# More Than 40 Radio Stations Might Drop Limbaugh and Hannity



## kidrocks (Jul 29, 2013)

Good riddance!




More Than 40 Radio Stations Might Drop Limbaugh and Hannity - Abby Ohlheiser - The Atlantic Wire



> Just a few months after Cumulus media blamed their financial woes on an advertising boycott of Rush Limbaugh following his decision to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" on-air, it looks like the company may shake off Limbaugh, along with fellow conservative talk show host Sean Hannity, from their 40-odd stations across the nation.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 29, 2013)

A lot of woman may just be prostitutes. Still those advertisers have a right to do what they want.


----------



## kidrocks (Jul 29, 2013)

Matthew said:


> A lot of woman may just be prostitutes. Still those advertisers have a right to do what they want.



And another low-information individual strikes back. Carry-on Mathew.


----------



## tinydancer (Jul 29, 2013)

Matthew don't play the game


----------



## OriginalShroom (Jul 29, 2013)

It's one company with 40 stations that may drop Hannity and Rush, but they if they do they will pick Mark Levin, Savage, and others to replace them.

Never trust a Liberal with an agenda to tell the whole truth.


----------



## kidrocks (Jul 29, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Matthew don't play the game



Speaking of 'low-information' individuals and look who shows up.


----------



## kidrocks (Jul 29, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> It's one company with 40 stations that may drop Hannity and Rush, but they if they do they will pick Mark Levin, Savage, and others to replace them.
> 
> Never trust a Liberal with an agenda to tell the whole truth.




Good! They will drop them also when the 'ratings' come to very low fruition.


----------



## bayoubill (Jul 29, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Good riddance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



we've heard this all before...

always turns out to merely be a lib wet dream...


----------



## RadioRefugee (Jul 29, 2013)

OriginalShroom said:


> It's one company with 40 stations that may drop Hannity and Rush, but they if they do they will pick Mark Levin, Savage, and others to replace them.
> 
> Never trust a Liberal with an agenda to tell the whole truth.



Indeed.

The entire premise for the thread is a piece of shit based on not reading the linked article.

"Assuming the negotiations don't go through, Hannity and Limbaugh's show would move to Clear Channel stations in the markets lost from Cumulus. "


----------



## kidrocks (Jul 29, 2013)

RadioRefugee said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> > It's one company with 40 stations that may drop Hannity and Rush, but they if they do they will pick Mark Levin, Savage, and others to replace them.
> ...






Time to 'boycott' Clear Channel boys and girls. 

LOL... and loving it!


----------



## Politico (Jul 29, 2013)

Damn. This would certainly have to make him sell off one of his jets.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 29, 2013)

Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.

Hate and bigotry, like what Rush spews, kind of bores me.

He's a one trick pony, playing to his base.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> 
> Hate and bigotry, like what Rush spews, kind of bores me.
> 
> He's a one trick pony, playing to his base.



So why do you listen to him?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 29, 2013)

Democrats and free speech...they JUST don't appreciate it...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2013)

American Progressive Nazis are furious that they can't just shut down all opposing views.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 29, 2013)

Liberals love free speech..................as long as it's something they agree with.   ..


----------



## Claudette (Jul 29, 2013)

Might drop? Good Gawd one would think Kiddiporn would wait till THEY ARE DROPPED before posting a thread. 

Slow day in liberalville??


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 29, 2013)

I personally don't listen to the blowhard Limbaugh or his echo chamber Hannity.

But because liberals shake in fear at even the mere mention of their names.

I give them both a hearty double thumbs up!!    ..


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 29, 2013)

btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 29, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> ...



Actually, the only time I listened to him was when I was forced to by my supervisor in the squadron (VFA-131).

We had to listen to that blowhard because our Chief liked to hear him during the afternoon.

Me personally?  I figured out he was full of shit after a couple of shows, I just listened to him because my Chief thought he was a good person, and I tuned most of it out after the first couple of shows.

Since then?  I don't listen to what he says, unless it's brought to my attention because of the news networks saying that they can't believe how much this bigoted asshat needs to keep talking.

To tell you the truth?  If he died tomorrow, I'd remember it happened, but I wouldn't really miss him or his bullshit.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 29, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.



If you listened to Rushing Limp Idiot, then yeah.......................

But then again, Rush has a low opinion of women.

He's also a bigoted asshole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I have to watch CNN when Im in an airport


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You're right..................CNN sucks as a news agency.

The airports would be better served by airing BBC.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jul 29, 2013)

It's funny how the rightwing inmates around here are always defending Limbaugh and Hannity,

at least on the days when they're not claiming they never listen to either of them.


----------



## aaronleland (Jul 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I have to watch gay porn at the gay bar. Funny how that works....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2013)

aaronleland said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Im sure you thought that was profound and meaningful but it leaves me puzzled on many levels


----------



## Surfer (Jul 29, 2013)

Typical liberal behavior. Don't like the message? Shoot the messenger. Idiots...


----------



## aaronleland (Jul 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They play CNN too.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 29, 2013)

aaronleland said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



You have to watch gay porn at the gay bar?

Really?

Why were you at the gay bar?  Are you closeted or out, because after this post, I'm thinking you stepped out of the closet.

I'm still wondering why you watch, as well as why you watch at the place you stated.


----------



## aaronleland (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Is it gay if you are only there for the sex?


----------



## Connery (Jul 29, 2013)

*Moved to proper forum*


----------



## jknowgood (Jul 29, 2013)

Was it called air america or something like that? Another liberal failure.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 29, 2013)

Dead Air America was a joke. It went broke.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



OK so actgually you have no idea what he says on his show, except for the edited bits fed to you by lamestream media. But that doesnt stop you having an opinion.  Is this a great country or what?


----------



## blastoff (Jul 29, 2013)

Actually, it's Premier, representing Rush and Sean, that's dropped Cumulus.  They will sign deals with competing stations in various markets.  That's what happens in the radio industry.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 29, 2013)

Rush and Hannity will be fine. They will ALWAYS be popular because the good, decent people of the country like/support them.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 29, 2013)

The truth is, Cumulus doesn't want to drop either Rush or Hannity.   Both of them are contemplating a bolt to Clear Channel for more money.

Rush Limbaugh rushing out of Cumulus Media to WOR, with Sean Hannity in tow - NY Daily News

New York radio observers have been expecting for the past year that Limbaugh and probably Hannity would leave WABC, which is owned by Cumulus, for rival WOR.

WOR was purchased last year by Clear Channel, which owns Premiere Networks, which syndicates the Limbaugh and Hannity shows.

"Cumulus prefers to use its own talent, and Clear Channel is happy to bring Premiere talent in-house," said Robert Unmacht of iN3 Partners, a media group.

Politico reported Sunday that talks between Premiere and Cumulus had broken down over the cost of renewal rights for the conservative hosts, who have the two most popular radio talk shows in the country and have anchored WABC afternoons for more than a decade.

Their Cumulus deals reportedly expire at the end of the year.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 29, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.



Naw, she's the woman who put an end to Limbaugh.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> American Progressive Nazis are furious that they can't just shut down all opposing views.



You just proved Godwin's Law


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 29, 2013)

Even Al Sharpton is laughing 

Al Sharpton Celebrates Limbaugh/Hannity ?Radio Shake-Up? As A Win For Obama?s Agenda | Mediaite


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.
> ...



Wow.

There's deluded, then there's JoeB Deluded

Wow


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



He's about to lose WABC, KABC and WLS... National Stations everyone has heard of.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.
> ...



I doubt she did that... rare and wishful thinker...

The guy makes well over 40 million a year and has for several years as far as I know. If he decided to retire now he couldn't spend all his wealth. He certainly could piss off Liberals/Democrats/Establishment Republicans at will, no problem, especially unencumbered by contractual obligations..

Sometimes what you hope for ends up biting your ass far worse than expected...my friend.


----------



## tinydancer (Jul 29, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> I personally don't listen to the blowhard Limbaugh or his echo chamber Hannity.
> 
> But because liberals shake in fear at even the mere mention of their names.
> 
> I give them both a hearty double thumbs up!!    ..



Believe it or not, Rush is smart ass supremo and you would probably love his humor. He's really a dry wit and his take kills left and right.

He keeps me laughing daily. I've been a fan for over two decades. Rush really is funny. Not at all what the libs tell you on the board. 

AND he makes you laugh at yourself if you ever get serious.


----------



## tinydancer (Jul 29, 2013)

Put the end to Limbaugh..........................
 :lmbo:
Oh seriously are we kidding here?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 29, 2013)

wow, this must orgasmic for some people..they get off on just, THEY MIGHT..

such shallow people


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 29, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Put the end to Limbaugh..........................
> :lmbo:
> Oh seriously are we kidding here?



Who said liberals weren't funny..


----------



## Surfer (Jul 29, 2013)

No one can/will take Rush or Hannity down. They are solid and have millions of loyal fans--some since the day they started. They are pretty much bullet-proof, too. Rush's fans got pissed/disappointed with the pain killer issue but forgave him. Liberal gods do SO much worse! And liberals can't even show ONE good media guy/chick. Losers...


----------



## whitehall (Jul 29, 2013)

Might is a mighty big word but it's possible that Culumus radio might shoot themselves in the foot but not likely. It would mean ....gasp... that  Hannity and Limbaugh might only have twenty times instead of 22 times more radio stations than the nearest liberal. They can hope though. I guess hope is the only thing the left has these days.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 29, 2013)

bayoubill said:


> kidrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Good riddance!
> ...




False.  This isn't about outrage, or boycotts.  This is about money.

Clear Channel charges too much for 2 shows that don't produce the advertisers or the revenue.  Cumulus has a history of not wanting to spend money without concrete results, and always plays hardball at negotiations.

It's not a Left/Right issue, it's that they can get the lunatic Savage for a hell of a lot less money than Rush.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 29, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


They keep TVs in the men's room?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 29, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Typical liberal behavior. Don't like the message? Shoot the messenger. Idiots...


Cumulus Radio are Liberals?


----------



## Surfer (Jul 29, 2013)

The people who are getting the most joy out of anything bad happening to Rush or Hannity are always liberals. Always. They are haters.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Correct.  These are 40 stations in major media markets.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 29, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > I personally don't listen to the blowhard Limbaugh or his echo chamber Hannity.
> ...


This post explains SO much!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 29, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> *Put the end to Limbaugh..........................*
> :lmbo:
> Oh seriously are we kidding here?



Heart Disease, obesity, or AIDS will likely do that.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 29, 2013)

More left wing B.S. about trying to silence information sources they don't like. Too bad we still have that stodgy old 1st Amendment around.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> 
> Hate and bigotry, like what Rush spews, kind of bores me.
> 
> He's a one trick pony, playing to his base.









You mean like this douchebag?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOgz9rV7w9E]Ed Schultz: Hateful? - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC3XxN0pdkg]MSNBC's Ed Schultz Has Psychotic Incident With Radio Caller - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5TnP9obbk]MSNBC Libtalker: We Ought To Rip Out Cheney's Heart - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 29, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of woman may just be prostitutes. Still those advertisers have a right to do what they want.
> ...



Yeah yeah yeah....This is Hyman Roth dying of the same heart attack for the last 20 years. Nobody cares.
It is because in every market Cumulus is in, another company will pick up the shows.
No business owner worth his salt would allow such a financial opportunity to pass him by. 
Cumulus is of no consequence. 
In those 40 markets, the company will have to fill 6 hours of programming. And if they are lucky, get 1/10 the ratings. 
The sad part is, in those markets, a lot of Cumulus employees are going to lose their jobs.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 29, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> RadioRefugee said:
> 
> 
> > OriginalShroom said:
> ...


That's like a fly taking a dump in the ocean in attempt to foul a beach.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> 
> Hate and bigotry, like what Rush spews, kind of bores me.
> 
> He's a one trick pony, playing to his base.



Give examples of hate an bigotry. Be specific.
ANd if you roll out Sandra Fluke, forget it. That lasted all of 10 minutes.
The chick is a hussie that got used and tossed aside by the Obama admin. They milked that cow for all they could get. 
Nobody cared then. And nobody cares now.
So...Those example, hmmm.


----------



## GWV5903 (Jul 29, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Good riddance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Conclusive proof liberals will believe anything...

Rush & Hannity will remain on talk radio for years to come...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 29, 2013)

jknowgood said:


> Was it called air america or something like that? Another liberal failure.



Yep.. It topped out at about 400,000 total listeners. In some markets the ratings were so low, Arbitron did not list them. Meaning the rating was less than 0.1
Or less than 1,000 listeners in a given 15 minute segment. OUCH.
No wonder why that shit company was bouncing pay checks.


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.
> ...








Put an end to him?  The level of your delusion is truly amazing!


----------



## westwall (Jul 29, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > Was it called air america or something like that? Another liberal failure.
> ...








Yep, but that paragon of supporting the little man Al Franken (who was also an owner) got his money.  Even screwed some poor youth group to get his....  Fucking prick....


----------



## Zona (Jul 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> 
> Hate and bigotry, like what Rush spews, kind of bores me.
> 
> He's a one trick pony, playing to his base.



Hannity is worse.  Imho


----------



## Zona (Jul 29, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> ...


Hussie?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> ...



Actually it was a _three day_ orgy, not "ten minutes".

Hell, this compendium alone is over 7 minutes.  Notice he's wearing three different shirts:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0]53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo (Jul 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And he's already been booted off WPHT (formerly WCAU), which although not a Cumulus station, is another clear channel station like those.
That was a while ago.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> ...




