Biggest audience in years...

Status
Not open for further replies.
agreed. it is the same idiotic cycle for Glen Beck too.
 
all of them are biased and full of crap in oneway or another
 
saywhatkid said:
I suspect the same will happen for Rush. Of course, the Liberals will bring this to the forefront when inspired to do so, just as Conservatives use the Schultz thing.

Rush did have a TV show back in the early 90's. I watched it a few times. Not sure why he does not have one now.
Click to expand...

Actually, the difference is that people is calling to shut down a station versus those supporting freedom of speech even if the host irks them and the people.
 
kokonut said:
Actually, the difference is that people is calling to shut down a station versus those supporting freedom of speech even if the host irks them and the people.
Click to expand...

you criticized people for name calling and made blogs/videos out of it.... and I'm not seeing any in here on Rush Limbaugh.

very interesting....
 
Brrrr....and this is in Australia, too.


It is almost incredible that Finkelstein, who as a Federal Court judge once adjudicated on the lives of citizens according to the laws of a liberal democracy, could conceive of such a regime to control freedom of speech.

Finkelstein’s ideological position is not hard to find. It’s in paragraph 4.10 of his report. He thinks a council should control speech in Australia because most people are too dumb or ignorant to decide for themselves about what they see and hear and read in the media.

In response to the claim from News Ltd’s John Hartigan that ultimately readers “were capable of making up their own minds” about bias in the media, Finkelstein writes, “often, however, readers are not in a position to make an appropriately informed judgment”.

This is intellectual arrogance at its most breathtaking. And it’s a great argument against democracy. If, as Finkelstein claims, people aren’t smart enough to decide for themselves the merits of what they see in the media then they’re certainly not smart enough to decide who to vote for.

This is the totalitarian fallacy: don’t let the people decide (because the people are too stupid), let judges and academics decide for them.
Click to expand...

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Who watch the watchers?
 
kokonut said:
So, who isn't biased?

One man's crap is another man's fertilizer.

:shock:

Yeah, I guess we all have opinions.
Click to expand...

and yet no crops grow in washington dc... you'd figure with all the bullshit going on, enough crops would be fertalized that we could feed the world's hungry untill everone on the planet is as portly as rosie o'donnell....
 
Here's why pulling ads or sponsors have not worked in making a dent to Rush's station.


And judging from the reaction of my own brother, who sends me a note last night, "You really lost 28 sponsors?" No, we have not lost 28 sponsors. "Well, how can they say it?" Because they lie and because they don't understand how it works, and that's what I want to try and explain.
.
.
What you're seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect. And let me try to explain how this works. Let's take the claim that we've lost 28 sponsors. Sponsors on this program are both local and national. We deal with the national sponsors on this program. We have 600-plus stations. They sell their own commercials. We don't have anything to do with those sponsors. We don't get paid by those sponsors. We have no idea who those sponsors are.

Let's make up a company, ABC Widget Company. And let's say that ABC Widget Company says, "We are no longer going to appear on the Rush Limbaugh Show." Well, ABC Widget Company isn't on the Rush Limbaugh Show. What happens is, advertising agencies order advertising buys on a series of local stations from market to market to market. A controversy like this erupts. They put out a notice to the stations, "By the way, for the time being we don't want our commercials run when Limbaugh is on." But they are not canceling their advertising on the station. They're just saying they don't want it running on my program during the local affiliate's commercial time, not ours.

So this 28 or 32 -- and I don't even know if that number's accurate, numbers are coming from Media Matters. There's no way anybody could know this, but I'm gonna put it in further perspective in just a second. What it means is there have been -- let's use the number 28 -- 28 advertisers who none of us are aware are even advertising on our local stations who had sent out orders that their commercials are not to run on my program. But that is not revenue to us. They are not our sponsors. They are not even canceling their advertising on the local station. They're just saying for the time being they don't want it run from noon to three. And let me tell you, this happens every day. It's been happening for 23-plus years. And it's not just to me. There are clients, advertisers, that tell stations, "I don't want this to run in Beck's show. I don't want it to run in Hannity's. I don't want it to run in Howard Stern's." It's all part of the business.

But because there's a focal point on this in trying to dispirit you and trying to present a picture of this program that doesn't exist and that's untrue, they're trying to make it sound like this is unprecedented -- that it's never happened before, it's at an all-time high -- and it simply isn't the case. We have not lost 28 national sponsors. There are not 28 advertisers who were paying us who aren't anymore. They are local commercial buys. Many of them may not even be running in my show to begin with. The advertisers are just saying, "If they are, pull 'em. We don't want 'em in there for now," but they're staying on the local stations. These advertisers are not abandoning EIB affiliates.

Nobody is losing money here, including us, in all this. And that is key for you to understand. They are not canceling the business on our stations. They're just saying they don't want their spots to appear in my show. We don't get any revenue from 'em anyway. The whole effort is to dispirit you. It's to make you think the left is being successful in its campaign when it isn't. In fact, the left is so fed up, they can't see straight. They thought they had me. They thought I would be off the air by now. They can't understand why I still am on the air. There is also another rumor going around that I am going to be suspended for a week. It is utter BS.

I would have to suspend myself!

Now, let me put this in further perspective for you, this number of 28 or 32, and then we're gonna move on to other things. Sponsors of our program are both nationwide companies, like Two If By Tea (my tea company), and local companies, like "Mike's Auto Body Repair" or a local bank. If we added up all of our affiliates (let's choose the number 600) and we assumed that each of those affiliates had 30 such sponsors in the course of our three-hour program, there might be -- all across this country -- as many as 18,000 different sponsors of this program. Let me put it another way: There might be 18,000 different people buying advertising within this program alone.

