# Rush is back!



## Ernie S.

For all those that hailed the end of Conservative talk radio:



> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year  but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.



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


----------



## Warrior102

Who the fuck is Sandra Fluke?


----------



## Ernie S.

Warrior102 said:


> Who the fuck is Sandra Fluke?



Damned if I know... Some slut at Georgetown, I suppose.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro




----------



## Ernie S.

???


----------



## Avatar4321

He was gone?


----------



## Ernie S.

Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.

If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.

It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.


----------



## whitehall

The alleged boycott was just a fluke.


----------



## JWBooth

Big whoop.


----------



## Freewill

Poor, poor libs, the King is NOT dead, long live the King.

NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year  but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.

This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.


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


----------



## Rozman

Long live 'El Rushbo'


----------



## edthecynic

Freewill said:


> Poor, poor libs, the King is NOT dead, long live the King.
> 
> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said* there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year * but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.
> 
> 
> Read more: Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com


Of course, all last year your MessiahRushie denied his advertising was hurt. He had to reduce his rates and offer his personal endorsement for free, whereas before Fluke he charged a premium for his personal endorsement. No more confiscatory rates.


----------



## tinydancer

Freewill said:


> Poor, poor libs, the King is NOT dead, long live the King.
> 
> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year  but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.
> 
> 
> Read more: Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com



No matter how you slice it or dice it, Rush is still #1. 

Damn this is going to make liberals cry I tell ya! YAY!


----------



## Sarah G

And more talking points from freewill:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7340921-post1.html

Sorry, this thread was also created earlier.


----------



## aaronleland

And I'm sure Jersey Shore has more viewers than Rush has listeners. And less substance abuse. Long live Snookie!


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.



Fatboy can spin this all day, but the fact that the biggest radio company in the country is considering dropping him because advertisers don't want their products associated with his show says a lot.  

Radio is a fickle business.  Just ask Dr. Laura.   She used to have one of the biggest talk shows.  So did Howard Stern.


----------



## JoeB131

Meanwhile, back in reality. 

Radio Ink Magazine



> On Monday, Rush's people made it clear they were not happy with Dickey blaming any past company revenue shortfalls on Rush and they didn't want to hear it again on Cumulus' quarterly conference call. Both David Hinkley at the New York Daily News and Politico were sent words of warning aimed at Dickey by anonymous sources. Dickey never mentioned Rush by name in the call, only the statement above. Then, a very high ranking Cumulus official sent the following statement to Radio Ink, and asked not to be sourced. "*Forty-eight of the top 50 network advertisers have &#8220;excluded Rush and Hannity&#8221; orders. Every major national ad agency has the same dictate*."


----------



## blastoff

Anyone can listen to our WOOD 1300 AM on line 12 - 3 EST and hear about the same number of ad spots both local and national as on any other station in Rush's EIB network.  And WOOD is one of the few Cumulus stations in their lineup.  

Fiction from others in here about major market EIB members forced to only air PSAs and self-promos because of lack of advertisers is purely for the benefit of low information voters and lefty lunatics in general.


----------



## Katzndogz

Rush got most of his advertisers back (there were some he wouldn't accept back) and got a slew of new ones.   Liberals can make up anything they want.  They collide with the wall of reality.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.



Limbaugh doesn't work for Cumulus.  He works for Premiere Networks, which is a division of ClearChannel (which is owned in part by Bain Capital, but I digress  )

Cumulus is a radio station owner, like Clear Channel is.  Some of their stations run the Limbaugh show.  What they've said recently is that they're still losing money from advertisers not wanting to be associated with him.

These arrangements run on contracts, so the payments are due whether they run the show or not.  Those contracts have an expiration, and Cumulus has been indicating they have little incentive to renew.  Add to that the fact that Cumulus has its own talk show, the Huckabee program, ready as a replacement.

Hope this helps.

PS for the gullible that believe Lush Rimjob's story that he "doesn't want advertiser X back", two things: one, consider the source.  Two, wanna buy a bridge?


----------



## longknife

*Distributor: Rush Limbaugh Has Regained Advertisers* 

Thursday, 06 Jun 2013 03:38 PM, By Greg Richter

Golly gee, how could that happen? I thought the Redneck Liberals had spawned a successful boycott of his show! If so, why would advertisers be lined up to take a spot?

Snip
The companies are not buying Limbaugh's conservative ideology or fellow talk-show host Randi Rhodes' liberal ideology, Metter said. 

"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."

Endorsements by the talk-show hosts boost sales for such companies, Metter said.
Snip

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Distributor: Rush Limbaugh Has Regained Advertisers


----------



## Pogo

As far as the general health of ratings and ad rates -- Limblob has been losing audience for at least three years.  That's why his content goes to desperate lenghts like Flukegate.  It's like a drug-- it takes stronger and stronger doses to stay at the same level.

Then there's his demographic:
>> One station manager quipped to me, &#8220;The median age of Limbaugh&#8217;s audience? Deceased.&#8221 <<
(from an article by former Bush speechwriter David Frum)


----------



## Pogo

longknife said:


> *Distributor: Rush Limbaugh Has Regained Advertisers*
> 
> Thursday, 06 Jun 2013 03:38 PM, By Greg Richter
> 
> Golly gee, how could that happen? I thought the Redneck Liberals had spawned a successful boycott of his show! If so, why would advertisers be lined up to take a spot?
> 
> Snip
> The companies are not buying Limbaugh's conservative ideology or fellow talk-show host Randi Rhodes' liberal ideology, Metter said.
> 
> "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."
> 
> Endorsements by the talk-show hosts boost sales for such companies, Metter said.
> Snip
> 
> Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Distributor: Rush Limbaugh Has Regained Advertisers



Two things: one, your source is NewsMax. 
Two: they're quoting the *distributor* -- Premiere Networks.  That's the entity that *has the interest in selling the show*.  What the hell do you think they're going to say?


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fatboy can spin this all day, but the fact that the biggest radio company in the country is considering dropping him because advertisers don't want their products associated with his show says a lot.
> 
> Radio is a fickle business.  Just ask Dr. Laura.   She used to have one of the biggest talk shows.  So did Howard Stern.
Click to expand...


Sorry, NO. The highest rated radio host of all time is considering leaving Cumulus because it's head blamed it's loss of revenue on him. The truth is, advertisers ran but were replaced when it was noted that Limbaugh's ratings didn't collapse.
The whole idea behind advertising is not political ideology, but getting your product in front of people.

Look at the revenue of the companies that bailed. They may very well feel all socially conscious and shit, but they have lost business because they have lost exposure.


----------



## longknife

Well, in spite of all the efforts of the Redneck Liberals, he's still on the air and getting good ratings!!!!!


----------



## Ernie S.

And what bothers Libs most is he could afford to buy 100 radio stations and air his show for 5 years with zero ad revenue.


----------



## kwc57

Can anyone tell me where I can tune to get a dose of Air America?


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes

Ernie S. said:


> For all those that hailed the end of Conservative talk radio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaugh&#8217;s distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio host&#8217;s controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year &#8212; but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


Anyone who ever made serious money in sales can see this is the syndicator/distributor running ahead of two existential problems... 

1. Assure loyal nutball advertisers Pigboy isn't going anywhere
2. Assure loyal nutball adverstisers The Pigboy Show is worth the money

And prime the fee-pump for the hayseed advertisers Pigboy's gaffe has reduced the syndicator/distributor to pitching. 

The sentence that was missing from the PR piece goes something like this: _Pricing for spots running during The Pigboy Hour is as solid as a rock_. That something like that was not included tells experienced sales and marketing people the road back is still up hill.


----------



## longknife

kwc57 said:


> Can anyone tell me where I can tune to get a dose of Air America?



Here's their website  -- Air America - Official Web Site for Air America


----------



## Ernie S.

kwc57 said:


> Can anyone tell me where I can tune to get a dose of Air America?



CSPAN... Al Franken is there all week.

Randi Rhodes still has a show. She's with Cumulus along with Rush, Hannity and Beck.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fatboy can spin this all day, but the fact that the biggest radio company in the country is considering dropping him because advertisers don't want their products associated with his show says a lot.
> 
> Radio is a fickle business.  Just ask Dr. Laura.   She used to have one of the biggest talk shows.  So did Howard Stern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, NO. The highest rated radio host of all time is considering leaving Cumulus because it's head blamed it's loss of revenue on him. The truth is, advertisers ran but were replaced when it was noted that Limbaugh's ratings didn't collapse.
> The whole idea behind advertising is not political ideology, but getting your product in front of people.
> 
> Look at the revenue of the companies that bailed. They may very well feel all socially conscious and shit, but they have lost business because they have lost exposure.
Click to expand...


Regardless what hot air the blowhard puts out, Limblob cannot "leave Cumulus".  He's not _*with *_Cumulus; he's with Premiere Networks.  He can maybe leave them if he wants, but stations have individual contracts for the show, whether regardless whether the station is owned by Cumulus or not, and those contracts are between the station and Premiere, not between the station and Limblob.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone tell me where I can tune to get a dose of Air America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CSPAN... Al Franken is there all week.
> 
> Randi Rhodes still has a show. She's with Cumulus along with Rush, Hannity and Beck.
Click to expand...


Ernie, I don't know where you pull your info from but Randi Rhodes is with Premiere too, as is Beck.  Hannity I'm not sure -- neither one seems to list him.  Maybe a joint venture.

Premiere roster

Cumulus roster

Air America went out of business a few years ago.  Its talent went to other syndicators like the ones above or Dial Global.


----------



## Freewill

Jersey shore?  What the hell is that?  Is that something they watch in the M.R. Ward?


----------



## Freewill

The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday. 

Rush Limbaugh 14 million 

So sad to see desperate liberals grasping at straws.  Seems so damn cruel to put them in their place.


----------



## Glensather

Pff, NCIS has 21 million viewers and gives me something to watch.

In all seriousness, though, he's been in the business long enough that it won't get to his head... but also, consider that he doesn't have a lot of competition.


----------



## edthecynic

Freewill said:


> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million
> 
> So sad to see desperate liberals grasping at straws.  Seems so damn cruel to put them in their place.


14 million per week down from 40+ million per day pre-Fluke.

May 26, 2011
RUSH:. According to reports at the peak of The Oprah's popularity, her show had* 40 million weekly viewers*. Now, that's not bad. *That's almost as many as we have every day here*. So our hat's off to The Oprah, 40 million viewers a week, not bad.


----------



## Yurt

who cares, i'm going to watch pretty little liars


----------



## blackhawk

In liberal land Rush is off the air and FOX news is the number four rated cable news network not true of course but it's Friday so let's give the wacky far left a treat.


----------



## Pogo

Sarah G said:


> And more talking points from freewill:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7340921-post1.html
> 
> Sorry, this thread was also created earlier.



Yes it was, and it didn't work there either.  As I pointed out there, this is the *distributor *making the claim -- the entity that sells the program to radio stations.  Which means they have a direct interest in floating PR that will sell it.  The source of this, noted in the article, is "Premiere Radio senior vice president and *director of talk radio sales* Dan Metter".

They're selling a program.   What the hell do you think they're going to say?

So what you're quoting is essentially ad copy from within the radio industry.

This site really should have a "think it through" button to hit before posting...


----------



## Pete7469

Pogo said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more talking points from freewill:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7340921-post1.html
> 
> Sorry, this thread was also created earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was, and it didn't work there either.  As I pointed out there, this is the *distributor *making the claim -- the entity that sells the program to radio stations.  Which means they have a direct interest in floating PR that will sell it.  The source of this, noted in the article, is "Premiere Radio senior vice president and *director of talk radio sales* Dan Metter".
> 
> They're selling a program.   What the hell do you think they're going to say?
> 
> So what you're quoting is essentially ad copy from within the radio industry.
> 
> This site really should have a "think it through" button to hit before posting...
Click to expand...


LOL...

A liberal talking about "thinking"....

Now that's funny.


----------



## Pogo

Freewill said:


> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million



That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.


----------



## Pogo

Pete7469 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more talking points from freewill:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7340921-post1.html
> 
> Sorry, this thread was also created earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was, and it didn't work there either.  As I pointed out there, this is the *distributor *making the claim -- the entity that sells the program to radio stations.  Which means they have a direct interest in floating PR that will sell it.  The source of this, noted in the article, is "Premiere Radio senior vice president and *director of talk radio sales* Dan Metter".
> 
> They're selling a program.   What the hell do you think they're going to say?
> 
> So what you're quoting is essentially ad copy from within the radio industry.
> 
> This site really should have a "think it through" button to hit before posting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...
> 
> A liberal talking about "thinking"....
> 
> Now that's funny.
Click to expand...



Is the claim attributed to Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter, or is it not?


----------



## Yurt

Pogo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
Click to expand...


ZOMG

that is devasting

tell me...what liberal talking head blowhard comes close to his figures? 

answer =


----------



## Pogo

Yurt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ZOMG
> 
> that is devasting
> 
> tell me...what liberal talking head blowhard comes close to his figures?
> 
> answer =
Click to expand...


Of losing 30% of his audience?

Damned if I know.  I'm not an ad buyer.


----------



## edthecynic

Pogo said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZOMG
> 
> that is devasting
> 
> tell me...what liberal talking head blowhard comes close to his figures?
> 
> answer =
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Of losing 30% of his audience?*
> 
> Damned if I know.  I'm not an ad buyer.
Click to expand...

November 10, 2010
RUSH:  I'm in the broadcasting business, just as they are.* They might want to say they're in the journalism business, the news business, and in a way they are, but even though they're cable, they're broadcasters.* I mean there are certain skill sets that you have to succeed at, and if you don't, you're gone.** If this program lost 20% of the audience I'd be gone.* I would take myself away.**


----------



## Osomir

Even as an economic conservative I can't stand Rush. He gives conservatives a pretty bad image. Republicans deserve better than to be represented by sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty. No wonder we have a branding problem. i'm also not a very big fan of angry politics which is his bread and butter.


----------



## Yurt

Osomir said:


> Even as an economic conservative I can't stand Rush. He gives conservatives a pretty bad image. Republicans deserve better than to be represented by sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty. No wonder we have a branding problem.



osomir:

here is the thing, rush doesn't represent anyone other than himself.  only fools allow him to represent them.


----------



## edthecynic

Pogo said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more talking points from freewill:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7340921-post1.html
> 
> Sorry, this thread was also created earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was, and it didn't work there either.  As I pointed out there, this is the *distributor *making the claim -- the entity that sells the program to radio stations.  Which means they have a direct interest in floating PR that will sell it.  The source of this, noted in the article, is "Premiere Radio senior vice president and *director of talk radio sales* Dan Metter".
> 
> They're selling a program.   What the hell do you think they're going to say?
> 
> So what you're quoting is essentially ad copy from within the radio industry.
> 
> This site really should have a "think it through" button to hit before posting...
Click to expand...

Exactly, After having his audience drop from 40+ million to 14 million, the pathological liar simply makes up a bigger number. The worse he is doing the better he claims he is doing.

November 07, 2012
RUSH:* Hey, any of you guys in there want to come sit in my chair today?* Anybody?* Nobody wants to come sit in my chair here?* None of you?* I mean,* I'm giving you a golden opportunity to speak to, what, 50 million people.**


----------



## Yurt

Pogo said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ZOMG
> 
> that is devasting
> 
> tell me...what liberal talking head blowhard comes close to his figures?
> 
> answer =
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of losing 30% of his audience?
> 
> Damned if I know.  I'm not an ad buyer.
Click to expand...


no pogo....what liberal blowhard like rush has 14 million listeners?


----------



## Osomir

Yurt said:


> osomir:
> 
> here is the thing, rush doesn't represent anyone other than himself.  only fools allow him to represent them.



Oh i agree, but he is often represented that way, and often represents himself that way. I suppose it more so bothers me how popular he is, and how strong of an influence he has on some conservative populations. As a former journalist, the quality and style of his reporting is also rather irritating given the low quality and standards he utilizes mixed with the emotive sensationalism. The same goes for "journalists" like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (on the conservative side, there are plenty of liberal examples as well). We deserve better and it is disappointing that so many people get drawn into their rubbish.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> Sorry, NO. The highest rated radio host of all time is considering leaving Cumulus because it's head blamed it's loss of revenue on him. The truth is, advertisers ran but were replaced when it was noted that Limbaugh's ratings didn't collapse.
> The whole idea behind advertising is not political ideology, but getting your product in front of people.
> 
> Look at the revenue of the companies that bailed. They may very well feel all socially conscious and shit, but they have lost business because they have lost exposure.



What they feel is that they aren't going to get dragged into his messes.  

If you can reach just as many people advertising your product on the "Oldies Station", and you aren't dealing with millions of angry customers, that works, too.  

Limbaugh is a dead man walking.  when 49 out of 50 top advertisers say, "No Rush or Hannity", you're show is toxic.  

Again, this is really Howard Stern or Dr. Laura territory.  They both went to Satellite Radio when advertisers no longer wanted to take a chance on them.  Limbaugh's heading there.


----------



## francoHFW

#1 in hateful, un-American bs you mean.


----------



## Pogo

Yurt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ZOMG
> 
> that is devasting
> 
> tell me...what liberal talking head blowhard comes close to his figures?
> 
> answer =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of losing 30% of his audience?
> 
> Damned if I know.  I'm not an ad buyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no pogo....what liberal blowhard like rush has 14 million listeners?
Click to expand...


Once again slowly, I am not an ad buyer, so I don't know and I don't care.  I'm also not a listener to radio blowhards.  But I am a fan of the psychology.

Limblob invented attack dog radio. It may be that that kind of knuckledragger style appeals more to the right than the left.  I dunno, you tell me.


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry, NO. The highest rated radio host of all time is considering leaving Cumulus because it's head blamed it's loss of revenue on him. The truth is, advertisers ran but were replaced when it was noted that Limbaugh's ratings didn't collapse.
> The whole idea behind advertising is not political ideology, but getting your product in front of people.
> 
> Look at the revenue of the companies that bailed. They may very well feel all socially conscious and shit, but they have lost business because they have lost exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they feel is that they aren't going to get dragged into his messes.
> 
> If you can reach just as many people advertising your product on the "Oldies Station", and you aren't dealing with millions of angry customers, that works, too.
> 
> Limbaugh is a dead man walking.  when 49 out of 50 top advertisers say, "No Rush or Hannity", you're show is toxic.
> 
> Again, this is really Howard Stern or Dr. Laura territory.  They both went to Satellite Radio when advertisers no longer wanted to take a chance on them.  Limbaugh's heading there.
Click to expand...


-- which is probably not a healthy destination for a guy whose audience consists largely of septuagenarian technophobes.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Meanwhile, back in reality.
> 
> Radio Ink Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, Rush's people made it clear they were not happy with Dickey blaming any past company revenue shortfalls on Rush and they didn't want to hear it again on Cumulus' quarterly conference call. Both David Hinkley at the New York Daily News and Politico were sent words of warning aimed at Dickey by anonymous sources. Dickey never mentioned Rush by name in the call, only the statement above. Then, a very high ranking Cumulus official sent the following statement to Radio Ink, and asked not to be sourced. "*Forty-eight of the top 50 network advertisers have &#8220;excluded Rush and Hannity&#8221; orders. Every major national ad agency has the same dictate*."
Click to expand...




Katzndogz said:


> Rush got most of his advertisers back (there were some he wouldn't accept back) and got a slew of new ones.   Liberals can make up anything they want.  They collide with the wall of reality.


link? Who did he "get back"?

BTW- I'm all for him staying on the radio. He drives indies & undecideds to vote for the Democrats


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> For all those that hailed the end of Conservative talk radio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year  but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


he was gone 

funny the lefties didnt mention that 

--LOL


----------



## Jroc

Ernie S. said:


> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.



Obama the great uniter


----------



## Pogo

Jroc said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama the great uniter
Click to expand...


uuhhh......... what?


----------



## Zarius

I'm so glad I have not heard this spiteful.....hateful man in a long time. He has a hole in his soul that no amount of narcotic drugs or money or evil hurt could fill. Fuck you rush. When you die your hate dies with you.


----------



## healthmyths

Glensather said:


> Pff, NCIS has 21 million viewers and gives me something to watch.
> 
> In all seriousness, though, he's been in the business long enough that it won't get to his head... but also, consider that he doesn't have a lot of competition.



I'm am one of those 21 million viewers of  NCIS that watch just one hour per week.

14 million people listen at least one hour a day if not every day to Rush...  BIG difference!

Harrison's own calculation -- that Limbaugh typically attracts about 14.25 million listeners weekly -- is based on Arbitron figures from about 30 cities and spot checks of a similar number of stations. Harrison stands by his guess even though Limbaugh's program is heard on more than 600 stations across the country. "Once you get below the big markets, [the audience] doesn't add up to critical mass," he said.
Limbaugh's Audience Size? It's Largely Up in the Air - Washington Post


----------



## jknowgood

Yurt said:


> who cares, i'm going to watch pretty little liars



So your watching obama's speeches!


----------



## Connery

*Threads merged*


----------



## edthecynic

healthmyths said:


> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pff, NCIS has 21 million viewers and gives me something to watch.
> 
> In all seriousness, though, he's been in the business long enough that it won't get to his head... but also, consider that he doesn't have a lot of competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm am one of those 21 million viewers of  NCIS that watch just one hour per week.
> 
> 14 million people listen* at least one hour a day* if not every day to Rush...  BIG difference!
> 
> Harrison's own calculation -- that Limbaugh typically attracts about 14.25 million listeners weekly -- is based on Arbitron figures from about 30 cities and spot checks of a similar number of stations. Harrison stands by his guess even though Limbaugh's program is heard on more than 600 stations across the country. "Once you get below the big markets, [the audience] doesn't add up to critical mass," he said.
> Limbaugh's Audience Size? It's Largely Up in the Air - Washington Post
Click to expand...

Actually a "cume" is based on 15 minute segments.


----------



## Luissa

Ernie S. said:


> For all those that hailed the end of Conservative talk radio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year  but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


Shocker, there is still male chauvinist pigs out there.


----------



## Freewill

edthecynic said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million
> 
> So sad to see desperate liberals grasping at straws.  Seems so damn cruel to put them in their place.
> 
> 
> 
> 14 million per week down from 40+ million per day pre-Fluke.
> 
> May 26, 2011
> RUSH:. According to reports at the peak of The Oprah's popularity, her show had* 40 million weekly viewers*. Now, that's not bad. *That's almost as many as we have every day here*. So our hat's off to The Oprah, 40 million viewers a week, not bad.
Click to expand...


Prove that claim.  I think it totally BS.  Anyone who listens to Rush doesn't give a crap about Fluke.  Certainly not 30 million.


----------



## JoeB131

Freewill said:


> [
> 
> Prove that claim.  I think it totally BS.  Anyone who listens to Rush doesn't give a crap about Fluke.  Certainly not 30 million.



No, but advertisers do.   Advertisers who don't want to be seeing sponsoring hate and misogyny.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry, NO. The highest rated radio host of all time is considering leaving Cumulus because it's head blamed it's loss of revenue on him. The truth is, advertisers ran but were replaced when it was noted that Limbaugh's ratings didn't collapse.
> The whole idea behind advertising is not political ideology, but getting your product in front of people.
> 
> Look at the revenue of the companies that bailed. They may very well feel all socially conscious and shit, but they have lost business because they have lost exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they feel is that they aren't going to get dragged into his messes.
> 
> If you can reach just as many people advertising your product on the "Oldies Station", and you aren't dealing with millions of angry customers, that works, too.
> 
> Limbaugh is a dead man walking.  when 49 out of 50 top advertisers say, "No Rush or Hannity", you're show is toxic.
> 
> Again, this is really Howard Stern or Dr. Laura territory.  They both went to Satellite Radio when advertisers no longer wanted to take a chance on them.  Limbaugh's heading there.
Click to expand...


Howard Stern went to satellite because they offered him $500 million.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> [quo
> 
> Howard Stern went to satellite because they offered him $500 million.



And how'd that work out for him?  

Frankly, they should put his picture on milk cartons... that's how far he's vanished.


----------



## Toro

Osomir said:


> Even as an economic conservative I can't stand Rush. He gives conservatives a pretty bad image. Republicans deserve better than to be represented by sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty. No wonder we have a branding problem. i'm also not a very big fan of angry politics which is his bread and butter.



^^^^
RINO


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Howard Stern went to satellite because they offered him $500 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how'd that work out for him?
> 
> Frankly, they should put his picture on milk cartons... that's how far he's vanished.
Click to expand...


He lost his audience. 

And gained $500 million. 

Seems like a good trade to me.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Howard Stern went to satellite because they offered him $500 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how'd that work out for him?
> 
> Frankly, they should put his picture on milk cartons... that's how far he's vanished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lost his audience.
> 
> And gained $500 million.
> 
> Seems like a good trade to me.
Click to expand...


Sadly, to you, it would.


----------



## Toro

Osomir said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> osomir:
> 
> here is the thing, rush doesn't represent anyone other than himself.  only fools allow him to represent them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i agree, but he is often represented that way, and often represents himself that way. I suppose it more so bothers me how popular he is, and how strong of an influence he has on some conservative populations. As a former journalist, the quality and style of his reporting is also rather irritating given the low quality and standards he utilizes mixed with the emotive sensationalism. The same goes for "journalists" like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (on the conservative side, there are plenty of liberal examples as well). We deserve better and it is disappointing that so many people get drawn into their rubbish.
Click to expand...


^^^^
Clearly, a liberal claiming to be a Republican. Probably hates America too.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ernie S. said:


> For all those that hailed the end of Conservative talk radio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK - Rush Limbaughs distributor on Thursday said there is no denying the conservative radio hosts controversial comments about Sandra Fluke hurt advertising last year  but 2013 is apparently a whole different ballgame.
> 
> This year, Limbaugh is drawing new advertisers and recovering well after the major boycott he faced in response to his broadcasts on Fluke, Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter told the Talkers New York 2013 conference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Distributor: Rush Limbaugh doing ?very well? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...


Who cares?  Other than fringe Republicans and pols who need to learn the topic of the day.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how'd that work out for him?
> 
> Frankly, they should put his picture on milk cartons... that's how far he's vanished.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lost his audience.
> 
> And gained $500 million.
> 
> Seems like a good trade to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, to you, it would.
Click to expand...


Lets see. A shock jock who has strippers on his program during drive time gets more money than he could have ever possibly imagined, and thats a _bad_ thing?

No wonder you suck at business.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lost his audience.
> 
> And gained $500 million.
> 
> Seems like a good trade to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, to you, it would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see. A shock jock who has strippers on his program during drive time gets more money than he could have ever possibly imagined, and thats a _bad_ thing?
> 
> No wonder you suck at business.
Click to expand...


Depends on why he went into the business.  

Frankly, what's the point of having a radiio show if no one listens to you because the technology sucks?

Oh, incidently, I'm not the one who crashed the fucking economy. That would be YOUR industry.


----------



## Ernie S.

The point of having a radio show is to make money. Limbaugh makes 50 million/year, Beck 10, Hannity makes 20 from radio and another 15 from TV. Al Franken (remember him?) makes $174,000.


----------



## Pogo

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quo
> 
> Howard Stern went to satellite because they offered him $500 million.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how'd that work out for him?
> 
> Frankly, they should put his picture on milk cartons... that's how far he's vanished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He lost his audience.
> 
> And gained $500 million.
> 
> Seems like a good trade to me.
Click to expand...


Kinda depends on what the objective was, doesn't it?
Is money all there is?  Especially for an attention whore with a microphone?


----------



## Pogo

Toro said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> 
> osomir:
> 
> here is the thing, rush doesn't represent anyone other than himself.  only fools allow him to represent them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i agree, but he is often represented that way, and often represents himself that way. I suppose it more so bothers me how popular he is, and how strong of an influence he has on some conservative populations. As a former journalist, the quality and style of his reporting is also rather irritating given the low quality and standards he utilizes mixed with the emotive sensationalism. The same goes for "journalists" like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (on the conservative side, there are plenty of liberal examples as well). We deserve better and it is disappointing that so many people get drawn into their rubbish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> Clearly, a liberal claiming to be a Republican. Probably hates America too.
Click to expand...



OK, so let's sum up:  to criticize a radio blowhard who lives on ad hominem and misogyny and pisses on the idea of ethical journalism is to "hate America".  Because America is all about ad hominem and misogyny and pissing on the idea of ethical journalism.

Is that about it?


----------



## Pogo

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> He lost his audience.
> 
> And gained $500 million.
> 
> Seems like a good trade to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, to you, it would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets see. A shock jock who has strippers on his program during drive time gets more money than he could have ever possibly imagined, and thats a _bad_ thing?
> 
> No wonder you suck at business.
Click to expand...


No wonder you suck at values.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> The point of having a radio show is to make money. Limbaugh makes 50 million/year, Beck 10, Hannity makes 20 from radio and another 15 from TV. Al Franken (remember him?) makes $174,000.



Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.

But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself. 

After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.

Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fatboy can spin this all day, but the fact that the biggest radio company in the country is considering dropping him because advertisers don't want their products associated with his show says a lot.
> 
> Radio is a fickle business.  Just ask Dr. Laura.   She used to have one of the biggest talk shows.  So did Howard Stern.
Click to expand...


Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point of having a radio show is to make money. Limbaugh makes 50 million/year, Beck 10, Hannity makes 20 from radio and another 15 from TV. Al Franken (remember him?) makes $174,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.
> 
> But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself.
> 
> After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.
> 
> Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


Franken had a show on AirAmerica and did not do well, in fact AirAmerica as a whole failed miserably. 

I simply disagree with your premise, many people do both, make money and uphold their ideology, the fact you weren't able to do so is more a reflection on you.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point of having a radio show is to make money. Limbaugh makes 50 million/year, Beck 10, Hannity makes 20 from radio and another 15 from TV. Al Franken (remember him?) makes $174,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.
> 
> But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself.
> 
> After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.
> 
> Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franken had a show on AirAmerica and did not do well, in fact AirAmerica as a whole failed miserably.
> 
> I simply disagree with your premise, many people do both, make money and uphold their ideology, the fact you weren't able to do so is more a reflection on you.
Click to expand...


I didn't put ideology on the air, dumb fuck.  News flash: there's more on the radio than that crap.

Radio is not a business where you make money.  Unless you're doing something outrageous, but then what's the point?  That's self-indulgent.  The difference is, I can 
point to what I've done on the air with pride, forever.  What I gave my listeners doesn't have a dollar value. Perhaps that's too deep for the superficial to understand.

Air America-- again, we've already covered this but Air America went out of business a few years ago (after Franken had already left) and its talent went on to do the same thing under other syndicators, where they're still on the air today.  See post 32.  What you're obsessed with is a single business that was mismanaged and failed.  Kind of like saying "Studebaker went out of business, and that proves there's no future for cars".


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libs were all talking about him being fired from Cumulus because of him losing advertisers. Now we find that he was considering leaving, not the other way around.
> 
> If Limbaugh does leave Cumulus, I would bet Beck and Hannity won't be far behind.
> 
> It may be a moot point since advertising revenue is back and stronger than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fatboy can spin this all day, but the fact that the biggest radio company in the country is considering dropping him because advertisers don't want their products associated with his show says a lot.
> 
> Radio is a fickle business.  Just ask Dr. Laura.   She used to have one of the biggest talk shows.  So did Howard Stern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.
Click to expand...


"Better" depends on what your value of measurement is.  If it's simply a self-indulgent onanism about how much money you can suck out of the public pocket by charging "confiscatory ad rates" (Limblob's description), then yes, no question, he's the king.  Of that.

OTOH if you have a talk format that directly influences public discourse and you fail to serve that discussion, and on the contrary pollute it with Slutgate in pursuit of your own self-interest.... then not so much.

Again, it depends on what your values are; the public interest or the single person's private profit.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.
> 
> But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself.
> 
> After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.
> 
> Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Franken had a show on AirAmerica and did not do well, in fact AirAmerica as a whole failed miserably.
> 
> I simply disagree with your premise, many people do both, make money and uphold their ideology, the fact you weren't able to do so is more a reflection on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put ideology on the air, dumb fuck.  News flash: there's more on the radio than that crap.
> 
> Radio is not a business where you make money.  Unless you're doing something outrageous, but then what's the point?  That's self-indulgent.  The difference is, I can
> point to what I've done on the air with pride, forever.  What I gave my listeners doesn't have a dollar value. Perhaps that's too deep for the superficial to understand.
> 
> Air America-- again, we've already covered this but Air America went out of business a few years ago (after Franken had already left) and its talent went on to do the same thing under other syndicators, where they're still on the air today.  See post 32.  What you're obsessed with is a single business that was mismanaged and failed.  Kind of like saying "Studebaker went out of business, and that proves there's no future for cars".
Click to expand...


Good for you! Glad you did something you can take pride in, if it makes you feel good, fine by me. 

I'm not obsessed with AirAmerica, I listened to it, it was good but I was not obsessed with it. Franken's ratings were terrible and that is why he left. I listen to Rhodes and Miller and I am familiar with their work. Rhodes though, is a very bitter person.

So your analogy with the Studebaker, makes you sound like a real pious dumb fuck.

Oh and Pogo, have a great day.


----------



## Toro

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, to you, it would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. A shock jock who has strippers on his program during drive time gets more money than he could have ever possibly imagined, and thats a _bad_ thing?
> 
> No wonder you suck at business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on why he went into the business.
> 
> Frankly, what's the point of having a radiio show if no one listens to you because the technology sucks?
> 
> Oh, incidently, I'm not the one who crashed the fucking economy. That would be YOUR industry.
Click to expand...


And you're a bigot. 

Any more non sequiturs you wish to dive into?


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franken had a show on AirAmerica and did not do well, in fact AirAmerica as a whole failed miserably.
> 
> I simply disagree with your premise, many people do both, make money and uphold their ideology, the fact you weren't able to do so is more a reflection on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put ideology on the air, dumb fuck.  News flash: there's more on the radio than that crap.
> 
> Radio is not a business where you make money.  Unless you're doing something outrageous, but then what's the point?  That's self-indulgent.  The difference is, I can
> point to what I've done on the air with pride, forever.  What I gave my listeners doesn't have a dollar value. Perhaps that's too deep for the superficial to understand.
> 
> Air America-- again, we've already covered this but Air America went out of business a few years ago (after Franken had already left) and its talent went on to do the same thing under other syndicators, where they're still on the air today.  See post 32.  What you're obsessed with is a single business that was mismanaged and failed.  Kind of like saying "Studebaker went out of business, and that proves there's no future for cars".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you! Glad you did something you can take pride in, if it makes you feel good, fine by me.
> 
> I'm not obsessed with AirAmerica, I listened to it, it was good but I was not obsessed with it. Franken's ratings were terrible and that is why he left. I listen to Rhodes and Miller and I am familiar with their work. Rhodes though, is a very bitter person.
> 
> So your analogy with the Studebaker, makes you sound like a real pious dumb fuck.
> 
> Oh and Pogo, have a great day.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one who jumped to baseless conclusions about what somebody else did on the air, dumb fuck.

Now then, since Air America is in the past and its talent is in the present, what's the point of bringing it up?  Not that I think it's a worthwhile format for anyone but the talent that was on Air America survives just fine on Premiere and Dial Global, so what's the point?

By the way, talent doesn't leave the air because of low ratings, and nor did Franken.  Talent stays on the air as long as it can; _*management *_is the entity that watches the ratings and hires and fires the talent.  Franken quit to run for the Senate.  Rhodes left in a contract dispute.

So what is your point?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put ideology on the air, dumb fuck.  News flash: there's more on the radio than that crap.
> 
> Radio is not a business where you make money.  Unless you're doing something outrageous, but then what's the point?  That's self-indulgent.  The difference is, I can
> point to what I've done on the air with pride, forever.  What I gave my listeners doesn't have a dollar value. Perhaps that's too deep for the superficial to understand.
> 
> Air America-- again, we've already covered this but Air America went out of business a few years ago (after Franken had already left) and its talent went on to do the same thing under other syndicators, where they're still on the air today.  See post 32.  What you're obsessed with is a single business that was mismanaged and failed.  Kind of like saying "Studebaker went out of business, and that proves there's no future for cars".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! Glad you did something you can take pride in, if it makes you feel good, fine by me.
> 
> I'm not obsessed with AirAmerica, I listened to it, it was good but I was not obsessed with it. Franken's ratings were terrible and that is why he left. I listen to Rhodes and Miller and I am familiar with their work. Rhodes though, is a very bitter person.
> 
> So your analogy with the Studebaker, makes you sound like a real pious dumb fuck.
> 
> Oh and Pogo, have a great day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who jumped to baseless conclusions about what somebody else did on the air, dumb fuck.
> 
> Now then, since Air America is in the past and its talent is in the present, what's the point of bringing it up?  Not that I think it's a worthwhile format for anyone but the talent that was on Air America survives just fine on Premiere and Dial Global, so what's the point?
> 
> By the way, talent doesn't leave the air because of low ratings, and nor did Franken.  Talent stays on the air as long as it can; _*management *_is the entity that watches the ratings and hires and fires the talent.  Franken quit to run for the Senate.  Rhodes left in a contract dispute.
> 
> So what is your point?
Click to expand...


Ok moron, you mentioned Franken didn't have a radio show, I stated he used to, that's why I mentioned it. I didn't realize you would forget what you wrote. 

Miller was worth listening to Franken was very boring, sorry he was tough to listen to and he left because of poor ratings. Franken didn't quit for a Senate run, his last show was in January of 2007, but you tried to put a nice spin on it. 

Again, I'm glad you did something that makes you feel important, it seems important to you to feel that way.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

It is generally a mistake to take Pogo seriously.  

He takes himself seriously.  Need more proof?


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! Glad you did something you can take pride in, if it makes you feel good, fine by me.
> 
> I'm not obsessed with AirAmerica, I listened to it, it was good but I was not obsessed with it. Franken's ratings were terrible and that is why he left. I listen to Rhodes and Miller and I am familiar with their work. Rhodes though, is a very bitter person.
> 
> So your analogy with the Studebaker, makes you sound like a real pious dumb fuck.
> 
> Oh and Pogo, have a great day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who jumped to baseless conclusions about what somebody else did on the air, dumb fuck.
> 
> Now then, since Air America is in the past and its talent is in the present, what's the point of bringing it up?  Not that I think it's a worthwhile format for anyone but the talent that was on Air America survives just fine on Premiere and Dial Global, so what's the point?
> 
> By the way, talent doesn't leave the air because of low ratings, and nor did Franken.  Talent stays on the air as long as it can; _*management *_is the entity that watches the ratings and hires and fires the talent.  Franken quit to run for the Senate.  Rhodes left in a contract dispute.
> 
> So what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok moron, you mentioned Franken didn't have a radio show, I stated he used to, that's why I mentioned it. I didn't realize you would forget what you wrote.
> 
> Miller was worth listening to Franken was very boring, sorry he was tough to listen to and he left because of poor ratings. Franken didn't quit for a Senate run, his last show was in January of 2007, but you tried to put a nice spin on it.
> 
> Again, I'm glad you did something that makes you feel important, it seems important to you to feel that way.
Click to expand...


No.  Talent does *not* leave because of ratings.  Ratings matter only to management.  Talent goes on the air and does its thing, and hangs on as long as it can.  Franken left so he could run for Senate (which was the following year).  As far as his ratings, even the Moonie Times says he was the most popular host on the network.

 But of course if you've got evidence rather than ipse dixit, bring it on.

You'll be happy to know that Miller's still on the air.  So are Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann and whoever else.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
> 
> It is generally a mistake to take Pogo seriously.
> 
> He takes himself seriously.  Need more proof?



Actually.... yeah.

Got any substance to go with that fluff?
Or even.... a point?

Yeah, since this is my field of business I do think I know what the hell I'm talking about.
Is that a problem?


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i agree, but he is often represented that way, and often represents himself that way. I suppose it more so bothers me how popular he is, and how strong of an influence he has on some conservative populations. As a former journalist, the quality and style of his reporting is also rather irritating given the low quality and standards he utilizes mixed with the emotive sensationalism. The same goes for "journalists" like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (on the conservative side, there are plenty of liberal examples as well). We deserve better and it is disappointing that so many people get drawn into their rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> Clearly, a liberal claiming to be a Republican. Probably hates America too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so let's sum up:  to criticize a radio blowhard who lives on ad hominem and misogyny and pisses on the idea of ethical journalism is to "hate America".  Because America is all about ad hominem and misogyny and pissing on the idea of ethical journalism.
> 
> Is that about it?
Click to expand...


Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.

I saw Franken Rhodes and Kotch as blowhards who lived on ad hominem and logical fallacy who pissed on, not only ethical journalism but also the truth.

It is, after all, about perception and core values.
Yours and mine are at odds. I accept that. Can you?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who jumped to baseless conclusions about what somebody else did on the air, dumb fuck.
> 
> Now then, since Air America is in the past and its talent is in the present, what's the point of bringing it up?  Not that I think it's a worthwhile format for anyone but the talent that was on Air America survives just fine on Premiere and Dial Global, so what's the point?
> 
> By the way, talent doesn't leave the air because of low ratings, and nor did Franken.  Talent stays on the air as long as it can; _*management *_is the entity that watches the ratings and hires and fires the talent.  Franken quit to run for the Senate.  Rhodes left in a contract dispute.
> 
> So what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok moron, you mentioned Franken didn't have a radio show, I stated he used to, that's why I mentioned it. I didn't realize you would forget what you wrote.
> 
> Miller was worth listening to Franken was very boring, sorry he was tough to listen to and he left because of poor ratings. Franken didn't quit for a Senate run, his last show was in January of 2007, but you tried to put a nice spin on it.
> 
> Again, I'm glad you did something that makes you feel important, it seems important to you to feel that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Talent does *not* leave because of ratings.  Ratings matter only to management.  Talent goes on the air and does its thing, and hangs on as long as it can.  Franken left so he could run for Senate (which was the following year).  As far as his ratings, even the Moonie Times says he was the most popular host on the network.
> 
> But of course if you've got evidence rather than ipse dixit, bring it on.
> 
> You'll be happy to know that Miller's still on the air.  So are Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann and whoever else.
Click to expand...


If you need to believe he left in January 2007 to run for the Senate, then go right ahead, you need a lot of reinforcement of your feelings.

I already know they are on the air, I listen to Stephanie and Thom, I also know Ed is on the air but I don't listen to him. I find it interesting that you feel the need to be superior and let me know who is on the air. Like I wouldn't know. I was one of the 10 people that listened to AirAmerica. I also listen to Wilkow, The Herd, Mike and Mike, Levin, and whoever else, just depends on my mood.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> Clearly, a liberal claiming to be a Republican. Probably hates America too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so let's sum up:  to criticize a radio blowhard who lives on ad hominem and misogyny and pisses on the idea of ethical journalism is to "hate America".  Because America is all about ad hominem and misogyny and pissing on the idea of ethical journalism.
> 
> Is that about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
> 
> I saw Franken Rhodes and Kotch as blowhards who lived on ad hominem and logical fallacy who pissed on, not only ethical journalism but also the truth.
> 
> It is, after all, about perception and core values.
> Yours and mine are at odds. I accept that. Can you?
Click to expand...


Actually Ernie, given the above I don't think we're that far apart.  I don't see the ad hominem approach as constructive for any side, so if that's what you're saying, I agree.

I just think it's a mistake to consider somebody making "confiscatory ad rates" by employing that model, as "success".  That's the only value I take issue with.  Because I see it as prostitution.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point of having a radio show is to make money. Limbaugh makes 50 million/year, Beck 10, Hannity makes 20 from radio and another 15 from TV. Al Franken (remember him?) makes $174,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.
> 
> But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself.
> 
> After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.
> 
> Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

No, Al Franken doesn't have a radio show, but he did. He was the flagship of a disastrous experiment in failed Liberal commentary. The only good thing about Franke's show was that you didn't have to sit on hold for 2 hours to get to speak to him.
I'm going to call bullshit here on your motives in radio! Altruism only goes so far. You did radio for a pay check. You are no longer doing radio because there is no money in Liberal commentary.