If you didn't lie, you would have nothing to say:


On February 29, 2012, Rush Limbaugh initiated a three-day smear campaign against Sandra Fluke, launching 46 personal attacks  against her. This moment and Limbaugh's subsequent refusal to apologize  for, or even acknowledge, all but two of those attacks put the  spotlight on the right-wing talk business model that Limbaugh helped  construct.​


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Radio is a fickle business.  Just ask Dr. Laura or Howard Stern.  

Frankly, getting rid of Limbaugh would be the best thing for the GOP, as he does more damage than good.  

Let us go back to the Fluke issue as an example. 

Now, there actually was a perfectly valid policy issue here. That issue being, should employers be required to fund medical treatments that violate their religious beliefs.  My own opinion is they should. If you hire someone, they didn't sign on to your superstitions.  But there really was a valid argument to be made there as to the limits of freedom and government.  

All of which got overshadowed by Limbaugh screaming "slut" and "prostitute" at this woman for three days until his sponsors told him to knock it off.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



He just has a "wide Stance"....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > I personally don't listen to the blowhard Limbaugh or his echo chamber Hannity.
> ...



I used to listen to Rush for years, until I realized he was the tool of the wealthy and was only getting people riled up about the other stuff to keep their eyes off what they were doing to the country.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2013)

whitehall said:


> More left wing B.S. about trying to silence information sources they don't like. Too bad we still have that stodgy old 1st Amendment around.



It's not a First Amendment Issue.  Although it would be nice if we brought back the equal time and fairness doctrines to PUBLIC airwaves so we get a more balanced variety of views.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 30, 2013)

I laughed when Rachel Madcow mocked Bush mercilessly and then attacked Repubs for daring to speak the truth about Hussein. I laughed when that idiot Randi Rhodes called for a hit on Bush ON THE AIR and was not fired. I laughed even harder when that dreaded Patriot Act prevented TWO hits on Hussein but the libs still despise it! Liberals are the worst hypocrites, idiots and biggest maggots this country has ever seen.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

Zona said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yeah.... Loose, promiscuous, hose bag, cum dumpster.
Ability to suck start a Chevrolet....Get it?
Still waiting for those examples.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

Pogo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Still waiting for those examples of hatred and bigotry.
Fluke IS a slut. Limbaugh did not make up anything that was not true.
Nobody cares about Ms Fluke except the guys she invites over for their 'turn'.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

Pogo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Booted? Please.
These are business decisions. Some are political. Who cares. 


  And the show was picked up by WWIQ- FM...a 38Kw Station with a coverage area that encompasses all of Southeasterm PA, Southern NJ and Northern DE....
Any questions?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 30, 2013)

bit.ly/16hiqzO




.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...




I see that you have no intention of admitting you are wrong.  Par for the course with you.

But tell me - why is she a slut?

Are women who use birth control sluts?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Any woman who says she has a lot of sex with multiple partners in my book is a slut. It's a subjective observation. Deal with it.
And no, a woman who uses birth control is NOT a slut. She is being smart.
Fluke was demanding that her promiscuity entitled to her getting birth control pills at someone else's expense (insurance).
Tell ya what...If you are so sympathetic to her plight, why don't YOU pay for her stuff?
No matter. Limbaugh's and Hannity's shows get great ratings. Usually number one in their time slots among the 18-54 demographic. 
That gets under your skin. 
I would imagine some form of the old fairness doctrine would have you turning handsprings and drooling with utter joy.
Whatever.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



When did she say that?  Link?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> American Progressive Nazis are furious that they can't just shut down all opposing views.





My only correction to that is that they are actually Reactionary Liberals, not Progressives.   They don't want progress, they want stasis.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 30, 2013)

General question for the Moonbat Faction:

Many of you use the "Rush Limbaugh Fan" accusation as your entire argument when criticizing what conservatives post.  Well, given the fact that 40 stations may drop him, that's an indication that not all conservatives pay any attention to Rush.

What are you going to say now?


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


The only woman who said that was your MessiahRushie.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Yet another lie only from the mouth of your MessiahRushie!


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 30, 2013)

I laugh at these threads, they must still be ticked because Air America couldn't make it and the left wing talk shows hardly anyone listens to them..

take PmsNbc for a reason WHY...liberal idiot shriekers on that station and their ratings...IN THE TOILET..lol

lefties and that green eyed monster, isn't pretty


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 30, 2013)

If Democrats were so concerned about false accusations they would demand MSNBC news/entertainment/Obama leg shiver-ers be taken off the air not only for their lies and half truths but from sheer and understandable embarrassment...


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 30, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> If Democrats were so concerned about false accusations they would demand MSNBC news/entertainment/Obama leg shivers be taken off the air not only for their lies but from sheer and understandable embarrassment....yup.



no kidding, now how funny they don't...ummmm


----------



## Surfer (Jul 30, 2013)

Fluke was an idiot. She could have gotten her pills from Walmart for $3/mo and saved herself a boatload of embarrassment. Except she probably isn't embarrassed. She should be. What a pig...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 30, 2013)

I wouldn't fuck Sandy Fluke with Michelle Obama's dick


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 30, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Fluke was an idiot. She could have gotten her pills from Walmart for $3/mo and saved herself a boatload of embarrassment. Except she probably isn't embarrassed. She should be. What a pig...


Yeah, women don't need no doctor's examination. Men know what's best for women's reproductive organs. Just go to Walmart and get the cheapest shit from China they got.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I wouldn't fuck Sandy Fluke with Michelle Obama's dick







edthecynic said:


> Yeah, women don't need no doctor's examination. Men know what's best for women's reproductive organs. Just go to Walmart and get the cheapest shit from China they got.



I never said anything about getting them without a script. BC pills are mostly the same. Generics are generics and almost the exact same as name brand. Idiotic/ignorant comment...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Based on this link, Fluke spends more time on her back than standing....LOL..
The PJ Tatler » Sandra Fluke has become the Poster Child for the No Morals Movement.


Look, who cares. The woman wants someone else to pay for her recreational activities.
And this thread has been hijacked long enough. 
Limbaugh and Hannity are not going away...
Too bad for you.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Again, no direct quote, just another right-wing liar making shit up. Just another mindless asshole parroting your MessiahRushie's stupid claim that Fluke needs a pill each and every time she has sex thus needing to have sex 5 times a day.

Which goes to show, no matter how stupid and moronic the rationalization Limburger gives for his premeditated lies, the DittoNazis will swallow his shit whole without question, and then accuse everyone with more knowledge on the subject of being "low-information" voters!.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I wouldn't fuck Sandy Fluke with Michelle Obama's dick



That's fucking funny!!!!!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Like I stated earlier. Nobody cares whether Fluke is DC's best known hose bag or pure as the driven snow.
It's a non-sequitur.
Both shows are not going away. Period.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 30, 2013)

Manchelle is a beast. Ugh.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Yeah..Blah blah blah. You're spouting nonsense.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 30, 2013)

Rush and Hannity are not the liars or losers. Fluke is a pig. Most liberals are lowlifes who support her godless behavior.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

This thread has run its course. I'm out.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Manchelle is a beast. Ugh.


Here. Listen to this....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4fTcRViu_Y]Ladies Man - Two Fine Hams - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 30, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Still waiting for those examples of hatred and bigotry.
> Fluke IS a slut. Limbaugh did not make up anything that was not true.
> Nobody cares about Ms Fluke except the guys she invites over for their 'turn'.



Guy, did you actually listen to Ms. Flukes Testimony?  

Besides the weird part that Rush and you think the amount of birth control you need is linked to how much sex you are having, (Seriously, does he know anything about how lady parts work?)  she didn't talk about sex. 

She talked about a fellow student who has Ovarian Cysts, who needs birth control pills to treat them, and can't get them because the Church won't pay for them.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 30, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for those examples of hatred and bigotry.
> ...


Planned Parenthood....Very low cost.
Fluke is a raging feminist. Why would I be interested in the rantings of a disciple of Gloria Allred.


----------



## Toro (Jul 30, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Rush and Hannity are not the liars or losers. Fluke is a pig. Most liberals are lowlifes who support her godless behavior.



And Republicans wonder why they lost to Obama.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 31, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> If Democrats were so concerned about false accusations they would demand MSNBC news/entertainment/Obama leg shiver-ers be taken off the air not only for their lies and half truths but from sheer and understandable embarrassment...



Hmm.............I seem to remember FAUX Nooze and CNN reported on the constitutionality of Obamacare, and they said the Supreme Court struck it down.  

MSNBC?  They waited and read the whole ruling, and were the first ones to tell the nation it was ruled as being constitutional.

I also seem to remember that FAUX Nooze and CNN also reported that the Tsarnaev brothers had been captured a full day and a half before the younger one was caught.  I also seem to remember them reporting (both of them) that the individuals who they "caught" the first time were dark skinned.

MSNBC said they hadn't been captured yet, and got it right yet again.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Jul 31, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > If Democrats were so concerned about false accusations they would demand MSNBC news/entertainment/Obama leg shiver-ers be taken off the air not only for their lies and half truths but from sheer and understandable embarrassment...
> ...



It's good that you're so dedicated to actually watching Fox News and not just relaying mischievious lies. ...

I'm sure they make mistakes and I expect they would apologize for them...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> [
> Planned Parenthood....Very low cost.
> Fluke is a raging feminist. Why would I be interested in the rantings of a disciple of Gloria Allred.



Now get into the Kitchen.... 

yeah, can't imagine that you see women as much more than that.


----------



## HomeInspect (Jul 31, 2013)

What is so ironic about the excitment in the OP...  Talk radio could lose 80% of all its conservative talk, and still be twice as successful as the lefty talkers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> What is so ironic about the excitment in the OP...  Talk radio could lose 80% of all its conservative talk, and still be twice as successful as the lefty talkers.



Works on the assumption that success in the Cutting Edge Technology of 1920 (AM Radio) is that important.  

Point is, Democrats have won 5 of the last six Presidential popular votes, and they'd have gone 6 for 6 if Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election.  

The thing is, Rush is not going to go away because Liberals drove him off the air. 

He's going to go away because the big corporations that once propped him up now realize he's hurting their economic goal of making money and their political goals of getting Republicans elected.


----------



## JWBooth (Jul 31, 2013)

A drop in the bucket.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 31, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> A drop in the bucket.



Considering these are the stations in LA, NYC and Chicago, not really.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



No questions, just answers.  It's an FM station at the top of the dial, which is not exactly desirable electronic real estate.  Moreover, FM statons' reach isn't determined by power but mainly by antenna HAAT.  Whereas the station that booted him is an *AM* station (the reach of which IS determined by power), which has become the default zone for talk radio, which is a clear channel station with 50kW, which was once said to be audible in 47 of the 50 states, so there's a wee bit of difference between their impact.  WWIQ is the latest incarnation of WKDN in Camden, which has been trying to find relevance all its life.

You're not going to snow me on the Philadelphia radio dial, bub.  I grew up with it and worked on it.  I know it like the back of my hand.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 31, 2013)

Last I heard stations can decide for themselves who they want and who they don't want.

I'm pretty other stations will pick them. That the way it is.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> This thread has run its course. I'm out.



Considering the holes you've dug yourself into with the "hussies" and "hose bags" and abject ignorance of Fluke's actual testimony, that's prolly all you have left.



HomeInspect said:


> What is so ironic about the excitment in the OP...  Talk radio could lose 80% of all its conservative talk, and still be twice as successful as the lefty talkers.



Once again, that all depends on what you call "success".  If you actually believe that the goal of a given radio program is to draw listeners, then you're abandoning any importance of the content.  Can't have it both ways.

If the goal were to simply attract listeners, it would be as if the objective here to post something that draws readers, whatever the content, which means grabbing attention any way you can, in which case you might as well just paste porn images.

In other words by measuring Limblob (or anyone else) by ratings numbers, you're saying the content therein is meaningless and amounts to, in his case, political porn.

Which actually makes perfect sense; that's what Limblob deals in: politics porn.  He even looks like a porn store clerk, which is no coincidence.  In both cases you get sleazy self-indulgent emotional candy devoid of redeeming social or educational value that appeals only to the gut.


----------



## edthecynic (Jul 31, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Last I heard stations can decide for themselves who they want and who they don't want.
> 
> *I'm pretty* other stations will pick them. That the way it is.


No you ain't!


----------



## Surfer (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> And Republicans wonder why they lost to Obama.



Hussein bought the first election with his dirty, mostly foreign Muslime-donated $1B. The second time the losers reelected Santa Claus. Hussein is the worst president ever. Makes Carter look like a rocket scientist. This country is a disaster because of Hussein. I did not love Romney but he would have been a hell of a lot better than that Muslime POS.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

I hear that calling women "sluts" is a sure-fire recipe for radio success!


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > And Republicans wonder why they lost to Obama.
> ...



^^^^^^^^^
No crazy there.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> I hear that calling women "sluts" is a sure-fire recipe for radio success!



It's a sure-fire recipe for notoriety.  Some seem to think that's the same thing.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Rush and Hannity are not the liars or losers. Fluke is a pig. Most liberals are lowlifes who support her godless behavior.
> ...



oh please


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 31, 2013)

Surfer said:


> No one can/will take Rush or Hannity down. They are solid and have millions of loyal fans--some since the day they started. They are pretty much bullet-proof, too. Rush's fans got pissed/disappointed with the pain killer issue but forgave him. Liberal gods do SO much worse! And liberals can't even show ONE good media guy/chick. Losers...



Technically that's incorrect.  If Rush went head to head with either Jon Stewart or Stephen Corbert, it would probably be a good match.  Though, to be fair, both hide behind comedy because they are intellectual light weights.  When ever I see Mr. Stewart pinned in an actual debate?  He falls back on "I'm only a comedian" cop out.  You've probably seen this when he goes toe to toe with Mr. O'Riley. 

