Nope she is a major hypocrite pretty much like most people on the right.  She is anti immigration yet she adopted a bunch of foreign kids.  

cause you know whats up!

Cause I'm a strong, independent black woman who don't need nothing from no man.

So because you don't agree with her, she's fair game? Okay, Hitler.

I'm under the impression that you feel these corporations should continue to sponsor her, even when she behaves this way.
She can bully him all she wants without brands giving her extra money to represent them in a good light. (Which she apparently didn't for some sponsors at least.)

But can you try to present these arguments without reducing people's opinions to "leftists" and "rightists"? I prefer not to be so redundantly presumptuous about people. Not only because I know conservatives who think she got what she deserved. But I'd like to think that the issue of human decency isn't a left vs right thing. And it's just a better way to stay on topic.

Anyway, no one was boycotting her show when she told Lebron James to "shut up and Dribble" because he is "barely intelligible" and "ungrammatical".
Needless to say, Lebron James has more followers than Ingraham and Hogg put together, and then multiplied by 20. (Over 41 million.)
Of course, he didn't call on people to contact her sponsors, but that still created a lot of media attention. And no one has to rally people for sponsors to become aware of situations like this and pull out. Bill O'Riley for example lost a ton of sponsors without anyone in particular rallying ppl to contact them.

So the answer is that it's likely both. Laura behaved in ways that these companies don't want to be associated with, combined with people contacting them over it. It's more a question of if it's justified for sponsors to not want to be associated with her behavior.
You also have to keep in mind that many of her followers are also saying they will boycott said companies if they pull their adds from her show. Hashtag #IStandWithLaura I believe it was. And she has significantly more followers.

No I used the term "unprovoked" for what Laura did.
When I described the definition of bullying, I worded it as "for no particular reason".
I don't mean that in terms of "good" or "bad" because that can be very subjective. A person in class may have an acne problem, and maybe that can be argued to be a good reason for someone to make fun of him for it.

To the best of my knowledge, prior to this Hogg had not used his standing to attack Laura (or anyone else) over something that's purely personal.
I'm not of the opinion that someone should be free from criticism just because they've been victims of a tragedy. But it depends on what the criticism is. If there's footage of him kicking a baby, then by all means. But from someone who proclaims to keep things classy, to out of the blue claim that he was whining about not getting into specific colleges when all he said was "it's annoying", and even added that he's "not surprised at all that they didn't chose him because there are so many other highly talented people out there who don't even get in either", then it was neither the proper time or place to criticize him imo.

It's a free country though. But if she wants to behave that way, I think it's only fair that sponsors who elevate her position re-evaluate if she is representing their brand in ways they're comfortable with.

I'm under the impression that you feel these corporations should continue to sponsor her, even when she behaves this way.
She can bully him all she wants without brands giving her extra money to represent them in a good light. (Which she apparently didn't for some sponsors at least.)

I feel those Corporations should sponsor whoever makes them the most money, which is what they're doing. The issue is Hogg damaged her image (from where she makes money for sponsors), causing the sponsors to leave. The problem isn't that the sponsors cucked out. Hogg damaged her ability to generate money and then refused to let off the gas after she admitted defeat. He didn't have to accept her apology, but he could have left it at that. He instead twisted the knife, and it's the kind of deplorable action that I don't support.

But can you try to present these arguments without reducing people's opinions to "leftists" and "rightists"? I prefer not to be so redundantly presumptuous about people. Not only because I know conservatives who think she got what she deserved. But I'd like to think that the issue of human decency isn't a left vs right thing. And it's just a better way to stay on topic.

I use leftist as a term to separate the lunacy of today's Democratic party from the pre-Obama classical liberals. I will also identify the groups involved, so if it's present day Democrats, I'm going to call leftists out. I also never said "rightist". I don't think anyone says rightist.

Anyway, no one was boycotting her show when she told Lebron James to "shut up and Dribble" because he is "barely intelligible" and "ungrammatical". Needless to say, Lebron James has more followers than Ingraham and Hogg put together, and then multiplied by 20. (Over 41 million.)

Of course, he didn't call on people to contact her sponsors, but that still created a lot of media attention. And no one has to rally people for sponsors to become aware of situations like this and pull out. Bill O'Riley for example lost a ton of sponsors without anyone in particular rallying ppl to contact them.

There wasn't a boycott during that because Lebron didn't publicly call for it and declare anyone who disagrees a sympathizer of child murder.

So the answer is that it's likely both. Laura behaved in ways that these companies don't want to be associated with, combined with people SJWs contacting them over it. It's more a question of if it's justified for sponsors to not want to be associated with her behavior.
You also have to keep in mind that many of her followers are also saying they will boycott said companies if they pull their adds from her show. Hashtag #IStandWithLaura I believe it was. And she has significantly more followers.

Like I said above, I don't blame the companies. I blame Hogg for calling the boycott and for twisting the knife. And on the record, I'd wager that this entire debacle lands Hogg into a college of his choice because he's "so brave for standing up for himself".

No I used the term "unprovoked" for what Laura did.
When I described the definition of bullying, I worded it as "for no particular reason".
I don't mean that in terms of "good" or "bad" because that can be very subjective. A person in class may have an acne problem, and maybe that can be argued to be a good reason for someone to make fun of him for it.

Sounds like a particular reason.

To the best of my knowledge, prior to this Hogg had not used his standing to attack Laura (or anyone else) over something that's purely personal.
I'm not of the opinion that someone should be free from criticism just because they've been victims of a tragedy. But it depends on what the criticism is. If there's footage of him kicking a baby, then by all means. But from someone who proclaims to keep things classy, to out of the blue claim that he was whining about not getting into specific colleges when all he said was "it's annoying", and even added that he's "not surprised at all that they didn't chose him because there are so many other highly talented people out there who don't even get in either", then it was neither the proper time or place to criticize him imo.

He's been calling anyone who disagrees with him child murderers and fucking pieces of shit.

It's a free country though. But if she wants to behave that way, I think it's only fair that sponsors who elevate her position re-evaluate if she is representing their brand in ways they're comfortable with.

Considering the apology and Hogg's response, all she has to do now is reaffirm her apology and wam: Hogg's an asshole.

But that's already a thing.

That makes sense to me, when you can't win via head-to-head combat of course you're going to try to go through unconventional means. And you want people to respect those in power and authority simply because they're in power and authority?