How does a profit motive make content meaningless? The content is what makes Limbaugh profitable and what sank the ship at Air America.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok moron, you mentioned Franken didn't have a radio show, I stated he used to, that's why I mentioned it. I didn't realize you would forget what you wrote.
> 
> Miller was worth listening to Franken was very boring, sorry he was tough to listen to and he left because of poor ratings. Franken didn't quit for a Senate run, his last show was in January of 2007, but you tried to put a nice spin on it.
> 
> Again, I'm glad you did something that makes you feel important, it seems important to you to feel that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Talent does *not* leave because of ratings.  Ratings matter only to management.  Talent goes on the air and does its thing, and hangs on as long as it can.  Franken left so he could run for Senate (which was the following year).  As far as his ratings, even the Moonie Times says he was the most popular host on the network.
> 
> But of course if you've got evidence rather than ipse dixit, bring it on.
> 
> You'll be happy to know that Miller's still on the air.  So are Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann and whoever else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you need to believe he left in January 2007 to run for the Senate, then go right ahead, you need a lot of reinforcement of your feelings.
> 
> I already know they are on the air, I listen to Stephanie and Thom, I also know Ed is on the air but I don't listen to him. I find it interesting that you feel the need to be superior and let me know who is on the air. Like I wouldn't know. I was one of the 10 people that listened to AirAmerica. I also listen to Wilkow, The Herd, Mike and Mike, Levin, and whoever else, just depends on my mood.
Click to expand...


Again, you proposed this idea, you back it up.  Where's your evidence that Al Franken, unlike everybody who's ever been on the air doing anything, left his job because of _his own_ ratings?  Even with the top ratings for the network?  Where is it?

And I told you about Stephanie Miller because you put here in the past tense.  It's sitting right above: "Miller _*was *_worth listening to".  This tells me you don't seem to be aware she's still there.  So sue me.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.
> 
> But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself.
> 
> After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.
> 
> Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Franken had a show on AirAmerica and did not do well, in fact AirAmerica as a whole failed miserably.
> 
> I simply disagree with your premise, many people do both, make money and uphold their ideology, the fact you weren't able to do so is more a reflection on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't put ideology on the air, dumb fuck.  News flash: there's more on the radio than that crap.
> 
> Radio is not a business where you make money.  Unless you're doing something outrageous, but then what's the point?  That's self-indulgent.  The difference is, I can
> point to what I've done on the air with pride, forever.  What I gave my listeners doesn't have a dollar value. Perhaps that's too deep for the superficial to understand.
> 
> Air America-- again, we've already covered this but Air America went out of business a few years ago (after Franken had already left) and its talent went on to do the same thing under other syndicators, where they're still on the air today.  See post 32.  What you're obsessed with is a single business that was mismanaged and failed.  Kind of like saying "Studebaker went out of business, and that proves there's no future for cars".
Click to expand...


No, idiot! Studebaker went out of business for the same reason Air America did. There was no market for their PRODUCT.

They stubbornly continued to produce a product no one wanted.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Talent does *not* leave because of ratings.  Ratings matter only to management.  Talent goes on the air and does its thing, and hangs on as long as it can.  Franken left so he could run for Senate (which was the following year).  As far as his ratings, even the Moonie Times says he was the most popular host on the network.
> 
> But of course if you've got evidence rather than ipse dixit, bring it on.
> 
> You'll be happy to know that Miller's still on the air.  So are Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann and whoever else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you need to believe he left in January 2007 to run for the Senate, then go right ahead, you need a lot of reinforcement of your feelings.
> 
> I already know they are on the air, I listen to Stephanie and Thom, I also know Ed is on the air but I don't listen to him. I find it interesting that you feel the need to be superior and let me know who is on the air. Like I wouldn't know. I was one of the 10 people that listened to AirAmerica. I also listen to Wilkow, The Herd, Mike and Mike, Levin, and whoever else, just depends on my mood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you proposed this idea, you back it up.  Where's your evidence that Al Franken, unlike everybody who's ever been on the air doing anything, left his job because of _his own_ ratings?  Even with the top ratings for the network?  Where is it?
> 
> And I told you about Stephanie Miller because you put here in the past tense.  It's sitting right above: "Miller _*was *_worth listening to".  This tells me you don't seem to be aware she's still there.  So sue me.
Click to expand...


My, my, my, Franken and Air America agreed to part ways, he didn't like his ratings, Air America didn't like his ratings. 

I said "was" because I was using it in the context of Air America, which used to be, but is now gone. 

We done now?


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point of having a radio show is to make money. Limbaugh makes 50 million/year, Beck 10, Hannity makes 20 from radio and another 15 from TV. Al Franken (remember him?) makes $174,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Franken doesn't have a radio show.
> 
> But back to the premise, I did radio shows for over 20 years and my objective was never "to make money".  It was to put something worthwhile on the air.  To do something for the listener, not for myself.
> 
> After all, the airwaves, from the beginning of broadcasting, have been considered to be owned by us the people.  And broadcast licenses have been granted (again, by us the people) "to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity".  A radio or TV station is supposed to be a _servant_, not a parasite.
> 
> Finally, if we conversely *do* accept the premise that the purpose of having a radio show is to make money, then that makes all of its content absolutely meaningless.  In which case, what the hell does it matter what Limblob's ratings are?  Either the show is to make money or else it's ideology.  Can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Al Franken doesn't have a radio show, but he did. He was the flagship of a disastrous experiment in failed Liberal commentary. The only good thing about Franke's show was that you didn't have to sit on hold for 2 hours to get to speak to him.
Click to expand...


Ernie, you just made the false comparison between the salaries of Limblob and Hannity and Beck, salaries from _media_, with Franken's salary from the Senate.  That's why I called bullshit with a single sentence.  You're pulling apples and oranges.



Ernie S. said:


> I'm going to call bullshit here on your motives in radio! Altruism only goes so far. You did radio for a pay check. You are no longer doing radio because there is no money in Liberal commentary.



Once again, what planet do you people live on that you think the only thing on the air is liberal or conservative commentary??  I've never done commentary on the air, ever.  In fact I went out of my way to make sure our stations didn't.  What I did was cultural.  And enriching.  As far as a paycheck, I quit because it wasn't enough.  Trust me, you don't go into radio to make money, any more than you go into teaching to make money.



Ernie S. said:


> How does a profit motive make content meaningless? The content is what makes Limbaugh profitable and what sank the ship at Air America.



Because they're mutually antagonistic.  It's how audience psychology works.  Listeners/viewers are not attracted in large masses by valuable content.  They're attracted by the bizarre, the outrageous, the dramatic, the scandalous.  Conflict, pain and suffering, fear and loathing.  Limblob certainly understands this and always did-- that's the basis of his whole career.

Ideology isn't what sank Air America-- bad business management is.  That's why I keep pointing out that the talent they employed, with their ideology, _are still on the air today_.

Again, to connect to the point above, ideology isn't what sells.  *Drama *is what sells.  Regardless of the content.  If you present material that's intellectual and enriching, you're not going to make money.  That's why we have public broadcasting.  That's why William F. Buckley needed PBS to carry his TV show.  On the other hand if you do want to make money on the air, then you sit and yell "slut" for three days.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put ideology on the air, dumb fuck.  News flash: there's more on the radio than that crap.
> 
> Radio is not a business where you make money.  Unless you're doing something outrageous, but then what's the point?  That's self-indulgent.  The difference is, I can
> point to what I've done on the air with pride, forever.  What I gave my listeners doesn't have a dollar value. Perhaps that's too deep for the superficial to understand.
> 
> Air America-- again, we've already covered this but Air America went out of business a few years ago (after Franken had already left) and its talent went on to do the same thing under other syndicators, where they're still on the air today.  See post 32.  What you're obsessed with is a single business that was mismanaged and failed.  Kind of like saying "Studebaker went out of business, and that proves there's no future for cars".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you! Glad you did something you can take pride in, if it makes you feel good, fine by me.
> 
> I'm not obsessed with AirAmerica, I listened to it, it was good but I was not obsessed with it. Franken's ratings were terrible and that is why he left. I listen to Rhodes and Miller and I am familiar with their work. Rhodes though, is a very bitter person.
> 
> So your analogy with the Studebaker, makes you sound like a real pious dumb fuck.
> 
> Oh and Pogo, have a great day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who jumped to baseless conclusions about what somebody else did on the air, dumb fuck.
> 
> Now then, since Air America is in the past and its talent is in the present, what's the point of bringing it up?  Not that I think it's a worthwhile format for anyone but the talent that was on Air America survives just fine on Premiere and Dial Global, so what's the point?
> 
> By the way, talent doesn't leave the air because of low ratings, and nor did Franken.  Talent stays on the air as long as it can; _*management *_is the entity that watches the ratings and hires and fires the talent.  Franken quit to run for the Senate.  Rhodes left in a contract dispute.
> 
> So what is your point?
Click to expand...


Rhodes left (was fired) for calling Geraldine Ferraro a whore.



			
				Randi Rhodes on March 22 said:
			
		

> Geraldine Ferraro turned out to be the David Duke in drag ... What a whore Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a fucking whore! I wanna see her have to stand beside her husband at one of those mandatory 'I have sinned against you; I'm a whore' kind of a press conference. Mr. Ferraro should have to stand next to his whore of a wife ... Hillary is a big fucking whore, too. You know why she's a big fucking whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, asshole!


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you need to believe he left in January 2007 to run for the Senate, then go right ahead, you need a lot of reinforcement of your feelings.
> 
> I already know they are on the air, I listen to Stephanie and Thom, I also know Ed is on the air but I don't listen to him. I find it interesting that you feel the need to be superior and let me know who is on the air. Like I wouldn't know. I was one of the 10 people that listened to AirAmerica. I also listen to Wilkow, The Herd, Mike and Mike, Levin, and whoever else, just depends on my mood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you proposed this idea, you back it up.  Where's your evidence that Al Franken, unlike everybody who's ever been on the air doing anything, left his job because of _his own_ ratings?  Even with the top ratings for the network?  Where is it?
> 
> And I told you about Stephanie Miller because you put here in the past tense.  It's sitting right above: "Miller _*was *_worth listening to".  This tells me you don't seem to be aware she's still there.  So sue me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my, my, Franken and Air America agreed to part ways, he didn't like his ratings, Air America didn't like his ratings.
> 
> I said "was" because I was using it in the context of Air America, which used to be, but is now gone.
> 
> We done now?
Click to expand...


We can be, if you're abandoning the challenge to back up anything you say here.  I notice you're backtracking from "quit because of his own ratings" to "didn't like his ratings".... 

But again, I'm not seeing a link to that either.


----------



## Pogo

"*Quote: Originally Posted by Randi Rhodes*"??  Really?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo really REALLY takes himself and his plodding opinions VERY VERY seriously.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so let's sum up:  to criticize a radio blowhard who lives on ad hominem and misogyny and pisses on the idea of ethical journalism is to "hate America".  Because America is all about ad hominem and misogyny and pissing on the idea of ethical journalism.
> 
> Is that about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
> 
> I saw Franken Rhodes and Kotch as blowhards who lived on ad hominem and logical fallacy who pissed on, not only ethical journalism but also the truth.
> 
> It is, after all, about perception and core values.
> Yours and mine are at odds. I accept that. Can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Ernie, given the above I don't think we're that far apart.  I don't see the ad hominem approach as constructive for any side, so if that's what you're saying, I agree.
> 
> I just think it's a mistake to consider somebody making "confiscatory ad rates" by employing that model, as "success".  That's the only value I take issue with.  Because I see it as prostitution.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you see it as prostitution because you don't have a half billion in the bank? As far as "confiscatory ad rates", self effacing humor is part of Limbaugh's style, like "talent on loan from God".
He is able to charge big bucks for 30 seconds of air on his program for the same reason the NFL can for Super Bowl ads; because of audience size. When ad rates are set, they count up all the ears that tune in, divide by 2 and come up with a value. If 2 million people are listening to an ad, it is worth more to the ad buyer than the 2 or 3 dozen that listened to Al Franken.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you proposed this idea, you back it up.  Where's your evidence that Al Franken, unlike everybody who's ever been on the air doing anything, left his job because of _his own_ ratings?  Even with the top ratings for the network?  Where is it?
> 
> And I told you about Stephanie Miller because you put here in the past tense.  It's sitting right above: "Miller _*was *_worth listening to".  This tells me you don't seem to be aware she's still there.  So sue me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, my, my, Franken and Air America agreed to part ways, he didn't like his ratings, Air America didn't like his ratings.
> 
> I said "was" because I was using it in the context of Air America, which used to be, but is now gone.
> 
> We done now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can be, if you're abandoning the challenge to back up anything you say here.  I notice you're backtracking from "quit because of his own ratings" to "didn't like his ratings"....
> 
> But again, I'm not seeing a link to that either.
Click to expand...


I not abandoning anything, I read articles on it, back in 2006 when it first started up. I'll find them and get you links. No backtracking, ratings were bad, both sides admitted it. It was an agreement, you know like what FOX and Beck did.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
> 
> I saw Franken Rhodes and Kotch as blowhards who lived on ad hominem and logical fallacy who pissed on, not only ethical journalism but also the truth.
> 
> It is, after all, about perception and core values.
> Yours and mine are at odds. I accept that. Can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Ernie, given the above I don't think we're that far apart.  I don't see the ad hominem approach as constructive for any side, so if that's what you're saying, I agree.
> 
> I just think it's a mistake to consider somebody making "confiscatory ad rates" by employing that model, as "success".  That's the only value I take issue with.  Because I see it as prostitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see it as prostitution because you don't have a half billion in the bank? As far as "confiscatory ad rates", self effacing humor is part of Limbaugh's style, like "talent on loan from God".
> He is able to charge big bucks for 30 seconds of air on his program for the same reason the NFL can for Super Bowl ads; because of audience size. When ad rates are set, they count up all the ears that tune in, divide by 2 and come up with a value. If 2 million people are listening to an ad, it is worth more to the ad buyer than the 2 or 3 dozen that listened to Al Franken.
Click to expand...


Yes, that's how it works, no argument there.

I see it as prostitution as an ethical question.  A prostitute, broadly speaking (no pun intended) can make a ton of money by exploiting human flaws.  And this is what Limblob, and Rhodes, and all the other bloviators, and Fraction News, and WWE wrestling, and Maury Povich, etc etc etc, use to make their fortune.  And there's no value in that other than in dollars, which is to say there is no public value.

If the point of all this is to point out that Lush Rimjob is better at exploiting these human weaknesses than Al Franken or Air America was, then you're absolutely right.  For what it's worth.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> snip
> 
> Ernie, you just made the false comparison between the salaries of Limblob and Hannity and Beck, salaries from _media_, with Franken's salary from the Senate.  That's why I called bullshit with a single sentence.  You're pulling apples and oranges.



The point of the comparison was to point out that Franken failed in talk radio.
Had his content attracted 2 million listeners instead of 2 dozen, he would be pulling down 20 million a year. Instead, he makes $174,000 as a rather poor US Senator.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> "*Quote: Originally Posted by Randi Rhodes*"??  Really?



Yes, REALLY.

Randi Rhodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo really REALLY takes himself and his plodding opinions VERY VERY seriously.



This IlarMeilyr cat apparently takes trolling very seriously.  I've never even interacted with this clown but here's a complete list of all the points he's made in this thread:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> Ernie, you just made the false comparison between the salaries of Limblob and Hannity and Beck, salaries from _media_, with Franken's salary from the Senate.  That's why I called bullshit with a single sentence.  You're pulling apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of the comparison was to point out that Franken failed in talk radio.
> Had his content attracted 2 million listeners instead of 2 dozen, he would be pulling down 20 million a year. Instead, he makes $174,000 as a rather poor US Senator.
Click to expand...


No, doesn't work.  You're still comparing media guys with a Senator.  You'd have to compare Franken's salary *on the radio* with the other guys at the same time.

And who cares anyway.  The idea of Air America monkeying the Limblob model is very questionable in itself, but to pick out the one guy who had the highest ratings on it who quit to run for the Senate as a "failure", that just doesn't have a basis.  Even aside from the false salary comparison.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Ernie, given the above I don't think we're that far apart.  I don't see the ad hominem approach as constructive for any side, so if that's what you're saying, I agree.
> 
> I just think it's a mistake to consider somebody making "confiscatory ad rates" by employing that model, as "success".  That's the only value I take issue with.  Because I see it as prostitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see it as prostitution because you don't have a half billion in the bank? As far as "confiscatory ad rates", self effacing humor is part of Limbaugh's style, like "talent on loan from God".
> He is able to charge big bucks for 30 seconds of air on his program for the same reason the NFL can for Super Bowl ads; because of audience size. When ad rates are set, they count up all the ears that tune in, divide by 2 and come up with a value. If 2 million people are listening to an ad, it is worth more to the ad buyer than the 2 or 3 dozen that listened to Al Franken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how it works, no argument there.
> 
> I see it as prostitution as an ethical question.  A prostitute, broadly speaking (no pun intended) can make a ton of money by exploiting human flaws.  And this is what Limblob, and Rhodes, and all the other bloviators, and Fraction News, and WWE wrestling, and Maury Povich, etc etc etc, use to make their fortune.  And there's no value in that other than in dollars, which is to say there is no public value.
> 
> If the point of all this is to point out that Lush Rimjob is better at exploiting these human weaknesses than Al Franken or Air America was, then you're absolutely right.  For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

The value is that people like to be entertained. More people are entertained by WWE than by tennis. More are entertained by Maury Povitch than the morning cattle quotes. More are entertained by Hip Hop than by Classical music.
Rush Limbaugh found a market and filled it. He entertains people. The fact that *you* dispute the worth of his form of entertainment and are more stimulated by Vivaldi does not make classical music any more entertaining to the millions that tune in to Rush every day at noon.
Most of us are not pompous asses who think we know what others should be spending their time on.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Quote: Originally Posted by Randi Rhodes*"??  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, REALLY.
> 
> Randi Rhodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That wasn't posted here.  But the page does point out that the comment was made at a live event in San Francisco, and that Air America suspended her for it, and that Rhodes then *quit*, citing breach of contract regarding her freedom of speech.

Which kind of disputes what you wrote:


> Rhodes left (was fired) for calling Geraldine Ferraro a whore.



Again, who cares. Randi Rhodes is a gadfly, a shit-stirrer.  Which makes her perfect for Blowhard Radio.  And worthless as a source of intellectual value like the rest.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> 
> Ernie, you just made the false comparison between the salaries of Limblob and Hannity and Beck, salaries from _media_, with Franken's salary from the Senate.  That's why I called bullshit with a single sentence.  You're pulling apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of the comparison was to point out that Franken failed in talk radio.
> Had his content attracted 2 million listeners instead of 2 dozen, he would be pulling down 20 million a year. Instead, he makes $174,000 as a rather poor US Senator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, doesn't work.  You're still comparing media guys with a Senator.  You'd have to compare Franken's salary *on the radio* with the other guys at the same time.
> 
> And who cares anyway.  The idea of Air America monkeying the Limblob model is very questionable in itself, but to pick out the one guy who had the highest ratings on it who quit to run for the Senate as a "failure", that just doesn't have a basis.  Even aside from the false salary comparison.
Click to expand...


Franken is not on the radio. His dismal ratings are the major reason.
his former salary is irrelevant.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you see it as prostitution because you don't have a half billion in the bank? As far as "confiscatory ad rates", self effacing humor is part of Limbaugh's style, like "talent on loan from God".
> He is able to charge big bucks for 30 seconds of air on his program for the same reason the NFL can for Super Bowl ads; because of audience size. When ad rates are set, they count up all the ears that tune in, divide by 2 and come up with a value. If 2 million people are listening to an ad, it is worth more to the ad buyer than the 2 or 3 dozen that listened to Al Franken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's how it works, no argument there.
> 
> I see it as prostitution as an ethical question.  A prostitute, broadly speaking (no pun intended) can make a ton of money by exploiting human flaws.  And this is what Limblob, and Rhodes, and all the other bloviators, and Fraction News, and WWE wrestling, and Maury Povich, etc etc etc, use to make their fortune.  And there's no value in that other than in dollars, which is to say there is no public value.
> 
> If the point of all this is to point out that Lush Rimjob is better at exploiting these human weaknesses than Al Franken or Air America was, then you're absolutely right.  For what it's worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The value is that people like to be entertained. More people are entertained by WWE than by tennis. More are entertained by Maury Povitch than the morning cattle quotes. More are entertained by Hip Hop than by Classical music.
> Rush Limbaugh found a market and filled it. He entertains people. The fact that *you* dispute the worth of his form of entertainment and are more stimulated by Vivaldi does not make classical music any more entertaining to the millions that tune in to Rush every day at noon.
> Most of us are not pompous asses who think we know what others should be spending their time on.
Click to expand...



Again, you misread.  I don't care for Vivaldi 

And I'm in no position to say "what others should be spending their time on".  I don't have that right; nobody does. 

I just point out how the psychology works, to counteract the bullshit.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point of the comparison was to point out that Franken failed in talk radio.
> Had his content attracted 2 million listeners instead of 2 dozen, he would be pulling down 20 million a year. Instead, he makes $174,000 as a rather poor US Senator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, doesn't work.  You're still comparing media guys with a Senator.  You'd have to compare Franken's salary *on the radio* with the other guys at the same time.
> 
> And who cares anyway.  The idea of Air America monkeying the Limblob model is very questionable in itself, but to pick out the one guy who had the highest ratings on it who quit to run for the Senate as a "failure", that just doesn't have a basis.  Even aside from the false salary comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Franken is not on the radio. His dismal ratings are the major reason.
> his former salary is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Well, considering he had the highest ratings and left of his own choice, you haven't made your case.

His former salary is irrelevant -- unless you're comparing it with that of his peers, which is what you falsely projected here.  But in the larger sense, they're all irrelevant.  How much money (or ratings) one makes isn't a measure of their value.  It's a measure of their money.

McDonald's and Frito-Lay make a ton of money too.  Doesn't mean their food is worth jack shit.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Quote: Originally Posted by Randi Rhodes*"??  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, REALLY.
> 
> Randi Rhodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That wasn't posted here.  But the page does point out that the comment was made at a live event in San Francisco, and that Air America suspended her for it, and that Rhodes then *quit*, citing breach of contract regarding her freedom of speech.
> 
> Which kind of disputes what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhodes left (was fired) for calling Geraldine Ferraro a whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who cares. Randi Rhodes is a gadfly, a shit-stirrer.  Which makes her perfect for Blowhard Radio.  And worthless as a source of intellectual value like the rest.
Click to expand...


I posted the quote without source, assuming your vast knowledge of radio meant you would be familiar with the cause of Rhode's departure from Air America. Mia culpa.
Bottom line is she called Ferraro and Hillary Clinton whores, was suspended and decided to quit.

Kind of like your boss saying, "You're a pompous asshole and I don't want you around any more." 
And you replying, "Oh yeah! I quit!"

I'd bet that's happened to you more than once.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, REALLY.
> 
> Randi Rhodes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't posted here.  But the page does point out that the comment was made at a live event in San Francisco, and that Air America suspended her for it, and that Rhodes then *quit*, citing breach of contract regarding her freedom of speech.
> 
> Which kind of disputes what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhodes left (was fired) for calling Geraldine Ferraro a whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, who cares. Randi Rhodes is a gadfly, a shit-stirrer.  Which makes her perfect for Blowhard Radio.  And worthless as a source of intellectual value like the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the quote without source, assuming your vast knowledge of radio meant you would be familiar with the cause of Rhode's departure from Air America. Mia culpa.
> Bottom line is she called Ferraro and Hillary Clinton whores, was suspended and decided to quit.
> 
> Kind of like your boss saying, "You're a pompous asshole and I don't want you around any more."
> And you replying, "Oh yeah! I quit!"
> 
> I'd bet that's happened to you more than once.
Click to expand...


You'd lose that bet too.  Better stick to poker.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo really REALLY takes himself and his plodding opinions VERY VERY seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This IlarMeilyr cat apparently takes trolling very seriously.  I've never even interacted with this clown but here's a complete list of all the points he's made in this thread:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
Click to expand...


I guess it COULD (possibly, conceivably) be a different pogo.

The arrogance is quite familiar however.

Anyway, it sure does take itself seriously.


----------



## Osomir

Ernie S. said:


> Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.



I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting. 

A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers. 

To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.


----------



## Ernie S.

I'm good at poker because I'm good on reading people.


----------



## Osomir

In short I'd rather see him rely on the quality of his content rather than on the generation of a personality cult following, or on emotive sensationalism. Journalists who have to rely on that aren't very good / high quality journalists.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo really REALLY takes himself and his plodding opinions VERY VERY seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This IlarMeilyr cat apparently takes trolling very seriously.  I've never even interacted with this clown but here's a complete list of all the points he's made in this thread:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it COULD (possibly, conceivably) be a different pogo.
> 
> The arrogance is quite familiar however.
> 
> Anyway, it sure does take itself seriously.
Click to expand...


What, you think I'm somebody else?
No, never been anybody else, and I've never used this handle before here.

In any case, you've made no points on the topic, you've just tried to poison my well, on your word alone with no evidence.
BOR-ing.


----------



## Foxfyre

Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left.  He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market.  Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot.  Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's.  They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.

Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities  in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.  Nobody has ever been able to touch his ratings though his viewing audience is somewhat reduced because he paved the way for dozens of others to prosper in consevative talk radio and those others naturally siphon off some of the audience.  Conservative talk radio audience, however, continues to grow.

His books were long running best sellers, he has won more awards than probably any other media personality--he is one of only two to have won the prestigious Marconi Award four times.  I believe his television show would have eventually won a permanent prime time slot, but he really didn't like doing television.  He's a radio guy.

He raises mega millions every year for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundations and is known to give much in charitable and philanthropic contributions from his sizable fortune.

Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh; however much the Left wants him to be destroyed, taken down, to fail; however much you hate his pespective, however much you repeat the hateful insults and downright falsehoods from the many hate sites out there, he is the most successful person in his field that has ever lived.  I suspect that will be a record that will stand for a very long time.


----------



## Pogo

Osomir said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting.
> 
> A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers.
> 
> To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.
Click to expand...



Beautifully expressed.

Limblob has (this is my theory) been more than anyone else responsible for the polarization of political discourse in the last two decades.  The continual demonization, the one-track "we're good and they're evil" mentality, is not a healthy thing.  It is not a conservative value, and to the extent he gives the world that impression, he does his own side a gross disservice. 

It does make money though.  As H.L. Mencken noted, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

Bill Buckley did conservative discourse proud; Limblob makes it a joke.


----------



## Ernie S.

Osomir said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profit aside, the purpose of political commentary is to stir up people; to present news and views. Limbaugh pisses you off and Franken pissed me off. I spent many hours driving around listening to Al Franken. Randi Rhodes and before that, Ed Kotch, mostly shouting back at their inane drivel but mostly to hear how the opposition framed issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is one of his motives, playing on emotions draws in viewers and generates higher numbers and dollars for you. For me though, that isn't journalism, that isn't intellectual honesty or quality reporting.
> 
> A free media is a vital institution for any society, the purpose of which (to me) shouldn't revolve solely around the generation of profit, but should instead focus on acting as a watchdog against the government and as a mechanism for the transmitting of important information to viewers.
> 
> To that extent partisanship in journalism bothers me, and people like Rush who tell their viewers exactly what to think and when and who rely on exaggeration and emotive discourse do the exact opposite. They misinform, sensationalize, ignore context, encourage audiences not to critical think (by instead telling them exactly what to think), etc. *He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.*
Click to expand...


Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?


----------



## Osomir

Foxfyre said:


> Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left.  He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market.  Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot.  Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's.  They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.



I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of. 



> Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities  in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.



Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material. 


The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.

I suppose that isn't really a problem, the problem is that many of his viewers depend on him as a journalist instead of simply seeing him as an entertainer.


----------



## Osomir

Ernie S. said:


> Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?



I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Pogo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
Click to expand...


Its never been that high. Its not 14 mil either. There have been articles about him padding his numbers. Doesn't really matter though. He has stated outright that he says what he's paid to say. Funny that one of the rw's posted that a D congress man makes only $175K as though bragging about lushbo being a paid shill is a good thing. 

That's the diff between the right and left though. 

Lushbo - jiggly fat, drug and alcohol addicted, drug smuggler, openly lying scum bag of the lowest order, just makes the left look that much better.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Osomir said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.
Click to expand...


Don't forget to post the video proof that she's a vampire. 

(yes, the rw's really are that stupid.)

Its on You Tube, hysterically funny and well worth watching.


----------



## Ernie S.

Osomir said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.
Click to expand...

You said:


> He isn't a journalist, he's an entertainer, but unfortunately many people rely upon him as a source of information which really isn't what he is supposed to be and that is a shame and serves only to weaken our media institutions.



while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever hear of Rachel Maddow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but this thread is about Rush. I'd be happy to talk about Maddow in other thread with you if you'd like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't forget to post the video proof that she's a vampire.
> 
> (yes, the rw's really are that stupid.)
> 
> Its on You Tube, hysterically funny and well worth watching.
Click to expand...


This message is hidden because you have your dumbshit filter on.


----------



## Papageorgio

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The final episode of the MTV series drew just 3.1 million viewers Thursday.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh 14 million
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting, since not long ago it was 20 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its never been that high. Its not 14 mil either. There have been articles about him padding his numbers. Doesn't really matter though. He has stated outright that he says what he's paid to say. Funny that one of the rw's posted that a D congress man makes only $175K as though bragging about lushbo being a paid shill is a good thing.
> 
> That's the diff between the right and left though.
> 
> Lushbo - jiggly fat, drug and alcohol addicted, drug smuggler, openly lying scum bag of the lowest order, just makes the left look that much better.
Click to expand...


So Arbitron lies? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio_programs


----------



## Osomir

Ernie S. said:


> while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.



Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).



> Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.



I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Foxfyre

Osomir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left.  He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market.  Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot.  Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's.  They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities  in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.
> 
> 
> The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
Click to expand...


Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining.   His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in.  He knows how to do that very well. 

I disagree that he sensationalizes anything and he rants against sensationalization quite a bit.  That is a sin he will call folks on almost every time.

As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that.   In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary, he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good.   There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right.  Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare.  And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.

I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles.  There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste.   But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.

Rush is not anybody's guru or leader.  If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice,  Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice.   So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.

Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience.  He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated.   And there are a whole lot of us.

And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.


----------



## edthecynic

Osomir said:


> The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.


Liberal!

December 20, 2007
RUSH: * That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer.* Don't take me seriously.

January 18, 2013
RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller* praising my talents as a journalist.* I think *what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism* than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, *"We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."*


----------



## Osomir

Foxfyre said:


> Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining.   His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in.  He knows how to do that very well.



I agree that he does that very well. The problem for me is that that's really his end game. He does that well, but he doesn't offer intellectual honesty, level headed discourse, quality information, nor does he promote critical thought.

In short, he is an entertainer, not a quality media journalist. Which is fine, the problem comes from how he attempts to brand himself (as a quality media journalist) and how he is relied upon by many of his viewers as a legitimate source of media which he isn't.



> As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that.   In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary,



That doesn't make it quality. 



> he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good.



And there I would disagree, he tends to have a poor record of research which leads him into making highly emotive and provocative comments on a multitude of subjects that he pretends to have expert knowledge of, but really doesn't. His stance on the LRA comes to mind and his claim that Obama was sending troops to Africa to fight Christians. He was defending perhaps one of the best known international terrorist organizations in the world, and certainly one of the most brutal. Now of course everyone makes mistakes, but I have never listened to a show of his where he hasn't either gotten something wrong, over exaggerated something, or sensationalized it to the point of intellectual dishonesty. That's no way to disseminate information. I've seen entire countries fall to personalities like him. Luckily the rest of our society is strong enough to withstand him.



> There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right.  Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare.  And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.



The largest problem for me is his delivery, his emotiveness, his reliance on angry discourse and sensationalism and his habit of telling his viewers exactly what they should think (though his own discourse). That's not what journalists are supposed to do. He's a mockery to the institution. 



> I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles.  There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste.   But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.



I may come across as being a little hard on him, but I am hard on media in general given my background in it and given how important I feel the institution is. He isn't the only one that I dislike for his journalistic techniques. MSNBC, Fox News channel, Pretty much most mainstream tv news outlets, I don't particularly care for any of them. 60 minutes is alright, I think that Fareed Zakaria's GPS is excellent and more what media journalism should be like. Pretty much anyone who is a "personality" though I can't stand.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever anybody thinks about Rush Limbaugh, his overwhelming success now spanning a quarter century has NEVER been equalled or paralleled desite how much that gripes the liberal/left.  He can command his time slot in any market he wants and he is geneally featured on the #1 station in each market.  Or whatever station takes him on generally rises to the #1 slot.  Our #1 station had been running third in our area until they signed Rush in the early 1990's.  They quickly went to #1 and have left their competition in the dust ever since.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is one of the highest earning media personalities  in the business with in annual income north of $40 million/year and I believe his current contracts run at least through 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.
> 
> 
> The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining.   His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in.  He knows how to do that very well.
Click to expand...

 
A _*writer *_writes, Foxy.  A journalist reports news.  A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.

Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel.  I think that's Osomir's point.  You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party".  That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop.  And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.



Foxfyre said:


> I disagree that he sensationalizes anything and he rants against sensationalization quite a bit.  That is a sin he will call folks on almost every time.



"Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism?  What is it, chopped liver?



Foxfyre said:


> As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that.   In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary, he is bound to get a fact wrong here and there--there is no broadcaster alive who doesn't--but his track record for excellent scholarship and research is damn good.   There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right.  Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare.  And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.
> 
> I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days



...QED. 



Foxfyre said:


> , but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles.  There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste.   But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.



Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours".  It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto.  Liberalism _founded _this country.



Foxfyre said:


> Rush is not anybody's guru or leader.  If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice,  Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice.   So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.



That makes no sense.  You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?

If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?



Foxfyre said:


> Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience.  He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated.   And there are a whole lot of us.
> 
> And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.



Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience.  Yelling "slut" sure does though.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that he isn't smart or isn't successful, he is both of those things, but the latter especially isn't necessarily a good thing and his popularity doesn't mean he is of high quality. The fact that he is so popular is a shame and a detriment to our media institutions, not something for us as Americans to be proud of.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I've never questioned his success, just how valuable his success is to society. In fact, one of my problems with him is that he is more interested in making money through the utilization of sensationalism and emotive discourse than he is in actually providing quality material.
> 
> 
> The problem is that he isn't a journalist. He is simply a very successful entertainer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining.   His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in.  He knows how to do that very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A _*writer *_writes, Foxy.  A journalist reports news.  A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.
> 
> Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel.  I think that's Osomir's point.  You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party".  That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop.  And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> "Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism?  What is it, chopped liver?
> 
> 
> 
> ...QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours".  It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto.  Liberalism founded this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is not anybody's guru or leader.  If he was, Bill Clinton would never have been elected twice,  Bob Dole would not have won the nomination in 1996, Ross Perot would never have gained the traction he did--Rush really did not like Perot--John McCain would never have been the nominee in 2008, and Obama would certainly have never been elected twice.   So Rush does not have a fall into line and march in lockstep audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?
> 
> If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience.  He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated.   And there are a whole lot of us.
> 
> And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience.  Yelling "slut" sure does though.
Click to expand...


Holy fuck.  This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.

The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush.  It reflects on you.

Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright.  You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal.  Twits like you are a dime a dozen.


----------



## Osomir

edthecynic said:


> Liberal!
> 
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH: * That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer.* Don't take me seriously.
> 
> January 18, 2013
> RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller* praising my talents as a journalist.* I think *what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism* than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, *"We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."*



A couple of things here:

1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country. 

I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people. 

2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.


----------



## Ernie S.

Osomir said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.


----------



## Pogo

Osomir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote and occasionally is asked to write an essay on some topic and these are always published, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining.   His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in.  He knows how to do that very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that he does that very well. The problem for me is that that's really his end game. He does that well, but he doesn't offer intellectual honesty, level headed discourse, quality information, nor does he promote critical thought.
> 
> In short, he is an entertainer, not a quality media journalist. Which is fine, the problem comes from how he attempts to brand himself (as a quality media journalist) and how he is relied upon by many of his viewers as a legitimate source of media which he isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for quality material, he absolutely does offer that.   In fifteen hours of programming, most of it being his own commentary,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't make it quality.
> 
> 
> 
> And there I would disagree, he tends to have a poor record of research which leads him into making highly emotive and provocative comments on a multitude of subjects that he pretends to have expert knowledge of, but really doesn't. His stance on the LRA comes to mind and his claim that Obama was sending troops to Africa to fight Christians. He was defending perhaps one of the best known international terrorist organizations in the world, and certainly one of the most brutal. Now of course everyone makes mistakes, but I have never listened to a show of his where he hasn't either gotten something wrong, over exaggerated something, or sensationalized it to the point of intellectual dishonesty. That's no way to disseminate information. I've seen entire countries fall to personalities like him. Luckily the rest of our society is strong enough to withstand him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been times I've had to hit the books because I was sure he got something wrong, and found out to my chagrin that he was right.  Other times I did find that he was wrong but those times are pretty rare.  And he is good to correct himself on the air when it is pointed out to him that he was wrong about this or that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The largest problem for me is his delivery, his emotiveness, his reliance on angry discourse and sensationalism and his habit of telling his viewers exactly what they should think (though his own discourse). That's not what journalists are supposed to do. He's a mockery to the institution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't listen to a lot of talk radio these days, but when I was on the road I had a lot of exposure while driving hundreds of miles.  There have been times I have strongly disagreed with Rush's conclusion about something and many times when I thought he crossed over the line into bad taste.   But for the most part he offers three hours a day of information on topics we might not otherwise know about, accurate perspective on various issues of the political and/or socioeconomic world, and thoughtful insights into conservative principles and concepts and why and how liberalism fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may come across as being a little hard on him, but I am hard on media in general given my background in it and given how important I feel the institution is. He isn't the only one that I dislike for his journalistic techniques. MSNBC, Fox News channel, Pretty much most mainstream tv news outlets, I don't particularly care for any of them. 60 minutes is alright, I think that Fareed Zakaria's GPS is excellent and more what media journalism should be like. Pretty much anyone who is a "personality" though I can't stand.
Click to expand...


Damn, I can't rep you again but this deserves it.  Excellent points. 

Emotion has no place in rational argument, let alone journalism, and indeed that, along with the endless ad hominem, misogyny and eliminationist demonization, is what he builds his house of cards on -- none of which are valid bases of making an argument.


----------



## Osomir

Ernie S. said:


> Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.



I feel at this point that you are having a hard time understanding what my argument actually is. I am criticizing him for the damage that he does to our media institutions.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a journalist writes, and though Rush has successfully published two best sellers which he himself wrote, he is a radio personality and he does find innovative ways to make his content both provocative and entertaining.   His goal of course is to not be boring, and to provide enough content to attract audience and keep people tuned in.  He knows how to do that very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A _*writer *_writes, Foxy.  A journalist reports news.  A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.
> 
> Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel.  I think that's Osomir's point.  You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party".  That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop.  And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> "Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism?  What is it, chopped liver?
> 
> 
> 
> ...QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours".  It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto.  Liberalism founded this country.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?
> 
> If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush has the audience he does because he commands prime time on #1 stations and because he has content that can hold the interest of an audience, and mostly because he expresses the values and conservative beliefs of his audience.  He was the first to arrive on the scene that allowed us to hear our beliefs and convictions expressed and validated.   And there are a whole lot of us.
> 
> And THAT is why Rush Limbaugh is so successful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience.  Yelling "slut" sure does though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy fuck.  This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.
> 
> The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush.  It reflects on you.
> 
> Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright.  You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal.  Twits like you are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...


Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit.   Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.

I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.

But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context.  And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.

One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail.  And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business.  Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick.  And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> while neglecting to acknowledge that the same could be said about any of a number of Liberal radio and television personalities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maddow, Cooper, Colms, Olberman etc. are all entertainers who play to an audience. What pisses Liberals off is not the competing message, but that more people tune in the Conservative voices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
Click to expand...


Again, the point here is not "you should listen" or "you should not listen".  It's how the content works and the value (or lack) thereof.  That's it.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A _*writer *_writes, Foxy.  A journalist reports news.  A journalist is a writer but a writer isn't necessarily a journalist.
> 
> Clearly Lush is not a journalist, nor does he call himself one, but when he goes ahead and reports news it leaves the implication, which way too many people take as gospel.  I think that's Osomir's point.  You can see it all over this forum for example wherever somebody refers to the "Democrat Party".  That's a dead giveaway because it's Limblob's malaprop.  And that's why they get called "dittoheads"; they're outsourcing their political positions to a radio bloviator instead of coming up it on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> "Slut" and "she's having so much sex she can't afford the birth control" and "they're lined up around the block!" isn't sensationalism?  What is it, chopped liver?
> 
> 
> 
> ...QED.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we're back to the old good/evil dichotomy and the demonization of every side but "ours".  It may sell ads but it's useless as discourse, and detrimental thereto.  Liberalism founded this country.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.  You're saying Rush Limbaugh controls American elections, and Bill Clinton only got elected because Lush "permitted" it?
> 
> If he's not the leader of a vast horde of autnoritarian-worshippers, how come so many in these forums -- and in Republican politics-- fall all over themselves to make excuses for him?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, values and beliefs do not sell audience.  Yelling "slut" sure does though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck.  This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.
> 
> The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush.  It reflects on you.
> 
> Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright.  You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal.  Twits like you are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit.   Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.
> 
> I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.
> 
> But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context.  And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.
> 
> One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail.  And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business.  Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick.  And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.
Click to expand...


Come off it, Foxy.  I chopped up your post because you meandered into different points and it's more coherent to address them in turn, rather than start at the end and force the reader to back up to see what the hell I'm talking about.  I do that for my reader, and this is the thanks I get.  Hmph.

About that 'golden microphone' though... Electrovoice RE-20s do not come in gold.  He did that.  That says a little something about hubris.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Pogo

Osomir said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal!
> 
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH: * That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer.* Don't take me seriously.
> 
> January 18, 2013
> RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller* praising my talents as a journalist.* I think *what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism* than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, *"We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things here:
> 
> 1.) I think that *many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum*. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.
> 
> I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.
> 
> 2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.
Click to expand...


Off the topic, but to the bolded part above: here is a good study of that spectrum.  Hope the reader finds it elucidating.

Fair warning: it doesn't call anyone "slut" or a "feminazi" or the "White House dog".  You'll just have to muddle through.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

His obsession over Rush is quite telling.

Pogo: what a doink.


----------



## Pogo

Jimmy_Jam said:


> When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.




You mean the Dominican Republic?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Dominican Republic?
Click to expand...


No, you empty twit.

He meant Costa Rica.

Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy fuck.  This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.
> 
> The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend what Rush is saying (and more than that, what he is ACTUALLY saying) does not reflect on Rush.  It reflects on you.
> 
> Your overly inflated of your own opinion notwithstanding, you are not really very bright.  You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal.  Twits like you are a dime a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit.   Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.
> 
> I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.
> 
> But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context.  And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.
> 
> One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail.  And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business.  Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick.  And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come off it, Foxy.  I chopped up your post because you meandered into different points and it's more coherent to address them in turn, rather than start at the end and force the reader to back up to see what the hell I'm talking about.  I do that for my reader, and this is the thanks I get.  Hmph.
> 
> About that 'golden microphone' though... Electrovoice RE-20s do not come in gold.  He did that.  That says a little something about hubris.  Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


You chopped up the post so you could take my words out of context and in so doing distort my intent and thesis.

I think it is hubris to accuse somebody's character over a fun gimmick.  The golden microphone is something Rush and his guest hosts have had fun with for a long time.  I'm not surprised that a dedicated Rush Hater would find something offensive about that because nothing he can do or say is not offensive to you.  But that's how prejudice is.  It destroys all objectivity and becomes its own reality and feeds upon itself.






Rush Limbaugh has paved a new chapter in radio history, has enjoyed greater success of longer duration than anybody else in radio history, and you can't take that away from him no matter how much you cherry pick this word or that word and try to make it into something that it never was.


----------



## Dot Com

you like his football players comment Foxy?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Dot Com said:


> you like his football players comment Foxy?



Can you ask anything of less interest or which is more irrelevant?

Is it your belief that one must agree with EVERY thing such a commentator says in order to approve of that commentator's overall performance?