Corbert?  Well, he won't even get serious enough for a second, his tac is classic political satire to make a point, there is no serious dialog there.

None the less, those are very popular media fellows to be taken seriously.  They have a lot more pull with the liberals, and the independents than Bill Marr ever did.  My dad is a die hard conservative, and he trusts the news he gets from Jon Stewart more than any of the nightly Anchors.  Stewart gets the interviews, he gets the scoops, and he generally tells the truth.  Both from a conservative, and liberal point of view.  He has a classic American moderate thinking.  Is he heavily liberal biased?  Sure.  But he doesn't try to hide it, that makes him different from the mainstream anchors of the networks.  Plus, his comedy isn't as blatantly hateful, it is more, I don't know, good natured.  Rush's humor tends to be a bit nasty, like a school yard bully.  That can even turn off even some conservatives.

Let's put it this way, Jon Stewart has more conservative fans than Rush Limbaugh has Liberal fans, Okay?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 31, 2013)

You notice these people with a hardon for Rush and Hannity never call out any of the left winger idiot talking heads? or whine about PmsNbc?

it's Rush, Hannity, rush, Hannity, rush, Hannity...fox news fox news, blaaa blaaa

such hypocrites..that's why they can't be taken seriously


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 31, 2013)

Cumulus isn't dropping either Rush or Hannity.   When the contracts end, Rush and Hannity will negotiate better deals with Clear Channel which has way more outlets that Cumulus.  This is business not ideology.  Cumulus would keep both of them, if they could afford it, but they can't.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



Those Godless sluts!


----------



## KevinWestern (Jul 31, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Good riddance!
> 
> More Than 40 Radio Stations Might Drop Limbaugh and Hannity - Abby Ohlheiser - The Atlantic Wire
> 
> ...



I don't dislike Rush because I disagree with all of the things he says (he brings up good points from time to time), I just dislike him because he's a driving force of *cynicism *and negativity throughout our country. Sometimes I think guys like him (they exist on both right and left) would like nothing more than to see the country erupt into a violent bloodbath. 

Much rather listen to a guy like Art Bell, which I hear is coming back!

We need to think more positively about each other. 


.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Cumulus isn't dropping either Rush or Hannity.   When the contracts end, Rush and Hannity will negotiate better deals with Clear Channel which has way more outlets that Cumulus.  This is business not ideology.  Cumulus would keep both of them, if they could afford it, but they can't.



Or, EIB will take less money, which is what will probably happen.

If ratings are falling and advertisers are deserting in droves, why would Clear Channel pay more than Cumulus?  Clear Channel isn't stupid.  If Cumulus is losing $100 million on the shows, why would Clear Channel sign a more lucrative contract?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

KevinWestern said:


> kidrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Good riddance!
> ...



Hear hear, this hits the nail on the noggin.

Lush Rimjob didn't invent divisiveness, yet in a way he did as regards media.  His stated goal isn't to disseminate news or opinion but in his words "to make you mad" so he can charge "confiscatory ad rates".  What he does in making a living off ad hominem and demonization is self-serving, manipulative, and in large part responsible for the degree of division in discourse we "enjoy" today.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Cumulus isn't dropping either Rush or Hannity.   When the contracts end, Rush and Hannity will negotiate better deals with Clear Channel which has way more outlets that Cumulus.  This is business not ideology.  Cumulus would keep both of them, if they could afford it, but they can't.
> ...



Ummmm.  Because it isn't true.  It's just what liberals say is true.    Advertisers aren't deserting in droves, whose who left Rush to make a political point want to come back and he won't let them.  Ratings haven't fallen, liberals just say they have fallen.   Business executives don't make decisions on the basis of what falls from the lips of George Soros, they look at the real numbers.

Clear Channel isn't stupid and they want those highly rated shows and will pay more money to get them.

Now IF, just hypothetically IF, it was true that conservative radio listeners were deserting in droves, then surely Cumulus would not be trying to get Mark Levin and Michael Savage under contract.  Both of them individually are far more virulent and toxic than the more mild Rush and Hannity.  But they are cheaper and that's where it's at.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



And you're basing this on what?  His word?  



Katzndogz said:


> Ratings haven't fallen, liberals just say they have fallen.   Business executives don't make decisions on the basis of what falls from the lips of George Soros, they look at the real numbers.



Actually the real numbers say not only have the ratings been in decline, they were already in decline for three years before FlukeFest.  That's why he put FlukeFest on the air -- to prop up ratings.  

>> As The Daily Beast&#8217;s John Avlon reported last week, the audience for right-wing talk has been shrinking since 2009. In some urban markets, Limbaugh&#8217;s audience has dropped by as much as half over the past three years. Limbaugh and other right-wing talkers have responded to this economic squeeze by a strategy familiar to Republican politicians: they have played to the base.

But even more than the total size of the audience, radio advertisers care about a measure called TSL: time spent listening. The people who listen longest are of course the most ideologically intense.

Here&#8217;s how this operates in the real world. Limbaugh knows that his share of big markets like Dallas or Atlanta has dropped from his old 5 percent in any given hour to, say, 3 percent. But if he can entice that 3 percent to listen twice as long, he can more than make up the loss.

That imperative explains why Limbaugh kept talking about Sandra Fluke for so long. He was boosting his TSL to compensate for his dwindling market share. << (David Frum, from 2012)

Frum's a conservative, FWIW...

The Daily Beast article he refers to about declining ratings is here.  It's worth a read too.
>> Right-wing talk-radio ratings have been declining, at least in part because of PPMs, a new, more accurate way of measuring listenership. In Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis, local talk-radio stations outperform the station that airs Rush and his national conservative-talk cohort. In San Diego, Philadelphia, and Washington, the local NPR station outranks the Rush affiliates. <<


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 31, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > kidrocks said:
> ...



oh for crying out loud...just because you people can't separate a talk show from your real lives doesn't mean other's can't...
and what is the purpose of Bill Maher? to spread some loving?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 31, 2013)

Rush is still the highest rated radio show on the air.   If his ratings have declined, they must have been astronomical to start with or he would not be the highest rated show today.


----------



## PredFan (Jul 31, 2013)

What is this the 847,623,487,563,487,562,934,609,876,495,678,079,560,784,576,235th time lefties have predicted the demise of Limbaugh and/or Hannity?

Dumbasses.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 31, 2013)

PredFan said:


> What is this the 847,623,487,563,487,562,934,609,876,495,678,079,560,784,576,235th time lefties have predicted the demise of Limbaugh and/or Hannity?
> 
> Dumbasses.



About the same number of times the lefties have predicted that Fox's ratings were falling and they would soon be off the air.  Followed by statements that Fox fired Sarah Palin because she was too harmful to Fox, when they actually hired her back once they got the contract straightened out.

The left lies.  It's what they do.


----------



## Surfer (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> No crazy there.



Facts upset liberals...


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > No crazy there.
> ...



Fact:  Presidential election scoreboard --> Obama 2 conservatives 0. 

Fact:  Republicans lost to the worst President in history. Well, the worst since Bush. 

Fact:  Low intelligence Republicans blame their crushing loss on "fraud" rather than themselves.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



alright now...those are fighting words...
you're on a roll today eh?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 31, 2013)

*More Than 40 Radio Stations Might Drop Limbaugh and Hannity *


So?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



You forgot one.

Fact: Toro is a moron.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 31, 2013)

the op acts like this isn't something that can happen to anyone in talk radio...

just ask Air America....lol

the obsession of some in left wing is damn petty


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



Fact:  Toro is smarter than you. 

Fact:  That makes you an uber-moron!


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Stephanie said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



I'm always on a roll.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Surfer said:
> ...



That's not a "fact"; it's an "opinion".

Limblob feeds on people who can't tell the difference.  And you can see how fat he is.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 31, 2013)

boedicca said:


> General question for the Moonbat Faction:
> 
> Many of you use the "Rush Limbaugh Fan" accusation as your entire argument when criticizing what conservatives post.  Well, given the fact that 40 stations may drop him, that's an indication that not all conservatives pay any attention to Rush.
> 
> What are you going to say now?



Regardless of whether you pay attention to him, or even listen to him, you (collectively) ALWAYS defend him, and whatever he says.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 31, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Good riddance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have someone read you the article if you're incapable of comprehending the information yourself.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 31, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Regardless of whether you pay attention to him, or even listen to him, you (collectively) ALWAYS defend him, and whatever he says.



As you do with Obama?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 31, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...




*So you are admitting that you are a liar?*

*I agree.*  She never said what you attributed to her.

As for $$$ amounts, $80-$100 per month for the uninsured adds up quickly.

Your sheer ignorance over the fact that you must take birth control regularly to avoid pregnancy for when you DO have sex has nothing to do with the amount of sex you have.  Unless you have none.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 31, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> This thread has run its course. I'm out.


huh...a liar AND a coward.

See ya, bitch.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 31, 2013)

HomeInspect said:


> What is so ironic about the excitment in the OP...  Talk radio could lose 80% of all its conservative talk, and still be twice as successful as the lefty talkers.


That's because Liberals don't need to be told what to think.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 31, 2013)

Hey Smokie you do realize that it's all with the same company correct? You do realize this is a negotiating tactic correct? You do realize that other radio station are waiting with glossy eyes to sign both or either correct? You do realize (much like when Howard Stern left his station) that both will get a bigger paycheck if they leave correct?

You do realize the #1 and #2 shows on the radio will get picked up to a fat payday correct?

They aren't going anywhere! 

Neg


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 31, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Last I heard stations can decide for themselves who they want and who they don't want.
> ...


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

GHook93 said:


> Hey Smokie you do realize that it's all with the same company correct? You do realize this is a negotiating tactic correct? You do realize that other radio station are waiting with glossy eyes to sign both or either correct? You do realize (much like when Howard Stern left his station) that both will get a bigger paycheck if they leave correct?
> 
> You do realize the #1 and #2 shows on the radio will get picked up to a fat payday correct?
> 
> ...



Who the hell are you talking to?  

The idea is they _are _going somewhere, i.e. at best from Cumulus stations to some other owner's stations, and at worst, "away".


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 31, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> HomeInspect said:
> 
> 
> > What is so ironic about the excitment in the OP...  Talk radio could lose 80% of all its conservative talk, and still be twice as successful as the lefty talkers.
> ...



from someone is post crap from rudeidiotpundit and Eddie Schultz


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 31, 2013)

Although I think hannity is a moron
He's usually right
Limbaugh is right 98 plus percent
Both are gazillion airs 
So Libs 
Suck on that reality of facts and tune into Ed Schmitz or whomever you watch alone on msn-opause


----------



## Surfer (Jul 31, 2013)

Toro said:


> Fact:  Presidential election scoreboard --> Obama 2 conservatives 0. Fact:  Republicans lost to the worst President in history. Well, the worst since Bush. Fact:  Low intelligence Republicans blame their crushing loss on "fraud" rather than themselves.



Yeah, Hussein supporters are the cream of the crop...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg98BvqUvCc]OBAMA'S GONNA PAY FOR MY GAS... - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 31, 2013)

You know what the irony here is?  That though Mitt Romney lost the Presidential election, it was good for business.  It was almost like it was planned by the elites.   It was like he and the Democrats, he and Obama had planned for him to lose.  It was the best insider deal he could have made.  If the Republicans had won the presidential election, then the ratings and the listening public, and hence the ad revenues would have been NOTHING compared to what they are now.  But I am sure they are just rosy, glorious now that the Democrats are in control and wreaking havoc and pissing off the conservatives.  This has got to be GREAT for Romney's pocket book, eh?

Bain Capital Owns Clear Channel (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Etc.)

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/bain-capital-owns-clear-channel-rush-limbaugh-sean-hannity-glenn-beck-michael-savage-etc



> Well, it turns out that Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The company that Mitt Romney ran for so long is one of the big bosses over virtually all conservative talk radio in America.  Of course Mitt Romney is not running Bain Capital anymore.  He is a retired partner, but he still has a huge financial stake in Bain Capital.  Were talking about millions upon millions of dollars.





> On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel announced plans to go private, being bought out by two private-equity firms, Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners for $18.7 billion, which is just under a 10 percent premium above its closing price of $35.36 a share on November 16 (the deal values Clear Channel at $37.60 per share).
> 
> The deal was finalized in 2008.  Today, Bain Capital is still one of the primary owners of Clear Channel.
> 
> ...



So how could he assure a loss in order to make sure his stations would make the big money?  Hmm. . . what would do it?  Oh, how about making some off hand REALLY offensive elitist comments that he supposedly didn't know was being recorded?  Yeah, that might be a start . . . . 

So every time Obama or the Democrats piss conservatives off?  Well, that's money in the bank for Romney.  And conservatives thought he actually gave a shit about winning.  Just another puppet of the elites 




American Voters, play things of the Elites.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 31, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> > kidrocks said:
> ...



LOL! You agree then, use divisive name calling. What a thing of beauty.


----------



## Toro (Jul 31, 2013)

Surfer said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Fact:  Presidential election scoreboard --> Obama 2 conservatives 0. Fact:  Republicans lost to the worst President in history. Well, the worst since Bush. Fact:  Low intelligence Republicans blame their crushing loss on "fraud" rather than themselves.
> ...



And here is a mirror example on the right. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=7620175#post7620175


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KevinWestern said:
> ...



Uh, OK.
Is there an English translation?


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 31, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Play dumb, hypocrite!


----------



## MeNonPartisan (Jul 31, 2013)

Sandra Fluke is a slut.  She wants to Fuk on our dime.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



OK well if you're not willing you're not willing, but that thing doesn't make sense in any dialect I know.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

MeNonPartisan said:


> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  She wants to Fuk on our dime.



