19, 2009 9:59 pm ET)
      1  
      I've figured out why O'Reilly's ratings are so high.  He looks like Johnny Carson in comparison to Ingraham.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Übermensch (March 19, 2009 10:14 pm ET)
      1  
      "Do I have to cut your mic? Ya know what..forget it. You're gonna give answers to my questions or I'm gonna cut your mic"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (March 20, 2009 11:16 am ET)
          1
        Well , was she answering the question asked by Ingraham? She was repeating the same talking points she came on the show to present and dodging the questions she was asked. That is liberalism 101. And I wonder if her ancestors came legally or not. And she totally dodged the issue of enforcing our current laws, imagine if we had a system where one could just ignore laws that you disagree with.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Übermensch (March 20, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
          1  
          So because Laura Ingraham asked about e-verify and Caroline Murry said she was opposed to e-verify because info can be entered incorrectly, among other details she mentioned why she was against it. In addition to answering that question she said that Employers are hiring illegals and not paying them, calling for immigration reform. To which Ms. Ingraham states : "talking over me doesn't make your points any more pervasive"

          Next: Ms. Ingraham stated again that e-verify works except for a couple mistakes, to which Caroline Murry tried to get the point across that it's not really a couple mistakes and Ms. Ingraham so professionally retorts la la la la la la I can't hear you.

          Finally, Caroline Murry is linking the failed policies by former president Bush and his failing economy, to hiring illegal immigrants. This scenario is plausible in the areas that have a high rate of illegal workers, do to the fact that low company income leads to layoff driving unemployment rates up...but there is still work to be done, so why not hire illegals to work for pennies on the dollar? To which Ms. Ingraham scoffed "the economic crisis is an immigration problem?" "They are linked, obviously" responded Caroline Murry. So then Ms. Ingraham bastardizes what Carline Murry just stated as "of corse, immigration is a total drag on the economy."

          Murry then states how we can help the economy by helping those 12 million who are illegal become legal residents, tax revenue will increase by 60%.

          But while Murry was making this point. Ms. Ingraham changes direction and states: You can't name one law on the books, enforcement provisions on the books that you are in favor of can you?

          It all basically boiled down to scoffing at Caroline Murry at the end and saying that "you couldn't answer the question I asked 4 times".

          The question was attacking her anyway while she was still making her point about immigrants and taxes. so what does enforcement provisions have to do with what she is saying about taxes?

          That is conservatism 101, ask 2 questions and then while the second is being debated ask a 3rd question and when responder is still responding to question 2...well you couldn't answer question 3 so you have no clue what you are talking about.

          "Do I have to cut your mic? Ya know what..forget it. You're gonna give answers to my questions or I'm gonna cut your mic"
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (March 20, 2009 9:18 pm ET)
            1 1
            So I guess we should have no inforcement until we have a system that is 100% perfect, great idea! Do you believe in the rule of law? Are there other laws we should ignore, maybe we should be more tolerant of thieves and muggers, why stop with immigration laws.  Murry is obviously against any enforcement at all and rather than answer any questions about that , she repeatedly just points to the failed policies of the Bush admin . Isn't it reasonable for a host to have a direct question answered, or should the guest rule the show? And her linkage of the immigration issue with the economic crisis is ridiculous. While it is certainly true that illegal immigration is a drag on our resources it had nothing to do with this crisis.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mescal (March 21, 2009 3:29 am ET)
              1 1

              Fauxliberal, you are, naturally, missing Murray's point entirely. Rather than continuing to enforce cruel and irrational immigration laws, she is arguing that we should CHANGE them. Ingraham's seems to be arguing that you CAN'T change these laws because you'd be legalizing things that are... well... ILLEGAL. Ingraham knew what Murray was attempting to say, and so devoted all of her energies to talking over her, erecting strawmen, and diverting the discussion to the foolishly narrow topic of how essential it is that we continue enforcing bad and counterproductive laws.

              Being loud and overbearing doesn't make someone right... it just makes them right wing.

              Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (March 19, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
         
      That's why they call it fair and unbalanced.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by deeznuts (March 19, 2009 10:54 pm ET)
         

      "Talking over me doesn't make your points any more persuasive."
      - Laura Ingraham

      Wow.

      Just...wow.

      This is what kills me about Right-Wing media, their complete lack of self-awareness.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (March 19, 2009 11:26 pm ET)
           
        It's almost like Ingraham's guest was a ventriloquist, and it was the guest saying that Ingraham was talking over HER.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (March 19, 2009 11:38 pm ET)
      1  
      I thought la la la la la means I love you.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (March 19, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
         

      I was very curious to see if the Fox host would argue the liberal position or the conservative position on this issue.  Since they're fair and balanced, I figured it was about a 50-50 choice.

      Turns out they picked the conservative position this time.  Next time I'm sure it'll be different.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Brishon (March 20, 2009 4:19 am ET)
         

      Strange how when she starts to answer her questions, she cuts her off.

      TOTALLY didn't expect that from a neo-con. /snicker

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cannonball (March 20, 2009 9:16 am ET)
         

      Why do these people even go on Ingraham's show?  She is a moron and a completely revolting person.  She begins every conversation with a demeaning tone and dripping contempt, then she gets worse.  And her badgering interruptions and constant attempts to manipulate the conversation remind me of a teenage tit for tat.  I half expect her to suddenly exclaim, "Says you!" or "Nuh huhh!"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by themarirev (March 20, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
         
      This rhetoric is inbred in those in "Fix Noise". Ingraham didn't want to have an intellectual discussion. She merely wanted to rant. She obviously thinks speaking over her guest makes her point. No "news" here. All the commentators, like most republicans, beleive they should be held to a different standard then those they rant against. I have often wondered if one must sign an oath of hypocrisy to join the party. It does seem to be rampant in the party and expecially on FOX.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Caseysprings (March 20, 2009 2:03 pm ET)
         
      She is quite amusing, i wonder why she does not get her own show on FOX.
      Report Abuse