----------



## Toro

Pogo said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i agree, but he is often represented that way, and often represents himself that way. I suppose it more so bothers me how popular he is, and how strong of an influence he has on some conservative populations. As a former journalist, the quality and style of his reporting is also rather irritating given the low quality and standards he utilizes mixed with the emotive sensationalism. The same goes for "journalists" like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (on the conservative side, there are plenty of liberal examples as well). We deserve better and it is disappointing that so many people get drawn into their rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> Clearly, a liberal claiming to be a Republican. Probably hates America too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so let's sum up:  to criticize a radio blowhard who lives on ad hominem and misogyny and pisses on the idea of ethical journalism is to "hate America".  Because America is all about ad hominem and misogyny and pissing on the idea of ethical journalism.
> 
> Is that about it?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, while Pogo is grossly unfair and blindly partisan and brainwashed with liberal talking points re Rush, he is quite bright and is in no way a twit.   Everybody is entitled to some blind spots I guess, and Pogo has his.
> 
> I'm responding to you instead of him because he insists on chopping up the commentary so as to better distort what it says to his better advantage I suppose, and I hate that and rarely participate in it.
> 
> But it is obvious that he and other Rush-haters take words and content totally out of context and have no clue what he actually said or intended in context.  And THAT is dishonest however much Rush's critics don't believe they are being dishonest.
> 
> One thing is for sure, they desperately want him to fail.  And after more than a quarter century, when he finally puts away the golden microphone, they will in one chorus proclaim him FAILURE and driven out of the business.  Even now they wet their pants in excitement whenever they can point to an advertiser who left the program or the ratings are down a tick.  And not one of them can bring themselves to be honest about what Rush does nor admit to his success that surpasses everybody else who has ever been in the business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come off it, Foxy.  I chopped up your post because you meandered into different points and it's more coherent to address them in turn, rather than start at the end and force the reader to back up to see what the hell I'm talking about.  I do that for my reader, and this is the thanks I get.  Hmph.
> 
> About that 'golden microphone' though... Electrovoice RE-20s do not come in gold.  He did that.  That says a little something about hubris.  Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You chopped up the post so you could take my words out of context and in so doing distort my intent and thesis.
> 
> I think it is hubris to accuse somebody's character over a fun gimmick.  The golden microphone is something Rush and his guest hosts have had fun with for a long time.  I'm not surprised that a dedicated Rush Hater would find something offensive about that because nothing he can do or say is not offensive to you.  But that's how prejudice is.  It destroys all objectivity and becomes its own reality and feeds upon itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has paved a new chapter in radio history, has enjoyed greater success of longer duration than anybody else in radio history, and you can't take that away from him no matter how much you cherry pick this word or that word and try to make it into something that it never was.
Click to expand...


No Foxy, I changed the order of *nothing *in your post.  If you feel something was done out of context, just post it and we'll work it out.  I took your post in the order you wrote it; don't blame me if that order doesn't work in retrospect.

I didn't mention "offensive".  I'm just saying, RE-20s don't come that way; it had to be intentionally golded.  What that says about the golder, I leave to the reader.

I'll freely admit, I'm not much for the whole hero-worship song and dance.  It may be more about that than anything else.


----------



## Ernie S.

Osomir said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel at this point that you are having a hard time understanding what my argument actually is. I am criticizing him for the damage that he does to our media institutions.
Click to expand...


You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
You change the channel, do you not?

I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I already did back on page 4 or 5 (this thread was merged with another).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't listen to any of those people, what bothers me is the poor quality of his content and his reliance on emotive discourse sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the point here is not "you should listen" or "you should not listen".  It's how the content works and the value (or lack) thereof.  That's it.
Click to expand...


And that is subjective, is it not? Look! You have an IQ over room temperature and I find that intriguing in that that is so rare in Progressives at USMB. Why can't you see that the mere fact that you see no value in the Rush Limbaugh Show, does not mean that it lacks value?


----------



## Zarius

Ernie S. said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't listen. GEEZUS guy! If you don't like what he has to say, find a different program. 2 million people listen to him every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel at this point that you are having a hard time understanding what my argument actually is. I am criticizing him for the damage that he does to our media institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
> What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
> You change the channel, do you not?
> 
> I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
> But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.
Click to expand...

Hey Don't ever mention Maddow and Cooper!!!!
Ever...............EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I WILL SHOUT!!!!!!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

Dot Com said:


> you like his football players comment Foxy?



If you mean way back when he said Donovan McNabb was overrated and the media overrated him because he was black?  That football players comment?  I actually had no opinion one way or the other about that.  And because, like Rush, I rail against all political correctness nonsense, overreach, and reaction, I thought it ridiculous that there was such a big deal made over that.  And, if Rush had been a liberal, I think there wouldn't have been any bruhaha made about it period.  Liberals are allowed to think out loud where conservatives are not.  Was Rush wrong about McNabb?  Yes, I think he was.  Was the statement totally politically incorrect?  Yes it was.  Was it in bad taste?  Probably.   Was it accurate that the media was falling all over itself to praise and exalt McNabb at the time?  Yes it was.  Would they have done that if he had not been black?  I don't they would.

So it was an issue of political correctness, not sports commentary that skewered Rush on that one.

I often disagree with Rush's conclusions about a lot of things.  But I am a conservative so I allow people to be human.  And I won't condemn somebody, even somebody on YOUR side, just because they said something off the cuff that doesn't meet the rigid standards of poliical correctness.

And you can't take Rush's success away from him no matter how much you try to make a big f*cking deal out of insignificant thngs or twist his words and meaning or point out the errors he makes or judge him or misrepresent his intent or hate hm.


----------



## Osomir

Ernie S. said:


> You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
> What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
> You change the channel, do you not?



I've been calling him an entertainer thoughout this entire thread.



> I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"



No I wouldn't. I would agree with you, and already have stated as much. You're making way too many assumptions here about my stances.



> But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.



Link to me saying any of that?


----------



## Osomir

Zarius said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel at this point that you are having a hard time understanding what my argument actually is. I am criticizing him for the damage that he does to our media institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
> What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
> You change the channel, do you not?
> 
> I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
> But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey Don't ever mention Maddow and Cooper!!!!
> Ever...............EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I WILL SHOUT!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


I don't believe that I have done anything of the sort. Nice strawman though.

This sort of stuff is characteristic of the intellectual dishonesty that I don't really care for among media personalities.


----------



## Foxfyre

Osomir said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
> What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
> You change the channel, do you not?
> 
> I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
> But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Don't ever mention Maddow and Cooper!!!!
> Ever...............EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I WILL SHOUT!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I have done anything of the sort. Nice strawman though.
> 
> This sort of stuff is characteristic of the intellectual dishonesty that I don't really care for among media personalities.
Click to expand...


Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, why don't you tell us specifically how Rush Limbaugh has damaged our media institutions?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> you like his football players comment Foxy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean way back when he said Donovan McNabb was overrated and the media overrated him because he was black?  That football players comment?  I actually had no opinion one way or the other about that.  And because, like Rush, I rail against all political correctness nonsense, overreach, and reaction, I thought it ridiculous that there was such a big deal made over that.  And, if Rush had been a liberal, I think there wouldn't have been any bruhaha made about it period.  Liberals are allowed to think out loud where conservatives are not.  Was Rush wrong about McNabb?  Yes, I think he was.  Was the statement totally politically incorrect?  Yes it was.  Was it in bad taste?  Probably.   Was it accurate that the media was falling all over itself to praise and exalt McNabb at the time?  Yes it was.  Would they have done that if he had not been black?  I don't they would.
> 
> So it was an issue of political correctness, not sports commentary that skewered Rush on that one.
> 
> I often disagree with Rush's conclusions about a lot of things.  But I am a conservative so I allow people to be human.  And I won't condemn somebody, even somebody on YOUR side, just because they said something off the cuff that doesn't meet the rigid standards of poliical correctness.
> 
> And you can't take Rush's success away from him no matter how much you try to make a big f*cking deal out of insignificant thngs or twist his words and meaning or point out the errors he makes or judge him or misrepresent his intent or hate hm.
Click to expand...


Donovan McNabb was good but he was no Randall Cunningham.  And by the way, Randall (who is also black) was already done when McNabb came up.  So much for "wanting to see a black quarterback do well".  Limblob could have been fired for sports cluelessness alone; Cunningham (McNabb's predecessor, on the same team) not only did well, he redefined the role of the position.

Black quarterback "doing well" -- years before Limblob's read​[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUZ6HAidTzo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUZ6HAidTzo[/ame]


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Don't ever mention Maddow and Cooper!!!!
> Ever...............EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I WILL SHOUT!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I have done anything of the sort. Nice strawman though.
> 
> This sort of stuff is characteristic of the intellectual dishonesty that I don't really care for among media personalities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, why don't you tell us specifically how Rush Limbaugh has damaged our media institutions?
Click to expand...


... again?

Isn't it going to read the same the second time?


----------



## longknife

I absolutely love the hissy fit the Redneck Liberals get in whenever one discusses Rush and his amazing success at talk radio. When the President of the United States complains that he cannot get his agenda done because of a talk show host, one has no choice but to admit that talk show host has one heck of an audience!!!


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I have done anything of the sort. Nice strawman though.
> 
> This sort of stuff is characteristic of the intellectual dishonesty that I don't really care for among media personalities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, why don't you tell us specifically how Rush Limbaugh has damaged our media institutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ... again?
> 
> Isn't it going to read the same the second time?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions.  His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do.  He is just less insulting when he says it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

longknife said:


> I absolutely love the hissy fit the Redneck Liberals get in whenever one discusses Rush and his amazing success at talk radio. When the President of the United States complains that he cannot get his agenda done because of a talk show host, one has no choice but to admit that talk show host has one heck of an audience!!!



That *is* pretty damn remarkable.

Kudos to Rush for flummoxing The ONE.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely love the hissy fit the Redneck Liberals get in whenever one discusses Rush and his amazing success at talk radio. When the President of the United States complains that he cannot get his agenda done because of a talk show host, one has no choice but to admit that talk show host has one heck of an audience!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That *is* pretty damn remarkable.
> 
> Kudos to Rush for flummoxing The ONE.
Click to expand...


LOL.  Well His Radiance would look like a bully picking on the likes of me who is doing her damndest to deter the headlong rush to Socialism/Marxism and the final destruction of all the concepts and principles that the Founders used to build this great nation.

But Rush is a politically correct target that his worshippers won't mind, in fact even encourage, him attacking.

Of course to those of us who share most of the same values and principles that Rush reinforces,  it makes the Exalted One look like a petty whiner and idiot when he does that, but I don't think he really cares.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, why don't you tell us specifically how Rush Limbaugh has damaged our media institutions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... again?
> 
> Isn't it going to read the same the second time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions.  His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do.  He is just less insulting when he says it.
Click to expand...


You mean that Ilya Kuryakin guy doncha?

Ilar is my hero.  Half a dozen posts and he has yet to bring any topic substance at all.  Just ad hominem, innuendo and out the other.  That must be a real time saver.
"Cheerful prince".  

PS
Love ya, Foxy.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... again?
> 
> Isn't it going to read the same the second time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions.  His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do.  He is just less insulting when he says it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean that Ilya Kuryakin guy doncha?
> 
> Ilar is my hero.  Half a dozen posts and he has yet to bring any topic substance at all.  Just ad hominem, innuendo and out the other.  That must be a real time saver.
> 
> PS
> Love ya, Foxy.
Click to expand...


You, by contrast, have had a massive case of verbal diarrhea, yet when one extracts all the substantive stuff you have posted in this thread, dildo, it amounts to just a simple declaration that: you dislike Rush.

Ho hum.

You really are amazingly stupid and trite.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions.  His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do.  He is just less insulting when he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Ilya Kuryakin guy doncha?
> 
> Ilar is my hero.  Half a dozen posts and he has yet to bring any topic substance at all.  Just ad hominem, innuendo and out the other.  That must be a real time saver.
> 
> PS
> Love ya, Foxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You, by contrast, have had a massive case of verbal diarrhea, yet when one extracts all the substantive stuff you have posted in this thread, dildo, it amounts to just a simple declaration that: you dislike Rush.
> 
> Ho hum.
> 
> You really are amazingly stupid and trite.
Click to expand...


Show me where I've said anything about "like".

I'll check back later. 

What's Welsh for "bitter old man"?


----------



## Osomir

Foxfyre said:


> Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, why don't you tell us specifically how Rush Limbaugh has damaged our media institutions?



I already have.


----------



## Foxfyre

Osomir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, why don't you tell us specifically how Rush Limbaugh has damaged our media institutions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but there was a thread merge and I don't wish to plow through several pages to find where you did that.  Could you point me to the post please?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean that Ilya Kuryakin guy doncha?
> 
> Ilar is my hero.  Half a dozen posts and he has yet to bring any topic substance at all.  Just ad hominem, innuendo and out the other.  That must be a real time saver.
> 
> PS
> Love ya, Foxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You, by contrast, have had a massive case of verbal diarrhea, yet when one extracts all the substantive stuff you have posted in this thread, dildo, it amounts to just a simple declaration that: you dislike Rush.
> 
> Ho hum.
> 
> You really are amazingly stupid and trite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me where I've said anything about "like".
> 
> I'll check back later.
> 
> What's Welsh for "bitter old man"?
Click to expand...


No no.  Show me where I said that you had ever used the word "like," you disingenuous idiot liberal hack.

It is crystal clear that you are obsessed with Rush and that you do not like him.

Go ahead, and prove what a filthy loser liar you are by now claiming that you "don't dislike" Rush.



It would appear that "bitter old man" is from the creole for possum or pogo.   Not Welsh at all you retread motherfucker.

Try again my little bitch.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Osomir said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal!
> 
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH: * That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer.* Don't take me seriously.
> 
> January 18, 2013
> RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller* praising my talents as a journalist.* I think *what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism* than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, *"We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things here:
> 
> 1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.
> 
> I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.
> 
> 2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.
Click to expand...


There _sort of_ is political diversity in this country, but how much, really? 

True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize  the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models. 

Many other countries have multiple political parties, which encourages far more political diversity, as well as a greater diversity of representation. 

The U.S. has remained stagnant in the number Congressional representative to the populace, while the populace continues to grow. The number of representatives to the populace used to grow roughly with the population until about 1915 or so, when the number remained largely stagnant.

So, with all due respect, I would argue that not only do we have a limited political diversity in the United States, this tendency may be exacerbated by the one-two punch of a two-party system AND a lack or representation.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, by contrast, have had a massive case of verbal diarrhea, yet when one extracts all the substantive stuff you have posted in this thread, dildo, it amounts to just a simple declaration that: you dislike Rush.
> 
> Ho hum.
> 
> You really are amazingly stupid and trite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I've said anything about "like".
> 
> I'll check back later.
> 
> What's Welsh for "bitter old man"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No no.  Show me where I said that you had ever used the word "like," you disingenuous idiot liberal hack.
> 
> It is crystal clear that you are obsessed with Rush and that you do not like him.
> 
> Go ahead, and prove what a filthy loser liar you are by now claiming that you "don't dislike" Rush.
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that "bitter old man" is from the creole for possum or pogo.   Not Welsh at all you retread motherfucker.
> 
> Try again my little bitch.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal!
> 
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH: * That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer.* Don't take me seriously.
> 
> January 18, 2013
> RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller* praising my talents as a journalist.* I think *what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism* than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, *"We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things here:
> 
> 1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.
> 
> I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.
> 
> 2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There _sort of_ is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?
> 
> True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize  the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.
> 
> Many other countries have multiple political parties, which encourages far more political diversity, as well as a greater diversity of representation.
> 
> The U.S. has remained stagnant in the number Congressional representative to the populace, while the populace continues to grow. The number of representatives to the populace used to grow roughly with the population until about 1915 or so, when the number remained largely stagnant.
> 
> So, with all due respect, I would argue that not only do we have a limited political diversity in the United States, this tendency may be exacerbated by the one-two punch of a two-party system AND a lack or representation.
Click to expand...


Well said -- that is if you consider that we actually have two parties rather than one party that dresses up alternately in red or blue...

(/offtopic)


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I've said anything about "like".
> 
> I'll check back later.
> 
> What's Welsh for "bitter old man"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No no.  Show me where I said that you had ever used the word "like," you disingenuous idiot liberal hack.
> 
> It is crystal clear that you are obsessed with Rush and that you do not like him.
> 
> Go ahead, and prove what a filthy loser liar you are by now claiming that you "don't dislike" Rush.
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that "bitter old man" is from the creole for possum or pogo.   Not Welsh at all you retread motherfucker.
> 
> Try again my little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yeah yeah.  Keep digging.  Jump in.  Pull the dirt in after you.

But the fact is, you are dishonest.  We all see quite clearly that you dislike Rush.  Who the fuck cares?

Your dislike of the guy is of zero significance.

But now, getting back ON point, your REASON for disliking Rush is really quite sissified of you.

Rush exposes the hell out of left-wing "government" fraudulence regularly.

This interferes with the *agenda* of the left.

I happen to agree with Rush on a few big things.  One of them is:

*When it comes to Obama's "policies" and his vile agenda*, I, too, HOPE HE FAILS.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No no.  Show me where I said that you had ever used the word "like," you disingenuous idiot liberal hack.
> 
> It is crystal clear that you are obsessed with Rush and that you do not like him.
> 
> Go ahead, and prove what a filthy loser liar you are by now claiming that you "don't dislike" Rush.
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that "bitter old man" is from the creole for possum or pogo.   Not Welsh at all you retread motherfucker.
> 
> Try again my little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah.  Keep digging.  Jump in.  Pull the dirt in after you.
> 
> But the fact is, you are dishonest.  We all see quite clearly that you dislike Rush.  Who the fuck cares?
Click to expand...

 
Apparently you do, since you keep well-poisoning about me while making no point about the topic.  This thread isn't about me, and I don't want followers, thanks anyway.



IlarMeilyr said:


> Your dislike of the guy is of zero significance.
> 
> But now, getting back ON point, your REASON for disliking Rush is really quite sissified of you.
> 
> Rush exposes the hell out of left-wing "government" fraudulence regularly.
> 
> This interferes with the *agenda* of the left.
> 
> I happen to agree with Rush on a few big things.  One of them is:
> 
> *When it comes to Obama's "policies" and his vile agenda*, I, too, HOPE HE FAILS.



I've never met Lush Rimjob.  I can't "hate" somebody I've never met.  Perhaps you could give me some pointers.

Nah, never mind.

I've simply gone over the dynamics of audience psychology.  You can draw your own conclusions about whether you or I "like" them.  Not every argument has to be based on emotion.  If you take issue with some point I make, the thing to do is counter it.  Flailing rhetorical well-poisoning poop only digs you deeper in your own hole.

Wake me up when you come up with some kind of, you know, point that bears some relationship to the topic.  All you've done so far is troll.


----------



## Osomir

Foxfyre said:


> I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions.  His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do.  He is just less insulting when he says it.



I find it a little odd that you feel they have to be "leftwing" conclusions. If I said the same about Maddow would you accuse me of being a partisan conservative?


----------



## edthecynic

Osomir said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal!
> 
> December 20, 2007
> RUSH: * That's a liberal complaint. I'm an entertainer.* Don't take me seriously.
> 
> January 18, 2013
> RUSH: Snerdley is wanting to know why I didn't object to the previous caller* praising my talents as a journalist.* I think *what happens here on this show is closer to real journalism* than anything we're getting from so-called journalists. I have said for the longest time, *"We do here what the mainstream journalists used to do."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things here:
> 
> 1.) I think that many posters on this board tend to have a rather two dimensional understanding of the political spectrum. I'm not so sure why so many of you guys need to be able to label someone either a wholesale liberal or a wholesale conservative. It seems silly to me given the immense political diversity that we have within our country.
> 
> I'm not really interested in utilizing such shallow understandings of issues and people.
> 
> 2.) My comments on Rush come from my perspective as a former print journalist, and from my perspective as a developmental economist who works with developing countries (primarily in Africa). One of the most vital parts of development for countries is the establishment of good institutions, so I tend to be pretty critical of institutions and place high importance on them and their development. Media is one such important institution so I have high standards. Standards that Rush falls well short of.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but the fat gasbag disagrees with you.

May 12, 2008
RUSH:  I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats.  Because, by definition, if someone or some organization is not conservative, it's by definition going to be liberal, not moderate, not independent, it's going to be liberal


The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category. 
Adolf Hitler


----------



## Osomir

Jimmy_Jam said:


> There _sort of_ is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?



A lot. We tend to like to break everything down in to "democrats and republicans" and "liberals and conservatives" but that rigid distinction ignores the wide variety of individuals who exist along that spectrum. 

So take myself for example. I tend to be more fiscally conservative. I like smaller government for the most part, but I don't scoff at social safety nets like TANF or even subsidized medical insurance markets, but I don't care for public provision of social security and think it should be privatized. I am a rather large free market economist, I value free trade, open markets, easy capital flows, etc.

Socially and in terms of my foreign policies you might be more likely to consider me more liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual union, I was strongly against the war in Iraq, in favor of Obama's handling of Libya, etc. But I am also alright with drone strikes (a traditionally non-"liberal" viewpoint), I am quite pro-2nd amendment, Abortion for me is an issue of state decision (I don't have a strong stance on it), etc.

Now depending on what thread I am in I am either labeled a typical "conservaderp" or a typical "libtard" which I find highly amusing since we seem to so love to cling to our rigid labels. It is a shallow classification system, that's why you'll never see me simply dismiss someone as being a "liberal" or a "conservative" it is intellectually immature.  



> True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize  the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.



The two party system can create polarity, but there is also quite a bit of diversity within each party, but more importantly, within the registered voter base of each party.

I think our diversity is very much so there. It has been very easy to see over the last couple of Republican primaries especially (you have your social conservatives / religious types, you have your log cabin republicans, you have certain libertarian populations characterized by Ron Paul, you have the more mainstream tea party movement, you have neocons, you have moderate republicans, you have the old guard republicans, etc)

It would be unfair and actually contradictory of someone to simply project wholesale all of those opinion bases onto one person simply because you think they are a Republican or conservative.


----------



## Foxfyre

Osomir said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything from him other than the usual leftwing conclusions about Rush--nothing of substance that would support justification of those conclusions.  His comments read pretty judgmental and prejudicial pretty much as yours do.  He is just less insulting when he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it a little odd that you feel they have to be "leftwing" conclusions. If I said the same about Maddow would you accuse me of being a partisan conservative?
Click to expand...


Not if you gave me the reasons for your opinions which you still have not done.  Nor have you given me a link to those reasons that you said you had posted and that I asked for.

There are plenty of rightwingers who really don't like Rush but they mostly can all state why.  And almost always it is not because he 'has harmed our media institutions' or 'brainwashed somebody' or the other leftwing accusations, but it is something like him being a pompous blowhard.  I don't challenge statements like that.  Those who see him as a pompous blowhard are just being honest in how they see him.  They are not accusing him of things he is not or has not done.

Leftwingers are much more likely to accuse, condemn, insult, belittle, or characterize people in judgmental and/or hateful ways without being able to provide anything in its honest context to justify that.

So, if you were not reciting leftwing talking points, you should be able to give me some examples or at least an intelligent reason for how Rush has damaged our media institutions.


----------



## edthecynic

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title I thought maybe Rush had finally moved to Costa Rica or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Dominican Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you empty twit.
> 
> He meant Costa Rica.
> 
> Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.
Click to expand...

Whatever he meant, he's wrong. Your MessiahRushie said he was moving to New Zealand. He said he would go to Costa Rica for his medical care. And we all know what he goes to the Dominican Republic for, and it ain't cigars.


----------



## Osomir

Foxfyre said:


> Not if you gave me the reasons for your opinions which you still have not done.  Nor have you given me a link to those reasons that you said you had posted and that I asked for.



I listed many reasons already only within the last couple of pages. I also gave an example (his comments on the LRA). I'm not sure what more you'd really like. If you'd like to post up a recent session of his in the thread I suppose I could go through it and point out the specific things I have a problem with.

For the most part though I feel like your misunderstanding of my argument simply comes from you not having read my posts over the past couple pages. Or from a general sense of defensiveness. 



> And almost always it is not because he 'has harmed our media institutions' or 'brainwashed somebody' or the other leftwing accusations



A couple of things here:

1.) Why is it a leftist thing to care about the integrity of a nation's media institutions?  You're rather doing "non-leftists" a grave disservice in that assumption.

2.) I haven't said that he has brainwashed anyone, but I find it telling that you have to rely on strawmen in order to make your point. 



> but it is something like him being a pompous blowhard.  I don't challenge statements like that.  Those who see him as a pompous blowhard are just being honest in how they see him.  They are not accusing him of things he is not or has not done.



Well I do think he is a pompous blowhard, but that in and of itself isn't my rub with him. It's that I don't think emotive discourse such as his or any journalistic "personality" has a place within our media. It detracts from what media is actually here to do and instead is what makes him an entertainer and not a journalist.



> Leftwingers are much more likely to accuse, condemn, insult, belittle, or characterize people in judgmental and/or hateful ways without being able to provide anything in its honest context to justify that.



Now this just strikes me as a partisan inspired gross stereotype / generalization and an overall desperate argument to make.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo, I owe you an apology, Franken parted ways with AirAmerica after it was bought out of bankruptcy. Management could no longer pay Franken the $2 million a year is had been receiving. Most hosts with his ratings were in the $400,000 range. So they didn't part ways because of ratings, it was a money issue.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

edthecynic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Dominican Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you empty twit.
> 
> He meant Costa Rica.
> 
> Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever he meant, he's wrong. Your MessiahRushie said he was moving to New Zealand. He said he would go to Costa Rica for his medical care. And we all know what he goes to the Dominican Republic for, and it ain't cigars.
Click to expand...


I love how you nitwits who detest all things Rush seem to be so "in the loop" about shit like when and where he vacations.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo, I owe you an apology, Franken parted ways with AirAmerica after it was bought out of bankruptcy. Management could no longer pay Franken the $2 million a year is had been receiving. Most hosts with his ratings were in the $400,000 range. So they didn't part ways because of ratings, it was a money issue.





You know I never steer you wrong.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Osomir said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There _sort of_ is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot. We tend to like to break everything down in to "democrats and republicans" and "liberals and conservatives" but that rigid distinction ignores the wide variety of individuals who exist along that spectrum.
> 
> So take myself for example. I tend to be more fiscally conservative. I like smaller government for the most part, but I don't scoff at social safety nets like TANF or even subsidized medical insurance markets, but I don't care for public provision of social security and think it should be privatized. I am a rather large free market economist, I value free trade, open markets, easy capital flows, etc.
> 
> Socially and in terms of my foreign policies you might be more likely to consider me more liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual union, I was strongly against the war in Iraq, in favor of Obama's handling of Libya, etc. But I am also alright with drone strikes (a traditionally non-"liberal" viewpoint), I am quite pro-2nd amendment, Abortion for me is an issue of state decision (I don't have a strong stance on it), etc.
> 
> *Now depending on what thread I am in I am either labeled a typical "conservaderp" or a typical "libtard" which I find highly amusing since we seem to so love to cling to our rigid labels. It is a shallow classification system, that's why you'll never see me simply dismiss someone as being a "liberal" or a "conservative" it is intellectually immature. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize  the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two party system can create polarity, but there is also quite a bit of diversity within each party, but more importantly, within the registered voter base of each party.
> 
> I think our diversity is very much so there. It has been very easy to see over the last couple of Republican primaries especially (you have your social conservatives / religious types, you have your log cabin republicans, you have certain libertarian populations characterized by Ron Paul, you have the more mainstream tea party movement, you have neocons, you have moderate republicans, you have the old guard republicans, etc)
> 
> It would be unfair and actually contradictory of someone to simply project wholesale all of those opinion bases onto one person simply because you think they are a Republican or conservative.
Click to expand...


I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical. 

So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist, I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation. 

Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.


----------



## Pogo

> Leftwingers are much more likely to accuse, condemn, insult, belittle, or characterize people in judgmental and/or hateful ways without being able to provide anything in its honest context to justify that.



Um... where's the basis for _this_ one, Foxy?


----------



## Pogo

Jimmy_Jam said:


> Osomir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There _sort of_ is political diversity in this country, but how much, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot. We tend to like to break everything down in to "democrats and republicans" and "liberals and conservatives" but that rigid distinction ignores the wide variety of individuals who exist along that spectrum.
> 
> So take myself for example. I tend to be more fiscally conservative. I like smaller government for the most part, but I don't scoff at social safety nets like TANF or even subsidized medical insurance markets, but I don't care for public provision of social security and think it should be privatized. I am a rather large free market economist, I value free trade, open markets, easy capital flows, etc.
> 
> Socially and in terms of my foreign policies you might be more likely to consider me more liberal, anti-death penalty, pro-homosexual union, I was strongly against the war in Iraq, in favor of Obama's handling of Libya, etc. But I am also alright with drone strikes (a traditionally non-"liberal" viewpoint), I am quite pro-2nd amendment, Abortion for me is an issue of state decision (I don't have a strong stance on it), etc.
> 
> *Now depending on what thread I am in I am either labeled a typical "conservaderp" or a typical "libtard" which I find highly amusing since we seem to so love to cling to our rigid labels. It is a shallow classification system, that's why you'll never see me simply dismiss someone as being a "liberal" or a "conservative" it is intellectually immature. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, we have a spirit of free speech that supposedly encourages a diverse array of opinion, but we also have this retarded two-party system that has managed to polarize  the country into more-or-less two sets of talking points that paint most Americans into liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican models.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The two party system can create polarity, but there is also quite a bit of diversity within each party, but more importantly, within the registered voter base of each party.
> 
> I think our diversity is very much so there. It has been very easy to see over the last couple of Republican primaries especially (you have your social conservatives / religious types, you have your log cabin republicans, you have certain libertarian populations characterized by Ron Paul, you have the more mainstream tea party movement, you have neocons, you have moderate republicans, you have the old guard republicans, etc)
> 
> It would be unfair and actually contradictory of someone to simply project wholesale all of those opinion bases onto one person simply because you think they are a Republican or conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical.
> 
> So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist,* I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation. *
> 
> Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.
Click to expand...


And that's exactly why political labels suck.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> [
> 
> Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.



Here's the problem.  

Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?  

What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.  

55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.  

So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program? 

Good for the GOP? Not really.


----------



## Papageorgio

IlarMeilyr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you empty twit.
> 
> He meant Costa Rica.
> 
> Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever he meant, he's wrong. Your MessiahRushie said he was moving to New Zealand. He said he would go to Costa Rica for his medical care. And we all know what he goes to the Dominican Republic for, and it ain't cigars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you nitwits who detest all things Rush seem to be so "in the loop" about shit like when and where he vacations.
Click to expand...


They sure spend a lot of time watching and listening to him. I don't know anything about him anymore. I haven't heard him in years, just what is posted on this board.


----------



## JoeB131

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see. A shock jock who has strippers on his program during drive time gets more money than he could have ever possibly imagined, and thats a _bad_ thing?
> 
> No wonder you suck at business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on why he went into the business.
> 
> Frankly, what's the point of having a radiio show if no one listens to you because the technology sucks?
> 
> Oh, incidently, I'm not the one who crashed the fucking economy. That would be YOUR industry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're a bigot.
> 
> Any more non sequiturs you wish to dive into?
Click to expand...


Not a non-squitor, guy... you keep telling me how genius you are, but your industy is the one that fucked everything up. And then demanded a bailout.  

Oh, hey, how did that Nominating a Freakish Cult Member work out for you guys, anyway?


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem.
> 
> Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?
> 
> What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.
> 
> 55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.
> 
> So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?
> 
> Good for the GOP? Not really.
Click to expand...


He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio. 

What Mahar said about Palin was deeply insulting to women, except the political allies being what they are, Dems don't get the heat for stupid things said. It's about spin and Dems spin sexism better. 

Dems should be happy and grateful Limbaugh is on the air, it gets them votes.

Yet all they do is bitch, bitch, bitch about him.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem.
> 
> Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?
> 
> What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.
> 
> 55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.
> 
> So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?
> 
> Good for the GOP? Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.
Click to expand...


So did Father Coughlin.

By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
Quite a stretch, innit?


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Like Rush or not, Rush transformed AM radio. I haven't listened to him for years, yet when I listen to any talk radio, political or sports, I realize where credit for these formats came from. That you can't change. He has been king of the air since the 80's, I don't understand it, but people need to figure it out and duplicate, so far no one else has done better for so long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem.
> 
> Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?
> 
> What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.
> 
> 55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.
> 
> So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?
> 
> Good for the GOP? Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.
Click to expand...


Well, no, he really didn't.  But that wasn't the point I was making.  Let's see what else you are going to talk about to avoid the point I was making.  



> What Mahar said about Palin was deeply insulting to women, except the political allies being what they are, Dems don't get the heat for stupid things said. It's about spin and Dems spin sexism better.



First Palin is an office holder, so it isn't the same thing.  Most women think Palin is a C-word. That's what happens when you wag your finger at working women like she does and act like you are better when you live in the Meth Capital of Alaska.  



> Dems should be happy and grateful Limbaugh is on the air, it gets them votes.



I'm not a Democrat, so I wouldn't know.  But to the point, what he does do is toxify the environment. 

The way it should work in politics is you have an election.  You get an idea where the people are, then you sit down and make deals and get things done.  but because you have toxic characters like Limbaugh ready to jump down the throats of the few sane Republicans that there are left, that isn't happening.  So we get debt downgrades, we get sequesters, because the business of government can't get done. 

How is this a good thing? (THis is your chance to prove to me you aren't nuts.) 



> Yet all they do is bitch, bitch, bitch about him.



As well they should.  The man is a pig. and a hypocrite.


----------



## JoeB131

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did Father Coughlin.
> 
> By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
> Quite a stretch, innit?
Click to expand...


DUDE!!!!   

AWESOME Reference.  I totally owe you some Rep for that.


----------



## Osomir

Jimmy_Jam said:


> I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical.



I'm firmly of the belief that's not where most people reside. What I think happens is that we can understand and contextualize the political, economic, and spiritual diversity within ourselves, but when it comes to looking at others we tend to oversimplify them and cram them into a convenient per-concieved understanding of label x, y, z, q, etc depending on what our initial impressions are. There are actually biological reasons for this as well. Simply put correlation is good for us as an evolutionary trait, particularly when there isn't perfect knowledge of a thing. Something glowing red may be hot so I'm not going to touch it! Animals that growl and have sharp teeth may hurt you so be cautious! Brightly colored reptiles may be poisonous so beware! Not perfect examples because they are pretty simplistic compared to the depth of political, economic, and spiritual views, but it is a common human tendencies to categorize things, people and beliefs included. That becomes problematic though because when we fill in the blanks for these vastly more complex topics we have a much greater mathematical chance of getting it wrong, or of grossly over simplifying. 

I don't even think it particularly malicious, it is merely a tendency of all of ours that we have to keep in mind so that we can reserve judgement and seek out better information on which to base our opinions, beliefs, and actions. 



> So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist, I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation.



And I think that's the way many people see most people, but when you ask them about themselves they'll usually claim to be an exception, or "not like that", and once again I think that is because of the above condition based on information asymmetry.



> Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.



I think it matters less simply because we ignore it for the above stated convenience reasons, and one problem that I have with media personalities is that those people tap into those oversimplifications and two dimensional labeling and exploit it for profit or to further there own image. And these are often times very smart people, aka people who should know better.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem.
> 
> Rush may have transformed AM Radio, the Cutting Edge Technology of 1906, but is what he is doing good for either the Republican Party or the Conservative Movement?
> 
> What Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke was deeply insulting to women.
> 
> 55% of women voted for Obama, while only 44% voted for Romney.
> 
> So, yeah, what Rush does might be good for Rush. Might be good for Rush's radio program?
> 
> Good for the GOP? Not really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So did Father Coughlin.
> 
> By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
> Quite a stretch, innit?
Click to expand...


So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show. 

Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse? 

So you don't think both are offensive to women?


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.
> 
> Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?
> 
> So you don't think both are offensive to women?



Democrats don't go on Maher's show to get endorsed.  

Limbaugh has so much juice in the GOP none of the candidates could denounce him.  

That's why he's toxic.  


Hey, remember when some nasty piece of work named Sister Souljah was invited to speak at Jesse Jackson's conference, after she made some comments about shooting white people for a change after the LA Riots?  

And remember how Bill Clinton got up in Jesse Jackson's face about it. 

The GOP needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with Limbaugh and the rest of the toxic shit coming off the AM Dial.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> He transformed radio, not only politics, sports radio, all of talk radio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So did Father Coughlin.
> 
> By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
> Quite a stretch, innit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.
> 
> Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?
> 
> So you don't think both are offensive to women?
Click to expand...


I didn't opine about whether Maher was offensive to women.  You did.

But here's Maher's own assessment:

>>  Limbaugh &#8220;went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women&#8217;s rights all year, on the public airwaves,&#8221; the HBO host argued.

&#8220;I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who&#8217;s called people &#8216;terrorist&#8217; and &#8216;unAmerican&#8217;... The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts,&#8221; he added.

...  Maher also argued to Tapper that, unlike Limbaugh, it&#8217;s his job to be a comedian. When asked how he knows if he takes his jokes to far, he said, &#8220;I let the audience be the guide.&#8221;

&#8220;The bit I did about Palin using the word c--- was one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know. Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important,&#8221; he said. <<  (here)

Context is indeed important.  The clientele of a Bill Maher comedy show (who paid to go in there and knows what they're getting) is a weeeeeee bit different from the airwaves beamed to a general population.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.
> 
> Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?
> 
> So you don't think both are offensive to women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't go on Maher's show to get endorsed.
> 
> Limbaugh has so much juice in the GOP none of the candidates could denounce him.
> 
> That's why he's toxic.
> 
> 
> Hey, remember when some nasty piece of work named Sister Souljah was invited to speak at Jesse Jackson's conference, after she made some comments about shooting white people for a change after the LA Riots?
> 
> And remember how Bill Clinton got up in Jesse Jackson's face about it.
> 
> The GOP needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with Limbaugh and the rest of the toxic shit coming off the AM Dial.
Click to expand...


I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady. 

Sorry, Maher is a fail.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So did Father Coughlin.
> 
> By the way what Maher said about Palin, assuming you mean what I think you mean, was in a standup comedy act, not on radio or TV.
> Quite a stretch, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.
> 
> Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?
> 
> So you don't think both are offensive to women?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't opine about whether Maher was offensive to women.  You did.
> 
> But here's Maher's own assessment:
> 
> >>  Limbaugh went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after womens rights all year, on the public airwaves, the HBO host argued.
> 
> I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, whos called people terrorist and unAmerican... The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts, he added.
> 
> ...  Maher also argued to Tapper that, unlike Limbaugh, its his job to be a comedian. When asked how he knows if he takes his jokes to far, he said, I let the audience be the guide.
> 
> The bit I did about Palin using the word c--- was one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know. Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important, he said. <<  (here)
> 
> Context is indeed important.  The clientele of a Bill Maher comedy show (who paid to go in there and knows what they're getting) is a weeeeeee bit different from the airwaves beamed to a general population.
Click to expand...


Both were extremely insensitive, both were wrong but nice spin to let one off the hook.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.
> 
> Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?
> 
> So you don't think both are offensive to women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't go on Maher's show to get endorsed.
> 
> Limbaugh has so much juice in the GOP none of the candidates could denounce him.
> 
> That's why he's toxic.
> 
> 
> Hey, remember when some nasty piece of work named Sister Souljah was invited to speak at Jesse Jackson's conference, after she made some comments about shooting white people for a change after the LA Riots?
> 
> And remember how Bill Clinton got up in Jesse Jackson's face about it.
> 
> The GOP needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with Limbaugh and the rest of the toxic shit coming off the AM Dial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
Click to expand...


He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's okay for an entertainer to insult woman in a stand up routine, but is wrong for an entertainer to insult a woman on his radio show.
> 
> Both seem like entertainers to me, both demean women, but one is worse?
> 
> So you don't think both are offensive to women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't opine about whether Maher was offensive to women.  You did.
> 
> But here's Maher's own assessment:
> 
> >>  Limbaugh went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after womens rights all year, on the public airwaves, the HBO host argued.
> 
> I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, whos called people terrorist and unAmerican... The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts, he added.
> 
> ...  Maher also argued to Tapper that, unlike Limbaugh, its his job to be a comedian. When asked how he knows if he takes his jokes to far, he said, I let the audience be the guide.
> 
> The bit I did about Palin using the word c--- was one of the biggest laughs in my act, I did it all over the country, not one person ever registered disapproval, and believe me, audiences are not afraid to let you know. Because it was a routine where that word came in at just the right moment. Context is very important, he said. <<  (here)
> 
> Context is indeed important.  The clientele of a Bill Maher comedy show (who paid to go in there and knows what they're getting) is a weeeeeee bit different from the airwaves beamed to a general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both were extremely insensitive, both were wrong but nice spin to let one off the hook.
Click to expand...


So you're saying the population of a comedy club is the same thing as the population of the general public with a radio and that the same language standards apply?

Does the population of a sports bar have the same standards of decorum as the population of a funeral?


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't go on Maher's show to get endorsed.
> 
> Limbaugh has so much juice in the GOP none of the candidates could denounce him.
> 
> That's why he's toxic.
> 
> 
> Hey, remember when some nasty piece of work named Sister Souljah was invited to speak at Jesse Jackson's conference, after she made some comments about shooting white people for a change after the LA Riots?
> 
> And remember how Bill Clinton got up in Jesse Jackson's face about it.
> 
> The GOP needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with Limbaugh and the rest of the toxic shit coming off the AM Dial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
Click to expand...


Spilt hairs if you want, he was wrong. It doesn't matter to me political affiliation. A man that is supposed to be that educated and that aware, to use the word he did was flat out offensive. 

You are free to justify it, I'm done with this issue.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spilt hairs if you want, he was wrong. It doesn't matter to me political affiliation. A man that is supposed to be that educated and that aware, to use the word he did was flat out offensive.
> 
> You are free to justify it, I'm done with this issue.
Click to expand...


I'm not "justifying"; I'm correcting.  Your post claims he said this to Palin.  He didn't.
Again, Maher's comment was in a stand-up act, was not recorded, and we can't see/hear it in its context.  But if the audience had found it offensive they would have let him know.  Limblob had to issue a walletfelt apology.  Maher didn't.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Osomir said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate that, and I often encounter the same attitudes. However, if you will observe the emphasized portion above, you are essentially supporting the premise that this is where most people reside, if so many people are trying to paint you into those corners. YOU may be contrary to that, but I would not say that you represent what is typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm firmly of the belief that's not where most people reside. What I think happens is that we can understand and contextualize the political, economic, and spiritual diversity within ourselves, but when it comes to looking at others we tend to oversimplify them and cram them into a convenient per-concieved understanding of label x, y, z, q, etc depending on what our initial impressions are. There are actually biological reasons for this as well. Simply put correlation is good for us as an evolutionary trait, particularly when there isn't perfect knowledge of a thing. Something glowing red may be hot so I'm not going to touch it! Animals that growl and have sharp teeth may hurt you so be cautious! Brightly colored reptiles may be poisonous so beware! Not perfect examples because they are pretty simplistic compared to the depth of political, economic, and spiritual views, but it is a common human tendencies to categorize things, people and beliefs included. That becomes problematic though because when we fill in the blanks for these vastly more complex topics we have a much greater mathematical chance of getting it wrong, or of grossly over simplifying.
> 
> I don't even think it particularly malicious, it is merely a tendency of all of ours that we have to keep in mind so that we can reserve judgement and seek out better information on which to base our opinions, beliefs, and actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to rephrase a bit, while diversity may exist, I still maintain that most Americans these days tend to do little more than see a line in the sand, jump to one side or the other, and adopt a ready-made set of ideals and talking points. There is not a lot of room for individuals like you or I in that equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I think that's the way many people see most people, but when you ask them about themselves they'll usually claim to be an exception, or "not like that", and once again I think that is because of the above condition based on information asymmetry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I get what you are saying, but I do maintain that our political system leaves these "diverse" groups pretty marginalized, and ultimately that line in the sand is all that system will support, and that's where the diversity you speak of start to matter less and less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it matters less simply because we ignore it for the above stated convenience reasons, and one problem that I have with media personalities is that those people tap into those oversimplifications and two dimensional labeling and exploit it for profit or to further there own image. And these are often times very smart people, aka people who should know better.
Click to expand...


Or, we've simply had different experiences. I'm thinking that is more likely the case.