And this is based on ... what again?

Funny handle name btw.


----------



## MeNonPartisan (Jul 31, 2013)

Pogo said:


> MeNonPartisan said:
> 
> 
> > Sandra Fluke is a slut.  She wants to Fuk on our dime.
> ...




She believes it's OUR responsibility to pay for her sex life.  It's a load of BS.  Slut is a little stong, however, she represents most what is wrong with our country, and that's displacement of responsibility.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 31, 2013)

MeNonPartisan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MeNonPartisan said:
> ...



Really...

And when did she talk about her sex life?  What did she say?  Do tell.  I mean seeing as how we're talking "displacement of responsibility" and all...


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 31, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I can't stop you from being stupid. But continue in your ignorance.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 31, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Good riddance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah...and the Benghazi massacre was caused by a youtube video protest....


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 1, 2013)

MeNonPartisan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MeNonPartisan said:
> ...



You do realize that she was advocating certain types of birth control (which were hormonal), right?

You also realize that she was speaking on behalf of a friend of hers who if she didn't receive the birth control, her cysts would get worse?

BTW................for all you conservative blowhards.....................you're really against abortion (I mean, since the teabaggers have gotten into office, it's one of their main priorities) but you still refuse to allow birth control.

Did you realize that birth control will result in fewer abortions?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

MeNonPartisan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MeNonPartisan said:
> ...



Just the opposite.  She is being responsible by not risking unwanted pregnancy.

Would you rather she forgo the birth control, end up getting pregnant, then having an abortion?


ETA:  I see ABikerSailor beat me to it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Missourian said:


> kidrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Good riddance!
> ...


^^^at least one RightWinger gets it right!


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 1, 2013)

MeNonPartisan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MeNonPartisan said:
> ...



Let's get a couple things straight here.  

The issue was not getting birth control on "our dime".  Ms. Fluke and other students at Georgetown pay up to $30,000 a year in tuition, tuiition that INCLUDES health coverage. In short, she is paying for insurance.  

And although often the conduct of insurance companies is reprehensible, in this case, the insurance companies are not the issue.  They realize that paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for a pregnancy that often results in the student dropping out of school .

The stickler is the Catholic Church, which although they DO provide reproductive health coverage in the plans for their faculty, do not provide it for the students because their magic man in the sky says no. 

If only the Bishops showed as much concern when their priests were sodomizing altar boys. But I digress.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> MeNonPartisan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



They also don't seem to realize that the amount of birth control you take isn't related to the amount of sex you engage in -- if you engage in any at all.

Welcome to another edition of "Think it Through", starring Rush Limblob and Flaming Dittoes.  And another deep-reading poster makes it to the exit door in record time.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Then again, they might not.

And when some stations do drop him, that frees up the ability of other stations to take his show on.

The loopey looney lunatic liberals detest the ability of anybody to express thoughts contrary to liberal group think.  And yet, 

after all these years, Rush's program is still on the air, the single biggest radio show in the land.  

It isn't going to go away, and certainly not over the liberal temper tantrums.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

Apparently not all of us are entirely clear on the distinction between a corporation analyzing its own business trends, and "liberal temper tantrums".

Wonder what kind of radio they're listening to that creates such distinctions...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Apparently not all of us are entirely clear on the distinction between a corporation analyzing its own business trends, and "liberal temper tantrums".
> 
> Wonder what kind of radio they're listening to that creates such distinctions...



Not all of "us" are clear about when a corporation confuses "analyzing {alleged} business trends" versus when a corporation caves-in to the caterwauling of orchestrated "protests" directed at advertisers.  

Wonder what you've been sniffing.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

Apparently some of us are unclear on the distinction between numbers (a company losing two million bucks in one quarter and planning course corrections), and "caterwauling".

I thought I just said this.  Must be dèjá vu.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Apparently some of us are unclear on the distinction between numbers (a company losing two million bucks in one quarter and planning course corrections), and "caterwauling".
> 
> I thought I just said this.  Must be dèjá vu.



And some of us (i.e., you) are unclear on how to be honest.

Definitely deja vu.

The caterwauling, by the way, emanates from the liberals staging and orchestrating these complaints *to* the stations and the advertisers.  Such nonsense has nothing to do with "numbers."


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently some of us are unclear on the distinction between numbers (a company losing two million bucks in one quarter and planning course corrections), and "caterwauling".
> ...



This thread is about Cumulus' business.  Was somebody "caterwauling" specifically to Cumulus?
On the other hand, that loss of two million bucks in a quarter IS a Cumulus number.  It's right there in the OP article.
Yeah I'd say that has to do with numbers.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



$Two million IS a result, you dishonest hack dolt.

It is NOT based on the audience numbers -- which for Rush has INCREASED.  TALKERS.COM - "The Bible of Talk Radio and the New Talk Media"

It is based on advertisers being influenced by the usual suspect liberoidals.

This too shall pass.  Wish and dream all you want.

From the linked piece:  





> Talk Radio/Media Industry News
> Thursday, August 1, 2013
> TALKERS | August 1, 2013
> 
> limbaughrush*Rush Limbaugh Celebrates 25 Years in Syndication Today. * It was 25 years ago today that Rush Limbaugh began his national syndication based at WABC, New York.  When Ed McLaughlins EFM Media Management began producing and distributing the Rush Limbaugh program in August of 1988 on 56 affiliate stations, many in the industry thought the idea of a midday national talk radio program was absurd and would fail.  But Limbaughs EIB Network flourished and the rest is history.  Of course, Premiere Networks now syndicates the show its heard on close to 600 radio stations.  In a statement, Limbaugh says, The relationship weve established here  between the audience and myself  is everything.  Its meant more to me than Ill ever be able to fully describe.  Its the best three hours of the day!  Were going to do this for a long time to come.  Premiere Networks notes, Mr. Limbaugh also pioneered an entirely new model for talk radio.  Defying industry convention, he does not book guests on his program. Centered on the news of the day, he describes his unique approach as a serious discussion of issues, combined with irreverent humor.  He has enjoyed uninterrupted status since the early 1990s as the leading talk radio host in the U.S., and *the program continues to expand its reach.* *In the past year alone*, The Rush Limbaugh Show has *experienced an 11% audience increase* (Source: Arbitron, Nationwide).


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

The orchestrated campaign to try to silence Rush is largely a product of Media Matters.

More on that later.  Good thing it's a not for profit company which is not supposed to engage in propaganda.  Imagine how bad it would be if it DID legitimately engage in propaganda?

For now, let's store this gem away for future reference.

Media Matters Form 1023 + Attachments


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 1, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> MeNonPartisan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Hey dipshit, birth control does not guarantee there will be no pregnancies. But abstinence most definitely will.

And seeing you're being dishonest as usual I've included the transcript of Fluke's testimony where she does mention a friend but was not speaking on her behalf nor was it the reason for her testimony.

Apparently lying never gets old for you idiots.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Already addressed in another thread, here.

Ratings are _normally _the goal of commercial broadcasting, since they _normally _translate to audience reach, and it's normally that simple.  But then there's the sticky problem of public image and what the advertiser may or may not wish to be associated with.

By analogy, if the KKK put on a TV show, it would draw attention and ratings.  The advertisers it would draw however might be, shall we say, limited.
That's just a part of business; whining about it is just ... what is the word... ah yes, caterwauling.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You intentionally and studiously miss the real point.

The ORCHESTRATED effort to persaude the ADVERTISERS to jump ship is the caterwauling.

Try to keep up.

We all see that honesty aint your thing, but you do tend to be heavy handed and plodding in your unpersuasive propaganda mission.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Ah.  So to cut to the chase, you're against the First Amendment.

Start a petition then.  And rotsa ruck.

Ilar Meilyr... Ilar Meilyr... that's *Welsh *isn't it?
I might be a bit more circumspect about flinging turds of 'dishonest'...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I don't take advice from dishonest hack propagandists, you lame ass lying liberal tool.

And the name IlarMeilyr is indeed WELSH.  That's why I CHOSE it as a username, you plodding hack troll douche bag.  As YOU know, I had been falsely accused of welshing.  Thus, I just had to give the usual suspects something to play with.  I can't help it.  Being a conservative, I tend to naturally be very giving like that.

As for the First Amendment, unlike you hypocritical and dishonest modern American lolberals, I am a huge proponent of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.  That's why I object when you hypocritical and wholly dishonest lolberal idiots orchestrate activities designed to stifle speech for which you don't care.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Oh yeah, you be a giver.  Boldly so.

Stellar logic here: you object to the objections to your Messiah on the basis of "free speech", which is apparently a one-way street: Messiah gets it; nobody's allowed to find fault.

Blasphemy!  Off with their heads!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I know you are too stupid and plodding to understand this, but what the hey?  I'll try it out for your benefit all the same.

I have objected to NO free speech.

I do think it is tawdry of you dishonest hypocritical lolberals -- and antithetical to ACTUAL free speech -- to orchestrate some misbegotten campaign designed to STIFLE the political speech with which you happen to disagree.

And the Obamessiah gets ALL the free speech anybody could want.  So I don't know why you brought President Dumbass into this discussion.

Other than the fact that you made no sense at all, that was a *really* poor post you put up there.  Try to work you way up to _just_ useless.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Funny how your own source, Talkers.com, shows a steady decline in audience!!!


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 1, 2013)

People tiring of the the rotund, drug-addict's bloviations?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



So what?

The numbers might even be fairly accurate as such estimates go.

There are ebbs and flows.  I never said that the liberals cynical efforts to try to silence Rush didn't have any impact.

And if the evidence is that it has come to a halt, then perhaps we shall soon see that reflected in a corresponding increase in those very numbers.  Spring 2011 to Spring 2012 to July 2013 is not that long a period of time.  If it can go down a point in a year and a couple of months, then it can probably jump back up within a fairly short period of time, too.

Your hang up on all things Rush is always good for a laugh though, Edthesickdick.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 1, 2013)

can you get am radio  on an eye phone?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


So you are admitting that your 11% in one year is nothing but a meaningless short term ebb and flow....Oh wait a minute, one year is an absolute proof for you but too short a time for anyone else.
Never mind.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

You know he is getting desperate when he submits to being questioned by anyone.






*Rush Limbaugh's Whirlwind Fox News Press Tour*

Fox News' Greta Van Susteren sat down with Rush Limbaugh for the full  hour of her program last night, telling her viewers that she had  secured a "rare interview" with the conservative talk radio host. Van  Susteren's interrogation of Rush was anything but harsh and never touched on any of Limbaugh's ongoing contractual and advertiser problems  -- pretty much what you'd expect from a Fox News interview. Her  characterization of the interview as "rare," however, wasn't quite  accurate. In the past, Limbaugh has indeed been reticent to appear on  cable news and even boasted that any platform other than his own was a  waste of his time. Something has changed: *Limbaugh's July 30 interview  with Van Susteren marked the third time Rush has appeared on Fox News  this month.* 


*That's a dramatic shift from Limbaugh's longstanding disregard for TV  appearances. In July 2010, a caller to Rush's radio show asked him why  he doesn't spend more time on TV, and Rush said it was beneath him:*  "I don't want to go on television shows with one-tenth the audience the  radio show has, and I don't like talking with people who don't know  what they're talking about and get into contrived arguments and debates  where nothing is solved."


----------



## PredFan (Aug 1, 2013)

Why don't all you liberal nutjobs hold your breath until Limbaugh is off the air. Should be any second now right?

Dumbasses.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

kidrocks said:


> Good riddance!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





How unusual: a Leftist happy about silencing opposition voices.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> kidrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Good riddance!
> ...



LOTS of these modern American "liberals" are actually an embarrassment to what used to be known as "liberalism.

To be a MODERN American "liberal," it is apparently a requirement that they take a vow of hostility to tolerating any contrary political view points.  They must oppose free speech for all "others."


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



Nope.  I am saying that the indicators suggest that the July numbers will prove to be LOWER than the next numbers that get reported since there appears to be a lag.

Try to smarten up.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Why don't all you liberal nutjobs hold your breath until Limbaugh is off the air. Should be any second now right?
> 
> Dumbasses.



That would be up to the free market.
Horrors.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't all you liberal nutjobs hold your breath until Limbaugh is off the air. Should be any second now right?
> ...



But you lolberal hypocritical filth don't wish for the free market to make the determination.

Damn but you guys are stupid AND dishonest.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



The free market IS who makes that determination, because the free market already is the milieu that makes his "work" possible.  That's just the way it is, like it or lump it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Bullshit.  The free market left to its own devices would not include a combination of scumbag activist assholes like you interfering with the business arrangements for the programming.  

Your claim of  "free market" is belied by your active desire to put your thumb on the scale you dishonest hack.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 1, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.......................getting rid of Rush would clean up the airwaves quite a lot.
> 
> Hate and bigotry, like what Rush spews, kind of bores me.
> 
> He's a one trick pony, playing to his base.



They've been saying that about him for 25 years now. 

I think it's Penis-Envy from the "Air America" crowd.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Oh, is it time for another dance already?  OK then, quote me where I said anything about "putting the thumb on the scale" or anything remorely resembling.

Seeya.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> kidrocks said:
> 
> 
> > Good riddance!
> ...




^^^^Wingnut believes people voting with their wallets (economic democracy) = "silencing opposition".


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



wow.  You really are one dense asshole motherfucking stupid dishonest hack bitch.

Try to keep up you hack bitch troll mental midget.

YOU support the efforts of the agitators and a"activists" who seek to persuade advertisers NOT to do business with Rush's show.  THAT is metaphorically putting the thumb on the scale, you dopey twat.