That is a conservative number: 600 stations, 18 commercial minutes an hour. We take whatever we take to sell ourselves and the local station keeps the rest. They have local advertisers. You add up all those over the course of 600 stations, over three hours a day, five days a week, and we're talking 18,000 different sponsors, okay? ABC News, who understands how this works and are purposely misrepresenting it, is out there ballyhooing that we have lost 28 sponsors. Twenty-eight sponsors out of 18,000! That's like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it's delivered to you at the drive-thru. You don't even notice it.
Click to expand...

Clearing Up Misinformation on Our Sponsors - The Rush Limbaugh Show
 
Are we talking about a Georgetown Law student that thinks Catholics should pay the $4 a month birth control pills she so desperately needs?
 
Steinhauer said:
Are we talking about a Georgetown Law student that thinks Catholics should pay the $4 a month birth control pills she so desperately needs?
Click to expand...
I think we are. Do you plan to defend Rush for calling her a slut? Do you have a better, more caustic term?
 
saywhatkid said:
I think we are. Do you plan to defend Rush for calling her a slut? Do you have a better, more caustic term?
Click to expand...

and prostitute. and rounded-heel.
 
Just making sure we are talking about the same person. Is Rush Limbaugh allowed to call her names or does he need to get the "ok" from you guys first?

(that translates into - who cares what Rush had to say?)
 
Steinhauer said:
Just making sure we are talking about the same person. Is Rush Limbaugh allowed to call her names or does he need to get the "ok" from you guys first?

(that translates into - who cares what Rush had to say?)
Click to expand...

no.... this is not difficult.

do you condone or condemn Rush's use of vile language toward a person? do you think Rush should at least act like a courteous adult?
 
Rush was rude, obnoxious and out of line for calling the 30 year old college student who is dating a trust fund socialist and takes vacations to Spain and Italy but still wants other people to pay for her birth control a slut. He did retract his ugly name-calling.

There have been two boycots. One was apparently spontaneous. The second was astroturfed by Media Matters, which promoted the boycott, and then reported on it without disclosing they were they ones pushing it.

But it's hard to take the left's pretend outrage over Rush's rudeness seriously when they've ignored worse things from their own side for years. Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut. Bill Maher uses words I won't even type when he talks about conservative women with whom he disagrees.
David Letterman makes rape jokes about 14 year old children.
Feminist Kristen Powers writes:
Rush Limbaugh is justifiably boycotted for calling a woman a “slut” and a “prostitute,” but the man who used the c-word, twat and boobs to refer to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann is getting a visit from a top Democratic strategist. Liberals have demanded that GOP leaders denounce Limbaugh, but President Obama, who has opined repeatedly on the Limbaugh controversy, refuses to denounce Maher. This despite the fact that Maher has made a high-profile $1 million donation to Obama’s super PAC, which is run by longtime Obama aide Bill Burton.
Click to expand...

She also reminded her readers:
Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
Click to expand...

The double standard here is blatant.
 
Jiro said:
no.... this is not difficult.

do you condone or condemn Rush's use of vile language toward a person? do you think Rush should at least act like a courteous adult?
Click to expand...

Maybe you didn't get it the first time. I don't care. His opinions and views are his, not mine.

I think she is a sensationalist that enjoys bashing Catholicism. She isn't the first and will not be the last.

Rush Limbaugh is also a sensationalist. That is why he uses vulgar and crude language.

Just a change of subject, I found out that avacados reduce cholesterol and are a beneficial dietary supplement for good health. I am going to see what I can do to force my employers to buy some for me. :roll:

Its basic health care after all.
 
Grayma said:
Rush was rude, obnoxious and out of line for calling the 30 year old college student who is dating a trust fund socialist and takes vacations to Spain and Italy but still wants other people to pay for her birth control a slut. He did retract his ugly name-calling.

There have been two boycots. One was apparently spontaneous. The second was astroturfed by Media Matters, which promoted the boycott, and then reported on it without disclosing they were they ones pushing it.

But it's hard to take the left's pretend outrage over Rush's rudeness seriously when they've ignored worse things from their own side for years. Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut. Bill Maher uses words I won't even type when he talks about conservative women with whom he disagrees.
David Letterman makes rape jokes about 14 year old children.
Feminist Kristen Powers writes:


She also reminded her readers:


The double standard here is blatant.
Click to expand...

We are not concerned with leftist's double standard or Bill Maher or David Letterman or anybody else in this thread.

This is about Rush Limbaug's use of vile language and sexist remarks. Anybody else who did such thing should be shamed too.
 
Steinhauer said:
Maybe you didn't get it the first time. I don't care. His opinions and views are his, not mine.

I think she is a sensationalist that enjoys bashing Catholicism. She isn't the first and will not be the last.

Rush Limbaugh is also a sensationalist. That is why he uses vulgar and crude language.

Just a change of subject, I found out that avacados reduce cholesterol and are a beneficial dietary supplement for good health. I am going to see what I can do to force my employers to buy some for me. :roll:

Its basic health care after all.
Click to expand...

if it's Rush Limbaugh, you don't care and you're brushing it off as "that's his opinion and view, not mine."

and if it's a Democrat or Leftist, you do care and you're name-calling him as socialist, Constitution shitter, etc.

interestinggggggggggggggg :hmm:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top