----------



## midcan5

The draft dodger is back - there must be a joke hidden in there somewhere. From the doctors? From the drugs? From the pain?  Oh the pain!  LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank

midcan5 said:


> The draft dodger is back - there must be a joke hidden in there somewhere. From the doctors? From the drugs? From the pain?  Oh the pain!  LOL



Joe "5 deferments" Biden

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Wait. This isn't going to turn into a "who's got the biggest deferment dick" competition is it?


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> [
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.



Given the stuff Palin has said about people who disagree with her, it is too bad we don't have a more harsh word than the C-word to describe her.


----------



## Zona

It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Plywood

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Ernie S.

Osomir said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that he is an entertainer, don't you?
> What do you do if you don't like a show on TV?
> You change the channel, do you not?
> 
> I could sit here and tell you how I feel that Maddow and Cooper are damaging our media institutions and you would shout "Bullshit!"
> But you are so damned convinced that Conservatives are evil and Progressives are enlightened higher life forms, that you fail to see that Maddow and Limbaugh are doing exactly the same thing., and it pisses you the fuck off that Limbaugh does it better.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Don't ever mention Maddow and Cooper!!!!
> Ever...............EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I WILL SHOUT!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I have done anything of the sort. Nice strawman though.
> 
> This sort of stuff is characteristic of the intellectual dishonesty that I don't really care for among media personalities.
Click to expand...


He was not talking to you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come off it, Foxy.  I chopped up your post because you meandered into different points and it's more coherent to address them in turn, rather than start at the end and force the reader to back up to see what the hell I'm talking about.  I do that for my reader, and this is the thanks I get.  Hmph.
> 
> About that 'golden microphone' though... Electrovoice RE-20s do not come in gold.  He did that.  That says a little something about hubris.  Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You chopped up the post so you could take my words out of context and in so doing distort my intent and thesis.
> 
> I think it is hubris to accuse somebody's character over a fun gimmick.  The golden microphone is something Rush and his guest hosts have had fun with for a long time.  I'm not surprised that a dedicated Rush Hater would find something offensive about that because nothing he can do or say is not offensive to you.  But that's how prejudice is.  It destroys all objectivity and becomes its own reality and feeds upon itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has paved a new chapter in radio history, has enjoyed greater success of longer duration than anybody else in radio history, and you can't take that away from him no matter how much you cherry pick this word or that word and try to make it into something that it never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Foxy, I changed the order of *nothing *in your post.  If you feel something was done out of context, just post it and we'll work it out.  I took your post in the order you wrote it; don't blame me if that order doesn't work in retrospect.
> 
> I didn't mention "offensive".  I'm just saying, RE-20s don't come that way; it had to be intentionally golded.  What that says about the golder, I leave to the reader.
> 
> I'll freely admit, I'm not much for the whole hero-worship song and dance.  It may be more about that than anything else.
Click to expand...


Like too many lefties, you fail to understand the concept of context.  I didn't suggest you took it out of order.  I said you chopped it up to comment on various lines unqualified by anything that preceded or followed them.  THAT is taking things out of context.  It is also what you have done to Rush Limbaugh and others--taking words and phrases and repeating them more or less accurately, but failing to note any qualifications or context for why they were saying what they were saying or their actual intent in saying it.

And how pathetic that you don't know the context of the 'golden microphone' but would try to make some big deal out of that.  You're really REALLY grasping at straws with that one.  He and some of his guest hosts were having so much fun with the characerization years ago that the company that made the mics made a gold plated one for Rush.

As well as being offensive when you characterize a discussion of the topic as 'hero worship' just because I don't share your prejudices about a radio talk show host who happens to be the reason we are posting in this thread?

Why is it liberals think THEY should be able to say anything to anybody and never be challenged and must be considered noble in their motives, but they have no problem nitpicking to death and drawing all manner of conclusions from something a conservative says?


----------



## OnePercenter

Zona said:


> It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.



And convicted Felon.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't go on Maher's show to get endorsed.
> 
> Limbaugh has so much juice in the GOP none of the candidates could denounce him.
> 
> That's why he's toxic.
> 
> 
> Hey, remember when some nasty piece of work named Sister Souljah was invited to speak at Jesse Jackson's conference, after she made some comments about shooting white people for a change after the LA Riots?
> 
> And remember how Bill Clinton got up in Jesse Jackson's face about it.
> 
> The GOP needs to have a Sister Souljah moment with Limbaugh and the rest of the toxic shit coming off the AM Dial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
Click to expand...


And you see nothing hypocritical in that statement, do you?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You chopped up the post so you could take my words out of context and in so doing distort my intent and thesis.
> 
> I think it is hubris to accuse somebody's character over a fun gimmick.  The golden microphone is something Rush and his guest hosts have had fun with for a long time.  I'm not surprised that a dedicated Rush Hater would find something offensive about that because nothing he can do or say is not offensive to you.  But that's how prejudice is.  It destroys all objectivity and becomes its own reality and feeds upon itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh has paved a new chapter in radio history, has enjoyed greater success of longer duration than anybody else in radio history, and you can't take that away from him no matter how much you cherry pick this word or that word and try to make it into something that it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Foxy, I changed the order of *nothing *in your post.  If you feel something was done out of context, just post it and we'll work it out.  I took your post in the order you wrote it; don't blame me if that order doesn't work in retrospect.
> 
> I didn't mention "offensive".  I'm just saying, RE-20s don't come that way; it had to be intentionally golded.  What that says about the golder, I leave to the reader.
> 
> I'll freely admit, I'm not much for the whole hero-worship song and dance.  It may be more about that than anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like too many lefties, you fail to understand the concept of context.  I didn't suggest you took it out of order.  I said you chopped it up to comment on various lines unqualified by anything that preceded or followed them.  THAT is taking things out of context.  It is also what you have done to Rush Limbaugh and others--taking words and phrases and repeating them more or less accurately, but failing to note any qualifications or context for why they were saying what they were saying or their actual intent in saying it.
> 
> And how pathetic that you don't know the context of the 'golden microphone' but would try to make some big deal out of that.  You're really REALLY grasping at straws with that one.  He and some of his guest hosts were having so much fun with the characerization years ago that the company that made the mics made a gold plated one for Rush.
> 
> As well as being offensive when you characterize a discussion of the topic as 'hero worship' just because I don't share your prejudices about a radio talk show host who happens to be the reason we are posting in this thread?
> 
> Why is it liberals think THEY should be able to say anything to anybody and never be challenged and must be considered noble in their motives, but they have no problem nitpicking to death and drawing all manner of conclusions from something a conservative says?
Click to expand...


"Hero worship" isn't a reference to you, Foxy.  It's more at Ilya Kuryakin and his ilk that melt into emotional side tracks when they can't understand the issue and want to change it to posting about me and what I "like".  Because that trollism was going on at the time.

But once again, if you think something was done "out of context" -- even though I reordered nothing and edited nothing-- then bring it out and we'll fix it.

Seems to me it would be disrespectful to your post to have done it any other way.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you see nothing hypocritical in that statement, do you?
Click to expand...


In what way?


----------



## Ernie S.

Zona said:


> It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.



Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.
Click to expand...


Ernie, I agree with you here.  That's all irrelevant.
I feel the same about politician sex scandals.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you see nothing hypocritical in that statement, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what way?
Click to expand...


Did Limbaugh call Fluke a slut to her face? Or did he say that to an audience?
Fluke became fair game the moment she testified in that hearing. She deserves no more protection than any other woman who has injected herself into the public eye.


----------



## Pogo

> He didn't use it to a lady. He used it to an audience.





Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you see nothing hypocritical in that statement, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Limbaugh call Fluke a slut to her face? Or did he say that to an audience?
> Fluke became fair game the moment she testified in that hearing. She deserves no more protection than any other woman who has injected herself into the public eye.
Click to expand...


Oh, that's not the context.  Papageorgio maintained that Bill Maher said what he said *to *Sarah Palin.  He didn't.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ernie, I agree with you here.  That's all irrelevant.
> I feel the same about politician sex scandals.
Click to expand...


OK there we see eye to eye. I don't have a problem with a politician getting some on the side in a motel room. I do have to draw the line at the door of the oval office. AND, should one get caught with his pants down, do not shake your finger at me and claim it never happened.
Do not lie about it under oath.
I can forgive Bush for being a former drunk, or obama for snorting coke. Lord knows, I've done my share of drugs and booze. It's not an issue, but I feel I should be able to respect my POTUS, at least for the 4 or 8 years he's in office. Sorry and idiot that can't keep his dick in his pants within the office of the President of the United States, doesn't get my respect.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> He didn't use it to a lady. He used it to an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Limbaugh call Fluke a slut to her face? Or did he say that to an audience?
> Fluke became fair game the moment she testified in that hearing. She deserves no more protection than any other woman who has injected herself into the public eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's not the context.  Papageorgio maintained that Bill Maher said what he said *to *Sarah Palin.  He didn't.
Click to expand...


No more or no less than Limbaugh was speaking directly to Miss Fluke.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie, I agree with you here.  That's all irrelevant.
> I feel the same about politician sex scandals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK there we see eye to eye. I don't have a problem with a politician getting some on the side in a motel room. I do have to draw the line at the door of the oval office. AND, should one get caught with his pants down, do not shake your finger at me and claim it never happened.
> Do not lie about it under oath.
> I can forgive Bush for being a former drunk, or obama for snorting coke. Lord knows, I've done my share of drugs and booze. It's not an issue, but I feel I should be able to respect my POTUS, at least for the 4 or 8 years he's in office. Sorry and idiot that can't keep his dick in his pants within the office of the President of the United States, doesn't get my respect.
Click to expand...


Mostly agreed, although about that last part, the Clinton reference, where we differ is I don't think that episode is all that unusual.  He just got caught.  Matter of fact when that whole Lewinskygate was going on I think we looked like a laughingstock to the world, acting collectively in our fake outrage like a two-year-old who had just discovered poo poo.  Just wasn't honest.

(/offtopic)


----------



## Foxfyre

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you see nothing hypocritical in that statement, do you?
Click to expand...


Not to mention that Rush also didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady. He used it to an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Limbaugh call Fluke a slut to her face? Or did he say that to an audience?
> Fluke became fair game the moment she testified in that hearing. She deserves no more protection than any other woman who has injected herself into the public eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that's not the context.  Papageorgio maintained that Bill Maher said what he said *to *Sarah Palin.  He didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No more or no less than Limbaugh was speaking directly to Miss Fluke.
Click to expand...


Nobody claimed he was.
But PG plainly said "*to* a lady", whereas that just wasn't the case.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you see nothing hypocritical in that statement, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention that Rush also didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
Click to expand...


And again, nobody claimed that. 
All I disputed was the Maher claim--- the one that actually _was _made.  So sue me.


----------



## Ernie S.

PM me your lawyer's email address so we can get this on the docket.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> PM me your lawyer's email address so we can get this on the docket.



c/o Dewey, Cheatham and Howe


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.
Click to expand...


The POTUS tried in in college.  THere's a time and a place for everything, and that's college. 

Rush apparently engaged in drug abuse while denouncing addicts on his program.  And didn't see one little bit of hypocrisy in that.


----------



## Osomir

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's cracks me up how the right loves a drug addict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The POTUS tried in in college.  THere's a time and a place for everything, and that's college.
> 
> Rush apparently engaged in drug abuse while denouncing addicts on his program.  And didn't see one little bit of hypocrisy in that.
Click to expand...


I don't think he's particularly worried about being a hypocrite as long as it makes him popular / makes him money.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't use it to a lady.  He used it to an audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spilt hairs if you want, he was wrong. It doesn't matter to me political affiliation. A man that is supposed to be that educated and that aware, to use the word he did was flat out offensive.
> 
> You are free to justify it, I'm done with this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "justifying"; I'm correcting.  Your post claims he said this to Palin.  He didn't.
> Again, Maher's comment was in a stand-up act, was not recorded, and we can't see/hear it in its context.  But if the audience had found it offensive they would have let him know.  Limblob had to issue a walletfelt apology.  Maher didn't.
Click to expand...


Never did I say he said it to Palin, he said it about Palin, which is still offensive, he has never denied it. And you are splitting hairs to justify a very offensive comment made about a woman. He could have used a non-sexist comment, he didn't. It was purposeful and hateful to women.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the stuff Palin has said about people who disagree with her, it is too bad we don't have a more harsh word than the C-word to describe her.
Click to expand...


We could call her Bill Maher, that is a disgusting hateful name.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spilt hairs if you want, he was wrong. It doesn't matter to me political affiliation. A man that is supposed to be that educated and that aware, to use the word he did was flat out offensive.
> 
> You are free to justify it, I'm done with this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not "justifying"; I'm correcting.  Your post claims he said this to Palin.  He didn't.
> Again, Maher's comment was in a stand-up act, was not recorded, and we can't see/hear it in its context.  But if the audience had found it offensive they would have let him know.  Limblob had to issue a walletfelt apology.  Maher didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never did I say he said it to Palin, he said it about Palin, which is still offensive,
Click to expand...


DUDE.  Can you read the English language??  These are your words:



Papageorgio said:


> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.



Saying something _*to*_ someone is a bit different from saying it _*about *_someone, wouldn't you say?

Think of me as Harry Truman with a sign on my desk reading "the revisionist history stops here".


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not "justifying"; I'm correcting.  Your post claims he said this to Palin.  He didn't.
> Again, Maher's comment was in a stand-up act, was not recorded, and we can't see/hear it in its context.  But if the audience had found it offensive they would have let him know.  Limblob had to issue a walletfelt apology.  Maher didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never did I say he said it to Palin, he said it about Palin, which is still offensive,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUDE.  Can you read the English language??  These are your words:
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying something _*to*_ someone is a bit different from saying it _*about *_someone, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Think of me as Harry Truman with a sign on my desk reading "the revisionist history stops here".
Click to expand...


I never said or implied Maher to be a real man, nor did I say Limbaugh was a real man. I said a real man would never need to use such language tin public to a lady.

Again you split hairs.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never did I say he said it to Palin, he said it about Palin, which is still offensive,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUDE.  Can you read the English language??  These are your words:
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying something _*to*_ someone is a bit different from saying it _*about *_someone, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Think of me as Harry Truman with a sign on my desk reading "the revisionist history stops here".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said or implied Maher to be a real man, nor did I say Limbaugh was a real man. I said a real man would never need to use such language tin public to a lady.
> 
> Again you split hairs.
Click to expand...


Oh man up, wimp.  You posted it, now you want to run away with weasel words.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUDE.  Can you read the English language??  These are your words:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying something _*to*_ someone is a bit different from saying it _*about *_someone, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Think of me as Harry Truman with a sign on my desk reading "the revisionist history stops here".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied Maher to be a real man, nor did I say Limbaugh was a real man. I said a real man would never need to use such language tin public to a lady.
> 
> Again you split hairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh man up, wimp.  You posted it, now you want to run away with weasel words.
Click to expand...


Fuck you, you have to spin to justify, go right ahead.

Said to or not his words were offensive, would you not agree?


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said or implied Maher to be a real man, nor did I say Limbaugh was a real man. I said a real man would never need to use such language tin public to a lady.
> 
> Again you split hairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man up, wimp.  You posted it, now you want to run away with weasel words.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you, you have to spin to justify, go right ahead.
> 
> Said to or not his words were offensive, would you not agree?
Click to expand...


So you just wimped out of owning your own words, told me "fuck you", and in the same breath you wanna talk about somebody else's "offensive words"?

Can't make this stuff up, you really can't...


----------



## JoeB131

Osomir said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former drug addict, as it the POTUS, and the former mayor of DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The POTUS tried in in college.  THere's a time and a place for everything, and that's college.
> 
> Rush apparently engaged in drug abuse while denouncing addicts on his program.  And didn't see one little bit of hypocrisy in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he's particularly worried about being a hypocrite as long as it makes him popular / makes him money.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think Money has failed to fill the dark hole in Limbaugh's Soul.  

here's a guy who is on his fourth marriage, has been addicted to drugs.  He's made several attempts to mainstream himself (Getting fired from ESPN, Getting spurned from buying into an NFL Franchise) that his reputation have prevented him from having. 

I think this is a guy who wanted to be a Sports Announcer, and his career path led him here instead.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I agree with people denouncing this behavior, however I see Maher as degrading to women. A real man would never need to use such language in public to a lady.
> 
> Sorry, Maher is a fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the stuff Palin has said about people who disagree with her, it is too bad we don't have a more harsh word than the C-word to describe her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could call her Bill Maher, that is a disgusting hateful name.
Click to expand...


Only to you guys.  

I think he's sometimes funny, sometimes full of himself.  

But unlike Limbaugh, he never claimed to be the voice of a movement.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the stuff Palin has said about people who disagree with her, it is too bad we don't have a more harsh word than the C-word to describe her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could call her Bill Maher, that is a disgusting hateful name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only to you guys.
> 
> I think he's sometimes funny, sometimes full of himself.
> 
> But unlike Limbaugh, he never claimed to be the voice of a movement.
Click to expand...




It's really extraordinarily funny to see what kinds of things get so far under your thin skin.

Another GREAT job by Rush!


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could call her Bill Maher, that is a disgusting hateful name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to you guys.
> 
> I think he's sometimes funny, sometimes full of himself.
> 
> But unlike Limbaugh, he never claimed to be the voice of a movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really extraordinarily funny to see what kinds of things get so far under your thin skin.
> 
> *Another GREAT job by Rush!*
Click to expand...


So.... it's not about political ideas, it's not about being an 'entertainer', it's not about questionably-attained "success" -- it's about subcutaneous entrance.

Thanks for confirming the emperor's nakedness.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to you guys.
> 
> I think he's sometimes funny, sometimes full of himself.
> 
> But unlike Limbaugh, he never claimed to be the voice of a movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really extraordinarily funny to see what kinds of things get so far under your thin skin.
> 
> *Another GREAT job by Rush!*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So.... it's not about political ideas, it's not about being an 'entertainer', it's not about questionably-attained "success" -- it's about subcutaneous entrance.
> 
> Thanks for confirming the emperor's nakedness.
Click to expand...


He has pulled YOUR chain so thoroughly and so often, you can't even see what a joke OF you he has made.

Newsflash for ya, skippy.

Rush IS an entertainer.

He is ALSO politically astute and willing to speak a truth that assholes like you find distasteful.

Good.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really extraordinarily funny to see what kinds of things get so far under your thin skin.
> 
> *Another GREAT job by Rush!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.... it's not about political ideas, it's not about being an 'entertainer', it's not about questionably-attained "success" -- it's about subcutaneous entrance.
> 
> Thanks for confirming the emperor's nakedness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He has pulled YOUR chain so thoroughly and so often, you can't even see what a joke OF you he has made.
> 
> Newsflash for ya, skippy.
> 
> Rush IS an entertainer.
> 
> He is ALSO politically astute and willing to speak a truth that assholes like you find distasteful.
> 
> Good.
Click to expand...


Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.

This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.... it's not about political ideas, it's not about being an 'entertainer', it's not about questionably-attained "success" -- it's about subcutaneous entrance.
> 
> Thanks for confirming the emperor's nakedness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has pulled YOUR chain so thoroughly and so often, you can't even see what a joke OF you he has made.
> 
> Newsflash for ya, skippy.
> 
> Rush IS an entertainer.
> 
> He is ALSO politically astute and willing to speak a truth that assholes like you find distasteful.
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.
> 
> This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
> Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.
Click to expand...



Sorry Sparkless, but what you have "contended" about Rush is clearly delineated in your posts as well as between your crayon lines.

Rush is an entertainer.  THAT clearly addresses the topic of what (largely) drives his enormous ratings, ya shitforbrains bloviator.

He also offers VALID political insights that make listening to him worthwhile, which also helps drive his ratings.

Sorry you can't keep up.

But you remain a very funny hapless assclown.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has pulled YOUR chain so thoroughly and so often, you can't even see what a joke OF you he has made.
> 
> Newsflash for ya, skippy.
> 
> Rush IS an entertainer.
> 
> He is ALSO politically astute and willing to speak a truth that assholes like you find distasteful.
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.
> 
> This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
> Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Sparkless, but what you have "contended" about Rush is clearly delineated in your posts as well as between your crayon lines.
> 
> Rush is an entertainer.  THAT clearly addresses the topic of what (largely) drives his enormous ratings, ya shitforbrains bloviator.
> 
> *He also offers VALID political insights that make listening to him worthwhile, which also helps drive his ratings.*
> 
> Sorry you can't keep up.
> 
> But you remain a very funny hapless assclown.
Click to expand...


Are we _finally _treading on the actual topic??  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Ratings are not developed by "valid insights".  They never have been.  They're driven by emotion-- drama and fear and loathing and conspiracy and scandal.  Ratings measure _attention_-- not _assent_.  That's why WWE and Maury Povich and Glenn Beck not only exist but thrive.  That's why Fraction News employs "if it bleeds it leads" as its mantra.  It doesn't mean the audience "agrees" with that fire or that tornado or that shooting (or in this case that "slut") -- it means the gullible are attracted to the emotional hook.  Regardless what the content is.

"Valid insights" and two bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.  Everybody in media knows that.

But we did all this ages ago.  Perhaps you should go back and start at the beginning.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.
> 
> This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
> Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Sparkless, but what you have "contended" about Rush is clearly delineated in your posts as well as between your crayon lines.
> 
> Rush is an entertainer.  THAT clearly addresses the topic of what (largely) drives his enormous ratings, ya shitforbrains bloviator.
> 
> *He also offers VALID political insights that make listening to him worthwhile, which also helps drive his ratings.*
> 
> Sorry you can't keep up.
> 
> But you remain a very funny hapless assclown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Are we finally treading on the actual topic??*  * * * *
Click to expand...


I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.



Pogo said:


> Ratings are not developed by "valid insights".  They never have been.



Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.  

If the things Rush chose to discuss were devoid of validity, he'd have no more of an audience than the assholes who tried (so poorly) to generate an audience at that liberal radio experiment.  What a joke that was.



Pogo said:


> They're driven by emotion-- drama and fear and loathing and conspiracy and scandal.  Ratings measure _attention_-- not _assent_.
> 
> * * * *



Wrong again assbreath.  Emotions certainly play their role.  But nobody would keep listening to an emotion-driven format if they did not find the insights of value.  I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals.

I'd pick apart the balance of your latest vapid posting effort, but frankly, you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.

Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Sparkless, but what you have "contended" about Rush is clearly delineated in your posts as well as between your crayon lines.
> 
> Rush is an entertainer.  THAT clearly addresses the topic of what (largely) drives his enormous ratings, ya shitforbrains bloviator.
> 
> *He also offers VALID political insights that make listening to him worthwhile, which also helps drive his ratings.*
> 
> Sorry you can't keep up.
> 
> But you remain a very funny hapless assclown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Are we finally treading on the actual topic??*  * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratings are not developed by "valid insights".  They never have been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.
> 
> If the things Rush chose to discuss were devoid of validity, he'd have no more of an audience than the assholes who tried (so poorly) to generate an audience at that liberal radio experiment.  What a joke that was.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're driven by emotion-- drama and fear and loathing and conspiracy and scandal.  Ratings measure _attention_-- not _assent_.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again assbreath.  Emotions certainly play their role.  But nobody would keep listening to an emotion-driven format if they did not find the insights of value.  I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals.
> 
> I'd pick apart the balance of your latest vapid posting effort, but frankly, you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.
> 
> Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.
Click to expand...


To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.  

But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.

Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are we finally treading on the actual topic??*  * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.
> 
> If the things Rush chose to discuss were devoid of validity, he'd have no more of an audience than the assholes who tried (so poorly) to generate an audience at that liberal radio experiment.  What a joke that was.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're driven by emotion-- drama and fear and loathing and conspiracy and scandal.  Ratings measure _attention_-- not _assent_.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again assbreath.  Emotions certainly play their role.  But nobody would keep listening to an emotion-driven format if they did not find the insights of value.  I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals.
> 
> I'd pick apart the balance of your latest vapid posting effort, but frankly, you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.
> 
> Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.
> 
> But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.
> 
> Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.
Click to expand...


Well, that ^ was well said.

And, indeed, more delicately too.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Sparkless, but what you have "contended" about Rush is clearly delineated in your posts as well as between your crayon lines.
> 
> Rush is an entertainer.  THAT clearly addresses the topic of what (largely) drives his enormous ratings, ya shitforbrains bloviator.
> 
> *He also offers VALID political insights that make listening to him worthwhile, which also helps drive his ratings.*
> 
> Sorry you can't keep up.
> 
> But you remain a very funny hapless assclown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Are we finally treading on the actual topic??*  * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratings are not developed by "valid insights".  They never have been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.
Click to expand...


'Fraid not, Madge.  You see, you've already confirmed my theory better that I could articulate it.  Shall we review, even though it's only been a few minutes?

Don't know how this slipped by your obviously astute sensory powers but I'm not the one that's been all emotionally melting down here.  You are:



IlarMeilyr said:


> assbreath... I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals....  you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.
> Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.



... not to mention:

>> ya shitforbrains bloviator... hapless assclown... assholes like you... you nitwits... sissified ("sissified"? really?) ... you disingenuous idiot liberal hack... what a filthy loser liar you are... you retread motherfucker... Try again my little bitch...  You really are amazingly stupid and trite... you empty twit... Damn, you are one cracked empty vessel... Pogo: what a doink ("doink"?)... Holy fuck. This idiot ^ pluggo likes to hear itself blather and bleat.... The fact that you are far too tired and sloppy-thinking to even comprehend...  you are not really very bright. You are just another blind partisan hack sheep liberal. Twits like you are a dime a dozen... <<

-- which is all you brought to this thread until now.  When you're so immersed in your own emotion that you can't even think of a point on the topic, well that's telling.

Besides, you just, not an hour before this post, demonstrated my theory in action better than I could have articulated it:



IlarMeilyr said:


> It's really extraordinarily funny to see what kinds of things get so far under your thin skin.
> 
> Another GREAT job by Rush!



As you pointed out, it's not about the content, it's about "getting under skin".  Or as you exercise it in this medium, "trolling".  This is after all the first time you've addressed the topic at all.
And you being a self-admitted minion, I trust your judgement on what the Limbob's purpose is.  Who am I to dicker?  It's your emotion.

Not an hour before.  How soon we forget. The memory is the second thing to go...


----------



## Pogo

OK Foxy, let's do this one.  I'm going to take it in order-- I still haven't heard an explanation for yesterday's "out of context" so put me back in line if I stray...



Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are we finally treading on the actual topic??*  * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.
> 
> If the things Rush chose to discuss were devoid of validity, he'd have no more of an audience than the assholes who tried (so poorly) to generate an audience at that liberal radio experiment.  What a joke that was.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're driven by emotion-- drama and fear and loathing and conspiracy and scandal.  Ratings measure _attention_-- not _assent_.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again assbreath.  Emotions certainly play their role.  But nobody would keep listening to an emotion-driven format if they did not find the insights of value.  I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals.
> 
> I'd pick apart the balance of your latest vapid posting effort, but frankly, you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.
> 
> Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.
Click to expand...


Your posit assumes the fear-and-loathing factor is the only factor.  First thing, your assessment that the fear-and-loathing factor was "absolutely all they offered" is subjective on your part.  Second, as your "side" keeps pointing out, Air America addressed a different ideological demographic, and I've been dropping hints right and left that we might better explore the contrast of values between "right" and "left" leaning listeners, and nobody ever wants to go there...  ... and you not being a part of that demographic, you're not exactly in a position to assess number one, are you?

And third, I've already pointed out umpteen times here (umpteen = ump plus ten) that Air America folded because of its internal business mismanagement.  Even your "side" has had to admit that, yet you guys go on as if it was connected to the ideology -- even though I've pointed out those same umpteen times that those same bloviators, with the same shows, based on the same ideologies (minus Franken, who quit the business) are still on the air today under different auspices, which pretty much makes this point worthless.

Now to stay in context, you have at least alluded to these varying psychologies in your next paragraph.  We join that one in progress...



Foxfyre said:


> But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.
> 
> Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.



I guess in essence you're agreeing with me here that it's all about style and not substance.  



Though I'll disagree with the "if it was only entertainment" line.  "Only" entertainment would sell just fine, and already does.  Remember that list of the top ten TV shows from the other thread?

Love ya Foxy.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.... it's not about political ideas, it's not about being an 'entertainer', it's not about questionably-attained "success" -- it's about subcutaneous entrance.
> 
> Thanks for confirming the emperor's nakedness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has pulled YOUR chain so thoroughly and so often, you can't even see what a joke OF you he has made.
> 
> Newsflash for ya, skippy.
> 
> Rush IS an entertainer.
> 
> He is ALSO politically astute and willing to speak a truth that assholes like you find distasteful.
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.
> 
> This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
> Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.
Click to expand...


Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
Limbaugh makes that possible for them


----------



## MaryL

Isn't that nice? I thought all that hot air was global warming. I used to listen to Rush years ago, I remember how he reneged on a million dollar bet about Clinton and taxes or some such nonsense. Rush was a fool, I remember the hyperbole he spewed to rationalize it.  He is not a man of much integrity or honor. THAT is what his "show" is all about.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.
> 
> If the things Rush chose to discuss were devoid of validity, he'd have no more of an audience than the assholes who tried (so poorly) to generate an audience at that liberal radio experiment.  What a joke that was.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again assbreath.  Emotions certainly play their role.  But nobody would keep listening to an emotion-driven format if they did not find the insights of value.  I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals.
> 
> I'd pick apart the balance of your latest vapid posting effort, but frankly, you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.
> 
> Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.
> 
> But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.
> 
> Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that ^ was well said.
> 
> And, indeed, more delicately too.
Click to expand...


LOL thanks.  Pogo is a great guy, but he really REALLY likes to have the last word, and--I think it is because he is an honest liberal--he sometimes avoids actually considering the meat of an argument but focuses more on the sound bites and stuff like that. 

For instance he is convinced it was poor business management that shut Air America down though he has yet to support that with anything other than his opinion.  And he won't agree that it was their content that attracted almost no audience and therefore could attract almost no advertisers that sealed their doom.  Now admittedly, their programmers seriously mismanaged that--again I blame liberalism that is unable to deal with substance about much of anything--but the ONLY thing that shut down Air America is that nobody much wanted to listen to it.

And he won't--probably can't--understand that Rush uses his unique personality and entertaining delivery style to deliver REAL substance and it is THAT which accounts for his overwhelming success.  He despises Rush and therefore cannot give him credit for anything positive.

Was just chatting with another member though--another who doesn't like Rush  which led me to hunt up a fairly recent Pew study of Rush's audience and Huffpo's analysis of the substance of Rush's programming content:



> A poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press casts more doubt on the wisdom of the Democrats' coordinated strategy to tie elected Republicans to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. When it comes to American political knowledge, Limbuagh's audience is better informed than those of most mainstream media news outlets.
> 
> The poll tested the audiences of a host of news magazines, radio and television shows, and newspapers on three basic political questions: the majority party in the House of Representatives; the name of the Secretary of State; and the identity of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. On the American political questions, Limbaugh's radio audience scored the highest, in a virtual tie with viewers of fellow conservative talker Sean Hannity's Fox News show Hannity and Colmes audience. Eighty-three percent of Limbaugh listeners correctly identified the Democrats as being in control of the House and seventy-one percent were able to correctly name the Secretary of State. On all three questions combined, readers of The New Yorker and The Atlantic fared best. But Limbaugh's audience easily outperformed those of all three major networks' nightly news programs, readers of community and daily newspapers, as well as viewers of the news networks CNN, Fox News, C-SPAN, CNBC, and MSNBC.
> 
> As Democrats' attacks on Rush send his audience size through the roof, more and more people are becoming exposed to his persuasive &#8211; and apparently highly informative &#8211; message, many for the first time. The danger for the Obama Administration is that a percentage of those new listeners will find agreement with Limbaugh's arguments against the Administration's policies. That may be why the Obama Administration admitted this week that it's attacks on Limbaugh had become, "unproductive." . . .
> Limbaugh's Audience Better Informed Than Those Of Most Media Outlets



From a pro-Obama left leaning publication like Huffington Post, that is saying something.  It also raises my respect for Huffpo up a notch.  They really are making an effort to do some honest journalism these days which is more than I can say for some of their left leaning colleagues.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has pulled YOUR chain so thoroughly and so often, you can't even see what a joke OF you he has made.
> 
> Newsflash for ya, skippy.
> 
> Rush IS an entertainer.
> 
> He is ALSO politically astute and willing to speak a truth that assholes like you find distasteful.
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.
> 
> This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
> Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
> Limbaugh makes that possible for them
Click to expand...


It is what it's about as far as what I've posted, Ernie, in contrast to the crap the Welsh Troll has been putting in my mouth.  That was the point there.

Obviously we go on tangents, but if you want to go back to the ad factor, it's your thread.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.
> 
> But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.
> 
> Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that ^ was well said.
> 
> And, indeed, more delicately too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL thanks.  Pogo is a great guy, but he really REALLY likes to have the last word,
Click to expand...


Do not. 



Foxfyre said:


> and--I think it is because he is an honest liberal--he sometimes avoids actually considering the meat of an argument but focuses more on the sound bites and stuff like that.
> 
> For instance he is convinced it was poor business management that shut Air America down though he has yet to support that with anything other than his opinion.  And he won't agree that it was their content that attracted almost no audience and therefore could attract almost no advertisers that sealed their doom.  Now admittedly, their programmers seriously mismanaged that--again I blame liberalism that is unable to deal with substance about much of anything--but the ONLY thing that shut down Air America is that nobody much wanted to listen to it.



I didn't think this was such a secret...   Maybe it is in the Bubbleosphere?

>> The network was financially troubled, however. A scandal involving nearly a million dollars in loans from a Boys and Girls Club in New York secretly transacted by Evan Cohen came out in 2005 and was a source of negative publicity. The loans were repaid, and in October 2006, mounting debts forced Air America Radio to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company was bought by Green Family Media, made up of New York real estate investor Stephen L. Green and his brother Mark J. Green, who bought the network in March 2007 for US$ 4.25 million.[3][4]

The company eventually changed its name from Air America Radio to Air America Media and lastly to just Air America, an effort to establish itself as a broadcaster on multiple media sources including television and the Internet, and one not merely relegated to radio. Always primarily a radio network, on January 21, 2010, Air America went off the air citing difficulties with the current economic environment << (Wiki)

This really isn't classified info.  Do I have to read it aloud too?   

And come on, you know better than this-- the programmers (the talent) are not the managers.  _Managers _are who mismanages.



Foxfyre said:


> And he won't--probably can't--understand that Rush uses his unique personality and entertaining delivery style to deliver REAL substance and it is THAT which accounts for his overwhelming success.  He despises Rush and therefore cannot give him credit for anything positive.



Et voilà, you just hit the male on the head in one word: "personality".  That's the whole point.  And there's just no way around it.


----------



## JoeB131

IlarMeilyr said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could call her Bill Maher, that is a disgusting hateful name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to you guys.
> 
> I think he's sometimes funny, sometimes full of himself.
> 
> But unlike Limbaugh, he never claimed to be the voice of a movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really extraordinarily funny to see what kinds of things get so far under your thin skin.
> 
> Another GREAT job by Rush!
Click to expand...


Guy, used to listen to Limbaugh all the time. Even find him amusing.  

But given that the women's vote gave the election to Obama, him screaming "Slut" on the air for three days didn't help your side that much, did it?


----------



## Foxfyre

Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.  

But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
> Limbaugh makes that possible for them



If his ad revenue were back, Cumulous wouldn't be talking about dumping his ass from the top 40 markets.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.
> 
> But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.



Ì know you are.  Besides, as far as "last word" you know as well as I that when someone is wrong on the internet it's our duty to act 

So again, since the same hosts are doing the same thing on the same stations years later, and only their syndicator has changed, that pretty much eliminates the content as the source of the failure.

Again, not that I place personally much faith at all in the format (never cared for it myself); just a simple exercise in logic.

Still, those leftward hosts' numbers do pale in comparison to Limblob's.  Not failing, but not setting the world on fire either.  I'd still love to explore the varying psychologies of right and left audiences and why one approach works with one but not with the other.  I'd posit that while the attack dog model works better for the right, the humor model works better for the left (e.g. Stewart, Colbert, Maher).

I'd like to go there, but this is Ernie's thread and if I take it off course he'll bite me. 

I'll bring that to a new one sooner or later.


----------



## Foxfyre

There is nobody who uses more humor than rightwing radio or televison hosts.  But the liberal left doesn't see any humor in rightwing humor.  The conservative right doesn't see much humor in leftwing humor.  It's all relative.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.
> 
> But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.


That, of course, is a load of bull. Air America could not get stations to carry its programs. Right-wing giants like Clear Channel and Cumulus would not air it. For example, in my area there are two stations that carry your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty but there were no stations that carried Air America so I never got the chance to even consider listening to it.

In the few markets where Air America got to compete with GOP hate radio they held their own and sometimes beat them.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> *There is nobody who uses more humor than rightwing radio* or televison hosts.  But the liberal left doesn't see any humor in rightwing humor.  The conservative right doesn't see much humor in leftwing humor.  It's all relative.


Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:

mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress

long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types

Algore
    Former Vice President Al Gore. 

Breck Girl
    John Edwards.

Dingy Harry
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Dung Heap Harkin
    Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Environmentalist wacko

Feminazi

Frenchurian Candidate, the
    2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

NAGs (National Association of Gals)
    National Organization for Women (NOW)

Nikita Dean
    Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Senator Dick Turban
    Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).

Senator Helmet Head
    Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

Bite Me
    VP Joe Biden


----------



## Pogo

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.
> 
> But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, is a load of bull. Air America could not get stations to carry its programs. Right-wing giants like Clear Channel and Cumulus would not air it. For example, in my area there are two stations that carry your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty but there were no stations that carried Air America so I never got the chance to even consider listening to it.
> 
> In the few markets where Air America got to compete with GOP hate radio they held their own and sometimes beat them.
Click to expand...


I don't know all the numbers but I've heard this comparison here and there too-- "Ed Schultz beats Rush Limbaugh in city X" ... but the larger anecdote is a ponderable point: as the purveyor of a new idea, AirAmerica would have had an uphill battle convincing stations to put them online with an untested format.  The radio bidness, like bidness in general, is conservative and doesn't fall in easily with new ideas.

Of course once AA had its run and the attendant publicity, including that of its super-secret bankruptcy (no such thing as bad publicity), the idea was more proven and syndicators like Dial Global and Premiere took on the same hosts as clients.  Obviously they wouldn't have done that if the format itself, rather than the specific business, had failed.


----------



## Pogo

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nobody who uses more humor than rightwing radio* or televison hosts.  But the liberal left doesn't see any humor in rightwing humor.  The conservative right doesn't see much humor in leftwing humor.  It's all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:
> 
> mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress
> 
> long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types
> 
> Algore
> Former Vice President Al Gore.
> 
> Breck Girl
> John Edwards.
> 
> Dingy Harry
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
> 
> Dung Heap Harkin
> Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
> 
> Environmentalist wacko
> 
> Feminazi
> 
> Frenchurian Candidate, the
> 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
> 
> NAGs (National Association of Gals)
> National Organization for Women (NOW)
> 
> Nikita Dean
> Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
> 
> Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
> 
> Senator Dick Turban
> Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).
> 
> Senator Helmet Head
> Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
> 
> Bite Me
> VP Joe Biden
Click to expand...


Conspicuous in its absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here.  The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem.  Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.

It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument.  But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads.  No question about that.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nobody who uses more humor than rightwing radio* or televison hosts.  But the liberal left doesn't see any humor in rightwing humor.  The conservative right doesn't see much humor in leftwing humor.  It's all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:
> 
> mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress
> 
> long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types
> 
> Algore
> Former Vice President Al Gore.
> 
> Breck Girl
> John Edwards.
> 
> Dingy Harry
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
> 
> Dung Heap Harkin
> Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
> 
> Environmentalist wacko
> 
> Feminazi
> 
> Frenchurian Candidate, the
> 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
> 
> NAGs (National Association of Gals)
> National Organization for Women (NOW)
> 
> Nikita Dean
> Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
> 
> Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
> 
> Senator Dick Turban
> Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).
> 
> Senator Helmet Head
> Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
> 
> Bite Me
> VP Joe Biden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conspicuous in their absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here.  The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem.  Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.
> 
> It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument.  But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads.  No question about that.
Click to expand...


You call that 'attack radio?'   Please tell me you jest.  If you want to equate that with 'attack radio' I have REAMS of material to paint your guys with a much blacker brush. 

And I would bet a good grilled cheese sandwich that you don't know the history behind and could not correctly define any of the "Rushisms" or why he humorously uses the characterizations he does.  And I can assure you that there is a defnition and/or valid history behind each one.

Did I find them all humorous?  No.  I don't appreciate anybody, left or right, who makes fun of physical characteristics of anybody and Rush can be as guilty of poor taste as anybody else in that regard.  And I've let him know it too.  But attacks?  No, that is not attack.


----------



## Ernie S.

IlarMeilyr said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been for a while now.  Takes you a lot of time to catch up.  Mainly because you are sadly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  See?  I told you that you were stupid.
> 
> If the things Rush chose to discuss were devoid of validity, he'd have no more of an audience than the assholes who tried (so poorly) to generate an audience at that liberal radio experiment.  What a joke that was.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again assbreath.  Emotions certainly play their role.  But nobody would keep listening to an emotion-driven format if they did not find the insights of value.  I mean, shit, little boy, we aren't all mindless liberals.
> 
> I'd pick apart the balance of your latest vapid posting effort, but frankly, you didn't have anything worth even responding to there.
> 
> Try harder.  See if you can get an adult to assist you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.
> 
> But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.
> 
> Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that ^ was well said.
> 
> And, indeed, more delicately too.
Click to expand...


It was, but your comments were more entertaining.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:
> 
> mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress
> 
> long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types
> 
> Algore
> Former Vice President Al Gore.
> 
> Breck Girl
> John Edwards.
> 
> Dingy Harry
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
> 
> Dung Heap Harkin
> Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
> 
> Environmentalist wacko
> 
> Feminazi
> 
> Frenchurian Candidate, the
> 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
> 
> NAGs (National Association of Gals)
> National Organization for Women (NOW)
> 
> Nikita Dean
> Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
> 
> Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
> 
> Senator Dick Turban
> Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).
> 
> Senator Helmet Head
> Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
> 
> Bite Me
> VP Joe Biden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspicuous in their absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here.  The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem.  Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.
> 
> It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument.  But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads.  No question about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that 'attack radio?'   Please tell me you jest.  If you want to equate that with 'attack radio' I have REAMS of material to paint your guys with a much blacker brush.
> 
> And I would bet a good grilled cheese sandwich that you don't know the history behind and could not correctly define any of the "Rushisms" or why he humorously uses the characterizations he does.  And I can assure you that there is a defnition and/or valid history behind each one.
> 
> Did I find them all humorous?  No.  I don't appreciate anybody, left or right, who makes fun of physical characteristics of anybody and Rush can be as guilty of poor taste as anybody else in that regard.  And I've let him know it too.  But attacks?  No, that is not attack.
Click to expand...


Take it up with Plato.

>> ad ho·mi·nem
[ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd&#8208;] Show IPA
adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. *attacking* an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Compare ad feminam.  << (dictionary.com)

Found at the top of any list of logical fallacies.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conspicuous in their absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here.  The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem.  Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.
> 
> It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument.  But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads.  No question about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You call that 'attack radio?'   Please tell me you jest.  If you want to equate that with 'attack radio' I have REAMS of material to paint your guys with a much blacker brush.
> 
> And I would bet a good grilled cheese sandwich that you don't know the history behind and could not correctly define any of the "Rushisms" or why he humorously uses the characterizations he does.  And I can assure you that there is a defnition and/or valid history behind each one.
> 
> Did I find them all humorous?  No.  I don't appreciate anybody, left or right, who makes fun of physical characteristics of anybody and Rush can be as guilty of poor taste as anybody else in that regard.  And I've let him know it too.  But attacks?  No, that is not attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it up with Plato.
> 
> >> ad ho·mi·nem
> [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd&#8208;] Show IPA
> adjective
> 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
> 2. *attacking* an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
> 
> Compare ad feminam.  << (dictionary.com)
> 
> Found at the top of any list of logical fallacies.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but non sequitur to the issue.  (I used to teach classes in logical fallacy.)   Every one of Rush's "Rush-isms and characterizations" is rooted in history and has a logical explanation.  Nor has he EVER, to the best of my knowledge, ever used such a characterization without giving a very clear, concise, and well executive explanation for why it is appropriate.  One thng he is not guilty of is ad hominem.