Get your thumb OFF the scale and let the audience (JUST the audience) ALONE decide whether or not they wish to listen to Rush's show, and the audience numbers would then advise the advertisers whether or not to put their ads on his show.

But still, no dancing.  You aren't my type.  I prefer humans.  Go have yourself a good cry over it you dishonest lolberal hack.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Who is doing that?  And how?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Are you feigning ignorance or are you actually that ignorant, Tranny?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...





^^^^Only goes into 'full spittle mode' when he knows he's got nothing.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...




Why do you hate Capitalism and Democracy?

People vote with their wallets.

Wingnuts have no problem with it when it's the Family Research Council boycotting someone, and encouraging America to join them.

One more question:  Why are you such a fucking hypocrite?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


And just how long is this "lag?"
Your MessiahRushie has been down at 14+ for a whole quarter now, when will we see this imagined uptick?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/media/limbaugh-advertisers-flee-show-amid-storm.html?_r=0


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Which explains why I am nowhere near any spittle mode.

I have truth and facts on my side.

You and your lolberal bretheren typically have no such thing.

Again:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/media/limbaugh-advertisers-flee-show-amid-storm.html?_r=0

A thumb on the scale.  It DID have an impact, too.

But whatever else it is, it is not even remotely akin to free market making the determination which was the claim made by your dishonest douche bag pal, pogo.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...






Cheeses, you're a basket case.
Again, I repeat, go ahead and quote where I've commented at all on the bold.  Or admit you're making it up.

And try sitting in a bucket of ice.  Or at least wear a bib.  Spittle on shirt is uncool.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Your comments are all right here.  What's the matter?  Simply don't recall what you've said here, you stupid transparent hack?

I have no butt hurt or hurt butt.

YOU seem awfully hopeful, though.

Won't you be disappointed when Rush just keeps plowing onward?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/media/limbaugh-advertisers-flee-show-amid-storm.html?_r=0


OK.  Explain what you think is wrong with any of that, please.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/306067-rush-limbaugh-s-long-slow-march-to-irrelevance.html


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 1, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



14 seems to be leading the pack by a wide margin, don't you think? Look where Alan Colmes is....2.75. 

Hmmmmm, the slight drop might have something to do with this not being an election year and people are a little fed up with politics. 

Besides, Obama and the Dems will just cheat anyway. Where's the suspense?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Looks like Liability has run away, the little bitch.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/business/media/limbaugh-advertisers-flee-show-amid-storm.html?_r=0
> ...



Try to keep up, Tranny.

YOU asked the question:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/7626702-post206.html

My post was a way to alleviate your feigned (or real) ignorance.

And if you don't understand what is "wrong" with it, then there's no purpose served in even asking that question.  You will never figure it out.

The point is that your comrade in liberal stupidity, pogo, CLAIMED (falsely) that the MARKET would make the determination on whether Rush would succeed.  I noted that it was NOT a market matter.  The "market" would be: 

*Rush puts out a program.

Audience responds favorably (large ratings) or unfavorably (poor ratings).

Advertisers would respond to THOSE numbers.​*
However, the liberal agitators (instead) put their collective THUMB on the scale by deliberately seeking to short-circuit such normal "market" decisions.  The liberal agitators go to the advertisers to try to convince them that if they air their ads with Rush, the lolberals will boycott the companies' products.  

When the advertisers react to THAT blackmail, they are NOT responding to "market forces" at all.  They are caving-in to blackmail.

And the PURPOSE of the liberal boycott effort is to TRY (as best they can) to SILENCE Rush.  *They* are hostile to free speech and their actions are antithetical to our fundamental notions of free speech in the ONE arena (politics) where it has the greatest urgency.  

When ploddo claimed that *I* was somehow "against" free speech, he was lying and deliberately inverting the truth.  Not unexpected.  It's a predictable and typical hack lib bitch move.  Again, when pogo claims (falsely) that market forces will be determinative of Rush's show's future, he is pretending (i.e., lying again) that market forces have anything to do with the matter.  

That fuckin' guy is so full of shit that he equates "blackmail" with "market forces" and with "free speech."  pogo is a disgrace to real liberals.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Looks like Liability has run away, the little bitch.



I was composing (and editing) a reply to one of the series of questions asked by you, you whining twat, and by your comrade in dishonesty, pogo the pussy.

Try a little patience, you stupid lib ****.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> The liberal agitators go to the advertisers to try to convince them  that if they air their ads with Rush, the lolberals will boycott the  companies' products.
> 
> When the advertisers react to THAT blackmail, they are NOT responding to  "market forces" at all.  They are caving-in to blackmail.




No, that is Capitalism.  With a side order of Free Speech.

Was it blackmail when the FRC boycotted Marilyn Manson and put public pressure on Wal*Mart to not carry his CDs?

You supported them.

Was it blackmail when Clear Channel stations refused to play Dixie Chick songs because of supposed threats of listener boycotts?

You supported them.

Why do you hate Freedom of Choice?

And why is your poutrage with the people who are boycotting, instead of with the radio stations who, in your mind I guess, don't have a backbone?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

I will have to check back for your response since you take so damn long, Liability - gotta go make a bank deposit.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



So to sum up this harebrained Welsh rare-wit logic:
1) commercial advertisers have only ad rates, not public image, to worry about;
2) only "liberal agitators" have the power to influence the market with buying power;
3) said advertisers are powerless to resist these "liberal agitators" (while fully capable of resisting "conservative agitators")
4) that inability to resist is Pogo's doing;
5) Welsh people can see inside the minds of these "agitators" as to their motives;
6) the idea of agitators making statements is "antithetical to our fundamental notions of free speech";
7) the idea of Limblob making statements is not (monologue good; audience response bad)
8) the Lush Rimjob show -- a commercial entity existing in a commercial venue in a free market, subsisting by (ostensibly) selling commercials -- is controlled by forces outside the market.

Whew.

&#8220;No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.&#8221; -- David Friend, CEO of Carbonite, just after Slutgate

Interestingly it's been noted that today is the 25th anniversary of Limblob's going national.  Which is significant: 25 years ago means *1988*.  The Fairness Doctrine, which ensured that a broadcaster couldn't spew one-sided crap without offering equal time for counterpoint, was eliminated in *1987*.

Pressuring a broadcaster to air both sides with a government agency??  No, we can't have that.  Should be the people who decide.
Pressuring a broadcaster with a popular movement?  No, we can't have that either.  I know I just said the people should decide, but they're not the right people.



Ein monologue.  _Ein_ ideology. *EIN* Limblob!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > The liberal agitators go to the advertisers to try to convince them  that if they air their ads with Rush, the lolberals will boycott the  companies' products.
> ...



No.  It's not.  It's black mail.

As I already (correctly) said, capitalism would be market forces.  Show.  Audience.  Advertising decisions based on ratings.

BUT when you inject the side order of BLACKMAIl, the proverbial thumb on the scale, you are interfering with capitalism.

Free speech does not seek to stifle one's opponent.

I can tell you are a liberal because even these simple BASIC concepts confuse the snot out of you . . . always.



Synthaholic said:


> Was it blackmail when the FRC boycotted Marilyn Manson and put public pressure on Wal*Mart to not carry his CDs?
> 
> You supported them.



No. I didn't.  You are not free to make such shit up and speak for me with your lies, you dishonest twat.

And by the way, just to get to the point DESPITE your display of typical lolberal dishonesty on your part, you need to come to terms with a couple of basic concepts.  If I dislike what the Dixy Chunks said about President Bush during his Administration while THOSE nasty skanks were over in Europe, I am free to boycott their records.  Small loss to them.  I wasn't buying their shit anyway.

That is not blackmail.

But if I go to advertisers of a show discussing matters of politics and tell them that if they dare to put ads on the show, I will arrange a boycott of their product as punishment, that very much IS blackmail.  Indeed, it is intended to be blackmail ad to deny it is dishonest of you.  No surprise there, Tranny. 



Synthaholic said:


> Was it blackmail when Clear Channel stations refused to play Dixie Chick songs because of supposed threats of listener boycotts?
> 
> You supported them.



I actually did elect against buying any Dixie Shits albums but once again, YOU don't have the right to make up facts, you dishonest twat.



Synthaholic said:


> Why do you hate Freedom of Choice?



I don't.  Why do you hate being honest ... ever?



Synthaholic said:


> And why is your poutrage with the people who are boycotting, instead of with the radio stations who, in your mind I guess, don't have a backbone?



I don't have any outrage or poutrage whatever that might mean.  I am disgusted.  Not the same thing.

Lolberals are 'all about" free speech EXCEPT when they decide it's simply inconvenient.  It is your standard fare of lolberal hypcorisy and dishonesty I find disagreeable.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



YOU can't sum up for me, ploddo, since that would require honesty and you have none.

I will permit my own words to do the talking for MY position.  I will not permit your dishonest efforts to engage in revisionism to go unrebutted.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

No, that's how the free market works.  If your product or service has a bad rep, you suffer.  That's why commercial entities try not to have them.

*black·mail*  (blkml)
n.
1.
a. Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
b. Something of value extorted in this manner.

(freedic)


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



You just did.

And I quote:
 " * * * * "

Deep.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I realize that an intellectual lightweight such as you is unfamiliar with basic grammatical conventions like the use of ellipses.  

But it denotes that I snipped YOUR bogus attempt to "summarize" what would supposedly have been my position.

You are far from deep.  Intellectually, you drown in the shallows.  Fuck, you'd drown in a puddle.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



It's not the "ellipsis" (which actually goes "...") to shortcut my post, but the complete absence of any response thereto.

I understand you're into monologues where nobody gets to respond, but I'm not, so you're free to offer one.

That is if you even have one...


----------



## driveby (Aug 1, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > btw. isn't Sandra Fluke that freeloading slut that demanded taxpayers pay for her bimbo lifestyle.
> ...



The irony of that post knocked at least 10 women out of their chairs.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The plural of ellipsis is ellipses, you ignorant twit.

And it is usually made with a series of periods, but the use of a period is NOT required.  Your ignorance is really endless.  Funny to see, but endless.

And this isn't a monolog, you twit.  You can respond and you have been.   I have responded to your bullshit and to Synthia's usual display of misinformation.  

That said, when YOU attempt to recast what I have already said, I will continue to reject your typically dishonest efforts -- with or without your consent.

As to the actual topic of this thread, it remains what has happened to Rush.  You lolberals dislike what he has said, so your reaction is (not unexpectedly considering how much you loathe true free speech) is to attempt to stifle his ability to even have an audience.  

It is quite a sad commentary on the state of "liberalism" when we have to see how low you assholes have sunk.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 1, 2013)

driveby said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



no kidding, have you seen his posting on Sarah Palin?
and he's suppose to be in the military..absolutely shameful


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Translation:  "I have nothing". 

STILL waiting for evidence of this "stifling"... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Btw I didn't opine on what the plural of _ellipsis _is but at least I know not to write "is is" in a sentence.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Nope.  No "other words."  I rebutted your bullshit and you have no valid rejoinder.

That much is clear to all.

As for what you are "waiting" for, there's nothing TO wait for.  I already provided links to even the NY Slimes.

And you did offer an inherent correction of the spelling of ellipses,.  You are clearly not up to the difficult task of being honest.

As for catching my missed error, I congratulate you on your established ability to be massively petty.



Now, back on point.

Why do you lolberals seek to silence Rush?


----------



## numan (Aug 1, 2013)

'

It's about time !!

Cheesy Limburger should have been dropped years ago, when his inflammatory rhetoric fed the atmosphere that led up to the Kansas City Bombing!!

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> It's about time !!
> 
> ...



^ noman may be a witless ignorant sack of lolberal pus, but he is at least honest enough to acknowledge that (like lots of other asshole liberals) he DOES seek to silence the voices of political opposition to the positions he prefers.

,


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Maybe you should ask this guy since you're reading his posts instead of mine...




"Petty" huh?  After inventing an allusion to "ellipses"?? 
Tough crowd.  Good thing I didn't mention _monolog _[sic]...


----------



## numan (Aug 1, 2013)

'
I remember seeing Limburger right after the Kansas City Bombing.

He was visibly sweating and squirming -- he knew how guilty he was !!

.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> I remember seeing Limburger right after the Kansas City Bombing.
> 
> He was visibly sweating and squirming -- he knew how guilty he was !!
> ...




noman recalls no such thing.  noman = 

And guilty of what?

I am sure Rush was not near Kansas City that day, you retard.

,


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 1, 2013)

driveby said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



BikerGayBoy isn't a women quote yet
A couple more operations


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No.  HIS posts would make more sense than anything you've offered.

I didn't "invent" YOUR reference to ellipsis, either, you dishonest twat.

Further, "monolog" is spelled correctly (although in a variation form).

Your track record of arrogant ignorance remains unimpeded.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



I continue to have posted no comment whatsoever on the spelling of either _ellipsis _or _ellipses_.  Does not exist.

-- Which coincidentally also describes your documentation of my "stifling free speech".

How 'bout that.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You are a fraud.  And with each post, you establish that ever more clearly.

How about THAT?



YOU were commenting rather happily about the reduced income to Cumulus and then pontificating that it is all just a business decision while also contending that it's simply a cause and effect of the ratings game numbers.    But you studiously deflected AWAY from the rebuttal that the "thumb on the scale" is also a part of WHY the advertisers were pulling away from sponsorship of the Limbaugh show.

