I'm merely establishing a pattern of (far worse) behaviour. It's even reminiscent of the "Shut up and dribble" statement to LeBron James and similar comments she made to Jimmy Kimmel as well. These are personal attacks and they haven't slowed with age. She's demonstrated it in her youth and in her later years. In fact, it's how she earns a living. 

As for her apology, it only came after having her brother and his boyfriend struggle through AIDS. Her most recent apology came only after losing advertisers. The impetus behind these apologies are suspect. 

Here's a direct quote from Hogg: “She only apologized after we went after her advertisers,” Hogg said. “It kind of speaks for itself. ... I’m not going to stoop to her level and go after her on a personal level. I’m going to go after her advertisers.”

My question is, who is actually being bullied here? Hogg is asking people to speak with their wallets, which is what many often suggest when a company pulls some stupid shit. Why is this not respectable? Has Hogg called on anyone to personally attack Ingraham? It appears as though he's of sound enough mind not to make personal attacks. 

Because nobody should be voting with their wallets. They should vote at the ballot box. Customer decisions should be based on value and price. Unfortunately we now have people that want to force corporations to make change, when in the past corporations used to be able to dictate the life of people, the way it should be given the power dynamic. 

wat :|

Horrible situation, but there was a 5 minute warning provided to everyone there, yet you had families remain in the crowd with their CHILDREN there? That event is terrible, but it seems irresponsible (and perhaps immoral) to remain there with family when that warning is issued. Am I missing something? If I am then please educate me, but it appears that they were warned and the situation was avoidable?

Actually Hawking's was a atheist and Einstein wasn't very religious and in favor of socialism.

The troops set up their machine guns on the roofs of the low buildings at the corners of the main square, closed off the access streets,^[4]after a five-minute warning^[1] opened fire into a dense Sunday crowd of workers and their families including children who had gathered, after Sunday Mass,^[4] to wait for an anticipated address from the governor

You missed literally the rest of the sentence.

Nah, advertisers should definitely be made aware that who they choose to support matter, and people should be free to drop these advertisers if they so wish.
It's unlikely that "people on David Hogg's Twitter" is a significant demographic, so it stands to reason that what they don't like is the connection of their brand to Ingraham to be made overtly public.
Furthermore, mocking a shooting survivor and getting the boot because of it seems pretty reasonable consequence vs. actions tbh

I think it has to do with the common belief that socialism is an explicitly atheistic ideology.

What are you even talking about? Being an atheist has nothing to do with what opinions you have on gender and physical differences. You are mistaking atheist with some leftists, and they have nothing to do with each other.

OT: The right, namely people like Laura Ingraham, Ben Shapiro, Tomi Lahren and the rest, are the biggest snowflakes in the world but are never shy from punching down on other people. The moment a 17 year old kid pushes back, they start to cry. 

You were saying that religious people are illogical and therefore their pov means less. I gave examples of people that are on the other side of him politically who believe in things that are just as illogical as a believing in a god. In other words, the very thing you're trying to use to discredit others' opinions can easily be used on your side. It's a stupid way to debate.

You don't know how to use snowflake correctly. Which side is constantly protesting and acting like it's the end of world? Which side wants safe spaces and microaggression warnings on everything? Which side considers jokes to be hate speech?