You'll have to do better than that to make your case.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> snip
> ...that Air America folded because of its internal business mismanagement.  Even your "side" has had to admit that, yet you guys go on as if it was connected to the ideology



Yes! Exactly! It folded because of a failed management plan that put vapid liberal blather on the radio opposite substance, experience and a message that people wanted to hear.
Any pre-launch research would have pointed out that Liberals listen to Hip Hop and get their news from Jon Stewart.

So was it ideology? Meh, obama did win the last 2 elections, but what do you expect from an electorate half of whom get their news from a comedian.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make up your mind?  I've had daze like that.
> 
> This just in Buffy- I haven't opined here on Limblob's opinions.  That's one of your ass-sumptions.  The thread is about radio bloviator ratings and what drives them.
> Sorry you came to it emptyhanded.  Plan ahead next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
> Limbaugh makes that possible for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It is what it's about as far as what I've posted, Ernie,* in contrast to the crap the Welsh Troll has been putting in my mouth.  That was the point there.
> 
> Obviously we go on tangents, but if you want to go back to the ad factor, it's your thread.
Click to expand...


Then YOU took it off topic. How DARE you accuse someone else who as you've said at one point hadn't contributed much substance to the thread.

Are you employing a Liberal debate tactic you learned at some Progressive summer camp or are you just that devoid of intellectual honesty?

Don't EVER come to my thread, go off on a tangent and accuse someone else of spamming. *EVER!*


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
> Limbaugh makes that possible for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his ad revenue were back, Cumulous wouldn't be talking about dumping his ass from the top 40 markets.
Click to expand...


The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.


----------



## Pogo

Desperation, Foxy.  Doesn't suit you.  Every pun is "rooted in history".  Doesn't make it any less ad hominem.  Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.




Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> ...that Air America folded because of its internal business mismanagement.  Even your "side" has had to admit that, yet you guys go on as if it was connected to the ideology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Exactly! It folded because of a failed management plan that put vapid liberal blather on the radio opposite substance, experience and a message that people wanted to hear.
> Any pre-launch research would have pointed out that Liberals listen to Hip Hop and get their news from Jon Stewart.
> 
> So was it ideology? Meh, obama did win the last 2 elections, but what do you expect from an electorate half of whom get their news from a comedian.
Click to expand...


And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct.  And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).

Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.
> 
> But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ì know you are.  Besides, as far as "last word" you know as well as I that when someone is wrong on the internet it's our duty to act
> 
> So again, since the same hosts are doing the same thing on the same stations years later, and only their syndicator has changed, that pretty much eliminates the content as the source of the failure.
> 
> Again, not that I place personally much faith at all in the format (never cared for it myself); just a simple exercise in logic.
> 
> Still, those leftward hosts' numbers do pale in comparison to Limblob's.  Not failing, but not setting the world on fire either.  I'd still love to explore the varying psychologies of right and left audiences and why one approach works with one but not with the other.  I'd posit that while the attack dog model works better for the right, the humor model works better for the left (e.g. Stewart, Colbert, Maher).
> 
> I'd like to go there, but this is Ernie's thread and if I take it off course he'll bite me.
> 
> I'll bring that to a new one sooner or later.
Click to expand...


Has anyone here, other than you insultingly altered a media personality's name? Has any Conservative mentioned Rachel Madcow or Al Frankenstein?

Cool the ugliness in your rhetoric and you might be treated more kindly.


----------



## Foxfyre

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
> Limbaugh makes that possible for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his ad revenue were back, Cumulous wouldn't be talking about dumping his ass from the top 40 markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.
Click to expand...


And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust.  The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station.  Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.

And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up.  And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.

And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Ernie S. said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> To put it somewhat more delicately )), your thesis is quite accurate here.  If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success.  That is absolutely all they offered.
> 
> But even though that stuff is useful for sound bites from the clueless on message boards--though they are just as boring here as they are on the radio--they aren't sufficient to hold a radio audience.  Even liberals get bored when there is nothing else offered.
> 
> Rush characterizes things in ways that infuriate and frustrate the left--there is a whole long list of "Rush-isms" that they valiantly try to use to attack him but which none of them really understand or can or will describe accurately.  He uses these in a format and delivery that is entertaining as well as informative.  If it was ONLY entertainment, however, it too would become tiresome and boring.  But because he uses entertaining delivery to bring us real substance and valid content, he can hold an audience for prolonged periods--often the entire three hours.  And his ratings leave everybody else in the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that ^ was well said.
> 
> And, indeed, more delicately too.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was, but your comments were more entertaining.
Click to expand...




Poor little pin head ploddo would never agree.

He will cry himself to sleep over the fact that folks who have noted his abject lack of logic are also being mean old meanies.

They use  <<splutter splutter>> "ad hominems!"  Those mean old meanies. 

I'll be blunt again.  For a guy who likes to pontificate as some kind of "expert" [  ] on the subject, he sure has nothing to say.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you presume to tell anyone what this thread is about. I posted it, not you and it's about advertisers flocking back to Limbaugh's show despite a few months ago, the liberal media writing his epitaph. Simply put, his ad revenue is back up because people want to put their name out there in front of the most people possible.
> Limbaugh makes that possible for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is what it's about as far as what I've posted, Ernie,* in contrast to the crap the Welsh Troll has been putting in my mouth.  That was the point there.
> 
> Obviously we go on tangents, but if you want to go back to the ad factor, it's your thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then YOU took it off topic. How DARE you accuse someone else who as you've said at one point hadn't contributed much substance to the thread.
Click to expand...


It's on the record, like it or not (here)  This was an exchange between myself and another poster.  Doesn't concern you.



Ernie S. said:


> Are you employing a Liberal debate tactic you learned at some Progressive summer camp or are you just that devoid of intellectual honesty?



Linked above.



Ernie S. said:


> Don't EVER come to my thread, go off on a tangent and accuse someone else of spamming. *EVER!*



What, you own the fucking board now?  Or just want to control what other people say?

Revealing, Ernie.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.
> 
> But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ì know you are.  Besides, as far as "last word" you know as well as I that when someone is wrong on the internet it's our duty to act
> 
> So again, since the same hosts are doing the same thing on the same stations years later, and only their syndicator has changed, that pretty much eliminates the content as the source of the failure.
> 
> Again, not that I place personally much faith at all in the format (never cared for it myself); just a simple exercise in logic.
> 
> Still, those leftward hosts' numbers do pale in comparison to Limblob's.  Not failing, but not setting the world on fire either.  I'd still love to explore the varying psychologies of right and left audiences and why one approach works with one but not with the other.  I'd posit that while the attack dog model works better for the right, the humor model works better for the left (e.g. Stewart, Colbert, Maher).
> 
> I'd like to go there, but this is Ernie's thread and if I take it off course he'll bite me.
> 
> I'll bring that to a new one sooner or later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has anyone here, other than you insultingly altered a media personality's name? Has any Conservative mentioned Rachel Madcow or Al Frankenstein?
> 
> Cool the ugliness in your rhetoric and you might be treated more kindly.
Click to expand...


Could you highlight this "ugliness" here?  I don't see it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Desperation, Foxy.  Doesn't suit you.  Every pun is "rooted in history".  Doesn't make it any less ad hominem.  Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip
> ...that Air America folded because of its internal business mismanagement.  Even your "side" has had to admit that, yet you guys go on as if it was connected to the ideology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Exactly! It folded because of a failed management plan that put vapid liberal blather on the radio opposite substance, experience and a message that people wanted to hear.
> Any pre-launch research would have pointed out that Liberals listen to Hip Hop and get their news from Jon Stewart.
> 
> So was it ideology? Meh, obama did win the last 2 elections, but what do you expect from an electorate half of whom get their news from a comedian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct.  And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).
> 
> Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?
Click to expand...


And not one of them went to a media outlet with ratings they can brag about, now did they?  Sure Rachel Maddow pulls a bigger audience than most of the hosts on MSNBC, but her ratings nowhere near equate with any of the Fox hosts.  In her time slot she edges out Piers Morgan on CNN but gets about 1/4th of the viewers that Hannity gets.  
Cable News Ratings for Thursday, June 6, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

Being the least loser of a bunch of losers is not something most of us would aspire to be.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If his ad revenue were back, Cumulous wouldn't be talking about dumping his ass from the top 40 markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust.  The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station.  Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.
Click to expand...


Of course he does; he _invented _the format.



Foxfyre said:


> And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up.  And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.
> 
> And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.



All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity.  Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.

This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology.  Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nobody who uses more humor than rightwing radio* or televison hosts.  But the liberal left doesn't see any humor in rightwing humor.  The conservative right doesn't see much humor in leftwing humor.  It's all relative.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:
> 
> mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress
> 
> long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types
> 
> Algore
> Former Vice President Al Gore.
> 
> Breck Girl
> John Edwards.
> 
> Dingy Harry
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
> 
> Dung Heap Harkin
> Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
> 
> Environmentalist wacko
> 
> Feminazi
> 
> Frenchurian Candidate, the
> 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
> 
> NAGs (National Association of Gals)
> National Organization for Women (NOW)
> 
> Nikita Dean
> Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
> 
> Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
> 
> Senator Dick Turban
> Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).
> 
> Senator Helmet Head
> Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
> 
> Bite Me
> VP Joe Biden
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conspicuous in its absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here.  The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem.  Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.
> 
> It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument.  But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads.  No question about that.
Click to expand...


Notice how the plodding ploddo offers no acknowledgement of what Err Amerika had to offer?



For a self-described expert, he sure doesn't know shit.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust.  The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station.  Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he does; he _invented _the format.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up.  And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.
> 
> And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity.  Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.
> 
> This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology.  Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.
Click to expand...


Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something.  So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.

If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.

Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance.  Rush provides the substance.  Air America did not.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation, Foxy.  Doesn't suit you.  Every pun is "rooted in history".  Doesn't make it any less ad hominem.  Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Exactly! It folded because of a failed management plan that put vapid liberal blather on the radio opposite substance, experience and a message that people wanted to hear.
> Any pre-launch research would have pointed out that Liberals listen to Hip Hop and get their news from Jon Stewart.
> 
> So was it ideology? Meh, obama did win the last 2 elections, but what do you expect from an electorate half of whom get their news from a comedian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct.  And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).
> 
> Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And not one of them went to a media outlet with ratings they can brag about, now did they?  Sure Rachel Maddow pulls a bigger audience than most of the hosts on MSNBC, but her ratings nowhere near equate with any of the Fox hosts.  In her time slot she edges out Piers Morgan on CNN but gets about 1/4th of the viewers that Hannity gets.
> Cable News Ratings for Thursday, June 6, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers
> 
> Being the least loser of a bunch of losers is not something most of us would aspire to be.
Click to expand...


It looks like again you're conflating "success" with _commercial _success.  Again, the latter is naught but a wad of money (or ratings); it's got nothing to do with _aesthetic _ (or educational) value.  If it did Bruce Springsteen could never sell a record. 

As for MSNBC,  I thought we were talking about *radio* here.  You don't want Ernie on your case...


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains that Rush leaves the competition behind in his dust.  The only one with comparable ratings is Sean Hannity and, while he has his own following, that is likely largely due to the fact that he immediately follows Rush in a lot of big markets and Rush's audience doesn't bother to change the station.  Even Sean acknowledges that Rush is #1 and has never been equalled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does; he _invented _the format.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as much as it galls the Left, and as Obama himself has now noted, every time they go after Rush or his advertisers, Rush's ratings spike way up.  And he no doubt gains some converts from those who tune in to see what all the bruhaha is about.
> 
> And regardless of their personal ideology, advertisers like to spend their dollars on ads that will be heard by as many people as possible, most especially in a demographic that would likely be interested in the ad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity.  Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.
> 
> This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology.  Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something.  So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.
Click to expand...


I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general.  I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.



Foxfyre said:


> If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.
> 
> Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance.  Rush provides the substance.  Air America did not.



Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.

I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was _necessary _to sell radio or TV.  Dog the Bounty Hunter?  Jerry Springer?  People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs?  Fake wrestling?....


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> For a *self-described expert*, he sure doesn't know shit.



Link?

How's that "dislike Rush" link from yesterday coming along btw?


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he does; he _invented _the format.
> 
> 
> 
> All true; again, no such thing as bad publicity.  Slutgate brought his ratings up too, which was the purpose of him doing it in the first place.
> 
> This is essentially what I've been saying the whole time about audience psychology.  Controversy draws interest, not ideologies or ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something.  So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general.  I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.
> 
> Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance.  Rush provides the substance.  Air America did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.
> 
> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was _necessary _to sell radio or TV.  Dog the Bounty Hunter?  Jerry Springer?  People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs?  Fake wrestling?....
Click to expand...


You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation?   And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you define humor as insults, you would be Right. Here is a tiny list of your MessiahRushie's favorite insults:
> 
> mind-numbed, know-nothing, bloated bigots acting as members of Congress
> 
> long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking FM types
> 
> Algore
> Former Vice President Al Gore.
> 
> Breck Girl
> John Edwards.
> 
> Dingy Harry
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
> 
> Dung Heap Harkin
> Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
> 
> Environmentalist wacko
> 
> Feminazi
> 
> Frenchurian Candidate, the
> 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
> 
> NAGs (National Association of Gals)
> National Organization for Women (NOW)
> 
> Nikita Dean
> Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
> 
> Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
> Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
> 
> Senator Dick Turban
> Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).
> 
> Senator Helmet Head
> Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
> 
> Bite Me
> VP Joe Biden
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conspicuous in their absence is the White House Dog, but the pattern can't be missed here.  The same as that stream of diarrhea from Ilar posted earlier; the old ad hominem.  Again, that's what I've meant describing 'attack dog radio'.
> 
> It manifests in these forums (often verbatim) and it's worthless as argument.  But it is emotional, and it does sell ears and ads.  No question about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call that 'attack radio?'   Please tell me you jest.  If you want to equate that with 'attack radio' I have REAMS of material to paint your guys with a much blacker brush.
> 
> And I would bet a good grilled cheese sandwich that you don't know the history behind and could not correctly define any of the "Rushisms" or why he humorously uses the characterizations he does.*  And I can assure you that there is a defnition and/or valid history behind each one.*
> 
> Did I find them all humorous?  No.  I don't appreciate anybody, left or right, who makes fun of physical characteristics of anybody and Rush can be as guilty of poor taste as anybody else in that regard.  And I've let h*im know it too.  But attacks?  No, that is not attack*.
Click to expand...

You sound just like your MessiahRushie defending calling Obama the derogatory "little squirrel." Here is his repeated use and denial and rationalization:

May 2, 2007
RUSH:  * I am not holding Obama up as an object of abuse. *

October 1, 2008
RUSH:   That's why blame's important,* Obama, you little squirrel.** That's why these things cannot be fixed without attaching blame! 

October 9, 2008
RUSH:*  I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.*

October 13, 2008
RUSH:   I'm not the one promising to raise your taxes;* the little squirrel Obama* is.

October 15, 2008
RUSH:     *What sharply personal attacks*?  All they are is people telling the truth about* the little squirrel.  What personal attacks? * "Well, see, Rush, there you go, *that's a personal attack right there."  No, no, no, no.  Not a personal attack * 

October 20, 2008
RUSH:  Biden says the world is going to test Obama.* What's it going to be, China taking Taiwan?* China taking North Korea?* Russia taking over a bordering country or two?* Israel being wiped off the map?* All the above?* What is it?* Biden's guaranteeing something like this.* He says it's a fair price for electing an inexperienced *squirrel* who wants ACORN to run our elections and can't wait to surrender in Iraq.** And remember, folks, a squirrel is just a rat with better PR. *


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Oh nozies. 

Rush has said mean things about The ONE!

No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, just pulling your chain, Pogo.
> 
> But seriously, if Air America had been able to generate any kind of steady market share and thereby attract advertisers, the scandals and shady operations would not have sunk them.   George Soros could have bought a few ads for Moveon.org and written it off as charity to bail them out of their financial woes entirely.  But even he saw the handwriting on the wall.  People did not want to listen to Bush and Republican bashing 24/7 and nothing much else and with no market share, no advertisers were going to keep it afloat.  Once Soros withdrew his support it was over.
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, is a load of bull. Air America could not get stations to carry its programs. Right-wing giants like Clear Channel and Cumulus would not air it. For example, in my area there are two stations that carry your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty but there were no stations that carried Air America so I never got the chance to even consider listening to it.
> 
> In the few markets where Air America got to compete with GOP hate radio they held their own and sometimes beat them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know all the numbers but I've heard this comparison here and there too-- "Ed Schultz beats Rush Limbaugh in city X" ... but the larger anecdote is a ponderable point: as the purveyor of a new idea, AirAmerica would have had an uphill battle convincing stations to put them online with an untested format.  The radio bidness, like bidness in general, is conservative and doesn't fall in easily with new ideas.
> 
> Of course once AA had its run and the attendant publicity, including that of its super-secret bankruptcy (no such thing as bad publicity), the idea was more proven and syndicators like Dial Global and Premiere took on the same hosts as clients.  Obviously they wouldn't have done that if the format itself, rather than the specific business, had failed.
Click to expand...


There is a limited market for some of the former Air America hosts, but how many stations does Randy Rhode's show air on?  32 plus XM.
Rush?About 1,000 if we include AFRN (unmonitored by Arbitron)
Arbitron estimates 3.6 million are listening to Limbaugh in any 15 minute period.
Rhodes' audience is probably closer to 100,000.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Oh nozies.
> 
> Rush has said mean things about The ONE!
> 
> No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!



Well Ed has had the hots for Rush for years now and loves to go to the most vile hate sites to pluck stuff off of to copy and paste.  He has yet to provide a single link to a source or put a single comment into its full context.  We can all go to hate sites where we can find almost anybody sayng anything about anybody and we can copy and paste them til the cows come home.

The Left especially likes to do that with somebody like Rush.  You'll notice Pogo, bless his heart, did not challenge my assertion that he could not accurately define the meaning of a single Rush-ism or put a single comment into context of the list he posted either.

Of course it wrecks threads and there is rarely a grain of truth to any of the mostly manufactured stuff they post, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't have the psychological degree or qualifications that you claim to judge why Rush does something.  So I'll leave that to your so much more compassionate and fair minded heart to evaluate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general.  I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If controversy without substance draws interest, Air America would have blown all the competition out of the water.
> 
> Controversy is always a media draw in all circumstances, but it must be based on substance.  Rush provides the substance.  Air America did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.
> 
> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was _necessary _to sell radio or TV.  Dog the Bounty Hunter?  Jerry Springer?  People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs?  Fake wrestling?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation?   And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.
Click to expand...


I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works.  Your defensiveness is the emotional part.

"Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say, 
" If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
-- that is a subjective analysis.  It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased.  IOW it's opinion, not fact.  Damn right that's subjective.  And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.

But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.



How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.  

Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?  

Really? 

Really? 

Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.  

He's costing them money, so he has to go.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is what it's about as far as what I've posted, Ernie,* in contrast to the crap the Welsh Troll has been putting in my mouth.  That was the point there.
> 
> Obviously we go on tangents, but if you want to go back to the ad factor, it's your thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then YOU took it off topic. How DARE you accuse someone else who as you've said at one point hadn't contributed much substance to the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's on the record, like it or not (here)  This was an exchange between myself and another poster.  Doesn't concern you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you employing a Liberal debate tactic you learned at some Progressive summer camp or are you just that devoid of intellectual honesty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't EVER come to my thread, go off on a tangent and accuse someone else of spamming. *EVER!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, you own the fucking board now?  *Or just want to control what other people say?*
> 
> Revealing, Ernie.
Click to expand...


Not at all! I never want to be associated with the words that tumble out of empty heads.
My problem is with someone who has the balls to take a conversation off topic and then accuse someone else of going off topic.
I rather enjoyed the diversion, but I recognize that it was, in fact a diversion.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That, of course, is a load of bull. Air America could not get stations to carry its programs. Right-wing giants like Clear Channel and Cumulus would not air it. For example, in my area there are two stations that carry your MessiahRushie and HanNITWITty but there were no stations that carried Air America so I never got the chance to even consider listening to it.
> 
> In the few markets where Air America got to compete with GOP hate radio they held their own and sometimes beat them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know all the numbers but I've heard this comparison here and there too-- "Ed Schultz beats Rush Limbaugh in city X" ... but the larger anecdote is a ponderable point: as the purveyor of a new idea, AirAmerica would have had an uphill battle convincing stations to put them online with an untested format.  The radio bidness, like bidness in general, is conservative and doesn't fall in easily with new ideas.
> 
> Of course once AA had its run and the attendant publicity, including that of its super-secret bankruptcy (no such thing as bad publicity), the idea was more proven and syndicators like Dial Global and Premiere took on the same hosts as clients.  Obviously they wouldn't have done that if the format itself, rather than the specific business, had failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a limited market for some of the former Air America hosts, but how many stations does Randy Rhode's show air on?  32 plus XM.
> *Rush?About 1,000 if we include AFRN (unmonitored by Arbitron)*
> Arbitron estimates 3.6 million are listening to Limbaugh in any 15 minute period.
> Rhodes' audience is probably closer to 100,000.
Click to expand...


Exactly 587 last time I counted, not including AFRN (A-farts has four hundred radio stations?)

Where are we going with this point?


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation, Foxy.  Doesn't suit you.  Every pun is "rooted in history".  Doesn't make it any less ad hominem.  Attacking the character instead of the issue is still attacking the character instead of the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, maybe I'm posting this in Greek, but the same ideology from the same hosts on the same shows is still on the air years after AA went defunct.  And as I pointed out to you waaaaay back, they're now syndicated by the same outfits that syndicate Limblob, Hannity and Dennis Miller (<<oh look, a comedian).
> 
> Since the ideology and the ideologues are a constant, that would eliminate the ideology as a source of failure, would it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not one of them went to a media outlet with ratings they can brag about, now did they?  Sure Rachel Maddow pulls a bigger audience than most of the hosts on MSNBC, but her ratings nowhere near equate with any of the Fox hosts.  In her time slot she edges out Piers Morgan on CNN but gets about 1/4th of the viewers that Hannity gets.
> Cable News Ratings for Thursday, June 6, 2013 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers
> 
> Being the least loser of a bunch of losers is not something most of us would aspire to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It looks like again you're conflating "success" with _commercial _success.  Again, the latter is naught but a wad of money (or ratings); it's got nothing to do with _aesthetic _ (or educational) value.  If it did Bruce Springsteen could never sell a record.
> 
> As for MSNBC,  I thought we were talking about *radio* here.  You don't want Ernie on your case...
Click to expand...

Are you going to accuse Foxfire of going off topic here, Possum?


----------



## Ernie S.

IlarMeilyr said:


> Oh nozies.
> 
> Rush has said mean things about The ONE!
> 
> No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!



He did unwittingly post the reason behind Limbaugh calling obama "squirrel".



> an inexperienced squirrel who wants ACORN to run our elections


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't analyze Rush personally so much as audience psychology in general.  I've been a student of this stuff all my life, including before I worked in the medium.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the first is your subjective evaluation; see the other points mentioned when we just did this, as well as Editech's point about outlets.
> 
> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was _necessary _to sell radio or TV.  Dog the Bounty Hunter?  Jerry Springer?  People stranded on a desert island forced to eat bugs?  Fake wrestling?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation?   And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works.  Your defensiveness is the emotional part.
> 
> "Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
> " If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
> -- that is a subjective analysis.  It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased.  IOW it's opinion, not fact.  Damn right that's subjective.  And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.
> 
> But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.
Click to expand...

Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.


> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You accuse Rush of generating ratings through sensationalism and then accuse ME of subjective evaluation?   And I have no idea what your media credentials are but you've gotten so much of what you've posted entirely wrong today, I have to believe I can out-credential you on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works.  Your defensiveness is the emotional part.
> 
> "Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
> " If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
> -- that is a subjective analysis.  It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased.  IOW it's opinion, not fact.  Damn right that's subjective.  And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.
> 
> But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.

Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.
> 
> Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.
> 
> He's costing them money, so he has to go.
Click to expand...

LINK


> Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are 43 times more likely to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]



And as to the Rush question.... I suppose you could read the link provided in the OP. If you have trouble with the big words, PM pogo. He knows everything.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works.  Your defensiveness is the emotional part.
> 
> "Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
> " If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
> -- that is a subjective analysis.  It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased.  IOW it's opinion, not fact.  Damn right that's subjective.  And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.
> 
> But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
> I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.
> 
> Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.
Click to expand...


Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> The talk about Rush leaving Cumulus predates the ad revenue report. AND, it was Rush threatening to leave because they made him, their biggest money maker the scapegoat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.
> 
> Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.
> 
> He's costing them money, so he has to go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are 43 times more likely to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as to the Rush question.... I suppose you could read the link provided in the OP. If you have trouble with the big words, PM pogo. He knows everything.
Click to expand...


See, now there you go spreading the same rumor.

If I knew everything I'd know what the hell this "Kellerman study" is.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "accuse" anyone; I'm just describing how it works.  Your defensiveness is the emotional part.
> 
> "Subjective evaluation" is fairly simple; when you say,
> " If fear mongering, hate mongering, emotionalism, drama, loathing, conspiracy theories, etc. sold, Air America would have been a HUGE success. That is absolutely all they offered. "
> -- that is a subjective analysis.  It can't be quantified; at this point it's a fuzzy memory of an impression based on your own evaluation which is and was, you'll admit, biased.  IOW it's opinion, not fact.  Damn right that's subjective.  And as such it can't be leaned upon as a basis for a conclusion.
> 
> But hey, like yesterday's missing "out of context" kerfuffle, you're welcome to specify what I got "wrong" here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't agree with the second; I've never seen a case where substance was necessary to sell radio or TV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
> I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.
> 
> Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.
Click to expand...


Oh and I'm thinking Illar didn't run away to lick his supposed wounds. I'm thinking he's looking for something for the pain from the ribs he bruised, laughing.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
> I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.
> 
> Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.
Click to expand...


I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true.  I never said that makes me an "expert".  That's not how I roll. 

Fallacy of Assumption?


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does it work, you guys just ignore published news accounts and make up your own reality.
> 
> Kellerman denounced his own study and Rush isn't getting fired, he's quitting?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Cumulous is a business, and Rush has forgotten that his job is to make businesses money.
> 
> He's costing them money, so he has to go.
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> 
> 
> Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are 43 times more likely to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer,[6] J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck,[7] Don Kates, and others.[8]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as to the Rush question.... I suppose you could read the link provided in the OP. If you have trouble with the big words, PM pogo. He knows everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, now there you go spreading the same rumor.
> 
> If I knew everything I'd know what the hell this "Kellerman study" is.
Click to expand...


There ya go! Get with Joe. He can explain Kellerman while you help him figure out how to follow and read a link.


----------



## edthecynic

IlarMeilyr said:


> Oh nozies.
> 
> Rush has said mean things about The ONE!
> 
> No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!


At least you admit your MessiahRushie was saying mean things in your attempted diversion from the claim that he was "humorous" rather than vicious which I was rebutting. Calling someone a "rat" is not humor.
Thank you.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subjective, is it not? That is what your whole argument has been. You claim to be a radio expert (unsubstantiated) and offer that as some authority. Sorry Possum. Not buying it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
> I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.
> 
> Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh and I'm thinking Illar didn't run away to lick his supposed wounds. I'm thinking he's looking for something for the pain from the ribs he bruised, laughing.
Click to expand...


Who knows.  We'll see what he comes back with, at which time I look forward to the usual...


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
> I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.
> 
> Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true.  I never said that makes me an "expert".  That's not how I roll.
> 
> Fallacy of Assumption?
Click to expand...

Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never called myself an "expert".  That was again the masked troll putting words in my mouth.  I think I told you about him earlier.
> I challenged him to back it up and he ran away to lick his wounds.  Again.
> 
> Buy it or not, all I can do is offer the points.  Like any point, the way to refute it is with contrary evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and I'm thinking Illar didn't run away to lick his supposed wounds. I'm thinking he's looking for something for the pain from the ribs he bruised, laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who knows.  We'll see what he comes back with, at which time I look forward to the usual...
Click to expand...


It may bore you, but in my opinion, the few times he actually addressed substance, he buried you.

Yes that is subjective, but your support here is Joe B(igot)666.


----------



## Ernie S.

I'm taking a break. Need caffeine.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong! Early in the discussion you claimed years of Radio experience, thereby claiming expertise. Help me out here, Foxy. Name that fallacy. Kind of a roundabout Appeal To Authority, as I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true.  I never said that makes me an "expert".  That's not how I roll.
> 
> Fallacy of Assumption?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.
Click to expand...


That's not what an Argument from Authority fallacy is.

Appeal to Authority (as a fallacy) means the arguer _*falsely* _identifies himself as an authority.  Not that he *is* one.  If the latter were the case, qualifications would have no meaning, there could never be an expert witness in court, and no study could be legitimate.


----------



## Ernie S.

Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh nozies.
> 
> Rush has said mean things about The ONE!
> 
> No wonder ploddo and edthesickdick are having the vapors!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Ed has had the hots for Rush for years now and* loves to go to the most vile hate sites to pluck stuff off of to copy and paste.  He has yet to provide a single link to a source or put a single comment into its full context.  We can all go to hate sites where we can find almost anybody sayng anything about anybody and we can copy and paste them til the cows come home.*
> 
> The Left especially likes to do that with somebody like Rush.  You'll notice Pogo, bless his heart, did not challenge my assertion that he could not accurately define the meaning of a single Rush-ism or put a single comment into context of the list he posted either.
> 
> Of course it wrecks threads and there is rarely a grain of truth to any of the mostly manufactured stuff they post, but hey, everybody needs a hobby.
Click to expand...

As you have been programmed by your MessiahRushie, you have been telling this same LIE for years, and for years I have been challenging you to link to these hate sites. You haven't because you can't because the only hate site I get my quotes from is your MessiahRushie's.

It is piss easy to confirm this, simply take my quote and put it in quotation marks and google it and you will find every site that has posted the quote. You won't because then you would have to admit you are wrong and it is so much easier to keep on lying.

Here is a good test. This is a quote I have been using for years and if you google it you will find that it has been used by ME, your MessiahRushie, and sites parroting him or me. No Daily Kos, no MediaMatters, no Democratic Underground, no Think Progress, etc. Just MessiahRushie and me and people agreeing with either of us.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: * Mark my brilliant words on this. * That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. * The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor. *

March 01, 2012
RUSH:  *To put it bluntly, dumb people are too dumb to know it." It's a blessing! *You know, the worst thing would be to be dumb and to know it -- and* there's evidence all over that the dumb do not know they're dumb. *

"The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" - Google Search


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> You'll notice Pogo, bless his heart, did not challenge my assertion that he could not accurately define the meaning of a single Rush-ism or put a single comment into context of the list he posted either.


First of all, I posted the list and then I gave your MessiahRushie's rationalization for calling Obama a little squirrel, a squirrel is a rat with better PR.

Here is another, his rationalization for perverting Cuomo's name, using it to attack Jackson's speech patterns. He actually calls his insults an "act of compassion," and you are probably vile enough to agree with him and defend him.

April 1, 2008
RUSH: New York governor Mario *Cooomo* who was on -- where was this? -- The Situation Room.* For those of you new to the program, "Rush, it's Cuo-mo."  I know that.*  But a long time ago,* I heard the Reverend Jackson pronounce his name "Cooomo."  You know, it's not stylish and it's not classy to correct somebody's pronunciation* of things, especially when the mistake is made by a man of the cloth and a respected, revered Rev. * So if he thinks it's Cooomo, then on this program, it's Cooomo, and that is an act of compassion.*


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.



I don't post my personal info on the internets, so that level of detail is not gonna happen.

It comes down to whether you believe me about my experience or not (have I ever lied to you?).

To produce an Argument from Authority *fallacy*, your job is to prove I'm lying about that experience.  If you simply don't accept my word, then you don't accept my authority, that's all there is to it.  But you *haven't* proven a fallacy.  To do that you must prove a negative.

But it's interesting that Foxy's authority gets accepted on her say-so and mine doesn't.


Appeal to Authority outlined here

(/offtopic)


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post my personal info on the internets, so that level of detail is not gonna happen.
> 
> It comes down to whether you believe me about my experience or not (have I ever lied to you?).
> 
> To produce an Argument from Authority *fallacy*, your job is to prove I'm lying about that experience.  If you simply don't accept my word, then you don't accept my authority, that's all there is to it.  But you *haven't* proven a fallacy.  To do that you must prove a negative.
> 
> But it's interesting that Foxy's authority gets accepted on her say-so and mine doesn't.
> 
> 
> Appeal to Authority outlined here
> 
> (/offtopic)
Click to expand...


It's because I'm special.  And make a better snckerdoodle.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Substantiate your experience, or you have none. As I said above, it's a "roundabout Appeal to Authority" I asked Foxy for clarification because I accept her as an expert, because she has backed up her claims with factual information, not subjective opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't post my personal info on the internets, so that level of detail is not gonna happen.
> 
> It comes down to whether you believe me about my experience or not (have I ever lied to you?).
> 
> To produce an Argument from Authority *fallacy*, your job is to prove I'm lying about that experience.  If you simply don't accept my word, then you don't accept my authority, that's all there is to it.  But you *haven't* proven a fallacy.  To do that you must prove a negative.
> 
> But it's interesting that Foxy's authority gets accepted on her say-so and mine doesn't.
> 
> 
> Appeal to Authority outlined here
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's because I'm special.  And make a better snckerdoodle.
Click to expand...


OK, ya got me on that.  I concede.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a couple of dozen years' experience in radio, true.  I never said that makes me an "expert".  That's not how I roll.
> 
> Fallacy of Assumption?
> 
> 
> 
> Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what an Argument from Authority fallacy is.
> 
> Appeal to Authority (as a fallacy) means the arguer _*falsely* _identifies himself as an authority.  Not that he *is* one.  If the latter were the case, qualifications would have no meaning, there could never be an expert witness in court, and no study could be legitimate.
Click to expand...


No.  Appeal to authority is using your or somebody's credentials to support a point of view.  If you are indeed an authority on the statement you make or if somebody else of authority can support the statement based on education or other qualifications, then there is no logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy comes in when you cite your media experience as your authority for being able to judge Rush Limbaugh's motives for creating a controversy, specifically the Sandra Fluke bruhaha.  (Which brings us back to the content of the OP.)  And you did do that.

First it is absurd to think that Rush intentionally would upset his advertisers and/or listeners with a truly offensive politically incorrect analogy.  Once he got into it, he was stuck, and he did apologize for it later.  But as Glenn Beck said in his defense of his nemesis, Liz Winstead, when she made an off the cuff offensive remark, there are none of us who have not made an extemporaneous comment in jest that we would like to take back.  He defended Jeremy Linn for a sporting 'racial slur' in the same way.

In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut.  His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'.  And in the process it came out sounding like he had  targeted Fluke.   It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts.  But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse,  fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack.  Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up Appeal to Authority. You set yourself up as an authority by virtue of some 20 years experience then voiced opinions based on that experience. You don't need to call yourself an expert. The mere mention of vast experience is enough to influence others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what an Argument from Authority fallacy is.
> 
> Appeal to Authority (as a fallacy) means the arguer _*falsely* _identifies himself as an authority.  Not that he *is* one.  If the latter were the case, qualifications would have no meaning, there could never be an expert witness in court, and no study could be legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Appeal to authority is using your or somebody's credentials to support a point of view.  If you are indeed an authority on the statement you make or if somebody else of authority can support the statement based on education or other qualifications, then there is no logical fallacy.
> 
> The logical fallacy comes in when you cite your media experience as your authority for being able to judge Rush Limbaugh's motives for creating a controversy, specifically the Sandra Fluke bruhaha.  (Which brings us back to the content of the OP.)  And you did do that.
Click to expand...


No, I don't believe I did, but feel free to link or quote... in any case that does not make the fallacy, because the experience is still valid, if irrelevant.  That's merely speculation.
Nice try, but the fallacy is committed when the opiner *mis*represents the qualifications of that authority.  And that hasn't been touched.



Foxfyre said:


> First it is absurd to think that Rush intentionally would upset his advertisers and/or listeners with a truly offensive politically incorrect analogy.  Once he got into it, he was stuck, and he did apologize for it later.  But as Glenn Beck said in his defense of his nemesis, Liz Winstead, when she made an off the cuff offensive remark, there are none of us who have not made an extemporaneous comment in jest that we would like to take back.  He defended Jeremy Linn for a sporting 'racial slur' in the same way.
> 
> In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut.  His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'.  And in the process it came out sounding like he had  targeted Fluke.   It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts.  But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse,  fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack.  Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.



We could get into the whole Flukegate three-day orgy but again I'd rather not get tangented off into details of content.  But in any case you've just committed the same "fallacy" you attributed to me, i.e. purporting to speak for what's in Rush's mind.  Actually you took it a lot farther; my assessment was simply as regards the dynamics of radio, and I took my cue from David Frum's article and general buzz in the industry.  I don't really care what the personal motivations are; I wrote about the radio effect.

But it's not a "fallacy" anyway; it's just two people speculating about a third party's motivations.   That's all opinion, so by definition neither true nor false.

Now where's zem snickerdoodles...


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Fox:

Don't you see it yet?

You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.

It's simply not in him.


----------



## edthecynic

Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fox:
> 
> Don't you see it yet?
> 
> You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.
> 
> It's simply not in him.



Oh Emm Gee.  I'm devastated.  Clearly owned, dead and buried by this irrefutable cache of counterpoints that have dismantled everything I've posted.  My head swims.


----------



## Pogo

edthecynic said:


> Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.



She avoids some of mine too.  I'll invite her to demonstrate a complaint and then... crickets.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

edthecynic said:


> Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.



When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.

If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."

But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer.  Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize he meant to say "The vast majority of '*greenhouse gasses*' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor."  That is:  YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."  

 Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere.  And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox:
> 
> Don't you see it yet?
> 
> You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.
> 
> It's simply not in him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Emm Gee.  I'm devastated.  Clearly owned, dead and buried by this irrefutable cache of counterpoints that have dismantled everything I've posted.  My head swims.
Click to expand...


Your head swims alright.

But it's a more natural process.

You are simply an idiot.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fox:
> 
> Don't you see it yet?
> 
> You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.
> 
> It's simply not in him.



No.  I have confidence that we ARE getting honesty out of my friend, Pogo.  But honesty and accuracy are two separate things.  One can be completely honest in his/her convictions and be wrong as white tennis shoes with a black tuxedo at a wedding.   I'm sure in his mind he is telling it like it is.  I could go back through the posts and really get after him for stuff he said and now denies he said, but what would that accomplish?  He has put up a good debate.  Much MUCH better than the average leftist on this board.  And I don't expect anybody left of Chairman Mao to agree with me.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox:
> 
> Don't you see it yet?
> 
> You'll never get honesty out of ploddo.
> 
> It's simply not in him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  I have confidence that we ARE getting honesty out of my friend, Pogo.  But honesty and accuracy are two separate things.  One can be completely honest in his/her convictions and be wrong as white tennis shoes with a black tuxedo at a wedding.   I'm sure in his mind he is telling it like it is.  I could go back through the posts and really get after him for stuff he said and now denies he said, but what would that accomplish?  He has put up a good debate.  Much MUCH better than the average leftist on this board.  And I don't expect anybody left of Chairman Mao to agree with me.
Click to expand...


Aw shucks.
And the same can be said of you, Foxy. 

You too Ernie. 
Ernie? 
Oh, he's on garden duty...


----------



## edthecynic

IlarMeilyr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.
> 
> If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."
> 
> But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer.  Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize *he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor."*  That is:  YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."
> 
> Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere.  And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't click on the google search which would have given you the link to his site where you would have seen the whole rant was about CO2. The whole rant started over a CO2 tax on grilling:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut!  It's time for a global warming update.  Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.  

(Playing of "What a Horrible World" Global Warming Update parody song.)  

RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.  

(Continued playing of song.)  

RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth.  All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. * First from Brussels, Belgium: *"The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.  *Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. *Beginning June 2007," that's this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, "residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.  


Then he goes into his CO2 from H2O rant never once bringing up any other greenhouse gas:

RUSH:  So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax -- and mark my words, there's some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea.  You mark my words on this.

We're going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time -- and it's going to become a crisis.* Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this.  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.* Some of it comes from our exhaling.  That's what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live!  It's a brilliant set up by God.  So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution.  Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!

But even at that, manmade CO2 -- even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks -- accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Yet there's Gore's movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It's being blocked out and we're going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn't be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe?  I'm not talking about you people have hangovers.  That maybe another matter.  I'm just saying, this is absurd.  You just watch. It isn't going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills... They'll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT


----------



## midcan5

CrusaderFrank said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The draft dodger is back - there must be a joke hidden in there somewhere. From the doctors? From the drugs? From the pain?  Oh the pain!  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe "5 deferments" Biden
> 
> [ad removed]
Click to expand...


Let's see if we can figure out the reasoning behind this reply.  If faced with any wrongdoing or criticism mentioning the fact that another did the same action dismisses the original claim. So if accused of some crime, the perpetrator need not prove their innocence, they simply have to note a similar incident or multiple incidents and that explains away the wrong? Didn't mom say something about this long ago? Maybe moms have changed, you think?  

But suppose for the sake of argument we too engage in this rather weak analogous equivalency excuse. Aside from being a draft dodger, Rush was also a drug addict, a two time loser at the altar, and a purchaser of extravagant foreign cars. This being the case, the interlocutor must now find a suitable analogous draft dodger with similar qualities should this form of repartee be considered substantive. So with this said, it would seem Rush was not a perfect asshole. Ah, I knew there was a joke in there somewhere. 

FN: Pretentious tone and language dutifully noted. Foreign car thrown in as irrelevant aside.


----------



## JoeB131

Foxfyre said:


> [
> 
> In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut.  His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'.  And in the process it came out sounding like he had  targeted Fluke.   It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts.  But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse,  fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack.  Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.



Seriously...  He went on about her for THREE DAYS before his sponsors started bailing out. 


Republican National Convention Blog: Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on Sandra Fluke VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Here's what he said, for those playing along at home. 


RUSH: _*What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.*_

Now, let's review the fallacies in that statement.  

Limbaugh apparently thinks that the amount of birth control you need to take is conditional on how much sex you are having. 

He also seems to think that she wants others to pay for it, when in fact SHE was the one who was paying Georgetown $30,000 a year for tuition that included medical coverage for students. 

If he had been paying attention to what her testimony was, she was SPECIFICALLY talking about a fellow student who had ovarian cysts and needed birth control pills to treat that, but couldn't get a prescription because the Religious Assholes who  run Georgetown thinks that offends their Imaginary Sky Man. 

Rush is a mean-spirited person by nature.  Frankly, you can tell the man has serious issues with women.  He's on Fake Marriage number 4.  He flies down to the Dominican Republic (notorious for prostitution and sex tourism) with a bottle of Viagra.


----------



## Toro

I used to listen to Rush. I have no doubt he meant to call her a slut. 

He's lowlife scum.


----------



## JoeB131

A final note.  

There actually was a valid policy question on the table with all things Fluke.  

Should the government require religious employers to provide birth control or any other treatment that violates their religious beliefs.  Personally, I think they should. Once they've engaged in commerce beyond religion, they become just like any other employer.  

But I can see a completely valid argument being made on the other side.  

Unfortunately, Rush obliterated that valid argument.  It became about his misogyny, and Romney couldn't really argue the point with Obama without the Media happily hanging Limbaugh around his neck.  

(Of course, the Weird Mormon Robot had his own problems, in that his Health Care program already mandated family planning and he supported abortion rights all the  way up to the Mid-Oughts. BUt I digress.)


----------



## IlarMeilyr

JoeB131 said:


> A final note.
> 
> There actually was a valid policy question on the table with all things Fluke.
> 
> Should the government require religious employers to provide birth control or any other treatment that violates their religious beliefs.  Personally, I think they should. Once they've engaged in commerce beyond religion, they become just like any other employer.
> 
> But I can see a completely valid argument being made on the other side.
> 
> Unfortunately, Rush obliterated that valid argument.  It became about his misogyny, and Romney couldn't really argue the point with Obama without the Media happily hanging Limbaugh around his neck.
> 
> * * * *



I rarely agree with anything Joey ^ says, but strangely enough, I think Rush did drop the ball on the Fluke thing.  