Newsflash:  you don't always have to SAY something (intoning some precise phrase) to be clear in your message -- no matter how determined you are to hide behind such a cheap facade

Furthermore, as to the _important _matter of ellipses vs ellipsis, I wrote ellipses (referring to the plural, of course).  YOU chose to reply, *"It's not the 'ellipsis' (which actually goes '...') to shortcut my post . . . ."*

And you were entirely wrong.  It WAS an ellipsis that I used when I made reference to ellipses (plural) -- which was also correct.  An ellipsis does not "go" anything, to be even more precise.  It is usually denoted with three periods (or four when it completes a sentence), but it can also properly be denoted with other marks, like asterisks.  

And what I snipped was not to "shortcut" your post (whatever the fuck your gibberish use of that phrase was intended to convey).  It was to snip your dishonest effort to recast what I had already said.  This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, you moron, since I already explained as much to you.

Now, BACK to the real discussion.

The effort of certain liberal groups (including the scumbag Media Matters vermin) to blackmail Rush's advertisers is NOT even marginally akin to free speech or the workings of a free market.  _Any_ claim that it "is" akin to free speech or the workings of the free market is dishonest.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


You are, as always, a liar.

You certainly did support and defend all RightWing boycotts.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

>> (CNN) -- If you want to know why there's little cooperation in Washington these days, I'd start with a campaign promise made in 1988 by presidential candidate George H.W. Bush.

"Read my lips: No new taxes."

So, when he raised taxes two years later, quite naturally, voters, particularly conservatives, were upset.

If you want to know why so little is being accomplished in Washington these days, I'd start with that broken promise and what Bush did in an attempt to get those conservatives back.

He carried Rush Limbaugh's bags.

That's right. In 1992, President Bush invited Limbaugh for a sleepover and personally brought his guest's bags into the Lincoln bedroom for him

They were not friends.

In fact, Limbaugh didn't care for Bush that much, and "41" knew it. But Bush was seeking re-election. He was saddled with a slumping economy and locked in a tough battle with Gov. Bill Clinton and businessman Ross Perot.

He believed he needed Rush Limbaugh.

The party has been carrying Limbaugh's bags ever since.

{list of Limblobist Lies at the Link}...

... Not too long ago, he read what he believed to be passages from Obama's senior thesis, passages that expressed a disdain for the U.S. Constitution. Sadly, the whole thing was made up by a blogger. And while Limbaugh did sheepishly tell listeners what he had read earlier was false, the host still found a way to justify reading it by saying, "We know he thinks it."

Some folks eat that kind of stuff up.

Some get riled up about it.

And the folks in Washington? Well, after 25 years, they're still not quite sure what to do with it or him. If you're a Democrat, do you ignore him? If you're a Republican, do you carry his bags? I imagine it's like that feeling you get when someone tells you something that you can't determine is a joke or not. You just stand there half-smiling like an idiot.

So, if you want to know what the folks in Washington are doing about the economy, I'd start there. <<  --At 25, Limbaugh Show Still Rules GOP


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Pogo is kicking your ass all over this thread.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Just like Rush!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No no.  *You* are lying.  You couldn't back up that latest set of lies if your worthless life depended on it.

Lying, sadly, is what a twat liar like you does.

As I correctly and honestly said, I had no problem with declaring that I would not buy a Dipsie Chumps album.  I never discussed that other alleged "boycott" in any way whatsoever.  You made it up.   

You lie and then you repeat it or even swear to it.  But that only makes your lie a repeated lie or a sworn lie.  Either way, you have zero honesty in you.  None at all.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You are simply a liar.  He hasn't come close.  If anything, I am kicking his.

But I know a liar like you would never admit it.

You remain too fully dedicated to being dishonest.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

USMB Wingnut Boycott #1:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/37370-help-stick-it-to-hugo-chavez.html


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

USMB Wingnut Boycott #2:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/24030-anti-bush-new-zealand-pizza-billboard.html


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

USMB Wingnut Boycott #3:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/7722-us-groups-want-moore-film-banned.html


Here's a choice comment from USMB long-timer 'Annie':




Annie said:


> > _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> > and the push for anti american censorship begins. things starting to look familiar to anyone? circa 1933?
> 
> 
> ...



Is she wrong, Liability?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



That's _*your *_point, not mine.  I'm not going to "pontificate", "ruminate" or "expectorate" on WHY, other than as I already said, public image.  I did post a sample quote from one of these buyers.  He cited his daughters, not me.



IlarMeilyr said:


> Newsflash:  you don't always have to SAY something (intoning some precise phrase) to be clear in your message -- no matter how determined you are to hide behind such a cheap facade



"Don't tell me what you think! *I'll* tell you what you think!"   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






IlarMeilyr said:


> Furthermore, as to the _important _matter of ellipses vs ellipsis, I wrote ellipses (referring to the plural, of course).  YOU chose to reply, *"It's not the 'ellipsis' (which actually goes '...') to shortcut my post . . . ."*
> 
> And you were entirely wrong.  It WAS an ellipsis that I used when I made reference to ellipses (plural) -- which was also correct.  An ellipsis does not "go" anything, to be even more precise.  It is usually denoted with three periods (or four when it completes a sentence), but it can also properly be denoted with other marks, like asterisks.



And had you bothered to read the post in full, Evelyn Wood, you'd see that I'm referring to the absence of any counterpoint.  Not to the spelling of _ellipsis_.  Can't believe I have to spell this out: it's not that you excised my post with an ellipsis (I don't need it; I know what I wrote); it's that you offered no response to it.

Which is what the post said, and still says.  That has nothing to do with spelling. 




IlarMeilyr said:


> The effort of certain liberal groups (including the scumbag Media Matters scumbags) to blackmail Rush's advertisers is NOT even marginally akin to free speech or the workings of a free market.  _Any_ claim that it "is" akin to free speech or the workings of the free market is dishonest.



Far as I know MediaMatters hasn't even been part of this thread, let alone my posts.  And again you need to learn the definition of _blackmail _(which I already posted).  But diga me how this MediaMatters has this kind of power on the free market.  Why aren't they making a killing on Wall Street?

However -- you're in luck here-- I just happen to have a timeline on hand that serves your paranoia up in a big flaming bullshit pie:

MediaMatters did spend a lot of time shooting a dead horse but it was already dead:

Slutgate went from Wednesday Feb. 29 through Friday March 2...

&#8226; Carbonite statement: Saturday March 3 (I linked this earlier)

&#8226; Sleep Train, Sleep Number and Quicken Loan pull out on Friday March 2, the same day as the meltdown was still going on. Several other sponsors quoted with messages of concern who soon pulled out too.

&#8226; Legal action from Rush (the Canadian rock band) sent March 6;

&#8226; Peter Gabriel did the same thing the previous day;

&#8226; KPUA and WBEC drop the show, despite current contracts, reported March 5;

MediaMatters doesn't muster a movement in minutes. What that is is a spontaneous reaction of rightly offended people, armed with Twitter accounts, reacting in the moment and making their voices heard. They didn't _need _MediaMatters.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthia, you little bitch.  Try backing up your accusations, first.  OR, maybe, for a very unexpected and refreshing change of pace, you can ADMIT that you were wrong.

 Then maybe we'll address your piss poor attempt at making an argument.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Oh, beautiful - a current USMB member's conservative take!  





Avatar4321 said:


> > _Originally posted by DKSuddeth _
> > and the push for anti american censorship begins. things starting to look familiar to anyone? circa 1933?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Since you are FAR too long winded in your endless bloviating, I will address the Media Matters portion of your dishonesty first.

If I get bored later, maybe I'll come back to dismantle the balance of your endless dishonesty.

Here is the Media Matters reubttal portion:



> * * * *
> There has been a lot of coverage regarding my post, Media Matters astroturfed the Limbaugh secondary boycott.  The post was based in substantial part on interviews given by Angelo Carusone, Director of Online Strategy for Media Matters, who was not bashful in claiming credit for Limbaughs loss of advertisers, particularly in the early days of the boycott.
> 
> The post was linked by Instapundit and others and had gained a lot of attention by the time Limbaugh used it for his first tweet.
> ...


 Independent Rush boycott group coordinated with Media Matters

The whole piece in legal insurrection is pretty thorough and quite interesting.

You loberals defend the effort.  And you can't even admit that the purpose of an orchestrated campaign to get advertisers to stop going to Rush's show for ad spots is to undermine his ability to even keep his show on the air.  *You filthy lolberal fuckwits absolutely LOVE the idea of silencing your political opponents.*

As liberals go, you remain disgraceful.  It is not surprising that the bastion of modern American liberalism, the DailyKos (read Soros), would be part of the cadre of scumbags.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

USMB Wingnut Boycott #4:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigration-illegal-immigration/135893-boycott.html


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 1, 2013)

Ah this is the other "Rush is dying thread" I was looking for.



Dream on libs. Note the last paragraph. From the article...

* Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing very well*



* 

There was certainly a dramatic impact on the advertising sales in the wake of Limbaughs comments, Metter noted, but he said that just drove the company to find new sources of ad revenues.



Metter, who repeatedly referred to the advertising boycott of Limbaugh as simply the challenge, said Premiere, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Media, focused its efforts on getting ads on air from entrepreneurial-based companies not handled by major ad agencies, such as LifeLock and LegalZoom.

Theyre not buying an ideology, theyre buying an audience, Metter said. And many of whom are advertising with our progressive radio hosts and our conservative radio hosts and everything in the middle. Theyre not buying Rushs ideology or Randi Rhodes ideology. Theyre buying them because their audience buys tractors, their audience drinks soda, and their audience needs data backup. And thats the place to get those types of customers. So were doing very, very well.

Theyre pacing ahead of this time last year, Metter said  and while January was a bit slow, the second quarter is picking up for the company that distributes Limbaugh and other talkers such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

Many of these companies, especially in this economy, need talk radio, he said. The endorsement of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Randi Rhodes and George Noory is gold to these guys. That builds their brands, makes their business. So where the challenge has been with regard to the controversy is we did have a little bit of a dip  a great deal of a dip in the second quarter last year after it happened  weve refocused and gone out after those entrepreneur based companies. And now, a year later, were doing very well.

While Premieres Metter on Thursday said Limbaugh had bounced back substantially on the sales front, Cumulus Media CEO Lew Dickey has previously blamed the companys advertising losses on Limbaugh calling Fluke a slut because she called on Congress to mandate insurance coverage of birth control, which sparked a major advertising boycott. Cumulus, which has 40 radio stations that air Limbaughs program, has a contract with the talker through 2013.

The Rush Limbaugh Program is reportedly considering ending its affiliation agreement with Cumulus Media in response to Dickey laying the blame on advertising losses on the conservative talker. Limbaughs program is still the highest rated talk radio show in the country.*

Rest of article at link:

Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> USMB Wingnut Boycott #4:
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigration-illegal-immigration/135893-boycott.html



STILL can't admit that you lied, you coward?


----------



## tinydancer (Aug 1, 2013)

Oh and for this Rush AND Sean are dying thread....















2013 - Heavy Hundred - TALKERS.COM


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Ah this is the other "Rush is dying thread" I was looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OMFG TD, we're doing this again??

As it says right in the article, "Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference" -- he's the *SELLER *of the program, _*addressing potential buyers*_.  WTF do you think he's going to say?? 

I told you this before the last time you trotted this out.   

Same thing over and over, expect different results...


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Ah this is the other "Rush is dying thread" I was looking for.
> ...



So is it your new thesis that because he might have a reason to be less than perfectly honest or accurate, he must therefore be lying?

Logic aint yer strong suit, bucko.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > USMB Wingnut Boycott #4:
> ...


Oh, I'm still looking.

You know that I will eventually find a post from you supporting a RW boycott.  


Are you saying that you are against ALL boycotts?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> USMB Wingnut Boycott #1:
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/37370-help-stick-it-to-hugo-chavez.html





Synthaholic said:


> USMB Wingnut Boycott #2:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/24030-anti-bush-new-zealand-pizza-billboard.html





Synthaholic said:


> USMB Wingnut Boycott #3:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/7722-us-groups-want-moore-film-banned.html
> 
> ...





Synthaholic said:


> Oh, beautiful - a current USMB member's conservative take!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Synthaholic said:


> USMB Wingnut Boycott #4:
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigration-illegal-immigration/135893-boycott.html





Feel free to explain these conservative boycotts anytime, Liability!  


Or keep hiding.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Oooh, you were so close.  Then you went all "must"-y.  Damn, missed it by that much.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Good.  So we're making incremental progress.  I finally got you to acknowledge that just because he might have an agenda does NOT mean that he MUST be lying.  

And if he might be telling the truth then it is possible that Rush will eventually come out pretty much unscathed from the orchestrated left wing bullshit "boycott."

Class dismissed.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



"Finally"??  It was the only post on this article. 

Let's look at it again, with specific highlights:



tinydancer said:


> There was certainly a dramatic impact on the advertising sales in the wake of Limbaugh&#8217;s comments, Metter noted, but he said that just drove the company to find new sources of ad revenues.
> 
> Metter, who repeatedly referred to the advertising boycott of Limbaugh as simply &#8220;the challenge,&#8221; said Premiere, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Media, focused its efforts on getting ads on air from entrepreneurial-based companies not handled by major ad agencies, such as LifeLock and LegalZoom.
> 
> &#8220;*They&#8217;re not buying an ideology, they&#8217;re buying an audience*,&#8221; Metter said. &#8220;And many of whom are advertising with our progressive radio hosts and our conservative radio hosts and everything in the middle. *They&#8217;re not buying Rush&#8217;s ideology or Randi Rhodes&#8217; ideology. They&#8217;re buying them because their audience buys tractors, their audience drinks soda, and their audience needs data backup. *And that&#8217;s the place to get those types of customers. So we&#8217;re doing very, very well.&#8221;




That's true about how the audience psychology works.  It's exactly what I've been saying on this site and previous ones every time somebody trots out ratings for Fox Noise or Lush Rimjob.  But notice how he's distancing Premiere from Limblob: "they're not buying an ideology".  He's right.




tinydancer said:


> They&#8217;re pacing ahead of this time last year, Metter said &#8212; and while January was *a bit slow*, the second quarter is *picking up* for the company that distributes Limbaugh and other talkers such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.