The reaction was, of course, quite out of proportion to the offense.  That's the problem with being a lightning rod like Rush is.  The liberal opponents can always use anything he says which is even  slightly intemperate into something useful with which to deflect the conversation.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

edthecynic said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how Foxy is avoiding both my post and my challenge, but rest assured she will repeat her lie in another thread that I get my quotes from somewhere other than his own hate site's transcripts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.
> 
> If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."
> 
> But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer.  Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize *he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor."*  That is:  YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."
> 
> Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere.  And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously didn't click on the google search which would have given you the link to his site where you would have seen the whole rant was about CO2. The whole rant started over a CO2 tax on grilling:
> 
> BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
> RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut!  It's time for a global warming update.  Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.
> 
> (Playing of "What a Horrible World" Global Warming Update parody song.)
> 
> RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> (Continued playing of song.)
> 
> RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth.  All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. * First from Brussels, Belgium: *"The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.  *Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. *Beginning June 2007," that's this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, "residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
> 
> 
> Then he goes into his CO2 from H2O rant never once bringing up any other greenhouse gas:
> 
> RUSH:  So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax -- and mark my words, there's some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea.  You mark my words on this.
> 
> We're going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time -- and it's going to become a crisis.* Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this.  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.* Some of it comes from our exhaling.  That's what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live!  It's a brilliant set up by God.  So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution.  Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!
> 
> But even at that, manmade CO2 -- even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks -- accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Yet there's Gore's movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It's being blocked out and we're going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn't be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe?  I'm not talking about you people have hangovers.  That maybe another matter.  I'm just saying, this is absurd.  You just watch. It isn't going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills... They'll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Click to expand...



Nice wall of words.

And no, I generally don't bother clicking _your_ links.

It doesn't matter; you still miss the point.

He may have been talking about CO2, but the "majority of the atmosphere" comment was clearly a reference instead to greenhouse gasses.

You'd have an argument to make if it weren't true that water vapor IS the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere.  But to the extent the whacks on your side insist on calling water vapor a "gas," well then it *is* what it is:  the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere.


----------



## edthecynic

IlarMeilyr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you post your usual wall of words, edthesickdick, it is easy to overlook the one or two minor points you might toss into the stew that have some hint of merit.
> 
> If you are capable of posting a simple declarative sentence, state your "challenge."
> 
> But I gotta tell ya up front, when you "quote" crap like, "The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor" you clearly don't have anything much to offer.  Obviously, even a dolt like you must realize *he meant to say "The vast majority of 'greenhouse gasses' that[ are] in the atmosphere [come] from water vapor."*  That is:  YOU idiots call water vapor a "greenhouse gas" and then proceed to make grandiose statements about man-made global warming PREMISED on "greenhouse gasses."
> 
> Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse "gas" [your choice of terminology, by the way] in the atmosphere.  And -- uhm -- humans didn't put it there.
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't click on the google search which would have given you the link to his site where you would have seen the whole rant was about CO2. The whole rant started over a CO2 tax on grilling:
> 
> BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
> RUSH: Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut!  It's time for a global warming update.  Algore once again is portrayed vocally here by Paul Shanklin.
> 
> (Playing of "What a Horrible World" Global Warming Update parody song.)
> 
> RUSH: The EIB Network here, Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> (Continued playing of song.)
> 
> RUSH: I wonder if we could convince the schools to play that song after they screen that lying piece of propaganda, An Inconvenient Truth.  All right, we have big news in the global warming update today. * First from Brussels, Belgium: *"The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.  *Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. *Beginning June 2007," that's this year, for those of you in Rio Linda, "residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
> 
> 
> Then he goes into his CO2 from H2O rant never once bringing up any other greenhouse gas:
> 
> RUSH:  So barbecues in Belgium will now be monitored by helicopters for compliance with a new tax -- and mark my words, there's some commie libs in this country who are gonna think this is a fabulous idea.  You mark my words on this.
> 
> We're going to get stories on have everybody in southern California alone, lit up the charcoal briquettes at the same time on Friday and Saturday afternoon, the amount of pollution, global warming pollution put in the sky at the same time -- and it's going to become a crisis.* Barbecuing will become a crisis. Mark my brilliant words on this.  That's how this stuff starts.  Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant?  Is it an air pollutant?  Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant.  The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.* Some of it comes from our exhaling.  That's what we exhale, and guess what, the trees and the greens and the grasses need it to live, and then they breathe in the carbon dioxide and they convert it to oxygen, and we can live!  It's a brilliant set up by God.  So what we do in our natural existence, exhale, is now creating pollution.  Now, folks, if you're going to buy into this, there's no hope for you. There's literally no hope for you!
> 
> But even at that, manmade CO2 -- even with all the SUVs, even with all the smoke stacks -- accounts for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Yet there's Gore's movie with this expanding envelope of CO2 choking, swallowing up planet earth, while the sun becomes less and less significant! It's being blocked out and we're going to die, and the polar bears are going to die and Greenland is going to melt, and Manhattan is going to be flooded (which wouldn't be a bad idea), and all other sorts of calamities are going to happen, all because you do this (exhales). Now, do you actually believe that you are polluting when you breathe?  I'm not talking about you people have hangovers.  That maybe another matter.  I'm just saying, this is absurd.  You just watch. It isn't going to be long before we get these detailed studies of how just in southern California, or someplace where they do a lot of barbecuing, if anybody lit up their grills... They'll probably have stagger the days. You can barbecue on even and odd numbered days based on your license plate.
> BREAK TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nice wall of words.
> 
> And no, I generally don't bother clicking _your_ links.
> 
> It doesn't matter; you still miss the point.
> 
> He may have been talking about CO2, but *the "majority of the atmosphere" comment* was clearly a reference instead to greenhouse gasses.
> 
> You'd have an argument to make if it weren't true that water vapor IS the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere.  But to the extent the whacks on your side insist on calling water vapor a "gas," well then it *is* what it is:  the predominant "greenhouse 'gas'" in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Except the pathological liar did not say the "majority of the atmosphere." He said "The vast majority of CO2 *that's in* the atmosphere comes from water vapor" So clearly he is only talking about CO2. The  is too stupid to know that not one molecule of CO2 in the UNIVERSE came from H2O. Admit it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

edthecynic said:


> * * * *
> Except the pathological liar did not say the "majority of the atmosphere." He said "The vast majority of CO2 *that's in* the atmosphere comes from water vapor" So clearly he is only talking about CO2. The  is too stupid to know that not one molecule of CO2 in the UNIVERSE came from H2O. Admit it.



You remain an obtuse dullard.  Nobody is disputing that he used the wrong terminology, you dipshit.

What I SAID was that he obviously MEANT that water vapor was the largest component of the so-called "greenhouse 'gasses'" in our atmosphere.

Again, sticking your head in the sand to avoid what he obviously meant by harkening back to the very misstatement is proof that you come to the table empty handed, as usual.

By the way, why are the AGW Faith-based morons like you so concerned with the "carbon" form of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases?  What has a greater impact on allegedly "trapping" heat in the atmosphere?  The relatively trace amounts of CO2 or the relatively enormous amounts of water vapor?

But you goobers go after carbon.  Hm.

It never dawns on you that the real agenda has nothing to do with so-called AGW climate change?  It can't penetrate your impervious skull that the real agenda is purely economic?


----------



## edthecynic

IlarMeilyr said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> Except the pathological liar did not say the "majority of the atmosphere." He said "The vast majority of CO2 *that's in* the atmosphere comes from water vapor" So clearly he is only talking about CO2. The  is too stupid to know that not one molecule of CO2 in the UNIVERSE came from H2O. Admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remain an obtuse dullard.  Nobody is disputing that he used the wrong terminology, you dipshit.
> 
> What I SAID was that he obviously MEANT that water vapor was the largest component of the so-called "greenhouse 'gasses'" in our atmosphere.
> 
> Again, sticking your head in the sand to avoid what he obviously meant by harkening back to the very misstatement is proof that you come to the table empty handed, as usual.
> 
> By the way, why are the AGW Faith-based morons like you so concerned with the "carbon" form of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases?  What has a greater impact on allegedly "trapping" heat in the atmosphere?  The relatively trace amounts of CO2 or the relatively enormous amounts of water vapor?
> 
> But you goobers go after carbon.  Hm.
> 
> It never dawns on you that the real agenda has nothing to do with so-called AGW climate change?  It can't penetrate your impervious skull that the real agenda is purely economic?
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you are too dishonest to admit the truth. The dunce meant what he said. He only mentioned water vapor to say where CO2 came from. It was a stupid statement, not a misstatement. The idiot claims to know more about science than anyone who disagrees with him.

May 29, 2012
RUSH:  * People like me have more scientific knowledge than the average advocate of global warming.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeBigot666 said:
			
		

> A final note.



One can only hope.


----------



## Foxfyre

JoeB131 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut.  His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'.  And in the process it came out sounding like he had  targeted Fluke.   It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts.  But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse,  fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack.  Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously...  He went on about her for THREE DAYS before his sponsors started bailing out.
> 
> 
> Republican National Convention Blog: Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on Sandra Fluke VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Here's what he said, for those playing along at home.
> 
> 
> RUSH: _*What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.*_
> 
> Now, let's review the fallacies in that statement.
> 
> Limbaugh apparently thinks that the amount of birth control you need to take is conditional on how much sex you are having.
> 
> He also seems to think that she wants others to pay for it, when in fact SHE was the one who was paying Georgetown $30,000 a year for tuition that included medical coverage for students.
> 
> If he had been paying attention to what her testimony was, she was SPECIFICALLY talking about a fellow student who had ovarian cysts and needed birth control pills to treat that, but couldn't get a prescription because the Religious Assholes who  run Georgetown thinks that offends their Imaginary Sky Man.
> 
> Rush is a mean-spirited person by nature.  Frankly, you can tell the man has serious issues with women.  He's on Fake Marriage number 4.  He flies down to the Dominican Republic (notorious for prostitution and sex tourism) with a bottle of Viagra.
Click to expand...


You can rationalize it all you want.  Nobody is defending the way Rush said it.  I sure haven't.  But I can cut Rush some slack that it was not his intent to call her a slut but it was his intent to illustrate the absurdity and impropriety of wanting somebody else to pay for your contraceptives so you can have all the sex you want.

Rush's personal life or however much you folks judge him re his human failings--the left is soooooo compassionate in that way aren't they?--has absolutely zero to do with the thread topic or the Sandra Fluke flap.  But then I have long lamented that those on the left seem to have zero ability to focus on and separate a concept from personalities, political parties, ideologies.

Sandra Fluke's whole schtick before Congress is that women could not afford their contraceptives and she wanted Congress to force somebody to furnish contraceptives to them free regardless of the personal convictions of anybody.   That was it in a nutshell.  And it was THAT which Rush, however awkwardly, inelegantly, crudely, insultingly, politically incorrectly was addressing.  And Rush stayed on the story for days because it was front page news for days.

And though they NEVER picket or express outrage or attempt to coerce advertisers of anybody on the Left who says something stupid and offensive, the Left rushed headlong to use this as a means to hurt Rush as much as possible, destroy him if they could.

And it backfired on the Left.

And I enjoyed it very much that it backfired as I saw what they did as far, far more offensive and repugnant than Rush's comment.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut.  His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'.  And in the process it came out sounding like he had  targeted Fluke.   It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts.  But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse,  fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack.  Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously...  He went on about her for THREE DAYS before his sponsors started bailing out.
> 
> 
> Republican National Convention Blog: Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on Sandra Fluke VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Here's what he said, for those playing along at home.
> 
> 
> RUSH: _*What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.*_
> 
> Now, let's review the fallacies in that statement.
> 
> Limbaugh apparently thinks that the amount of birth control you need to take is conditional on how much sex you are having.
> 
> He also seems to think that she wants others to pay for it, when in fact SHE was the one who was paying Georgetown $30,000 a year for tuition that included medical coverage for students.
> 
> If he had been paying attention to what her testimony was, she was SPECIFICALLY talking about a fellow student who had ovarian cysts and needed birth control pills to treat that, but couldn't get a prescription because the Religious Assholes who  run Georgetown thinks that offends their Imaginary Sky Man.
> 
> Rush is a mean-spirited person by nature.  Frankly, you can tell the man has serious issues with women.  He's on Fake Marriage number 4.  He flies down to the Dominican Republic (notorious for prostitution and sex tourism) with a bottle of Viagra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want.  Nobody is defending the way Rush said it.  I sure haven't.  But I can cut Rush some slack that it was not his intent to call her a slut but it was his intent to illustrate the absurdity and impropriety of wanting somebody else to pay for your contraceptives so you can have all the sex you want.
> 
> Rush's personal life or however much you folks judge him re his human failings--the left is soooooo compassionate in that way aren't they?--that has absolutely zero to do with the thread topic or the Sandra Fluke flap.  But then I have long lamented that those on the left seem to have zero ability to focus on and separate a concept from personalities, political parties, ideologies.
> 
> Sandra Fluke's whole schtick before Congress is that women could not afford their contraceptives and she wanted Congress to force somebody to furnish contraceptives to them free regardless of the personal convictions of anybody.   That was it in a nutshell.  And it was THAT which Rush, however awkwardly, inelegantly, crudely, insultingly, politically incorrectly was addressing.  And Rush stayed on the story for days because it was front page news for days.
> 
> And though they NEVER picket or express outrage or attempt to coerce advertisers of anybody on the Left who says something stupid and offensive, the Left rushed headlong to use this as a means to hurt Rush as much as possible, destroy him if they could.
> 
> And it backfired on the Left.
> 
> And I enjoyed it very much that it backfired as I saw what they did as far, far more offensive and repugnant than Rush's comment.
Click to expand...



Whew.  That there post makes me hungry.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously...  He went on about her for THREE DAYS before his sponsors started bailing out.
> 
> 
> Republican National Convention Blog: Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on Sandra Fluke VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Here's what he said, for those playing along at home.
> 
> 
> RUSH: _*What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.*_
> 
> Now, let's review the fallacies in that statement.
> 
> Limbaugh apparently thinks that the amount of birth control you need to take is conditional on how much sex you are having.
> 
> He also seems to think that she wants others to pay for it, when in fact SHE was the one who was paying Georgetown $30,000 a year for tuition that included medical coverage for students.
> 
> If he had been paying attention to what her testimony was, she was SPECIFICALLY talking about a fellow student who had ovarian cysts and needed birth control pills to treat that, but couldn't get a prescription because the Religious Assholes who  run Georgetown thinks that offends their Imaginary Sky Man.
> 
> Rush is a mean-spirited person by nature.  Frankly, you can tell the man has serious issues with women.  He's on Fake Marriage number 4.  He flies down to the Dominican Republic (notorious for prostitution and sex tourism) with a bottle of Viagra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want.  Nobody is defending the way Rush said it.  I sure haven't.  But I can cut Rush some slack that it was not his intent to call her a slut but it was his intent to illustrate the absurdity and impropriety of wanting somebody else to pay for your contraceptives so you can have all the sex you want.
> 
> Rush's personal life or however much you folks judge him re his human failings--the left is soooooo compassionate in that way aren't they?--that has absolutely zero to do with the thread topic or the Sandra Fluke flap.  But then I have long lamented that those on the left seem to have zero ability to focus on and separate a concept from personalities, political parties, ideologies.
> 
> Sandra Fluke's whole schtick before Congress is that women could not afford their contraceptives and she wanted Congress to force somebody to furnish contraceptives to them free regardless of the personal convictions of anybody.   That was it in a nutshell.  And it was THAT which Rush, however awkwardly, inelegantly, crudely, insultingly, politically incorrectly was addressing.  And Rush stayed on the story for days because it was front page news for days.
> 
> And though they NEVER picket or express outrage or attempt to coerce advertisers of anybody on the Left who says something stupid and offensive, the Left rushed headlong to use this as a means to hurt Rush as much as possible, destroy him if they could.
> 
> And it backfired on the Left.
> 
> And I enjoyed it very much that it backfired as I saw what they did as far, far more offensive and repugnant than Rush's comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Whew.  That there post makes me hungry.
Click to expand...


Thanks Pogo.  Your post affirms my post and I rest my case with confidence.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want.  Nobody is defending the way Rush said it.  I sure haven't.  But I can cut Rush some slack that it was not his intent to call her a slut but it was his intent to illustrate the absurdity and impropriety of wanting somebody else to pay for your contraceptives so you can have all the sex you want.
> 
> Rush's personal life or however much you folks judge him re his human failings--the left is soooooo compassionate in that way aren't they?--that has absolutely zero to do with the thread topic or the Sandra Fluke flap.  But then I have long lamented that those on the left seem to have zero ability to focus on and separate a concept from personalities, political parties, ideologies.
> 
> Sandra Fluke's whole schtick before Congress is that women could not afford their contraceptives and she wanted Congress to force somebody to furnish contraceptives to them free regardless of the personal convictions of anybody.   That was it in a nutshell.  And it was THAT which Rush, however awkwardly, inelegantly, crudely, insultingly, politically incorrectly was addressing.  And Rush stayed on the story for days because it was front page news for days.
> 
> And though they NEVER picket or express outrage or attempt to coerce advertisers of anybody on the Left who says something stupid and offensive, the Left rushed headlong to use this as a means to hurt Rush as much as possible, destroy him if they could.
> 
> And it backfired on the Left.
> 
> And I enjoyed it very much that it backfired as I saw what they did as far, far more offensive and repugnant than Rush's comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whew.  That there post makes me hungry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Pogo.  Your post affirms my post and I rest my case with confidence.
Click to expand...


You're welcome.  I know how you love to get the last word. 


oops.


----------



## Ernie S.

word


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> *In my heart I don't think it was Rush's intent to call Sandra Fluke a slut.  His intent was to call women who expect others to pay for them to have sex 'sluts'. And in the process it came out sounding like he had  targeted Fluke. *  It doesn't excuse it because I don't think he should be calling anybody sluts.  But when anybody on the left is criticized and then forgiven for saying far worse,  fair play suggests those on the right should be afforded the same slack. * Rush doesn't have a mean spirited bone in his body *that I can see, but he definitely does have a flare for poor taste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously...  He went on about her for THREE DAYS before his sponsors started bailing out.
> 
> 
> Republican National Convention Blog: Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on Sandra Fluke VIDEO FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT
> 
> Here's what he said, for those playing along at home.
> 
> 
> RUSH: _*What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.*_
> 
> Now, let's review the fallacies in that statement.
> 
> Limbaugh apparently thinks that the amount of birth control you need to take is conditional on how much sex you are having.
> 
> He also seems to think that she wants others to pay for it, when in fact SHE was the one who was paying Georgetown $30,000 a year for tuition that included medical coverage for students.
> 
> If he had been paying attention to what her testimony was, she was SPECIFICALLY talking about a fellow student who had ovarian cysts and needed birth control pills to treat that, but couldn't get a prescription because the Religious Assholes who  run Georgetown thinks that offends their Imaginary Sky Man.
> 
> Rush is a mean-spirited person by nature.  Frankly, you can tell the man has serious issues with women.  He's on Fake Marriage number 4.  He flies down to the Dominican Republic (notorious for prostitution and sex tourism) with a bottle of Viagra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want.  Nobody is defending the way Rush said it.  I sure haven't. * But I can cut Rush some slack that it was not his intent to call her a slut but it was his intent to illustrate the absurdity and impropriety of wanting somebody else to pay for your contraceptives so you can have all the sex you want.*
> 
> Rush's personal life or however much you folks judge him re his human failings--the left is soooooo compassionate in that way aren't they?--has absolutely zero to do with the thread topic or the Sandra Fluke flap.  But then I have long lamented that those on the left seem to have zero ability to focus on and separate a concept from personalities, political parties, ideologies.
> 
> *Sandra Fluke's whole schtick before Congress is that women could not afford their contraceptives and she wanted Congress to force somebody to furnish contraceptives to them free regardless of the personal convictions of anybody.   That was it in a nutshell. * And it was THAT which Rush, however awkwardly, inelegantly, crudely, insultingly, politically incorrectly was addressing.  And Rush stayed on the story for days because it was front page news for days.
> 
> And though they NEVER picket or express outrage or attempt to coerce advertisers of anybody on the Left who says something stupid and offensive, the Left rushed headlong to use this as a means to hurt Rush as much as possible, destroy him if they could.
> 
> And it backfired on the Left.
> 
> And I enjoyed it very much that it backfired as I saw what they did as far, far more offensive and repugnant than Rush's comment.
Click to expand...

Look at how many times you repeated your MessiahRushie's lie about Fluke. Have you no shame? She was not trying to force someone to furnish contraceptives for free, she was PAYING for her health insurance as part of her tuition and wanted the choice of PAYING for insurance that included contraception like the choice the same school provided to its workers. That's right, the school did not feel that providing insurance that included contraception to its workers violated its principles, so the denying contraception insurance had nothing to do with principles, obviously, or they would not offer it to employees.

Your parroting your MessiahRushie's lies illustrates another point. He took what Fluke testified to completely OUT OF CONTEXT, as he does to everybody he disagrees with, and many times changing their words to suit the context he wants saying, "He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant." But then you shit all over me when I quote his exact words directly from his hatesite.

October 21, 2008
RUSH:   He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant. 

June 22, 2011
RUSH:   He didn't say that but we know that's what he thinks.

October 3, 2007
RUSH: We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others.  What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

November 12, 2009
RUSH: * Aren't you people fortunate you have me to interpret this stuff for you?*


----------



## JoeB131

Foxfyre said:


> [
> 
> You can rationalize it all you want.  Nobody is defending the way Rush said it.  I sure haven't.  But I can cut Rush some slack that it was not his intent to call her a slut but it was his intent to illustrate the absurdity and impropriety of wanting somebody else to pay for your contraceptives so you can have all the sex you want.



Besides the fact he really seems to think that you need to take more birth control to have more sex. (Does he even understand how lady-parts work?) 

yes, he intended to call her a slut.  Yes, he intended to be as vile as he was.  Yes, he was probably totally surprised when it backfired on him and his sponsors all bailed.  




Foxfyre said:


> [
> Rush's personal life or however much you folks judge him re his human failings--the left is soooooo compassionate in that way aren't they?--has absolutely zero to do with the thread topic or the Sandra Fluke flap.  But then I have long lamented that those on the left seem to have zero ability to focus on and separate a concept from personalities, political parties, ideologies.



Not at all.  This is what you don't get.  

Rush Limbaugh has gotten on his show all the time to denounce the personal lives of others. He took particular glee when Al Gore's marriage fell apart, for instance.   So, yeah, the fact he's on his fourth Marriage, with three divorces, and was once arrested for soliciting a male prostitute, is kind of relevent to his HYPOCRISY.  

Just like he's kind of a hypocrite when he said poor drug users should go to prison and too many lawyers are out there getting crooks off, but he hid right behind some high powered lawyers when his maid got caught trying to score drugs for him. 




> Sandra Fluke's whole schtick before Congress is that women could not afford their contraceptives and she wanted Congress to force somebody to furnish contraceptives to them free regardless of the personal convictions of anybody.   That was it in a nutshell.  And it was THAT which Rush, however awkwardly, inelegantly, crudely, insultingly, politically incorrectly was addressing.  And Rush stayed on the story for days because it was front page news for days.



NO, he stayed on it for days because it gave him a spike in ratings, until it backfired on him when the sponsors started bailing.  

But to the point, if you are going to argue that one's silly superstitions should dictate the terms of a contract- which is all health coverage is, a contract - then congress does have a right to define the terms of contracts.  

Let's look at another example.  Your (Hypothetical) child has hemophilia.  The only way to save his or her life is to give them blood transfusions.  Oh, but wait, you just found out the person who owns your company is a Jehovah's Witless and they don't believe in transfusions. 



> And though they NEVER picket or express outrage or attempt to coerce advertisers of anybody on the Left who says something stupid and offensive, the Left rushed headlong to use this as a means to hurt Rush as much as possible, destroy him if they could.
> 
> And it backfired on the Left.
> 
> And I enjoyed it very much that it backfired as I saw what they did as far, far more offensive and repugnant than Rush's comment.



Limbaugh is a dead man walking.  The Plutocrats are already trying to develop a less offensive mouthpeice to get stupid rubes to vote against their own economic interests.


----------



## blastoff

"Limbaugh is a dead man walking."

You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.


----------



## Foxfyre

blastoff said:


> "Limbaugh is a dead man walking."
> 
> You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.



LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.

But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.

I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limbaugh is a dead man walking."
> 
> You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
Click to expand...


Aw, you sell yourself short Foxy.  You can do it if you'd give yourself half a chance.  First thing you have to do is realize that a banana is not an apple just because it says it is.

The contract relevant to this thread is the one between Premiere and the Cumulus stations, which expires at the end of this year.  At that time, we'll see.  Cumulus has noted that Limblob has been dead weight costing them money, and as noted way earlier that company is already grooming a show that could replace him on those contracted stations (Huckabee).  So as the saying goes, "stay tuned".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Do Libs still have Sandy Fluke's twat on their mind? Is that how bad Obama is?  Where's the Hope?  Where's the "Green Shoots"?


----------



## blastoff

Foxfyre said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limbaugh is a dead man walking."
> 
> You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
Click to expand...


I would expect nothing less from the low information crowd, or the ultra-lows in here.  

Let's see, Rush is 62.  So let's assume at age 68 he decides to retire and spend the rest of his days jetting from fine golf course to fine golf course the world over.  That would be in roughly six more years or 2019.  Thirty-plus years of Excellence in Broadcasting.  And there will be some moron like JoeB in some forum - or future equivalent - after years and years of crying wolf, "SEEEEE!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!  It's that old blind squirrel thing again.


----------



## Foxfyre

blastoff said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limbaugh is a dead man walking."
> 
> You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would expect nothing less from the low information crowd, or the ultra-lows in here.
> 
> Let's see, Rush is 62.  So let's assume at age 68 he decides to retire and spend the rest of his days jetting from fine golf course to fine golf course the world over.  That would be in roughly six more years or 2019.  Thirty-plus years of Excellence in Broadcasting.  And there will be some moron like JoeB in some forum - or future equivalent - after years and years of crying wolf, "SEEEEE!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!!  It's that old blind squirrel thing again.
Click to expand...


Though he would probably phrase it less charitably.  "See, I told you so!" is Rush's line of course.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limbaugh is a dead man walking."
> 
> You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, you sell yourself short Foxy.  You can do it if you'd give yourself half a chance.  First thing you have to do is realize that a banana is not an apple just because it says it is.
> 
> The contract relevant to this thread is the one between Premiere and the Cumulus stations, which expires at the end of this year.  At that time, we'll see.  Cumulus has noted that Limblob has been dead weight costing them money, and as noted way earlier that company is already grooming a show that could replace him on those contracted stations (Huckabee).  So as the saying goes, "stay tuned".
Click to expand...


Well Cumulus will be paying Rush a huge sum of money if they replace him next year since Rush's current contract runs through 2016.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, you sell yourself short Foxy.  You can do it if you'd give yourself half a chance.  First thing you have to do is realize that a banana is not an apple just because it says it is.
> 
> The contract relevant to this thread is the one between Premiere and the Cumulus stations, which expires at the end of this year.  At that time, we'll see.  Cumulus has noted that Limblob has been dead weight costing them money, and as noted way earlier that company is already grooming a show that could replace him on those contracted stations (Huckabee).  So as the saying goes, "stay tuned".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Cumulus will be paying Rush a huge sum of money if they replace him next year since Rush's current contract runs through 2016.
Click to expand...


No, I believe it ends this year.  You may be thinking of Lush's contract with Premiere.

Lush works for Premiere, which syndicates his show (and others, including some of the former Air America hosts, but we digress).  So his contract that ends in 2016 is the one that pays him to supply shows to Premier.

Premiere, in selling the show, then enters into individual contracts with individual stations and station groups - contracts to carry the show.  One of those groups is Cumulus, to carry the Limblob show on those (Cumulus) stations.  _That_ contract is what I refer to that ends at the end of this year.  The question is whether it will be renewed or declined at that time.  The story that spawned this thread kinda makes noises that it will not be renewed, but they won't say for sure at this piont (nor should they).


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Limbaugh is a dead man walking."
> 
> You can't beat JoeB on this stuff.  He'll just make up lies and keep on marching if you try to, so just sit back see what's next from the world of make-believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, you sell yourself short Foxy.  You can do it if you'd give yourself half a chance.  First thing you have to do is realize that a banana is not an apple just because it says it is.
> 
> The contract relevant to this thread is the one between Premiere and the Cumulus stations, which expires at the end of this year.  At that time, we'll see.  Cumulus has noted that Limblob has been dead weight costing them money, and as noted way earlier that company is already grooming a show that could replace him on those contracted stations (Huckabee).  So as the saying goes, "stay tuned".
Click to expand...


You DO realize that Rush's audience will follow him, should he choose to leave Cumulus.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, indeed.  Rush has held the #1 market share in his genre for 25 years.  That's a quarter century!!!   And I know his existing contractual agreements extend for at least another couple of years.  That is a phenomenal run, and no matter what one's opinion is of Rush Limbaugh, that kind of success has never been equalled by anybody.
> 
> But mark my words.  Haters gonna hate.  And the day Rush does decide to retire and step away from the golden microphone, the haters will be shouting to the rooftops that Rush has been defeated as a miserable failure.
> 
> I wonder if I will live long enough to understand that kind of mentality?  I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, you sell yourself short Foxy.  You can do it if you'd give yourself half a chance.  First thing you have to do is realize that a banana is not an apple just because it says it is.
> 
> The contract relevant to this thread is the one between Premiere and the Cumulus stations, which expires at the end of this year.  At that time, we'll see.  Cumulus has noted that Limblob has been dead weight costing them money, and as noted way earlier that company is already grooming a show that could replace him on those contracted stations (Huckabee).  So as the saying goes, "stay tuned".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You DO realize that Rush's audience will follow him, should he choose to leave Cumulus.
Click to expand...


Any loyal audience will fool... uh, sorry, _follow _their leader.  That's a given.  I didn't think that was the point of the thread.

But again, talent (that's Rush, and just so we're clear it's an industry term for the guy behind the mic, not a value judgement) doesn't negotiate contracts -- management does.  So it's up to Premiere and Cumulus, not Limblob.  He's under contract to Premiere; _they_ call the shots.  Talent's job is to provide content.  That's it.

I'm sure he likes to snow job his listener about "I'll huff and I'll puff" with this radio group or with that advertiser, but those are just not his calls.  Snow job after all is his business.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, you sell yourself short Foxy.  You can do it if you'd give yourself half a chance.  First thing you have to do is realize that a banana is not an apple just because it says it is.
> 
> The contract relevant to this thread is the one between Premiere and the Cumulus stations, which expires at the end of this year.  At that time, we'll see.  Cumulus has noted that Limblob has been dead weight costing them money, and as noted way earlier that company is already grooming a show that could replace him on those contracted stations (Huckabee).  So as the saying goes, "stay tuned".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Cumulus will be paying Rush a huge sum of money if they replace him next year since Rush's current contract runs through 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I believe it ends this year.  You may be thinking of Lush's contract with Premiere.
> 
> Lush works for Premiere, which syndicates his show (and others, including some of the former Air America hosts, but we digress).  So his contract that ends in 2016 is the one that pays him to supply shows to Premier.
> 
> Premiere, in selling the show, then enters into individual contracts with individual stations and station groups - contracts to carry the show.  One of those groups is Cumulus, to carry the Limblob show on those (Cumulus) stations.  _That_ contract is what I refer to that ends at the end of this year.  The question is whether it will be renewed or declined at that time.  The story that spawned this thread kinda makes noises that it will not be renewed, but they won't say for sure at this piont (nor should they).
Click to expand...


Yes, you're right.  The 8-year contract was with Premiere.  (I shouldn't work from memory on stuff that happened five years ago.)
But it was a $400 million dollar contract through 2016.

As the second largest media conglomerate of FM and AM radio stations though, do you really believe Cumulus will voluntarily give up the No #1 nationally rated syndicated show?  Rush indeed may have the clout to refuse to do business with them, but I don't see Cumulus choosing to give up Rush to their competition and probably their #2 spot.  And I sure don't see their station managers wanting to lose their high ratings when they can no longer run his program.


----------



## longknife

A little off thread, but I remember another major figure who fell into disgrace in the eyes of the media - he was caught putting what should've been kept in his pants where it didn't belong. Everybody claimed that he was finished and would never ever again reach the peak of his performance and his sport. 

He is reported to be worth $500 MILLION with an $85 million annual income. He is currently ranked #1 having earned $5,862,496 in 8 events. He even has a rather sexy new girlfriend who is also highly ranked in her sport.

Anybody care to guess who?

So, to say Rush is washed up ain't much different. He'll be around until the day he decides to quit.


----------



## Papageorgio

Ratings are money to radio, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Cumulus will be paying Rush a huge sum of money if they replace him next year since Rush's current contract runs through 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe it ends this year.  You may be thinking of Lush's contract with Premiere.
> 
> Lush works for Premiere, which syndicates his show (and others, including some of the former Air America hosts, but we digress).  So his contract that ends in 2016 is the one that pays him to supply shows to Premier.
> 
> Premiere, in selling the show, then enters into individual contracts with individual stations and station groups - contracts to carry the show.  One of those groups is Cumulus, to carry the Limblob show on those (Cumulus) stations.  _That_ contract is what I refer to that ends at the end of this year.  The question is whether it will be renewed or declined at that time.  The story that spawned this thread kinda makes noises that it will not be renewed, but they won't say for sure at this piont (nor should they).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.  The 8-year contract was with Premiere.  (I shouldn't work from memory on stuff that happened five years ago.)
> But it was a $400 million dollar contract through 2016.
> 
> As the second largest media conglomerate of FM and AM radio stations though, do you really believe Cumulus will voluntarily give up the No #1 nationally rated syndicated show?  Rush indeed may have the clout to refuse to do business with them, but I don't see Cumulus choosing to give up Rush to their competition and probably their #2 spot.  And I sure don't see their station managers wanting to lose their high ratings when they can no longer run his program.
Click to expand...


I'm always right, Foxy, you know that by now... 

What Cumulus will do, damned if I know but just as this fantasy of Lush "refusing to do business with them", it will be driven by money, we can count on that.  Now Cumulus has complained that Lush is costing them... it seems to me if they were planning to renew the contract, that wouldn' t be wise, whereas if they were planning to let it go, it would make more sense.  Meanwhile Lush has made noises about taking his ball and going home.  Given the positions of those players, I'd give Rush as much credence as I give the rest of his bloviating.  He's just not in a position to do that.

Then again perhaps Cumulus is baiting Premiere to dump them so that they can cut their losses sooner.  That would make sense too.

But if Cumulus' complaints are to be believed, it doesn't matter what the ratings are.  Ratings, as you well know, are the measuring stick that tells the station how much they can sell ads for.  But if you have advertisers shunning the program, all the ratings in the world won't sell ads.  And since ads are money and money is the bottom line, well do the math.  Ad revenue from low ratings still beats no ad revenue from high ratings.

Again, that's all either party will say, so we'll see at the end of the year.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe it ends this year.  You may be thinking of Lush's contract with Premiere.
> 
> Lush works for Premiere, which syndicates his show (and others, including some of the former Air America hosts, but we digress).  So his contract that ends in 2016 is the one that pays him to supply shows to Premier.
> 
> Premiere, in selling the show, then enters into individual contracts with individual stations and station groups - contracts to carry the show.  One of those groups is Cumulus, to carry the Limblob show on those (Cumulus) stations.  _That_ contract is what I refer to that ends at the end of this year.  The question is whether it will be renewed or declined at that time.  The story that spawned this thread kinda makes noises that it will not be renewed, but they won't say for sure at this piont (nor should they).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.  The 8-year contract was with Premiere.  (I shouldn't work from memory on stuff that happened five years ago.)
> But it was a $400 million dollar contract through 2016.
> 
> As the second largest media conglomerate of FM and AM radio stations though, do you really believe Cumulus will voluntarily give up the No #1 nationally rated syndicated show?  Rush indeed may have the clout to refuse to do business with them, but I don't see Cumulus choosing to give up Rush to their competition and probably their #2 spot.  And I sure don't see their station managers wanting to lose their high ratings when they can no longer run his program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm always right, Foxy, you know that by now...
> 
> What Cumulus will do, damned if I know but just as this fantasy of Lush "refusing to do business with them", it will be driven by money, we can count on that.  Now Cumulus has complained that Lush is costing them... it seems to me if they were planning to renew the contract, that wouldn' t be wise, whereas if they were planning to let it go, it would make more sense.  Meanwhile Lush has made noises about taking his ball and going home.  Given the positions of those players, I'd give Rush as much credence as I give the rest of his bloviating.  He's just not in a position to do that.
> 
> Then again perhaps Cumulus is baiting Premiere to dump them so that they can cut their losses sooner.  That would make sense too.
> 
> But if Cumulus' complaints are to be believed, it doesn't matter what the ratings are.  Ratings, as you well know, are the measuring stick that tells the station how much they can sell ads for.  But if you have advertisers shunning the program, all the ratings in the world won't sell ads.  And since ads are money and money is the bottom line, well do the math.  Ad revenue from low ratings still beats no ad revenue from high ratings.
> 
> Again, that's all either party will say, so we'll see at the end of the year.
Click to expand...


You probably didn't read the OP did you.


----------



## Foxfyre

longknife said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.  The 8-year contract was with Premiere.  (I shouldn't work from memory on stuff that happened five years ago.)
> But it was a $400 million dollar contract through 2016.
> 
> As the second largest media conglomerate of FM and AM radio stations though, do you really believe Cumulus will voluntarily give up the No #1 nationally rated syndicated show?  Rush indeed may have the clout to refuse to do business with them, but I don't see Cumulus choosing to give up Rush to their competition and probably their #2 spot.  And I sure don't see their station managers wanting to lose their high ratings when they can no longer run his program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always right, Foxy, you know that by now...
> 
> What Cumulus will do, damned if I know but just as this fantasy of Lush "refusing to do business with them", it will be driven by money, we can count on that.  Now Cumulus has complained that Lush is costing them... it seems to me if they were planning to renew the contract, that wouldn' t be wise, whereas if they were planning to let it go, it would make more sense.  Meanwhile Lush has made noises about taking his ball and going home.  Given the positions of those players, I'd give Rush as much credence as I give the rest of his bloviating.  He's just not in a position to do that.
> 
> Then again perhaps Cumulus is baiting Premiere to dump them so that they can cut their losses sooner.  That would make sense too.
> 
> But if Cumulus' complaints are to be believed, it doesn't matter what the ratings are.  Ratings, as you well know, are the measuring stick that tells the station how much they can sell ads for.  But if you have advertisers shunning the program, all the ratings in the world won't sell ads.  And since ads are money and money is the bottom line, well do the math.  Ad revenue from low ratings still beats no ad revenue from high ratings.
> 
> Again, that's all either party will say, so we'll see at the end of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, to all - as some posted on this forum, it's amazing how some posters react to negative reputations. Just received this from Pogo =
> 
> Re: New reputation!
> Quote: Originally Posted by longknife
> Hi, you have received -256 reputation points from longknife.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> Do you ever stop being a grumpy lefty?
> 
> Regards,
> longknife
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> Are you fucking shittin' me??
> 
> I put out a neutral analysis of a radio contract and you see "grumpy lefty"?? Are you insane?
> 
> Count on return fire. And it'll hurt you more than me.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Notice the erudite prose?
Click to expand...


Well do you expect polite communication from somebody you just neg repped?  I too think Pogo is mostly wrong, he's stubborn as a mule, and he is NEVER going to agree with me, but he holds his own in mostly civil discourse--at least for USMB-- and that's all I expect from anybody on a message board.  You're lucky you only got blessed out and not neg repped in return.    (Though that might be coming.)


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.  The 8-year contract was with Premiere.  (I shouldn't work from memory on stuff that happened five years ago.)
> But it was a $400 million dollar contract through 2016.
> 
> As the second largest media conglomerate of FM and AM radio stations though, do you really believe Cumulus will voluntarily give up the No #1 nationally rated syndicated show?  Rush indeed may have the clout to refuse to do business with them, but I don't see Cumulus choosing to give up Rush to their competition and probably their #2 spot.  And I sure don't see their station managers wanting to lose their high ratings when they can no longer run his program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always right, Foxy, you know that by now...
> 
> What Cumulus will do, damned if I know but just as this fantasy of Lush "refusing to do business with them", it will be driven by money, we can count on that.  Now Cumulus has complained that Lush is costing them... it seems to me if they were planning to renew the contract, that wouldn' t be wise, whereas if they were planning to let it go, it would make more sense.  Meanwhile Lush has made noises about taking his ball and going home.  Given the positions of those players, I'd give Rush as much credence as I give the rest of his bloviating.  He's just not in a position to do that.
> 
> Then again perhaps Cumulus is baiting Premiere to dump them so that they can cut their losses sooner.  That would make sense too.
> 
> But if Cumulus' complaints are to be believed, it doesn't matter what the ratings are.  Ratings, as you well know, are the measuring stick that tells the station how much they can sell ads for.  But if you have advertisers shunning the program, all the ratings in the world won't sell ads.  And since ads are money and money is the bottom line, well do the math.  Ad revenue from low ratings still beats no ad revenue from high ratings.
> 
> Again, that's all either party will say, so we'll see at the end of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably didn't read the OP did you.
Click to expand...


?  Of course I did.  Long time ago, along with other stories, both in threads here and elsewhere.  I follow this stuff y'know.  It's what we've been talking about.  What did I miss?




And about Dong-knife and his dirty laundry, the post he negged was #362.  He conveniently seems to have left that part out since it wasn't exactly neggable.  And of coarse I dumbed down the dialogue to a level he could understand, although his repost considerably "enhances" the PM.  He then began sending a stream of PMs that make no discernible sense and I won't bore y'all with 'em, but as you say Foxy, haters gonna hate.  And neggers gonna neg.  The last neg I got was for contributing the address of the building that collapsed in Philadelphia.   I don't try to figure these idiots out any more.... (/offtopic)


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> *Ratings are money to radio*, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.



Unless, again, those ratings don't translate to ads because of the ad buyers' exclusions.

What Rush Limbaugh Costs Cumulus Media (not new, I think we did this before)

But there's no question he'll be a guy that changed radio.  He already is.


----------



## Ernie S.

Did you not read the link in the OP? Rush's ad revenue is back up to pre-Fluke levels. It is HE that is considering severing his relationship with Cumulus. Spin that however you like, but that's the facts, Jack.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Did you not read the link in the OP? Rush's ad revenue is back up to pre-Fluke levels. It is HE that is considering severing his relationship with Cumulus. Spin that however you like, but that's the facts, Jack.



I did read the OP, and we did this before.  No I don't see where the guy says ad revenue is up to pre-Fluke levels; I do see where he says they've "bounced back" and are "doing very well", and as I pointed out way way back in this thread, the guy talking is "Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter" -- the guy who _*sells *_the program, _addressing his potential buyers_.  Of course he's going to spin it positively.  I might add, when he says they're doing well, he's just mentioned Hannity and George Noori and Randi Rhodes; the collective.  He's not talking Limbaugh at that point.  He's talking "we" (meaning Premier, the whole roster of talkers).

(Is this what you meant by "did I read the OP", Foxy?)

And the same article also says that Cumulus, as we've also noted here, says they've been losing on Limbaugh.  Neither one of course gives figures, nor would we expect them to.  But no, I don't see that evidence in there.  Spin is spin and specifics are absent.

As far as Limbaugh taking his ball and going home he can bluster whatever he likes but the fact remains, Premiere draws up the contracts with stations, not him.  That's what a syndicator does.  If a baseball pitcher declares he's not going to the bullpen, and the manager sends him there, guess what-- he's going to the bullpen whether he likes it or not.

I think what's needed here, Ernie, is a healthy skepticism.  I've got lots extra here if you want it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> You DO realize that Rush's audience will follow him, should he choose to leave Cumulus.



I'm sure some of them will.  But he'll end up on stations like WIND, which you can't get more than 20 miles outside Chicago.  

His Audience isn't the point.  His ability to sell commercial time at rates to support his 25 million dollar a year salary is.  Right now, he isn't doing that.  Nowhere close.


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ratings are money to radio*, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, again, those ratings don't translate to ads because of the ad buyers' exclusions.
> 
> What Rush Limbaugh Costs Cumulus Media (not new, I think we did this before)
> 
> But there's no question he'll be a guy that changed radio.  He already is.
Click to expand...


And their revenue has rebounded on Rush's show as the chairman pointed out. So it sounds like two people negotiating for money. Big deal, he'll sign up again. Huckabee doesn't have near the audience.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You DO realize that Rush's audience will follow him, should he choose to leave Cumulus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure some of them will.  But he'll end up on stations like WIND, which you can't get more than 20 miles outside Chicago.
> 
> His Audience isn't the point.  His ability to sell commercial time at rates to support his 25 million dollar a year salary is.  Right now, he isn't doing that.  Nowhere close.
Click to expand...


According to the  Cumulus chairman, his advertising dollars have rebounded.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ratings are money to radio*, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, again, those ratings don't translate to ads because of the ad buyers' exclusions.
> 
> What Rush Limbaugh Costs Cumulus Media (not new, I think we did this before)
> 
> But there's no question he'll be a guy that changed radio.  He already is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And their revenue has rebounded on Rush's show as the chairman pointed out. So it sounds like two people negotiating for money. Big deal, he'll sign up again. Huckabee doesn't have near the audience.
Click to expand...


Actually that's not what he said.  He said the _company's_ ad sales have rebounded.  And then he pointed out that (a) talk radio overall represents about 10% of the revenue, and (b) that most of the stations' income comes from drive time (which is not Rush territory).  As far as Rush's numbers, he declined to comment.

Huckabee doesn't have near the audience, no.  But he is on the air as of last year so he's got a basis of something like 200 stations, and he's their own product (Cumulus distributes the Huckabee show).  So if I were a betting man I think I'd have enough to play this one...


----------



## Papageorgio

Pogo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, again, those ratings don't translate to ads because of the ad buyers' exclusions.
> 
> What Rush Limbaugh Costs Cumulus Media (not new, I think we did this before)
> 
> But there's no question he'll be a guy that changed radio.  He already is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And their revenue has rebounded on Rush's show as the chairman pointed out. So it sounds like two people negotiating for money. Big deal, he'll sign up again. Huckabee doesn't have near the audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually that's not what he said.  He said the _company's_ ad sales have rebounded.  And then he pointed out that (a) talk radio overall represents about 10% of the revenue, and (b) that most of the stations' income comes from drive time (which is not Rush territory).  As far as Rush's numbers, he declined to comment.
> 
> Huckabee doesn't have near the audience, no.  But he is on the air as of last year so he's got a basis of something like 200 stations, and he's their own product (Cumulus distributes the Huckabee show).  So if I were a betting man I think I'd have enough to play this one...
Click to expand...


That's not what I heard, but Limbaugh can also go to Clear Channel. Play it, I don't care for Huckabee, his voice grates on me, but I don't listen to Rush either.


----------



## Pogo

Papageorgio said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> And their revenue has rebounded on Rush's show as the chairman pointed out. So it sounds like two people negotiating for money. Big deal, he'll sign up again. Huckabee doesn't have near the audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's not what he said.  He said the _company's_ ad sales have rebounded.  And then he pointed out that (a) talk radio overall represents about 10% of the revenue, and (b) that most of the stations' income comes from drive time (which is not Rush territory).  As far as Rush's numbers, he declined to comment.
> 
> Huckabee doesn't have near the audience, no.  But he is on the air as of last year so he's got a basis of something like 200 stations, and he's their own product (Cumulus distributes the Huckabee show).  So if I were a betting man I think I'd have enough to play this one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I heard, but Limbaugh can also go to Clear Channel. Play it, I don't care for Huckabee, his voice grates on me, but I don't listen to Rush either.
Click to expand...


Actually he already works for ClearChannel -- they own Premier.  They also own radio stations.  So in some markets he's on a Clear Channel station while Cumulus is the competition; in others it's the other way around.  It's complicated.

Premiere negotiates contracts with either individual stations or, like Cumulus, a group.  If Cumulus walks they'll have to make them up with individual stations or another group.  They'll have to play catch-up.


----------



## JoeB131

Papa, you know , they aren't hiring for Iraqi INformation Minister anymore.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not read the link in the OP? Rush's ad revenue is back up to pre-Fluke levels. It is HE that is considering severing his relationship with Cumulus. Spin that however you like, but that's the facts, Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did read the OP, and we did this before.  No I don't see where the guy says ad revenue is up to pre-Fluke levels; I do see where he says they've "bounced back" and are "doing very well", and as I pointed out way way back in this thread, the guy talking is "Premiere Radio senior vice president and director of talk radio sales Dan Metter" -- the guy who _*sells *_the program, _addressing his potential buyers_.  Of course he's going to spin it positively.  I might add, when he says they're doing well, he's just mentioned Hannity and George Noori and Randi Rhodes; the collective.  He's not talking Limbaugh at that point.  He's talking "we" (meaning Premier, the whole roster of talkers).
> 
> (Is this what you meant by "did I read the OP", Foxy?)
> 
> And the same article also says that Cumulus, as we've also noted here, says they've been losing on Limbaugh.  Neither one of course gives figures, nor would we expect them to.  But no, I don't see that evidence in there.  Spin is spin and specifics are absent.
> 
> As far as Limbaugh taking his ball and going home he can bluster whatever he likes but the fact remains, Premiere draws up the contracts with stations, not him.  That's what a syndicator does.  If a baseball pitcher declares he's not going to the bullpen, and the manager sends him there, guess what-- he's going to the bullpen whether he likes it or not.
> 
> I think what's needed here, Ernie, is a healthy skepticism.  I've got lots extra here if you want it.
Click to expand...


Spin it however you want. You're making me dizzy.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papa, you know , they aren't hiring for Iraqi INformation Minister anymore.



Great! You finally got your job! Congrats!


----------



## blastoff

longknife said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you're right.  The 8-year contract was with Premiere.  (I shouldn't work from memory on stuff that happened five years ago.)
> But it was a $400 million dollar contract through 2016.
> 
> As the second largest media conglomerate of FM and AM radio stations though, do you really believe Cumulus will voluntarily give up the No #1 nationally rated syndicated show?  Rush indeed may have the clout to refuse to do business with them, but I don't see Cumulus choosing to give up Rush to their competition and probably their #2 spot.  And I sure don't see their station managers wanting to lose their high ratings when they can no longer run his program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always right, Foxy, you know that by now...
> 
> What Cumulus will do, damned if I know but just as this fantasy of Lush "refusing to do business with them", it will be driven by money, we can count on that.  Now Cumulus has complained that Lush is costing them... it seems to me if they were planning to renew the contract, that wouldn' t be wise, whereas if they were planning to let it go, it would make more sense.  Meanwhile Lush has made noises about taking his ball and going home.  Given the positions of those players, I'd give Rush as much credence as I give the rest of his bloviating.  He's just not in a position to do that.
> 
> Then again perhaps Cumulus is baiting Premiere to dump them so that they can cut their losses sooner.  That would make sense too.
> 
> But if Cumulus' complaints are to be believed, it doesn't matter what the ratings are.  Ratings, as you well know, are the measuring stick that tells the station how much they can sell ads for.  But if you have advertisers shunning the program, all the ratings in the world won't sell ads.  And since ads are money and money is the bottom line, well do the math.  Ad revenue from low ratings still beats no ad revenue from high ratings.
> 
> Again, that's all either party will say, so we'll see at the end of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, to all - as some posted on this forum, it's amazing how some posters react to negative reputations. Just received this from Pogo =
> 
> Re: New reputation!
> Quote: Originally Posted by longknife
> Hi, you have received -256 reputation points from longknife.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> Do you ever stop being a grumpy lefty?
> 
> Regards,
> longknife
> 
> Note: This is an automated message.
> Are you fucking shittin' me??
> 
> I put out a neutral analysis of a radio contract and you see "grumpy lefty"?? Are you insane?
> 
> Count on return fire. And it'll hurt you more than me.
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Notice the erudite prose?
Click to expand...



Uh-oh...another cyber tough guy.

Used to be a dime a dozen but they're highly discounted these days.


----------



## Foxfyre

Papageorgio said:


> Ratings are money to radio, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.



From what I have been reading, Cumulus is second in number of stations with 580 stations behind Clear Channel's 900 stations and is third in revenue behind Clear Channel and CBS radio.  That is because Cumulus has not claimed anywhere near the market share the other two radio conglomerates command.   Because Rush can command a slot on the #1 stations, Cumulus carries him only on about 40 stations.  It is theorized that Cumulus is hoping to use Huckabee to carve out their own #1 niche by running him opposite Rush in the same time slot or replacing Rush with Huckabee.

A Premiere exec was recently quoted as wishing Huckabee the best of success.  But if Rush loses a few stations, they have lots of other places to put him.



> Limbaugh's annual income, based in part on licensing fees for his show, is estimated by industry sources at $50 million.
> 
> Calls to Clear Channel for comment were referred to Premiere Networks, the company that syndicates Limbaugh's program.
> 
> "Rush Limbaugh continues to be the No. 1 talk radio host in America," a Premiere spokesperson said in a statement, noting that all his long-term sponsors remain with his show. "Mike Huckabee is the latest in a long line of those who have attempted to compete with Rush. We wish him the best with his new show."
> 
> A source familiar with Premiere's thinking put it more bluntly: "We have 900 stations. If Rush gets removed from a few, we have plenty of other places to put him."


Huckabee vs Limbaugh: Cumulus aims at Clear Channel | Reuters

At $50 million a year, and Rush getting up there at or close to normal retirement age, he certainly has more money stashed back than he can possibly spend in the rest of his life.  He doesn't have to do the grind of a weekly radio show.  In fact, he is winding down and uses guest hosts quite a bit these days which frees him up to go do other things he loves to do.  Why does he continue to do it?  Because he is so good at it and he is still having fun.

But the haters still wet their pants in excitement that Rush might lose an advertiser or be cancelled by a radio station.  Their whole joy in life seems to revolve around seeing somebody they hate punished, hurt, or destroyed.   And as several have already said, the day that Rush does step down from the golden microphone, they will with one voice cheer and rejoice that Ma-ha Rushie has failed after 25 to 30 years of the greatest success radio has ever seen.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratings are money to radio, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have been reading, Cumulus is second in number of stations with 580 stations behind Clear Channel's 900 stations and is third in revenue behind Clear Channel and CBS radio.  That is because Cumulus has not claimed anywhere near the market share the other two radio conglomerates command.   Because Rush can command a slot on the #1 stations, Cumulus carries him only on about 40 stations.  It is theorized that Cumulus is hoping to use Huckabee to carve out their own #1 niche by running him opposite Rush in the same time slot or replacing Rush with Huckabee.
Click to expand...


That's what I've been saying here the whole time.

As far as ClearChannel, that number is very much in flux; when the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1996 got signed by the spineless jellyfish Bill Clinton, they bought up *1200 *stations (a fact which by itself should have had all of us rioting in the streets) but their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and they soon found themselves top-heavy and losing money big time, which is why Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought them up.

As far as the current number, here's the latest Wiki info:
>> The following is a list of radio stations currently owned by Clear Channel Communications. Of these stations, 448 of the stations which are outside the Top 100 DMA markets, plus another 91 stations which may or may not be in the top 100 DMAs are for sale. The TV stations formerly owned by Clear Channel were sold to Providence Equity Partners, a private equity firm, on April 23, 2007, with the deal closing in late November 2007. 185 radio stations were to have been sold to GoodRadio.TV LLC until the sale fell apart over financing.,[1][2] and another 177 stations have been sold to other entities.[3] Another 201 stations are up for sale.[4] <<

-- make what math you will of that.  I wouldn't want to pin it down.



Foxfyre said:


> A Premiere exec was recently quoted as wishing Huckabee the best of success.  But if Rush loses a few stations, they have lots of other places to put him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Limbaugh's annual income, based in part on licensing fees for his show, is estimated by industry sources at $50 million.
> 
> Calls to Clear Channel for comment were referred to Premiere Networks, the company that syndicates Limbaugh's program.
> 
> "Rush Limbaugh continues to be the No. 1 talk radio host in America," a Premiere spokesperson said in a statement, noting that all his long-term sponsors remain with his show. "Mike Huckabee is the latest in a long line of those who have attempted to compete with Rush. We wish him the best with his new show."
> 
> A source familiar with Premiere's thinking put it more bluntly: "We have 900 stations. If Rush gets removed from a few, we have plenty of other places to put him."
> 
> 
> 
> Huckabee vs Limbaugh: Cumulus aims at Clear Channel | Reuters
Click to expand...


Well, not really.  Premiere doesn't own any stations.  ClearChannel owns them -- and as noted above, many of them are in a fire sale, which puts a wrinkle.  So that's what he must mean by "we".  But those stations still have to compete _against _Limblob in the event that he's contracted to one of their competitors owned by somebody else.  Around here I've got one CC station broadcasting righties while another CC station broadcasts the lefties, in the same market.  It's done on an individual basis.



Foxfyre said:


> At $50 million a year, and Rush getting up there at or close to normal retirement age, he certainly has more money stashed back than he can possibly spend in the rest of his life.  He doesn't have to do the grind of a weekly radio show.  In fact, he is winding down and uses guest hosts quite a bit these days which frees him up to go do other things he loves to do.  Why does he continue to do it?  Because he is so good at it and he is still having fun.
> 
> But the haters still wet their pants in excitement that Rush might lose an advertiser or be cancelled by a radio station.  Their whole joy in life seems to revolve around seeing somebody they hate punished, hurt, or destroyed.   And as several have already said, the day that Rush does step down from the golden microphone, they will with one voice cheer and rejoice that Ma-ha Rushie has failed after 25 to 30 years of the greatest success radio has ever seen.



Methinks you're projecting emotions again, but I do see that you're still defining "success" in a narrow definition of money.

Not everything is about money.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratings are money to radio, as long as Rush is the most listened to talk radio show in the country, he will have a place on the radio. We be retires, he will retire as the man that changed radio. Love him, hate him, he was a radio pioneer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have been reading, Cumulus is second in number of stations with 580 stations behind Clear Channel's 900 stations and is third in revenue behind Clear Channel and CBS radio.  That is because Cumulus has not claimed anywhere near the market share the other two radio conglomerates command.   Because Rush can command a slot on the #1 stations, Cumulus carries him only on about 40 stations.  It is theorized that Cumulus is hoping to use Huckabee to carve out their own #1 niche by running him opposite Rush in the same time slot or replacing Rush with Huckabee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying here the whole time.
> 
> As far as ClearChannel, that number is very much in flux; when the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1996 got signed by the spineless jellyfish Bill Clinton, they bought up *1200 *stations (a fact which by itself should have had all of us rioting in the streets) but their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and they soon found themselves top-heavy and losing money big time, which is why Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought them up.
> 
> As far as the current number, here's the latest Wiki info:
> >> The following is a list of radio stations currently owned by Clear Channel Communications. Of these stations, 448 of the stations which are outside the Top 100 DMA markets, plus another 91 stations which may or may not be in the top 100 DMAs are for sale. The TV stations formerly owned by Clear Channel were sold to Providence Equity Partners, a private equity firm, on April 23, 2007, with the deal closing in late November 2007. 185 radio stations were to have been sold to GoodRadio.TV LLC until the sale fell apart over financing.,[1][2] and another 177 stations have been sold to other entities.[3] Another 201 stations are up for sale.[4] <<
> 
> -- make what math you will of that.  I wouldn't want to pin it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Premiere exec was recently quoted as wishing Huckabee the best of success.  But if Rush loses a few stations, they have lots of other places to put him.
> 
> 
> Huckabee vs Limbaugh: Cumulus aims at Clear Channel | Reuters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not really.  Premiere doesn't own any stations.  ClearChannel owns them -- and as noted above, many of them are in a fire sale, which puts a wrinkle.  So that's what he must mean by "we".  But those stations still have to compete _against _Limblob in the event that he's contracted to one of their competitors owned by somebody else.  Around here I've got one CC station broadcasting righties while another CC station broadcasts the lefties, in the same market.  It's done on an individual basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At $50 million a year, and Rush getting up there at or close to normal retirement age, he certainly has more money stashed back than he can possibly spend in the rest of his life.  He doesn't have to do the grind of a weekly radio show.  In fact, he is winding down and uses guest hosts quite a bit these days which frees him up to go do other things he loves to do.  Why does he continue to do it?  Because he is so good at it and he is still having fun.
> 
> But the haters still wet their pants in excitement that Rush might lose an advertiser or be cancelled by a radio station.  Their whole joy in life seems to revolve around seeing somebody they hate punished, hurt, or destroyed.   And as several have already said, the day that Rush does step down from the golden microphone, they will with one voice cheer and rejoice that Ma-ha Rushie has failed after 25 to 30 years of the greatest success radio has ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks you're projecting emotions again, but I do see that you're still defining "success" in a narrow definition of money.
> 
> Not everything is about money.  Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


And methinks you are so blinded by your ideological prejudices that you are going to read a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended.   I define success as in what is defined as success depending on what we are talking about.  YOU are the one who seems to be fixated on money and greed.

Commenting that Rush has more money than he will ever need and therefore does not HAVE to host a daily radio show is NOT equating money with success in his case.  Holding the #1 market share in radio in his genre for 25 years IS success.  But I don't expect a liberal Rush-hater to be either objective or honest about that.

I have conceded that you are a Rush hater/resenter/critic/whatever and that you, like others of your ideological perspective, are delighted with even flimsy hope that he will fail.  I allow you your opinions and your prejudices.

But I won't allow you to state dubious facts unchallenged when you can't back them up with anything other than your own opinions and prejudices.   And most especially when I have been backing up my opinions and prejudices with substance, I won't meekly accept you accusing me of motives or statements or opinions or intent that I haven't said and don't hold.

So there!

Harumph!


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have been reading, Cumulus is second in number of stations with 580 stations behind Clear Channel's 900 stations and is third in revenue behind Clear Channel and CBS radio.  That is because Cumulus has not claimed anywhere near the market share the other two radio conglomerates command.   Because Rush can command a slot on the #1 stations, Cumulus carries him only on about 40 stations.  It is theorized that Cumulus is hoping to use Huckabee to carve out their own #1 niche by running him opposite Rush in the same time slot or replacing Rush with Huckabee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying here the whole time.
> 
> As far as ClearChannel, that number is very much in flux; when the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1996 got signed by the spineless jellyfish Bill Clinton, they bought up *1200 *stations (a fact which by itself should have had all of us rioting in the streets) but their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and they soon found themselves top-heavy and losing money big time, which is why Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought them up.
> 
> As far as the current number, here's the latest Wiki info:
> >> The following is a list of radio stations currently owned by Clear Channel Communications. Of these stations, 448 of the stations which are outside the Top 100 DMA markets, plus another 91 stations which may or may not be in the top 100 DMAs are for sale. The TV stations formerly owned by Clear Channel were sold to Providence Equity Partners, a private equity firm, on April 23, 2007, with the deal closing in late November 2007. 185 radio stations were to have been sold to GoodRadio.TV LLC until the sale fell apart over financing.,[1][2] and another 177 stations have been sold to other entities.[3] Another 201 stations are up for sale.[4] <<
> 
> -- make what math you will of that.  I wouldn't want to pin it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really.  Premiere doesn't own any stations.  ClearChannel owns them -- and as noted above, many of them are in a fire sale, which puts a wrinkle.  So that's what he must mean by "we".  But those stations still have to compete _against _Limblob in the event that he's contracted to one of their competitors owned by somebody else.  Around here I've got one CC station broadcasting righties while another CC station broadcasts the lefties, in the same market.  It's done on an individual basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At $50 million a year, and Rush getting up there at or close to normal retirement age, he certainly has more money stashed back than he can possibly spend in the rest of his life.  He doesn't have to do the grind of a weekly radio show.  In fact, he is winding down and uses guest hosts quite a bit these days which frees him up to go do other things he loves to do.  Why does he continue to do it?  Because he is so good at it and he is still having fun.
> 
> But the haters still wet their pants in excitement that Rush might lose an advertiser or be cancelled by a radio station.  Their whole joy in life seems to revolve around seeing somebody they hate punished, hurt, or destroyed.   And as several have already said, the day that Rush does step down from the golden microphone, they will with one voice cheer and rejoice that Ma-ha Rushie has failed after 25 to 30 years of the greatest success radio has ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks you're projecting emotions again, but I do see that you're still defining "success" in a narrow definition of money.
> 
> Not everything is about money.  Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And methinks you are so blinded by your ideological prejudices that you are going to read a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended.   I define success as in what is defined as success depending on what we are talking about.  YOU are the one who seems to be fixated on money and greed.
Click to expand...


Don't be silly.  You're the one who keeps harping on money and ratings, not me.  I'm saying there's more to the definition of "success" than that.  I've said nothing about "greed" at all.  In fact I don't think anyone has even used the word until you just did.   Doctor Freud... paging Doctor Freud...

You're also the one bringing the emotion.  I've posted nothing about what I "hope" happens, to anybody.  The only value judgement about anyone that I allowed myself in that entire post was to refer to Bill Clinton as a "spineless jellyfish".  Which I realize is redundant (if not double-redundant).  If you disagree with that, fine, just don't accept it.  He's not the topic here anyway.  Sheesh.



Foxfyre said:


> Commenting that Rush has more money than he will ever need and therefore does not HAVE to host a daily radio show is NOT equating money with success in his case.  Holding the #1 market share in radio in his genre for 25 years IS success.  But I don't expect a liberal Rush-hater to be either objective or honest about that.



And there ^ you just did it again, both the narrow "success" definition (twice, once denying and once affirming) plus the emotion.  If DeNial is a river, you are one hell of a swimmer.  It's right there in your own words.



Foxfyre said:


> I have conceded that you are a Rush hater/resenter/critic/whatever and that you, like others of your ideological perspective, are delighted with even flimsy hope that he will fail.  I allow you your opinions and your prejudices.



Wow, lucky me.
Say, didn't you just post something about "read(ing) a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended"??



Foxfyre said:


> But I won't allow you to state dubious facts unchallenged when you can't back them up with anything other than your own opinions and prejudices.



I put the link in the post.  It's in the word "Wiki".  You do know how to click a link, do you not?
I also quoted from that link and designated it with a carriage return, >> arrows << and even a different coloured text.  And with all that, you _still _missed it?



Foxfyre said:


> And most especially when I have been backing up my opinions and prejudices with substance, I won't meekly accept you accusing me of motives or statements or opinions or intent that I haven't said and don't hold.








I take it "substance" is defined as denial and emotional hot flashes then.  



Foxfyre said:


> So there!
> 
> Harumph!



Indeed.


----------



## blastoff

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I have been reading, Cumulus is second in number of stations with 580 stations behind Clear Channel's 900 stations and is third in revenue behind Clear Channel and CBS radio.  That is because Cumulus has not claimed anywhere near the market share the other two radio conglomerates command.   Because Rush can command a slot on the #1 stations, Cumulus carries him only on about 40 stations.  It is theorized that Cumulus is hoping to use Huckabee to carve out their own #1 niche by running him opposite Rush in the same time slot or replacing Rush with Huckabee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying here the whole time.
> 
> As far as ClearChannel, that number is very much in flux; when the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1996 got signed by the spineless jellyfish Bill Clinton, they bought up *1200 *stations (a fact which by itself should have had all of us rioting in the streets) but their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and they soon found themselves top-heavy and losing money big time, which is why Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought them up.
> 
> As far as the current number, here's the latest Wiki info:
> >> The following is a list of radio stations currently owned by Clear Channel Communications. Of these stations, 448 of the stations which are outside the Top 100 DMA markets, plus another 91 stations which may or may not be in the top 100 DMAs are for sale. The TV stations formerly owned by Clear Channel were sold to Providence Equity Partners, a private equity firm, on April 23, 2007, with the deal closing in late November 2007. 185 radio stations were to have been sold to GoodRadio.TV LLC until the sale fell apart over financing.,[1][2] and another 177 stations have been sold to other entities.[3] Another 201 stations are up for sale.[4] <<
> 
> -- make what math you will of that.  I wouldn't want to pin it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really.  Premiere doesn't own any stations.  ClearChannel owns them -- and as noted above, many of them are in a fire sale, which puts a wrinkle.  So that's what he must mean by "we".  But those stations still have to compete _against _Limblob in the event that he's contracted to one of their competitors owned by somebody else.  Around here I've got one CC station broadcasting righties while another CC station broadcasts the lefties, in the same market.  It's done on an individual basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> At $50 million a year, and Rush getting up there at or close to normal retirement age, he certainly has more money stashed back than he can possibly spend in the rest of his life.  He doesn't have to do the grind of a weekly radio show.  In fact, he is winding down and uses guest hosts quite a bit these days which frees him up to go do other things he loves to do.  Why does he continue to do it?  Because he is so good at it and he is still having fun.
> 
> But the haters still wet their pants in excitement that Rush might lose an advertiser or be cancelled by a radio station.  Their whole joy in life seems to revolve around seeing somebody they hate punished, hurt, or destroyed.   And as several have already said, the day that Rush does step down from the golden microphone, they will with one voice cheer and rejoice that Ma-ha Rushie has failed after 25 to 30 years of the greatest success radio has ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Methinks you're projecting emotions again, but I do see that you're still defining "success" in a narrow definition of money.
> 
> Not everything is about money.  Just sayin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And methinks you are so blinded by your ideological prejudices that you are going to read a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended.   I define success as in what is defined as success depending on what we are talking about.  YOU are the one who seems to be fixated on money and greed.
> 
> Commenting that Rush has more money than he will ever need and therefore does not HAVE to host a daily radio show is NOT equating money with success in his case.  Holding the #1 market share in radio in his genre for 25 years IS success.  But I don't expect a liberal Rush-hater to be either objective or honest about that.
> 
> I have conceded that you are a Rush hater/resenter/critic/whatever and that you, like others of your ideological perspective, are delighted with even flimsy hope that he will fail.  I allow you your opinions and your prejudices.
> 
> But I won't allow you to state dubious facts unchallenged when you can't back them up with anything other than your own opinions and prejudices.   And most especially when I have been backing up my opinions and prejudices with substance, I won't meekly accept you accusing me of motives or statements or opinions or intent that I haven't said and don't hold.
> 
> So there!
> 
> Harumph!
Click to expand...


LOL...hey, did you hear the one about a major market, 50k watt AM blowtorch that had zero advertisers for Rush's show and had to only run PSAs and self-promos instead?  Honest.  These clowns want it sooo bad they'll make up any b.s.  Can't really blame them though as they're used to dealing with their fellow low information folks who'll believe anything, especially if it was on the internet!


----------



## Pogo

blastoff said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying here the whole time.
> 
> As far as ClearChannel, that number is very much in flux; when the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1996 got signed by the spineless jellyfish Bill Clinton, they bought up *1200 *stations (a fact which by itself should have had all of us rioting in the streets) but their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and they soon found themselves top-heavy and losing money big time, which is why Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought them up.
> 
> As far as the current number, here's the latest Wiki info:
> >> The following is a list of radio stations currently owned by Clear Channel Communications. Of these stations, 448 of the stations which are outside the Top 100 DMA markets, plus another 91 stations which may or may not be in the top 100 DMAs are for sale. The TV stations formerly owned by Clear Channel were sold to Providence Equity Partners, a private equity firm, on April 23, 2007, with the deal closing in late November 2007. 185 radio stations were to have been sold to GoodRadio.TV LLC until the sale fell apart over financing.,[1][2] and another 177 stations have been sold to other entities.[3] Another 201 stations are up for sale.[4] <<
> 
> -- make what math you will of that.  I wouldn't want to pin it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really.  Premiere doesn't own any stations.  ClearChannel owns them -- and as noted above, many of them are in a fire sale, which puts a wrinkle.  So that's what he must mean by "we".  But those stations still have to compete _against _Limblob in the event that he's contracted to one of their competitors owned by somebody else.  Around here I've got one CC station broadcasting righties while another CC station broadcasts the lefties, in the same market.  It's done on an individual basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you're projecting emotions again, but I do see that you're still defining "success" in a narrow definition of money.
> 
> Not everything is about money.  Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And methinks you are so blinded by your ideological prejudices that you are going to read a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended.   I define success as in what is defined as success depending on what we are talking about.  YOU are the one who seems to be fixated on money and greed.
> 
> Commenting that Rush has more money than he will ever need and therefore does not HAVE to host a daily radio show is NOT equating money with success in his case.  Holding the #1 market share in radio in his genre for 25 years IS success.  But I don't expect a liberal Rush-hater to be either objective or honest about that.
> 
> I have conceded that you are a Rush hater/resenter/critic/whatever and that you, like others of your ideological perspective, are delighted with even flimsy hope that he will fail.  I allow you your opinions and your prejudices.
> 
> But I won't allow you to state dubious facts unchallenged when you can't back them up with anything other than your own opinions and prejudices.   And most especially when I have been backing up my opinions and prejudices with substance, I won't meekly accept you accusing me of motives or statements or opinions or intent that I haven't said and don't hold.
> 
> So there!
> 
> Harumph!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...hey, did you hear the one about a major market, 50k watt AM blowtorch that had zero advertisers for Rush's show and had to only run PSAs and self-promos instead?  Honest.  These clowns want it sooo bad they'll make up any b.s.  Can't really blame them though as they're used to dealing with their fellow low information folks who'll believe anything, especially if it was on the internet!
Click to expand...


Yeah I remember that.  Was it WABC? WLS?  I forget.  Probably several stations right after Slutgate.

But the program comes with gaps intended for local spots.  You have to fill them with something; dead air is illegal.


----------



## Foxfyre

blastoff said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been saying here the whole time.
> 
> As far as ClearChannel, that number is very much in flux; when the infamous Telecommunications Act of 1996 got signed by the spineless jellyfish Bill Clinton, they bought up *1200 *stations (a fact which by itself should have had all of us rioting in the streets) but their eyes were bigger than their stomachs and they soon found themselves top-heavy and losing money big time, which is why Mitt Romney's Bain Capital bought them up.
> 
> As far as the current number, here's the latest Wiki info:
> >> The following is a list of radio stations currently owned by Clear Channel Communications. Of these stations, 448 of the stations which are outside the Top 100 DMA markets, plus another 91 stations which may or may not be in the top 100 DMAs are for sale. The TV stations formerly owned by Clear Channel were sold to Providence Equity Partners, a private equity firm, on April 23, 2007, with the deal closing in late November 2007. 185 radio stations were to have been sold to GoodRadio.TV LLC until the sale fell apart over financing.,[1][2] and another 177 stations have been sold to other entities.[3] Another 201 stations are up for sale.[4] <<
> 
> -- make what math you will of that.  I wouldn't want to pin it down.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not really.  Premiere doesn't own any stations.  ClearChannel owns them -- and as noted above, many of them are in a fire sale, which puts a wrinkle.  So that's what he must mean by "we".  But those stations still have to compete _against _Limblob in the event that he's contracted to one of their competitors owned by somebody else.  Around here I've got one CC station broadcasting righties while another CC station broadcasts the lefties, in the same market.  It's done on an individual basis.
> 
> 
> 
> Methinks you're projecting emotions again, but I do see that you're still defining "success" in a narrow definition of money.
> 
> Not everything is about money.  Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And methinks you are so blinded by your ideological prejudices that you are going to read a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended.   I define success as in what is defined as success depending on what we are talking about.  YOU are the one who seems to be fixated on money and greed.
> 
> Commenting that Rush has more money than he will ever need and therefore does not HAVE to host a daily radio show is NOT equating money with success in his case.  Holding the #1 market share in radio in his genre for 25 years IS success.  But I don't expect a liberal Rush-hater to be either objective or honest about that.
> 
> I have conceded that you are a Rush hater/resenter/critic/whatever and that you, like others of your ideological perspective, are delighted with even flimsy hope that he will fail.  I allow you your opinions and your prejudices.
> 
> But I won't allow you to state dubious facts unchallenged when you can't back them up with anything other than your own opinions and prejudices.   And most especially when I have been backing up my opinions and prejudices with substance, I won't meekly accept you accusing me of motives or statements or opinions or intent that I haven't said and don't hold.
> 
> So there!
> 
> Harumph!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...hey, did you hear the one about a major market, 50k watt AM blowtorch that had zero advertisers for Rush's show and had to only run PSAs and self-promos instead?  Honest.  These clowns want it sooo bad they'll make up any b.s.  Can't really blame them though as they're used to dealing with their fellow low information folks who'll believe anything, especially if it was on the internet!
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think that rumor was started by a website called, I think, AtlanticWire who, while leaning pretty left, sometimes do a decent job with what they do.  They published a long list of advertisers who 'dumped Rush'  along with comments by execs of those advertisers.  Many of those later denied that they had been quoted accurately or had reacted in any way to the Sandra Fluke flap.  Some had never advertised on the Limbaugh program at all.  And if all of them had been advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show, there wouldn't have been any time for Rush.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And methinks you are so blinded by your ideological prejudices that you are going to read a whole bunch into what others post that they never said and never intended.   I define success as in what is defined as success depending on what we are talking about.  YOU are the one who seems to be fixated on money and greed.
> 
> Commenting that Rush has more money than he will ever need and therefore does not HAVE to host a daily radio show is NOT equating money with success in his case.  Holding the #1 market share in radio in his genre for 25 years IS success.  But I don't expect a liberal Rush-hater to be either objective or honest about that.
> 
> I have conceded that you are a Rush hater/resenter/critic/whatever and that you, like others of your ideological perspective, are delighted with even flimsy hope that he will fail.  I allow you your opinions and your prejudices.
> 
> But I won't allow you to state dubious facts unchallenged when you can't back them up with anything other than your own opinions and prejudices.   And most especially when I have been backing up my opinions and prejudices with substance, I won't meekly accept you accusing me of motives or statements or opinions or intent that I haven't said and don't hold.
> 
> So there!
> 
> Harumph!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...hey, did you hear the one about a major market, 50k watt AM blowtorch that had zero advertisers for Rush's show and had to only run PSAs and self-promos instead?  Honest.  These clowns want it sooo bad they'll make up any b.s.  Can't really blame them though as they're used to dealing with their fellow low information folks who'll believe anything, especially if it was on the internet!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think that rumor was started by a website called, I think, AtlanticWire who, while leaning pretty left, sometimes do a decent job with what they do.  They published a long list of advertisers who 'dumped Rush'  along with comments by execs of those advertisers.  Many of those later denied that they had been quoted accurately or had reacted in any way to the Sandra Fluke flap.  Some  had never advertised on the Limbaugh program at all.  And* if all of them had been advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show, there wouldn't have been any time for Rush*.
Click to expand...


Say, there's an idea....   Foxy you just earned your paycheck 

I don't think that was a rumor, the glut of PSAs, because I remember hearing the audio. It wasn't from Atlantic Wire, I've never heard of them.  Might have it in the archives...


----------



## blastoff

No, no rumor.  Try outright lie.


----------



## Foxfyre

blastoff said:


> No, no rumor.  Try outright lie.



The truth is, Rush haters reacted more strongly than the 'free speech' crowd on this one--and some squeamish advertisers, afraid of backlash from their customers if most of them agreed with the Rush haters, did demand that their advertisements not be run during the Rush Limbaugh show.  Very few of them pulled their advertising from the station or network. 

It was not much different from the same group who tried to destroy Glenn Beck and went after his advertisers at Fox News.  Fox lost very few, if any, advertisers but some did request not to be run during Glenn's show or any other political commentary program.  It costs so much more for advertisers to demand a specific time slot that most buy advertising to be run sometime during a much broader block of time.  That gives the stations or networks time to move ads around to keep the advertisers happy.    Few advertisers are going to cut off their nose to spite somebody by pulling their ads from a #1 market entirely.

Again, I doubt anybody who does extemporaneous monologue for most of three hours, five days a week, is not going to misspeak or blow a line or tell a bad joke or say something that offends somebody.    The PC police and haters seem to be willing to forgive anything other than violation of political correctness.   Unless of course it is somebody in their camp who is un-PC--then it's apparently forgivable.   Imus or Beck or Rush must be destroyed and a PC faux pas is all the reason they need to try to do it.  Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no rumor.  Try outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is, Rush haters reacted more strongly than the 'free speech' crowd on this one--and some squeamish advertisers, afraid of backlash from their customers if most of them agreed with the Rush haters, did demand that their advertisements not be run during the Rush Limbaugh show.  Very few of them pulled their advertising from the station or network.
> 
> It was not much different from the same group who tried to destroy Glenn Beck and went after his advertisers at Fox News.  Fox lost very few, if any, advertisers but some did request not to be run during Glenn's show or any other political commentary program.  It costs so much more for advertisers to demand a specific time slot that most buy advertising to be run sometime during a much broader block of time.  That gives the stations or networks time to move ads around to keep the advertisers happy.    Few advertisers are going to cut off their nose to spite somebody by pulling their ads from a #1 market entirely.
> 
> Again, I doubt anybody who does extemporaneous monologue for most of three hours, five days a week, is not going to misspeak or blow a line or tell a bad joke or say something that offends somebody.    The PC police and haters seem to be willing to forgive anything other than violation of political correctness.   Unless of course it is somebody in their camp who is un-PC--then it's apparently forgivable.   Imus or Beck or Rush must be destroyed and a PC faux pas is all the reason they need to try to do it.  Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass.
Click to expand...


They do huh?

Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and got his ass suspended for a week (and unlike Sandra Fluke, Ingraham was already a public figure).  Limblob, who went on a slut tirade for three days, was suspended how long again?

Maher was fired by ABC for noting (correctly) that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".

I didn't know you could fly but lucky for you I've got hold of your kite string.

Love ya Foxy.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no rumor.  Try outright lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is, Rush haters reacted more strongly than the 'free speech' crowd on this one--and some squeamish advertisers, afraid of backlash from their customers if most of them agreed with the Rush haters, did demand that their advertisements not be run during the Rush Limbaugh show.  Very few of them pulled their advertising from the station or network.
> 
> It was not much different from the same group who tried to destroy Glenn Beck and went after his advertisers at Fox News.  Fox lost very few, if any, advertisers but some did request not to be run during Glenn's show or any other political commentary program.  It costs so much more for advertisers to demand a specific time slot that most buy advertising to be run sometime during a much broader block of time.  That gives the stations or networks time to move ads around to keep the advertisers happy.    Few advertisers are going to cut off their nose to spite somebody by pulling their ads from a #1 market entirely.
> 
> Again, I doubt anybody who does extemporaneous monologue for most of three hours, five days a week, is not going to misspeak or blow a line or tell a bad joke or say something that offends somebody.    The PC police and haters seem to be willing to forgive anything other than violation of political correctness.   Unless of course it is somebody in their camp who is un-PC--then it's apparently forgivable.   Imus or Beck or Rush must be destroyed and a PC faux pas is all the reason they need to try to do it.  Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do huh?
> 
> Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and got his ass suspended for a week (and unlike Sandra Fluke, Ingraham was already a public figure).  Limblob, who went on a slut tirade for three days, was suspended how long again?
> 
> Maher was fired by ABC for noting (correctly) that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
> 
> I didn't know you could fly but lucky for you I've got hold of your kite string.
> 
> Love ya Foxy.
Click to expand...


Benching Ed Shitz for  a week was of no consequence.  It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.

Let's take it as a given that Rush was in the wrong for calling FlUCK a "slut."  Who would bench him?  Why would they?

He paid the price as did his network.

Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.  Gee.  Is it difficult to see that the advertisers balking at his imbecility might just have influenced ABC's decision?


----------



## Pogo

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is, Rush haters reacted more strongly than the 'free speech' crowd on this one--and some squeamish advertisers, afraid of backlash from their customers if most of them agreed with the Rush haters, did demand that their advertisements not be run during the Rush Limbaugh show.  Very few of them pulled their advertising from the station or network.
> 
> It was not much different from the same group who tried to destroy Glenn Beck and went after his advertisers at Fox News.  Fox lost very few, if any, advertisers but some did request not to be run during Glenn's show or any other political commentary program.  It costs so much more for advertisers to demand a specific time slot that most buy advertising to be run sometime during a much broader block of time.  That gives the stations or networks time to move ads around to keep the advertisers happy.    Few advertisers are going to cut off their nose to spite somebody by pulling their ads from a #1 market entirely.
> 
> Again, I doubt anybody who does extemporaneous monologue for most of three hours, five days a week, is not going to misspeak or blow a line or tell a bad joke or say something that offends somebody.    The PC police and haters seem to be willing to forgive anything other than violation of political correctness.   Unless of course it is somebody in their camp who is un-PC--then it's apparently forgivable.   Imus or Beck or Rush must be destroyed and a PC faux pas is all the reason they need to try to do it.  Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do huh?
> 
> Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and got his ass suspended for a week (and unlike Sandra Fluke, Ingraham was already a public figure).  Limblob, who went on a slut tirade for three days, was suspended how long again?
> 
> Maher was fired by ABC for noting (correctly) that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
> 
> I didn't know you could fly but lucky for you I've got hold of your kite string.
> 
> Love ya Foxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for  a week was of no consequence.  It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Let's take it as a given that Rush was in the wrong for calling FlUCK a "slut."  Who would bench him?  Why would they?
> 
> He paid the price as did his network.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.  Gee.  Is it difficult to see that the advertisers balking at his imbecility might just have influenced ABC's decision?
Click to expand...


All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do huh?
> 
> Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and got his ass suspended for a week (and unlike Sandra Fluke, Ingraham was already a public figure).  Limblob, who went on a slut tirade for three days, was suspended how long again?
> 
> Maher was fired by ABC for noting (correctly) that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
> 
> I didn't know you could fly but lucky for you I've got hold of your kite string.
> 
> Love ya Foxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for  a week was of no consequence.  It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Let's take it as a given that Rush was in the wrong for calling FlUCK a "slut."  Who would bench him?  Why would they?
> 
> He paid the price as did his network.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.  Gee.  Is it difficult to see that the advertisers balking at his imbecility might just have influenced ABC's decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.
Click to expand...


Citing a couple of contrary examples hardly invalidates that (as a general rule) the left does get a pass.

Who would have benched Rush?

The entire radio network/syndicate that provides his show to all the outlets in all the markets that want to air his show?
That's silly.

Rush's own EIB isn't going to do that.  Cumulus would have no reason to do that.  The individual market outlets MIGHT see fit to take him off their respective stations' programming for a week or whatever.  That's cool.  A business decision is a business decision.

By contrast, with fat head Ed, the purveyors of his irrelevant shit had an easy decision to make. Make a public rebuke of the boy to show how enlightened they were.  Big deal.  Didn't cost them much of anything.

As for ABC shit-canning Asshole Maher's show?  Again, the advertisers induced their reaction.  It became a pretty easy (and purely) business decision.

There is no comparison to Rush on any valid basis.  What Rush actually said was low class and baseless.   I grant you that.   But, so what?  It still boils down to a bean counter exercise and dumping Rush would be a piss-poor business decision.

You may lump that.  It's called reality.  You should pay a visit sometime, ploddo.


----------



## Foxfyre

Pogo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do huh?
> 
> Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and got his ass suspended for a week (and unlike Sandra Fluke, Ingraham was already a public figure).  Limblob, who went on a slut tirade for three days, was suspended how long again?
> 
> Maher was fired by ABC for noting (correctly) that the 9/11 hijackers could not be described as "cowards".
> 
> I didn't know you could fly but lucky for you I've got hold of your kite string.
> 
> Love ya Foxy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for  a week was of no consequence.  It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Let's take it as a given that Rush was in the wrong for calling FlUCK a "slut."  Who would bench him?  Why would they?
> 
> He paid the price as did his network.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.  Gee.  Is it difficult to see that the advertisers balking at his imbecility might just have influenced ABC's decision?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.
Click to expand...


Schultz one-week suspension was via mutual agreement between him and USMBC and was a small slap on the wrist compared to what the haters tried to do to Rush.  Schultz was so vile that even he had to admit it.   Ingrpham's response when she heard of the the suspension, "Oh great.  Now his ratings will go up."   And when Schultz offered a formal apology, Ingraham responded "Apology accepted."  (Which is a hell of a lot more gracious than Sandra Fluke's response to Rush's apology.)

Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News journalist, encouraged forgiveness for the crude statement. Susteren said though Schultz' remarks were "lame," her view after watching his apology is to "let it go."

Glenn Beck urged people to back off attacking Liz Winsead's cruel and tasteless joke re the Oklahoma tornado.  Liz apologized and that was sufficient.

So Fluke didn't say "Apology accepted" nor did any of the rabid, hateful lefties back off attacking Rush and trying to destroy him after he apologized.