"A bit slow"... "picking up".  Keeping it vague.  I'll just highlight the rest of the vague hype in blue.



tinydancer said:


> &#8220;Many of these companies, especially in this economy, need talk radio,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The endorsement of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, *Randi Rhodes and George Noory* is gold to these guys. That builds their brands, makes their business. So where the challenge has been with regard to the controversy is we did have a little bit of a dip &#8212; a great deal of a dip in the second quarter last year after it happened &#8212; we&#8217;ve refocused and gone out after those entrepreneur based companies. And now, a year later, we&#8217;re doing very well.&#8221;



Again, mitigating the point with the inclusion of Rhodes and Noory so as to not be pinned down to association with Limblab.

And again, "a little dip" and "doing very well" are vague hyperbole with no numbers attached.



tinydancer said:


> While Premiere&#8217;s Metter on Thursday said Limbaugh had bounced back substantially on the sales front, Cumulus Media CEO Lew Dickey has previously blamed the company&#8217;s advertising losses on Limbaugh calling Fluke a &#8220;slut&#8221; because she called on Congress to mandate insurance coverage of birth control, which sparked a major advertising boycott. Cumulus, which has 40 radio stations that air Limbaugh&#8217;s program, has a contract with the talker through 2013.
> 
> The Rush Limbaugh Program is reportedly considering ending its affiliation agreement with Cumulus Media in response to Dickey laying the blame on advertising losses on the conservative talker. Limbaugh&#8217;s program is still the highest rated talk radio show in the country.



^^ "Oh yeah?  We can't play in your backyard?  Well maybe we'll take our ball and go home".  Also known as "you can't fire me -- I quit!".

I don't see a damn thing in there that presents any evidence that Limblab isn't nosediving.  "Bounced back substantially" can mean anything in the world.  And "we're doing very well", especially where "we" refers to the entire syndicate, doesn't cut it.

To be fair, I've seen this article posted before and pointed out these same flaws before.  Yet here it comes back again.  Go figure.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Good for you.  Not only have you finally realized something, but you are not running away from the logical conclusion just because it offends your petty sensibilities.

I couldn't be more proud of you.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Yeah, I'll bet.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> * * * *
> 
> Yeah, I'll bet.



You might.  But I don't enter into bets with you dishonest types.

Sorry.  Your application has been once again denied.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 1, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



So... that bet that became a liability was an honest one then?
Good to know.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No bet of mine ever became a liability.

I did have this ONE bet that I would have lost but-for the fact that the other party to the bet got perma banned before it came to fruition.  That was cool.

But other than that, no.  Thanks for asking though, you dishonest hack.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Don't bet with Liability - he's a known welsher.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

He's also a known coward, because he runs away from my smackdowns.

Here's another:

Wingnut Boycott #5:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...vy-for-banning-army-vet-from-their-store.html


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Wingnut Boycott #6:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/231145-goppers-here-join-in-the-oreo-boycott.html


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Wingnut Boycott #7:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/213607-boycott-tom-hanks.html


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 1, 2013)

Wingnut Boycott #8:


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268827-reps-call-for-travel-boycott-of-mexico.html


----------



## Yurt (Aug 2, 2013)

at least synthy admits the FL boycotts are nonsense


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 2, 2013)

I've never been a big fan of boycotts, I don't think they work.


----------



## Camp (Aug 2, 2013)

Papageorgio said:


> I've never been a big fan of boycotts, I don't think they work.



I agree. Thats why I boycott boycotts. But since I boycott boycotts, I can't really boycott the boycott. It's all very confusing. I have to be selective and have found it is easy to boycott places and things if you weren't going to go there or buy those things anyhow. This method allows me to not boycott the places and things I like.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> He's also a known coward, because he runs away from my smackdowns.
> 
> Here's another:
> 
> ...



You are the coward.  And you are fully dishonest.

You have provided NOT one smack down to me, either.

You, you dishonest hack bitch, keep posting irrelevant shit about "boycotts."

But what you CLAIMED earlier was that I had endorsed or supported them.

When and if you ever man up, instead of posting shit about boycotts or suggested boycotts, you'll (for the first time ever) support your claim by demonstrating that I support them.  That, of course, will be a motherfucking LOOOOONG wait since your claim was simply another lie by you.  

I have already SAID that I wouldn't buy a Dixie Shits record.  Beyond that, you have nothing.  You made shit up and are now busy deflecting because you are a cowardly pussy and deflection is easier for a pussy like you than owning up to the truth.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



You remain a coward and a liar, Synthia.

And I have never welshed, as you know.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 2, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > He's also a known coward, because he runs away from my smackdowns.
> ...



That will have to wait; I was first. STILL waiting for your quote of me calling for Rush to be "silenced".   That, of course, will be a motherfucking LOOOOONG wait since your claim was simply another lie by you.   Much like the spelling of _ellipses_.

Maybe you need to get your own house in order before making demands.

"Lie-ability".  I get it now.


----------



## Papageorgio (Aug 2, 2013)

Camp said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > I've never been a big fan of boycotts, I don't think they work.
> ...



True, I have boycotted liver for years, I hate the taste and it has been a boycott that I have had the fortitude to endure.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



And I already answered.  I didn't quote you since I never claimed you had used that phrase.  [To put it in your parlance, you dishonest bitch, QUOTE me saying that I siad you had personally called for Rush to be silenced in those precise words.]   What I have told you (repeatedly now) is that it is not necessary to say something in precise words to make your position nonetheless quite clear.  You dishonest hack bitch.  

Pogo is so stupid and such a fully dishonest dick, he WAITS to hear something that has already been said.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 2, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Oh the butthurt... 



Well this is right in line with a welsher isn't it.

Remember the old "is is"?


IlarMeilyr said:


> As to the actual topic of this thread, it remains what has happened to Rush.  You lolberals dislike what he has said, so *your reaction is* (not unexpectedly considering how much you loathe true free speech) *is to attempt to stifle his ability to even have an audience*.





Then there was  "a-activists":


IlarMeilyr said:


> wow.  You really are one dense asshole motherfucking stupid dishonest hack bitch.
> 
> Try to keep up you hack bitch troll mental midget.
> 
> ...



Ruh-roh.

But wait.  There's more.  NOW how much would you pay?



IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...





"Lie-ability".  You should just go back to that.
Dumb shit.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Pogo said:


> * * * *
> 
> Dumb shit.



^ ploddo now signs his post?

His first crack at being honest and it's a smashing success.



By the way, in each and every one of your "examples," ploddo, you dull-witted transparent liar, you offered no evidence AT ALL that I claimed you had SAID it.

I DID say that you support the garbage, but I didn't claim that you said it in as many words.

Thanks for proving that you are both dishonest AND brainless, ploddo.  Or shall we just call you "Dumb shit" from now on?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 2, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



So in other words the same approach to manning up, as the approach to betting.
Why am I not surprised... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But you're right, dumb shit, we did this before.  I duly translated it as "Don't tell me what you think!  *I'll* tell you what you think!"

Lie-ability.  It's what's for dinner.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Dumb shit said:
			
		

> * * * *
> So in other words the same approach to manning up, as the approach to betting.
> * * * *



Dumb shit, since you are far less than honest and have no working knowledge of manning up, your bleatings are quite meaningless.

My "approach" to betting is to honor bets.  It involves something you have no ability to fathom from real life experience: honesty.

Shit for brain dishonest hack bitches (like you) apparently wish to pretend that if two people make a bet but one has to "leave" before the bet comes to term, that the "bet" nevertheless continues.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 2, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dumb shit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe the terms of your Welsh rare-bet were that if you lost you would exit and not return.  That's an action entirely on you; doesn't depend on whether anyone else is here or not.  Everybody on the site could "leave"; you would still have the obligation.

Well, you lost, loser, and you *failed *to honor your own bet just as you *failed *to justify your prior claims.  Conclusion: you are a dishonest hack.

Now back to our regularly scheduled threadgram:

>> This is inevitable. In order to maintain a top radio show, you have to continually draw new audience members in from the younger generations as the older one move onto other forms of entertainment.

The problem here is, Limbaugh's radio audience has always been Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, who carried him through his heyday during the conservative surge of the 1990s and early 2000s. Additionally, Limbaugh's audience has always been AM radio listeners who have never had an interest in Internet radio or podcasts. I know Limbaugh runs his program in podcast format and Internet streaming but I highly doubt he's carried high ratings here.

Now cut to 2013. Gen Xers are becoming increasingly disinterested in the conservative movement and the Conservative Baby Boomers are literally dying out, diminishing the audience for Limbaugh and Hannity, etc. Add to that Gen Y and Millennials don't give a shit about Limbaugh, and he has an audience growing smaller and smaller every day with no prospects of reversing this. And also radio is shifting over to the Internet and satellite subscription services - at least good radio is - because the audience can get more of the shows they want when they want them, no commercial breaks and they don't have the FCC's politeness police breathing down their necks (yet).

This makes Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Medved, Savage, and their conservative ilk dinosaurs in a brave new world which can't support them. And it definitely can't support their asking salaries. Limbaugh once bragged in a Rolling Stone article about being paid $80 million a year plus a nine figure signing bonus for his current contract with Clear Channel. But he also got that much when he could pull 15 million listeners a week (he's not doing that now!). And his audience has become fickle with him. During his last controversy where he called Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a slut for demanding that Obamacare cover birth control, six major sponsors and a quarter of Limbaugh's audience threatened to walk away from the show, prompting Rush to apologize on air for the remark. Clearly Rush does not draw the number of WASP males required to support this kind of ideology he used to. <<

-- found and pasted from the internets (anonymous)


----------



## Warrior102 (Aug 2, 2013)

numan said:


> '
> 
> It's about time !!
> 
> ...



Congrats on your first Red Star !!!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Dumb shit said:
			
		

> I believe the terms of your Welsh rare-bet were that if you lost you would exit and not return.  That's an action entirely on you; doesn't depend on whether anyone else is here or not.
> 
> Well, you lost.  Now do the right thing.  Loser.



The "terms" of the bet were irrelevant since the OTHER party to the bet got perma-banned BEFORE the terms came to fruition.

What this means, ya Dumb shit, is that s/he was in no position to pay off in the event that I had "won" the bet.  That's why he/she's perma-banning VOIDED the bet.  Nullified.

A nullified bet is no bet at all.

HAD s/he NOT gotten perma-banned BEFORE the General Dejection, I agree, I WOULD have lost the bet.  But the hand of fate made it moot.

I _did_ do the right thing.  

That's why a Dumb shit like you cannot recognize it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 2, 2013)

Liability claims that boycotts are not the free market at work, and are a dishonest thumb on the scale.
I then produce 8 conservative boycotts (there were many more).
Conclusion:  Liability is not a conservative, or he's just a hypocrite.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 2, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Liability claims that boycotts are not the free market at work, and are a dishonest thumb on the scale.
> I then produce 8 conservative boycotts (there were many more).
> Conclusion:  Liability is not a conservative, or he's just a hypocrite.



The boycotts are clearly NOT the free market at work.  It IS a thumb on the scale to AFFECT what would OTHERWISE be a more free market.

I never said that there haven't been some EFFORTS by SOME conservatives to organize some boycotts. Also, what you ACTUALLY said, you degenerate habitual pathological compulsive liar, is that I supported some of those boycotts.  

Conclusion:

Syntholic/Tranny is both fully dishonest and sadly and completely stupid.


----------



## numan (Aug 2, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Liability claims that boycotts are not the free market at work, and are a dishonest thumb on the scale.
> I then produce 8 conservative boycotts (there were many more).
> Conclusion:  Liability is not a conservative, or he's just a hypocrite.


*Or Both?* · · 

.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 4, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Liability claims that boycotts are not the free market at work, and are a dishonest thumb on the scale.
> ...




Do you denounce these conservative boycotts?

Funny, you don't in any of those threads....


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 4, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Did I support them?  See, THAT was your claim (until you now tried to move that goal post, you dishonest hack bitch lying pussy motherfucker).

By the way, since you are a dull-witted stupid dishonest hack bitch motherfucker, let me help you out here a little.

I also identified the boycott in question as an effort to put the thumb on the scale in what would otherwise be the free market.  Sometimes a boycott effort IS putting a dishonest thumb on the scale.  But I don't think I added the word "dishonest."  That was you, you dishonest bitch.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 4, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...


Do you denounce these conservative boycotts?


Why are you afraid to answer?


----------



## Toro (Aug 4, 2013)

Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 4, 2013)

Toro said:


> Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.



Exactly.  Every buying choice we make has some set of criteria.  It's comical to watch those who claim to favor a free market, qualify that to "a free market as long as I like how others are using it".


----------



## numan (Aug 4, 2013)

Toro said:


> Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.


You are quite right.

But it would be the beginning of wisdom to check and see who was behind the scenes organizing and funding the boycott.

.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 6, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.
> ...



Hey..............if your product sucks, your product sucks and I won't buy it.

If your product is made by slave labor, well, speaking as a person who doesn't support slave labor (nor sweatshops), and I hear that's how you're making your product, I wont buy that either.

And.......................if your ideas are stupid, well, I'm not going to listen to you either.  Part of the reason why I refuse to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Dr. Laura unless it's brought to me by other sources who think they're stupid as well.

Sorry..............but I listened to Rush Limbaugh from 1991 until 1993, because my Chief liked to listen to him, and I thought he was stupid.

I listened to Glenn Beck for a year or two while he was on CNN, and thought he was a bit over the top as well as dumb as a bag of hammers just before he got dumped and went to FAUX Nooze.

Dr. Laura?  She doesn't know a single thing about relationships unless it's funneled through the lens of money and status.  The only time I listen to that haggard witch is when she's brought up on the news.

Wanna know what they all have in common?  Whenever someone starts to call for a boycott of their bullshit, they all scream that their First Amendment right is being trampled on because they feel their free speech is being limited.

Nope.............................it's not that your free speech is being limited (because you can be as stupid as you want), it's that other people are using their free speech to tell you what an idiot you are.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 6, 2013)

Like the little bitch that he is, Liability has run away.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 6, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Like the little bitch that he is, Liability has run away.



I have bitch-slapped you enough for your dishonesty and cowardice, you rancid twat.

But, as usual, you remain wrong.  I am still here.

I drop into the threads polluted by your cowardly dishonesty every once in a while to see if you have ever found your balls.  Not yet.  Oh well.

Better luck next month, ya stupid bitch.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 6, 2013)

Toro said:


> Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.



Nonsense.

Nobody denies that people can buy or refrain from buying for any reason, including boycotts.

But an organized orchestrated boycott is clearly NOT part of the free market.

In the case of the ultra lolberal pussies attempting (and failing) to silence Rush, it is just that:  an effort to *manipulate* the market.  

A free market is driven by *market* forces.  If you hate what Rush says, you don't listen.  His radio share is thus lowered.  Advertisers who want bang for their marketing dollars react to the audience share.  If it is seen as "too low" they make a market-motivated decision not to buy ad time on a low rated show.

When the lolberals who detest Rush's views seek to silence him (proving their hatred of the very notion of free speech in the process) by trying to organize a boycott NOT of Rush's SHOW but of the companies who might have the temerity to place ad spots ON Rush's show, that is not even remotely akin to "market forces."  It might be a force (if it were actually effective).  But it would be a political force, not a market force.  It isn't directed at the show or the ratings.  It is directed at those who would USE the show to advertise their goods and services.  

I realize why it is important to the usually dishonest lolberal hacks like Synthia to pretend that the boycott effort is somehow related to "the free market."  But it plainly is not.  But, I am curious why YOU would seek to join in that pretense.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 6, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Like the little bitch that he is, Liability has run away.
> ...


No, you ran away like a pussy:




Synthaholic said:


> Do you denounce these conservative boycotts?
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid to answer?


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 6, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.
> ...




By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.

Are you against advertising?

If Subway is promoting $5 subs, isn't that market manipulation?

If Planned Parenthood is promoting it's opposition to Limbaugh, how is that different?


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 6, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Now there's something you see every day:  Synthia saying something untrue, baseless and stupid.

There is not one thing I just posted that translates (accurately) into the bogus proposition YOU tried to twist it into.

Anybody may attempt to persuade anybody.  Advertisements are free speech and not market manipulation.  Even a sub-imbecile such as you isn't required to accept an ad pitch, you moron.

But the boycott isn't a matter of persuasion, you dishonest hack twat.

It is coercion.  It is a threat.

"We," the sanctimonious lolberals, "hereby threaten you, you filthy capitalist pig merchants, as follows.  WE have decided that Rush's voice should be silenced.  By buying ad time from his show, you permit his voice to be heard and maybe even to spread.  WE find this simply intolerable.  Therefore, if you continue to buy ad time from Rush, WE will organize a boycott of YOUR goods and services."  (Look at this, you fuckwit:  http://samuel-warde.com/2013/06/another-major-advertiser-dumps-rush-limbaugh-boycotters-rejoice/ )

It often requires the use of some speech to issue a threat, but that doesn't make a threat the same thing as a component part of the free market of ideas, you dishonest lolberal hack shitbird.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 7, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Hey................how is it coercion if they only ask you to participate?  If you don't want to boycott, don't boycott.....................I mean.............it IS a free country, right?

Sorry, but there are no penalties if you do or don't participate in the boycott, it's your right to choose to participate or not.  So no...................it's not coercion.

But...............thanks for showing us how conservatives try to change the meaning of things.  I' bet you get all your spin from FAUX Nooze, don't you?


----------



## Pogo (Aug 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> By this twisted logic, advertising is manipulating the market forces.
> 
> Are you against advertising?
> 
> ...





ABikerSailor said:


> Hey................how is it coercion if they only ask you to participate?  If you don't want to boycott, don't boycott.....................I mean.............it IS a free country, right?
> 
> Sorry, but there are no penalties if you do or don't participate in the boycott, it's your right to choose to participate or not.  So no...................it's not coercion.
> 
> But...............thanks for showing us how conservatives try to change the meaning of things.  I' bet you get all your spin from FAUX Nooze, don't you?



Both good points.  Nobody's forced to buy or not-buy; they make their own choices.  Authoritarians can't stand the (Liberal) idea that citizens can think for ourselves; they've gotta be hovering over to make sure what we think agrees with them.

Then again we're dealing with an intellect whose arguments consistently amount to varying versions of "you dishonest lolberal hack shitbird".


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 7, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Your premise is false.

The boycott proponents approach the advertisers and "request"  that they refrain from buying ad time on Rush's show.

But, the threat they have made explicitly is that "if you don't, we will organize a boycott of *your* product."

You can deny it, but the boycotters themselves have not been reluctant to acknowledge as much.  

For example: HERE is the "sample petition" folks are asked to direct to such sponsors, like Carbonite:



> To:
> Tim Wieland, Public Relations, Carbonite Inc.
> David Friend, CEO, Carbonite Inc.
> Envoy Medical, Envoy Medical
> ...


  --   http://www.change.org/petitions/tel...less-he-condemns-death-threat-chinese-mockery

OR, there's this old one:



> To:
> Head of Consumer Marketing, Geico
> Consumer relations, Select comfort
> Consumer relations, Hotwire
> ...


  -- http://www.change.org/petitions/rush-limbaugh-a-boycott-of-his-corporate-sponsers

Maybe the more formal organized effort from the usual smarmy unethicl shit organization Moron.org will convince you:



> Petition Statement
> Stop sponsoring Rush Limbaugh's radio show. We the undersigned are informing you that *we are committing to boycotting all corporate sponsors of Rush Limbaugh and his radio talk show. We will not purchase any products made, distributed, or sold by your companies until you discontinue that sponsorship.* We will also inform all who will listen of what we believe to be the inflammatory and harmful quality of Rush's spiteful, hurtful, and often erroneous diatribes that divide the country, sow discontent, and run contrary to our American values of justice and fairness, peace and unity, cooperation and tolerance between all people and that through your sponsorship of Rush you are interfering with the America that we are dedicated to building.


  --  MoveOn Petitions - Boycott Rush Limbaugh's Sponsors


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Boycotts are the free market at work. People can freely buy or not buy for any reason they choose.
> ...



Because I'm not engaging in partisan tribalism. 

The free market is one where people make voluntary decisions to buy or sell for any reason. As long as the decision is voluntary, it doesn't matter what the reason is. 

To say that Limbaugh losing advertisers isn't because of voluntary actions of companies is laughable. 

Most boycotts don't work because participants in the market decide that the benefits of the product they're buying outweighs the reason for the boycott.  Convenience almost always trumps politics. If companies are pulling ads, its because they don't want to be associated with a show that could damage their sales. Companies will generally avoid doing things that decrease their revenues or damage their reputation. That's how the free market works.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2013)

In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known. 

Calls for a boycott of any product is an attempt to increase information to the consumer who can then decide whether or they want to buy the product. In a boycott, people are made aware of the reason and they decide on their own whether or not they wish to buy the product. Nobody forces the individual to not buy.  Every Econ 101 student knows that an assumption behind equilibrium in a free market is that all information is known. 

FTR this is true for any voluntary boycott. It was true for the Chick-fil-A boycott, which BTW, failed miserably, as most boycotts do.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 7, 2013)

Toro said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Wrong.  A free market decision is a weighing of value. 

Product A works better or faster than product B.  Or A and B work just as well and just as quickly, but product A is less costly.

The decision making that goes on, ideally, has nothing to do with threats or coercion.

Once such things are injected into the equation, it is no longer a "free" market matter.  

If companies pull ads from Rush because they do not care for his speech and think it is adverse to their economic interests to be associated with his views, that might qualify as part of a free market analysis.  

But if they are themselves threatened with BEING boycotted if they refuse to participate IN a boycott (we are talking about more than one level of boycott here, by the way), then their determination is no longer a free market analysis based decision.  It is capitulation (in essence) to blackmail.

*None* of this has anything to do with partisan tribalism ,by the way.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



Well, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with economics. 

Microeconomics 101 is built on the concept of utility, not "value," whatever that means.  And utility is whatever the consumer decides. 

Companies are neither stupid nor craven. If they think something will benefit their market position, they'll do it. The idea that a Fortune 500 company would be bullied into something that negatively affected its revenues is silly. 

Rush is to blame for his decline in ratings, no one else.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 7, 2013)

Toro said:


> In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known.
> 
> Calls for a boycott of any product is an attempt to increase information to the consumer who can then decide whether or they want to buy the product. In a boycott, people are made aware of the reason and they decide on their own whether or not they wish to buy the product. Nobody forces the individual to not buy.  Every Econ 101 student knows that an assumption behind equilibrium in a free market is that all information is known.
> 
> FTR this is true for any voluntary boycott. It was true for the Chick-fil-A boycott, which BTW, failed miserably, as most boycotts do.



I agree with this analysis.  That increased flow of information/awareness about the vendor cuts both ways: some will agree and join the boycott, others will disagree and engage in a buycott (the reverse).

Boycotts don't depress sales so much as polarize them.  But either way they affect the most politically passionate only, which always represents a small slice of the general public.


----------



## Synthaholic (Aug 7, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > In a free market, people will buy products based on what economists call utility. Utility is whatever maximizes the individual's well-being. A multitude of factors contribute to utility. One is branding. If a consumer feels good about a product because of a brand, the consumer will buy the product to maximize their utility. Utility is maximized when all information is known.
> ...




Which is exactly what happened with Chik-fil-a.

Does Liability condemn buycotts?  He didn't when it was Rightwingers engaging in it, just like he doesn't condemn Rightwing boycotts.

Just the Leftwing ones.

There's a word for that.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



And of course a buycott is as much (or as little) a "thumb on the scale of the free market" as a boycott is.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market. 

If someone wants to buy organic food even if it isn't healthier for them, that's the free market. 

If someone wants to buy from his neighbor's store even though its cheaper at WalMart, that's the free market. 

If people don't want to buy goods from Russia because they've granted Snowden asylum, that's the free market. 

And if people don't want to buy products from companies that advertise on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's the free market.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

Toro said:


> If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market.



Yup.  Not all that rational in purely economic terms, but quite true all the same.



Toro said:


> If someone wants to buy organic food even if it isn't healthier for them, that's the free market.



So far, so good. 



Toro said:


> If someone wants to buy from his neighbor's store even though its cheaper at WalMart, that's the free market.



Completely true, so far.



Toro said:


> If people don't want to buy goods from Russia because they've granted Snowden asylum, that's the free market.



Again, not exactly a coherent economic decision, but absolutely a free one.  



Toro said:


> And if people don't want to buy products from companies that advertise on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's the free market.



Not exactly the same thing.  But more importantly, it's a false premise.

The CORRECT premise would be "IF ADVERTISERS elect not to purchase ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut, that's a free market decision."

But that is not necessarily the case where ADVERTISERS are COERCED into not buying ad time on shows where the host calls a woman a slut by threat of economic sanctions.  

That takes the "free" out of "free market."

The coercion is made explicit in the way the "request" for ADVERTISERS to boycott Rush's show is made.  "You companies are hereby 'requested' not to buy ad time on Rush's show.  IF you fail to comply with this very civil and polite request, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE 'decide' to boycott the purchase of your products."

As I noted earlier, this is not a simple discussion about one "level" of "boycott."

Moron.org asks merchants to boycott the purchase of AD TIME on Rush's show.  The THREAT is that if the merchants fail to comply, lots of folks will engage in a boycott of the merchant's products.  

No matter how often you make the claim, it will still always be false to pretend that this is an example of the FREE market.  It simply and clearly is not.  It is a matter of coercion.  Extortion.  Blackmail.


----------



## Toro (Aug 8, 2013)

People will decide on their own whether or not they will buy the product. That's free exchange. It doesn't matter how much bluster some pressure group spews. It's up to the individual buyer.


----------



## Pogo (Aug 8, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > If people decide they want to buy American because its American even if the foreign product is better and cheaper in every way, that's the free market.
> ...



Bolshoi.

We quoted the actual definition of _blackmail _earlier; it hasn't changed in four days.  And an ad buyer purchasing a block on a radio program IS a purchase of a service, just as walking into Mal-Wart and buying a box of Kleenex -- or going out of your way to buy that box somewhere else because you won't support Mal-Wart -- is.

What you're doing is agreeing on the principle and then making an exception when it comes to your chosen thought control.  You want it both ways.

I've heard that about you too.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 8, 2013)

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



^ another sterling example of ploddo's inability to debate.

Meanwhile, if Merchant "A" is "persuaded" to "boycott airing ads on Rush by a THREAT of a boycott of his product or service, then "A" might very well make the "decision" to engage in the advertising boycott of Rush's program.  But the decision is STILL not a free market choice.  It is capitulation to coercion.

Oh, and "blackmail" ALSO means 





> 2. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats


 -- blackmail - definition of blackmail by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (see the second set of definitions).

Yup.  Ploddo is flatly wrong again.  No surprise.


----------