The way I see it, those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters.  Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for  a week was of no consequence.  It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Let's take it as a given that Rush was in the wrong for calling FlUCK a "slut."  Who would bench him?  Why would they?
> 
> He paid the price as did his network.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.  Gee.  Is it difficult to see that the advertisers balking at his imbecility might just have influenced ABC's decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schultz one-week suspension was via mutual agreement between him and USMBC and was a small slap on the wrist compared to what the haters tried to do to Rush.  Schultz was so vile that even he had to admit it.   Ingrpham's response when she heard of the the suspension, "Oh great.  Now his ratings will go up."   And when Schultz offered a formal apology, Ingraham responded "Apology accepted."  (Which is a hell of a lot more gracious than Sandra Fluke's response to Rush's apology.)
> 
> Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News journalist, encouraged forgiveness for the crude statement. Susteren said though Schultz' remarks were "lame," her view after watching his apology is to "let it go."
> 
> Glenn Beck urged people to back off attacking Liz Winsead's cruel and tasteless joke re the Oklahoma tornado.  Liz apologized and that was sufficient.
> 
> So Fluke didn't say "Apology accepted" nor did any of the rabid, hateful lefties back off attacking Rush and trying to destroy him after he apologized.
> 
> The way I see it, those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters.  Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...


No.  Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, not a radio bloviator (like Ingraham) who fields such criticism as part of her job on a daily basis.

In any case you presented a postulation naming two names, and I refuted both of them.  Wouldn't you agreeeeee?  Coming back with "yeah but this" and "yeah but that" just sounds kinda lame.  As does Ilar doing the same thing analyzing the whys and wherefores.

I really don't care who gets suspended or why or whether or not they should be.  I simply refuted your statement of what *is*.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schultz one-week suspension was via mutual agreement between him and USMBC and was a small slap on the wrist compared to what the haters tried to do to Rush.  Schultz was so vile that even he had to admit it.   Ingrpham's response when she heard of the the suspension, "Oh great.  Now his ratings will go up."   And when Schultz offered a formal apology, Ingraham responded "Apology accepted."  (Which is a hell of a lot more gracious than Sandra Fluke's response to Rush's apology.)
> 
> Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News journalist, encouraged forgiveness for the crude statement. Susteren said though Schultz' remarks were "lame," her view after watching his apology is to "let it go."
> 
> Glenn Beck urged people to back off attacking Liz Winsead's cruel and tasteless joke re the Oklahoma tornado.  Liz apologized and that was sufficient.
> 
> So Fluke didn't say "Apology accepted" nor did any of the rabid, hateful lefties back off attacking Rush and trying to destroy him after he apologized.
> 
> The way I see it, those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters.  Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, not a radio bloviator (like Ingraham) who fields such criticism as part of her job on a daily basis.
> 
> In any case you presented a postulation naming two names, and I refuted both of them.  Wouldn't you agreeeeee?  Coming back with "yeah but this" and "yeah but that" just sounds kinda lame.  As does Ilar doing the same thing analyzing the whys and wherefores.
Click to expand...


Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.

End of problem.

Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for  a week was of no consequence.  It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Let's take it as a given that Rush was in the wrong for calling FlUCK a "slut."  Who would bench him?  Why would they?
> 
> He paid the price as did his network.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.  Gee.  Is it difficult to see that the advertisers balking at his imbecility might just have influenced ABC's decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Schultz one-week suspension was via mutual agreement between him and USMBC and was a small slap on the wrist compared to what the haters tried to do to Rush.  Schultz was so vile that even he had to admit it.   Ingrpham's response when she heard of the the suspension, "Oh great.  Now his ratings will go up."   And when Schultz offered a formal apology, Ingraham responded "Apology accepted."  (Which is a hell of a lot more gracious than Sandra Fluke's response to Rush's apology.)
> 
> Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News journalist, encouraged forgiveness for the crude statement. Susteren said though Schultz' remarks were "lame," her view after watching his apology is to "let it go."
> 
> Glenn Beck urged people to back off attacking Liz Winsead's cruel and tasteless joke re the Oklahoma tornado.  Liz apologized and that was sufficient.
> 
> So Fluke didn't say "Apology accepted" nor did any of the rabid, hateful lefties back off attacking Rush and trying to destroy him* after he apologized.*
> 
> The way I see it, those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters.  Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

Except he didn't apologize for what he said about Fluke, he apologized for being a Liberal!!!! BIG difference! He used his fake apology to attack the Left!!!!!!!!!!!

March 05, 2012
RUSH: * I acted too much like the leftists* who despise me. *I descended to their level*, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. *It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me*. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why* I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. *


----------



## IlarMeilyr

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant.  The posit was that "Maher or Schultz or any of the other leftwing extremists get a pass".  So I refuted it, factually.  Like it or lump it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schultz one-week suspension was via mutual agreement between him and USMBC and was a small slap on the wrist compared to what the haters tried to do to Rush.  Schultz was so vile that even he had to admit it.   Ingrpham's response when she heard of the the suspension, "Oh great.  Now his ratings will go up."   And when Schultz offered a formal apology, Ingraham responded "Apology accepted."  (Which is a hell of a lot more gracious than Sandra Fluke's response to Rush's apology.)
> 
> Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News journalist, encouraged forgiveness for the crude statement. Susteren said though Schultz' remarks were "lame," her view after watching his apology is to "let it go."
> 
> Glenn Beck urged people to back off attacking Liz Winsead's cruel and tasteless joke re the Oklahoma tornado.  Liz apologized and that was sufficient.
> 
> So Fluke didn't say "Apology accepted" nor did any of the rabid, hateful lefties back off attacking Rush and trying to destroy him* after he apologized.*
> 
> The way I see it, those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters.  Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except he didn't apologize for what he said about Fluke, he apologized for being a Liberal!!!! BIG difference! He used his fake apology to attack the Left!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> March 05, 2012
> RUSH: * I acted too much like the leftists* who despise me. *I descended to their level*, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. *It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me*. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why* I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. *
Click to expand...


He was right to apologize for descending to the level of the liberals who do that kind of shit all the time.  

But, yeah.  I also agree that he owed a bit more of a real apology to Fluke.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schultz one-week suspension was via mutual agreement between him and USMBC and was a small slap on the wrist compared to what the haters tried to do to Rush.  Schultz was so vile that even he had to admit it.   Ingrpham's response when she heard of the the suspension, "Oh great.  Now his ratings will go up."   And when Schultz offered a formal apology, Ingraham responded "Apology accepted."  (Which is a hell of a lot more gracious than Sandra Fluke's response to Rush's apology.)
> 
> Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News journalist, encouraged forgiveness for the crude statement. Susteren said though Schultz' remarks were "lame," her view after watching his apology is to "let it go."
> 
> Glenn Beck urged people to back off attacking Liz Winsead's cruel and tasteless joke re the Oklahoma tornado.  Liz apologized and that was sufficient.
> 
> So Fluke didn't say "Apology accepted" nor did any of the rabid, hateful lefties back off attacking Rush and trying to destroy him after he apologized.
> 
> The way I see it, those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters.  Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, not a radio bloviator (like Ingraham) who fields such criticism as part of her job on a daily basis.
> 
> In any case you presented a postulation naming two names, and I refuted both of them.  Wouldn't you agreeeeee?  Coming back with "yeah but this" and "yeah but that" just sounds kinda lame.  As does Ilar doing the same thing analyzing the whys and wherefores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.

As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:



> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called many things, from a heroine to a &#8220;slut,&#8221; but actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting information:
> 
> For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving &#8220;coed&#8221;. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women&#8217;s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown&#8217;s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn&#8217;t cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
> 
> Though there aren&#8217;t links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that it&#8217;s all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women&#8217;s rights activist who not only didn&#8217;t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn&#8217;t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.
> 
> First, there&#8217;s the matter of Fluke&#8217;s age. In a segment on Fluke&#8217;s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke &#8220;the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.&#8221; Yet Fluke&#8217;s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman.
> 
> According to a bio on Georgetown's website, Fluke's professional background is in domestic violence and human trafficking advocacy. At Georgetown law, she is the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and vice president of the Women's Legal Alliance. She has a bachelor's degree in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies from Cornell.
> 
> Read more: Who Is Sandra Fluke? - BusinessInsider.com - Business Insider





> Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .
> 
> So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
> 
> After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
> 
> Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.
> 
> A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
> Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor



Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.

But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.

Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this.  There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website.  It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it.  (I could be off on the timeline.)   But it has vanished.  And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, not a radio bloviator (like Ingraham) who fields such criticism as part of her job on a daily basis.
> 
> In any case you presented a postulation naming two names, and I refuted both of them.  Wouldn't you agreeeeee?  Coming back with "yeah but this" and "yeah but that" just sounds kinda lame.  As does Ilar doing the same thing analyzing the whys and wherefores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called many things, from a heroine to a slut, but actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting information:
> 
> For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving coed. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active womens right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetowns insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didnt cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
> 
> Though there arent links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that its all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old womens rights activist who not only didnt get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didnt cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.
> 
> First, theres the matter of Flukes age. In a segment on Flukes battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying. Yet Flukes own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman.
> 
> According to a bio on Georgetown's website, Fluke's professional background is in domestic violence and human trafficking advocacy. At Georgetown law, she is the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and vice president of the Women's Legal Alliance. She has a bachelor's degree in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies from Cornell.
> 
> Read more: Who Is Sandra Fluke? - BusinessInsider.com - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .
> 
> So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
> 
> After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
> 
> Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.
> 
> A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
> Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
Click to expand...


It does matter that she had already become a public figure.  HOWEVER, that does NOT excuse the fact that Rush called her a "slut."

And I still say that Rush owed her a genuine apology for saying that.

Rush (pardon my French) fucked up.  He has paid a rather hefty price for that, by the way.

The efforts of the usual-suspect lefties to exploit it to the point of silencing him completely is transparently disingenuous, though.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .
> 
> So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
> 
> After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
> 
> Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.
> 
> A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
> Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does matter that she had already become a public figure.  HOWEVER, that does NOT excuse the fact that Rush called her a "slut."
> 
> And I still say that Rush owed her a genuine apology for saying that.
> 
> Rush (pardon my French) fucked up.  He has paid a rather hefty price for that, by the way.
> 
> The efforts of the usual-suspect lefties to exploit it to the point of silencing him completely is transparently disingenuous, though.
Click to expand...


He did apologize.
"My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."--Rush Limbaugh.   He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.

Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.

But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it.  Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.

That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs.  And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Sandra Fluke is a private citizen, not a radio bloviator (like Ingraham) who fields such criticism as part of her job on a daily basis.
> 
> In any case you presented a postulation naming two names, and I refuted both of them.  Wouldn't you agreeeeee?  Coming back with "yeah but this" and "yeah but that" just sounds kinda lame.  As does Ilar doing the same thing analyzing the whys and wherefores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke has been called many things, from a heroine to a slut, but actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting information:
> 
> For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving coed. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active womens right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetowns insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didnt cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
> 
> Though there arent links in the original post to the content mentioned, a little digging shows that its all true. Fluke has described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old womens rights activist who not only didnt get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didnt cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.
> 
> First, theres the matter of Flukes age. In a segment on Flukes battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying. Yet Flukes own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman.
> 
> According to a bio on Georgetown's website, Fluke's professional background is in domestic violence and human trafficking advocacy. At Georgetown law, she is the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and vice president of the Women's Legal Alliance. She has a bachelor's degree in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies from Cornell.
> 
> Read more: Who Is Sandra Fluke? - BusinessInsider.com - Business Insider
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .
> 
> So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
> 
> After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
> 
> Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.
> 
> A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
> Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
> 
> Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this.  There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website.  It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it.  (I could be off on the timeline.)   But it has vanished.  And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.
Click to expand...


Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try).  That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such.  I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial.  And yes that is different from a private citizen.  And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for _three hours a day times three days_.  You're fooling no one but yourself here.  And this is really not the topic anyway.

To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .
> 
> So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
> 
> After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
> 
> Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.
> 
> A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
> Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
> 
> Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this.  There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website.  It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it.  (I could be off on the timeline.)   But it has vanished.  And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try).  That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such.  I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial.  And yes that is different from a private citizen.  And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for _three hours a day times three days_.  You're fooling no one but yourself here.  And this is really not the topic anyway.
> 
> To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio
Click to expand...


Wishing for it won't make it come true, ploddo.

We all get it.  You hate conservative talk radio programming.  You wish it would die.  Ho hum.

But this month's "moving away" can easily be next month's "moving back."

The cause of modern American liberalism self-implodes with the horrendous performance of the Obama Administration relative to the IRS, Benghazi and the coverup scandal, the misuse (or alleged misuse) of the Patriot Act type laws, etc. etc etc.

The disquiet that folks feel for government in these cases, magnified by their numbers and importance, might just feed into a brand new re-invigoration of conservative talk radio.

But go ahead and count your chickens before they're hatched.  Hell, count 'em before the eggs even get laid.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does matter that she had already become a public figure.  HOWEVER, that does NOT excuse the fact that Rush called her a "slut."
> 
> And I still say that Rush owed her a genuine apology for saying that.
> 
> Rush (pardon my French) fucked up.  He has paid a rather hefty price for that, by the way.
> 
> The efforts of the usual-suspect lefties to exploit it to the point of silencing him completely is transparently disingenuous, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did apologize.
> "*My choice of words* was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. *I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.*"--Rush Limbaugh.   He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.
> 
> Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.
> 
> But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it.  Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.
> 
> That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs.  And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."

March 03, 2012
RUSH: But *this is the mistake I made.** In fighting them on this issue last week, *I became like them.**
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong *I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.** That was my error.* *I became like them*, and I feel very badly about that...
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability


----------



## IlarMeilyr

The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals.  Good.

The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke.  My bad for having forgotten that.

Foxy is right.  He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.


----------



## Foxfyre

IlarMeilyr said:


> The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals.  Good.
> 
> The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke.  My bad for having forgotten that.
> 
> Foxy is right.  He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.



If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.


----------



## edthecynic

edthecynic said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does matter that she had already become a public figure.  HOWEVER, that does NOT excuse the fact that Rush called her a "slut."
> 
> And I still say that Rush owed her a genuine apology for saying that.
> 
> Rush (pardon my French) fucked up.  He has paid a rather hefty price for that, by the way.
> 
> The efforts of the usual-suspect lefties to exploit it to the point of silencing him completely is transparently disingenuous, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did apologize.
> "*My choice of words* was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. *I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.*"--Rush Limbaugh.   He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.
> 
> Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.
> 
> But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it.  Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.
> 
> That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs.  And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."
> 
> March 03, 2012
> RUSH: But *this is the mistake I made.** In fighting them on this issue last week, *I became like them.**
> Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong *I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.** That was my error.* *I became like them*, and I feel very badly about that...
> I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability
Click to expand...




Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals.  Good.
> 
> The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke.  My bad for having forgotten that.
> 
> Foxy is right.  He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything* the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology* and why it was necessary.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. Wait a minute, yes you can.

The qualifier says it wasn't the insult that was the problem, but the words used to insult. It wasn't the insult, it was the Liberalism of the words used to insult her. Had he insulted her with less liberal more CON$ervative words like tramp instead of slut and whore instead of prostitute the insult would have been perfectly OK.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

He took a shot at the liberals while he was offering an apology to Fluke for what he said.

Obviously, close-minded partisan hack guys like edthesickdick are incapable of accepting that Rush could very easily have been JUST as sincere in apologizing to Fluke as he was sincere in taking a well-deserved shot at liberals.


They aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals.  Good.
> 
> The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke.  My bad for having forgotten that.
> 
> Foxy is right.  He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology and why it was necessary.
Click to expand...


It was never a secret why it was necessary; as somebody described it at the time, it was a "walletfelt apology".  He was hemorrhaging sponsors.


----------



## Foxfyre

edthecynic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did apologize.
> "*My choice of words* was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. *I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.*"--Rush Limbaugh.   He gave it on air and posted it on his website where it remains.
> 
> Certainly that was as sincere as Laura Ingraham got from Ed Schultz, was as sincere as Liz Winstead's apology for an insensitve tweet or any number of other apologies that have been issue by various public figures who misspoke or were insulting over the years.
> 
> But as I posted earlier Ingraham publicly accepted Schultz apology and other conservative figures have also publicly accepted it.  Sandra Fluke publicly refused to accept Rush's apology and the mob attempt to destroy him continued unabated.
> 
> That is the difference between most conservatives and rabid leftist mobs.  And the difference between class and graciousness and whatever is the opposite of that.
> 
> 
> 
> You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."
> 
> March 03, 2012
> RUSH: But *this is the mistake I made.** In fighting them on this issue last week, *I became like them.**
> Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong *I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.** That was my error.* *I became like them*, and I feel very badly about that...
> I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> The qualifieer was a dig at the fucking liberals.  Good.
> 
> The qualifier does NOT undermine the apology which he DID give to Ms. Fluke.  My bad for having forgotten that.
> 
> Foxy is right.  He DID apologize and the sincerity of that portion of his apology is not really deserving of doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anything* the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology* and why it was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be serious. Wait a minute, yes you can.
> 
> The qualifier says it wasn't the insult that was the problem, but the words used to insult. It wasn't the insult, it was the Liberalism of the words used to insult her. Had he insulted her with less liberal more CON$ervative words like tramp instead of slut and whore instead of prostitute the insult would have been perfectly OK.
Click to expand...


Nope.  He was further chastising himself for sinking to the level of people who think it is okay to direct such terms to some people, namely the hateful, judgmental, politically correct Left.  He was acknowledging that he should have known better and not sunk to such a level.  It was wrong to use those words or anything like them and he felt badly about that.  It did not minimize or excuse or take anything away from the direct apology in any way.


----------



## edthecynic

IlarMeilyr said:


> He took a shot at the liberals while he was offering an apology to Fluke for what he said.
> 
> Obviously, close-minded partisan hack guys like edthesickdick are incapable of accepting that *Rush could very easily have been JUST as sincere in apologizing to Fluke as he was sincere in taking a well-deserved shot at liberals.*
> 
> 
> They aren't mutually exclusive.


As sincere as using names and exaggerations is beneath him, after all he has never given anyone an insulting name like "feminazi" in the entire history of his show.

March 05, 2012
RUSH:  I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level,* using names and exaggerations* to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but* it's way beneath me.* And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You left out this qualifier your MessiahRushie gave for his "apology."
> 
> March 03, 2012
> RUSH: But *this is the mistake I made.** In fighting them on this issue last week, *I became like them.**
> Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong *I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.** That was my error.* *I became like them*, and I feel very badly about that...
> I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything* the qualifier emphasizes the sincerity of the apology* and why it was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't be serious. Wait a minute, yes you can.
> 
> The qualifier says it wasn't the insult that was the problem, but the words used to insult. It wasn't the insult, it was the Liberalism of the words used to insult her. Had he insulted her with less liberal more CON$ervative words like tramp instead of slut and whore instead of prostitute the insult would have been perfectly OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  He was further* chastising himself for sinking to the level of people who think it is okay to direct such terms to some people*, namely the hateful, judgmental, politically correct Left.  He was acknowledging that he should have known better and not sunk to such a level.  It was wrong to use those words or anything like them and he felt badly about that.  It did not minimize or excuse or take anything away from the direct apology in any way.
Click to expand...

Chastising himself for being consistent with the entire history of his show, you mean.

October 9, 2008
RUSH:  I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR.


----------



## Foxfyre

You probably still couldn't define feminazi or know who/what Rush means with that term if your life depended on it, Ed.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> You probably still couldn't define feminazi or know who/what Rush means with that term if your life depended on it, Ed.



You're saying there's a context where "Nazi" is a compliment?


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> You probably still couldn't define feminazi or know who/what Rush means with that term if your life depended on it, Ed.


So you think Feminazi is a compliment. Then you must think that using one person's speech pattern to insult another person's name is "an act of compassion."

To the wicked, everything serves as pretext.
Voltaire

April 1, 2008
RUSH: New York governor *Mario Cooomo* who was on -- where was this? -- The Situation Room. For those of you new to the program, *"Rush, it's Cuo-mo."  I know that. * But a long time ago,* I heard the Reverend Jackson pronounce his name "Cooomo."  You know, it's not stylish and it's not classy to correct somebody's pronunciation of things*, especially when the mistake is made by a man of the cloth and a respected, revered Rev.  So if he thinks it's Cooomo, then on this program, it's* Cooomo, and that is an act of compassion.*


----------



## Foxfyre

Since Ed has a really difficult time with context, here is the full context of Rush's comments  a day or two AFTER his initial policy to Sandra Fluke that I have already posted and a subsequent media release on Friday, March 3 I think.  

Note that he apologized a second time on air in this broadcast segment.



> While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here.  It's all I ask and then you can do what you want.  I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday.  I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left.  They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda.  It's what they do.  It's what we fight against here every day.  But this is the mistake I made.  In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.
> 
> Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.  That was my error.  I became like them, and I feel very badly about that.  I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program.  Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate.  They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her.  I do not think she is either of those two words.  I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.
> 
> The apology to her over the weekend was sincere.  It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose.  I ended up descending to their level.  It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them.  The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win.  That was my error last week.  But the apology was heartfelt.  The apology was sincere.  And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else.  No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention.  Pure, simple, heartfelt.  That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> Since Ed has a really difficult time with context, here is the full context of Rush's comments  a day or two AFTER his initial policy to Sandra Fluke that I have already posted and a subsequent media release on Friday, March 3 I think.
> 
> Note that he apologized a second time on air in this broadcast segment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here.  It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. * I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke* in the statement that was released on Saturday.  I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect -- and I know you don't, either -- morality or intellectual honesty from the left. * They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda.*  It's what they do.  It's what we fight against here every day.  But this is the mistake I made.  In fighting them on this issue last week, *I became like them.*
> 
> Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke.  That was my error.  I became like them, and I feel very badly about that.  I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program.  Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate.  They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her.  I do not think she is either of those two words.  I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.
> 
> The apology to her over the weekend was sincere.  It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose.  I ended up descending to their level.  It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them.  The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win.  That was my error last week.  But the apology was heartfelt.  The apology was sincere.  And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else.  No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention.  Pure, simple, heartfelt.  That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.
Click to expand...

How many times does he have to pretend that his entire history is one of insulting those he doesn't agree with before you see him as the liar he is. His "apology" had all the sincerity of a pathological liar.


----------



## Foxfyre

And the point still goes whistling over the heads of Pogo and Ed.  A pity, but oh well.   I still say it's something in the water the liberals drink. . . .


----------



## edthecynic

Foxfyre said:


> And the point still goes whistling over the heads of Pogo and Ed.  A pity, but oh well.   I still say it's something in the water the liberals drink. . . .


And the point that he could be lying to cover his ass couldn't possibly be whistling over YOUR head, after all it's not like he has ever denied doing what he does before so the pathological liar is 100% believable.

May 6, 2008
RUSH:  *Everybody tampers with elections* because they're trying to influence the outcome.  *But I'm not a tamperer. *

May 9, 2008
RUSH:   *Operation Chaos involves* Republican operatives *tampering in*, messing around with, having fun in, *Democrat elections*

January 19, 2009
RUSH: *I don't see groups of people.*

December 01, 2011
RUSH: This is an election of* the makers versus the takers*, and what hangs in the balance really is the American way of life.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> And the point still goes whistling over the heads of Pogo and Ed.  A pity, but oh well.   I still say it's something in the water the liberals drink. . . .



Drinking water is one thing; the waters of DeNial run much deeper.
And they have undercurrents that can sweep you away


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke chose to make herself a public figure.
> 
> End of problem.
> 
> Your sophistry has been refuted and rebutted.  That you can't acknowledge it shows you for what you aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, late today we found out that Ms. Fluke is now being repped by the progressive PR agency SKDKnickerbocker where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director is the managing editor... a-ha! . . .
> 
> So, this whole deal comes back to the White House, at least indirectly. So, let's run down what we know. Sandra Fluke is a former head of the group "Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice." On February 9th, a group called "The Feminist Majority Foundation" arranged for Sandra to appear at press conference criticizing the Catholic bishops for objecting to President Obama's contraception mandate.
> 
> After that, Congressman Elijah Cummings, the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited Sandra to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. But she was turned down by the chair, Congressman Darrell Issa, because she had no expertise in the church/state subject matter.
> 
> Nevertheless, Ms. Fluke went to the hearing and afterward complained to ABC News that she had been denied.
> 
> A week later, Nancy Pelosi staged a mock hearing starring Sandra. After which Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments elevating her to left-wing martyrdom.
> Read more: Bill O'Reilly: Who is running Sandra Fluke? | Talking Points | The O'Reilly Factor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
> 
> Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this.  There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website.  It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it.  (I could be off on the timeline.)   But it has vanished.  And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try).  That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such.  I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial.  And yes that is different from a private citizen.  And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for _three hours a day times three days_.  You're fooling no one but yourself here.  And this is really not the topic anyway.
> 
> To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio
Click to expand...

Just an observation, Pogo: People might take you a bit more seriously if you called Mr. Limbaugh by his right name instead of some insulting bastardization of it that you find humorous.

You want people to treat Ms. Fluke with respect, but can't reciprocate?

Just a touch hypocritical, no?


----------



## Moonglow

The only Rush I will listen to is on tour this summer.


----------



## Ernie S.

Typical low information voter.

A Canadian band, to boot. Who do you listen to for political commentary, Niel Young?


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter whether a person is a public figure or a private figure.  Think what the leftie mobs tried to do to Chick-fil-a for a politically incorrect comment that was far less offensive than anything Rush said.  They'll attack anybody who doesn't toe the liberal PC line if they think they can get their faces before cameras and their words into print doing it.  The last I heard, the owner of Chick-fil-a was a private citizen too.
> 
> As for Sandra Fluke being a 'private citizen', technically that is true.  But she has been a professional political activist for some time also:
> 
> 
> Now does any of this give license to anybody to publicly call Ms. Fluke a 'slut'?  Absolutely not and none of us should approve of that kind of language directed toward anybody anywhere, including here on USMB.
> 
> But is she somehow 'special' and 'more protected' from personal slurs and insults than is the average well known public figure?  Not in my book.
> 
> Incidentally, one more curious thing about all this.  There is zero reference to Sandra Fluke now at Georgetown University's website.  It was there I think about six months ago when I last looked at it.  (I could be off on the timeline.)   But it has vanished.  And type her name into their search engine and you get crickets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try).  That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such.  I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial.  And yes that is different from a private citizen.  And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for _three hours a day times three days_.  You're fooling no one but yourself here.  And this is really not the topic anyway.
> 
> To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just an observation, Pogo: People might take you a bit more seriously if you called Mr. Limbaugh by his right name instead of some insulting bastardization of it that you find humorous.
> 
> You want people to treat Ms. Fluke with respect, but can't reciprocate?
> 
> Just a touch hypocritical, no?
Click to expand...


PPPPSSHHHHWTFFFT... Ernie, you owe me a new keyboard.  Say WHAT?

This is the guy you thought "buried" my points:


> Benching Ed Shitz for a week was of no consequence. It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.



You know, the same guy who refers to his opponents as "Ploddo" and "Edthesickdick" ?

Double standard much??

Wow.  Well as I said, DeNial is deep...

I gotta add, I don't mind "Ploddo".  It's not great work but at least he's thinking in terms of playing with words.  So what?  Roll wid it.

I thought "Rachel Madcow" was pretty good.  Ed Schitz, not so much.  It's an art form.  Lighten up.


----------



## Moonglow

Ernie S. said:


> Typical low information voter.
> 
> A Canadian band, to boot. Who do you listen to for political commentary, Niel Young?



myself


----------



## Papageorgio

Moonglow said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical low information voter.
> 
> A Canadian band, to boot. Who do you listen to for political commentary, Niel Young?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> myself
Click to expand...


It worse than I thought.


----------



## Ernie S.

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said she is, Foxy, and desperate attempts to discredit the victim noted - watch those icebergs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked if "those eeeeeeevul conservatives have a hell of a lot more class than the leftie haters" (which is loaded; we were talking about Limblob, not 'those eeeeeeeevul conservatives, nice try).  That is a question of comparison, so I answered it as such.  I didn't have to stretch all the way to a questionable site like Gateway Pundit to find out that Laura Ingraham is a public media figure and as such, pre-existingly controversial.  And yes that is different from a private citizen.  And we didn't even go into the contrast between Schultz' single use and Limblob's rant that went on for _three hours a day times three days_.  You're fooling no one but yourself here.  And this is really not the topic anyway.
> 
> To return TO that topic -- here's an article from last fall about trends in radio advertising in general: Advertisers moving away from talk radio
> 
> 
> 
> Just an observation, Pogo: People might take you a bit more seriously if you called Mr. Limbaugh by his right name instead of some insulting bastardization of it that you find humorous.
> 
> You want people to treat Ms. Fluke with respect, but can't reciprocate?
> 
> Just a touch hypocritical, no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PPPPSSHHHHWTFFFT... Ernie, you owe me a new keyboard.  Say WHAT?
> 
> This is the guy you thought "buried" my points:
> 
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for a week was of no consequence. It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, the same guy who refers to his opponents as "Ploddo" and "Edthesickdick" ?
> 
> Double standard much??
> 
> Wow.  Well as I said, DeNial is deep...
> 
> I gotta add, I don't mind "Ploddo".  It's not great work but at least he's thinking in terms of playing with words.  So what?  Roll wid it.
> 
> I thought "Rachel Madcow" was pretty good.  Ed Schitz, not so much.  It's an art form.  Lighten up.
Click to expand...

I wasn't giving HIM advice on how to recover from zero credibility, pogo, I addressed YOU.


----------



## Moonglow

Papageorgio said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical low information voter.
> 
> A Canadian band, to boot. Who do you listen to for political commentary, Niel Young?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> myself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It worse than I thought.
Click to expand...


Some adjust, others sublimate.


----------



## Pogo

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an observation, Pogo: People might take you a bit more seriously if you called Mr. Limbaugh by his right name instead of some insulting bastardization of it that you find humorous.
> 
> You want people to treat Ms. Fluke with respect, but can't reciprocate?
> 
> Just a touch hypocritical, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PPPPSSHHHHWTFFFT... Ernie, you owe me a new keyboard.  Say WHAT?
> 
> This is the guy you thought "buried" my points:
> 
> 
> 
> Benching Ed Shitz for a week was of no consequence. It could not impact the bottom line since that fat twerp generated little one way of the other.
> 
> Maher was a fucking asshole who said a spectacularly stupid thing at very much the wrong time for a program on a broadcast network.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, the same guy who refers to his opponents as "Ploddo" and "Edthesickdick" ?
> 
> Double standard much??
> 
> Wow.  Well as I said, DeNial is deep...
> 
> I gotta add, I don't mind "Ploddo".  It's not great work but at least he's thinking in terms of playing with words.  So what?  Roll wid it.
> 
> I thought "Rachel Madcow" was pretty good.  Ed Schitz, not so much.  It's an art form.  Lighten up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't giving HIM advice on how to recover from zero credibility, pogo, I addressed YOU.
Click to expand...


I see we've revised our previous assessment.  You hadn't updated me but very well then.

I just don't get worked up about that stuff.  Far as I'm concerned, any time anybody gets creative with wording/spelling, that's a _good _thing.  It demonstrates there's something going on in the author cerebrally.  Besides, I do that with everything, as you prolly (<there's one right there) know from other posts.  It's just not an issue.

I figure you can play everything straight-laced or you can get creative.  I just can't play everything straight.  It's boring.

Take "Rachel Madcow".  Please.  I don't agree with what it says qualitatively about Maddow, as IMHO the woman at least does her homework and invites counterpoint, which I respect.  But that being said I have to admit that changing one letter to "Madcow" is a clever and economical conversion.  I can admire the lexicographic artistry without agreeing with the final intent.  "Fox Noise" is another one; I didn't invent it, just picked it up, but it's a  well done pun. 

"Lush Rimjob" though, is my original work. 

It's just not a big deal.  I figure if one's skin is so thin we can't handle a rework of some third-party public figure's name (let alone one's own), then one shouldn't be playing in the political discourse pit.

Anyway that's how I look at it.  If the resulting posts come out more opinionated but less boring, I figure that's preferable to the other way around.

(/offtopic)


----------



## Foxfyre

Interesting, Pogo, that you give yourself credit for expressing yourself creatively, but accuse Rush for doing the same thing.  Hmmmm.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Interesting, Pogo, that you give yourself credit for expressing yourself creatively, but accuse Rush for doing the same thing.  Hmmmm.



Aw c'mon now.  I never accused Rush of being creative.  Neither the radio guy nor the band.

Y'see??  If I had said "Lush Rimjob", there would have been no confusion about whether I meant the rock band.

Yeah, that's it.

Coincidentally I just came across this:


----------



## edthecynic




----------



## JoeB131

To be fair, Rush doesn't say "Feminazi" that often anymore.


----------



## edthecynic

JoeB131 said:


> To be fair, Rush doesn't say "Feminazi" that often anymore.


Just a sample from this year alone:

 Read More
SCOTUS Questions on Gay Marriage Would've Been a Sanity Test ...
March 26, 2013
Mar 26, 2013 ... Anyway, I can remember, I was in Sacramento and one of the world's most famous *feminazis* came to town, this babe named Andrea Dworkin.

 Read More
The Pop Culture Crowd Doesn't Like Me Intruding on Their Turf ...
March 24, 2013
Mar 24, 2013 ... Then the song comes out and we have a little fun with it based on the *feminazi* connotations, and these people in the pop culture media are ...

 Read More
Corporate Queen Bee Syndrome - The Rush Limbaugh Show
March 07, 2013
Mar 7, 2013 ... The militant *feminazis* were just royally ticked off by human nature, and that ... I forget who, it was some man that the feminazis all admired, who ...

 Read More
Pearls of Wisdom - The Rush Limbaugh Show
March 07, 2013
Mar 7, 2013 ... "I realize that the term '*feminazi*' might not be useful and helpful in outreach towards low-information voters, but to heck with it. *I love the term*, ...

 Read More
Did *Feminazis* Shorten the Female Lifespan? - The Rush Limbaugh ...
March 04, 2013
Mar 4, 2013 ... RUSH: The *feminazis*, what did they do? They basically went out and told women , "You can do anything, you can be anything, you can have it ...

 Read More
Blizzard Survivors Tell Their Stories - The Rush Limbaugh Show
February 07, 2013
Feb 7, 2013 ... Where I was staying at the Marriott in Providence, the only female companionship I had was a *feminazi* lawyer from San Francisco. That is ...

 Read More
Every Man in Hillary Clinton's Life Sends Her Out to Lie for Him ...
January 23, 2013
Jan 23, 2013 ... Hillary Clinton could save him from drowning and he would still call her a *feminazi* because she was strong enough to lift him out of the water.

 Read More
Videos - The Rush Limbaugh Show
January 16, 2013
Jan 16, 2013 ... The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's ...


----------



## JoeB131

If you have to go back to March to find three examples in the month... 

I do notice that "Low INformation Voter" is his newest catch phrase.    Repeated by our mind-numbed robots here, obviously.


----------



## edthecynic

JoeB131 said:


> If you have to go back to March to find three examples in the month...
> 
> I do notice that "Low INformation Voter" is his newest catch phrase.    Repeated by our mind-numbed robots here, obviously.


That was what I got from his website search engine, which never gets them all.

Here is one not picked up by his search engine from May 2, 2013:
RUSH: "It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *Feminazis*,"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glZ8q7UKEo]Limbaugh Declares Victory: 'I Have Succeeded In Stigmatizing' Feminism - YouTube[/ame]

The pathological liar scrubs his transcripts of offending words that cost him advertisers, though he says it so many times his software misses it. You can see that the transcript on his site substitutes "activists" for "feminazis." On the YouTube track you can clearly hear him say feminazi.

RUSH: The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead, at least in this way.  "Seventy-two percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'. It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *activists*.


BTW, his stats are cooked because he is using men calling themselves feminists or not.  And when you use the dictionary definition of feminist rather than the insulting right-wing perversion of feminist, 57% of men and women combines say they are feminists.


----------



## JoeB131

edthecynic said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to go back to March to find three examples in the month...
> 
> I do notice that "Low INformation Voter" is his newest catch phrase.    Repeated by our mind-numbed robots here, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> That was what I got from his website search engine, which never gets them all.
> 
> Here is one not picked up by his search engine from May 2, 2013:
> RUSH: "It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *Feminazis*,"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glZ8q7UKEo]Limbaugh Declares Victory: 'I Have Succeeded In Stigmatizing' Feminism - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The pathological liar scrubs his transcripts of offending words that cost him advertisers, though he says it so many times his software misses it. You can see that the transcript on his site substitutes "activists" for "feminazis." On the YouTube track you can clearly hear him say feminazi.
> 
> RUSH: The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead, at least in this way.  "Seventy-two percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'. It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *activists*.
> 
> 
> BTW, his stats are cooked because he is using men calling themselves feminists or not.  And when you use the dictionary definition of feminist rather than the insulting right-wing perversion of feminist, 57% of men and women combines say they are feminists.
Click to expand...


To be fair, I spent the last week listening to his show, or at least as much of it as I can stand. 

I didn't hear him say "Feminazi" once all week.  

Don't listen to him that often anymore, I do when I'm on vacation because where I go, there's no TV or Internet, and all I can get is Radio.  

Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.


----------



## edthecynic

JoeB131 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to go back to March to find three examples in the month...
> 
> I do notice that "Low INformation Voter" is his newest catch phrase.    Repeated by our mind-numbed robots here, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> That was what I got from his website search engine, which never gets them all.
> 
> Here is one not picked up by his search engine from May 2, 2013:
> RUSH: "It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *Feminazis*,"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glZ8q7UKEo]Limbaugh Declares Victory: 'I Have Succeeded In Stigmatizing' Feminism - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The pathological liar scrubs his transcripts of offending words that cost him advertisers, though he says it so many times his software misses it. You can see that the transcript on his site substitutes "activists" for "feminazis." On the YouTube track you can clearly hear him say feminazi.
> 
> RUSH: The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead, at least in this way.  "Seventy-two percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'. It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *activists*.
> 
> 
> BTW, his stats are cooked because he is using men calling themselves feminists or not.  And when you use the dictionary definition of feminist rather than the insulting right-wing perversion of feminist, 57% of men and women combines say they are feminists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, I spent the last week listening to his show, or at least as much of it as I can stand.
> 
> I didn't hear him say "Feminazi" once all week.
> 
> Don't listen to him that often anymore, I do when I'm on vacation because where I go, there's no TV or Internet, and all I can get is Radio.
> 
> Did here him babble on about *'the Limbaugh Theorom"* that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.
Click to expand...

The kicker is that it isn't even his "theorem." He plagiarized Noah Rothman.

Obama?s Perpetual Campaign: When Will The Nation Tire Of Not Having An Executive In The White House? | Mediaite
*Obamas Perpetual Campaign: When Will The Nation Tire Of Not Having An Executive In The White House?
by Noah Rothman *| 1:24 pm, November 28th, 2012

*Why then does Obama have to mount yet another campaign? *For one, the path of stump speeches and pushing hash tags on Twitter is far easier than acting as a sober and authoritative executive behind closed doors. 
*Obamas perpetual campaign* has begun to assume some familiar characteristics. The president has already mobilized a tread worn social media campaign and will hit the road to stump Philadelphia and its collar counties in Pennsylvania. Surely, the president hopes those rallies will dominate the airwaves and increase public pressure on Republicans.


The White House applied similar tactics when they sought to extend the payroll tax cut and raise the debt ceiling limit in 2011.
*Campaigning is comfortable territory for politicians and it is an especially cozy place for President Obama to occupy  he is an extraordinary campaigner* and has spent the majority of his political career on the trail seeking one or the other public office. *But is this an effective tool for governing? *One need only look at Obamas accomplishments in his first term to determine that it is not.

February 26, 2013
RUSH: The Limbaugh theorem, ... *Obama is never seen as governing.* Obama is constantly seen as campaigning.**


----------



## Surfer

I admire that he is not afraid to say controversial things and suffer the consequences.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to go back to March to find three examples in the month...
> 
> I do notice that "Low INformation Voter" is his newest catch phrase.    Repeated by our mind-numbed robots here, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> That was what I got from his website search engine, which never gets them all.
> 
> Here is one not picked up by his search engine from May 2, 2013:
> RUSH: "It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *Feminazis*,"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glZ8q7UKEo]Limbaugh Declares Victory: 'I Have Succeeded In Stigmatizing' Feminism - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The pathological liar scrubs his transcripts of offending words that cost him advertisers, though he says it so many times his software misses it. You can see that the transcript on his site substitutes "activists" for "feminazis." On the YouTube track you can clearly hear him say feminazi.
> 
> RUSH: The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead, at least in this way.  "Seventy-two percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'. It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *activists*.
> 
> 
> BTW, his stats are cooked because he is using men calling themselves feminists or not.  And when you use the dictionary definition of feminist rather than the insulting right-wing perversion of feminist, 57% of men and women combines say they are feminists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, I spent the last week listening to his show, or at least as much of it as I can stand.
> 
> I didn't hear him say "Feminazi" once all week.
> 
> Don't listen to him that often anymore, I do when I'm on vacation because where I go, there's no TV or Internet, and all I can get is Radio.
> 
> Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.
Click to expand...


No TV or internet, though you "heard" him say something with a straight face?

There is a lie here somewhere. Do you need help finding it?


----------



## Foxfyre

Surfer said:


> I admire that he is not afraid to say controversial things and suffer the consequences.



Well tens of millions of people out there think as you do.  Some of us still appreciate free speech and oppose a form of viscious political correctness that liberals use to attack and try to destroy anybody--anybody right of center anyway--who says anything they that doesn't fit the liberal prism of political correctness.  They are just fine with and defend their own media or other liberal famous figures no matter how cruel, crude, rude, or insensitive.  And they would be incensed and raise huge flags of first amendment rights if conservatives pressured THOSE people's advertisers or otherwise tried to force them off the air.   But they have no problem with liberal warfare against anybody who dares say anything that they can find any way to label racist or sexist or simply critical of liberal figures or concepts.   And they are jubilant if it appears to be working.

When is the last time you saw headlines emblazoned across the page or leading the story that a MSNBC or CNN host is losing audience?  But let ratings tick down even a little for Rush Limbaugh or a Fox News host, and that is front page news.  It is never news if those ratings tick up though is it.   Look how obsessed so many of our liberal friends here are with Limbaugh and how they can't stand to think of him as successful.   And how insulting and critical they are of anybody who ever listens to the program, unless they do so to criticize it.

The hypocrisy and double standard is just amazing sometimes.


----------



## Rozman

JoeB131 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to go back to March to find three examples in the month...
> 
> I do notice that "Low INformation Voter" is his newest catch phrase.    Repeated by our mind-numbed robots here, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> That was what I got from his website search engine, which never gets them all.
> 
> Here is one not picked up by his search engine from May 2, 2013:
> RUSH: "It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *Feminazis*,"
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4glZ8q7UKEo]Limbaugh Declares Victory: 'I Have Succeeded In Stigmatizing' Feminism - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> The pathological liar scrubs his transcripts of offending words that cost him advertisers, though he says it so many times his software misses it. You can see that the transcript on his site substitutes "activists" for "feminazis." On the YouTube track you can clearly hear him say feminazi.
> 
> RUSH: The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead, at least in this way.  "Seventy-two percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'. It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *activists*.
> 
> 
> BTW, his stats are cooked because he is using men calling themselves feminists or not.  And when you use the dictionary definition of feminist rather than the insulting right-wing perversion of feminist, 57% of men and women combines say they are feminists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be fair, I spent the last week listening to his show, or at least as much of it as I can stand.
> 
> I didn't hear him say "Feminazi" once all week.
> 
> Don't listen to him that often anymore, I do when I'm on vacation because where I go, there's no TV or Internet, and all I can get is Radio.
> 
> Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.
Click to expand...





> *Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.*



This is how I understand the Limbaugh theorem.

Obama is the reason why we are where we are right now on let's say the economy.

So Obama blames anyone and everyone else for it.
And Obama wants credit for trying to clean up the mess.... He created.
Did he create only some of it?....Most of it?

OK,you got me ...all of it.


----------



## Rozman

Rush is back!
Sarah is back!

Looks like we're getting the band back together.... LOL


----------



## Pogo

Rozman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was what I got from his website search engine, which never gets them all.
> 
> Here is one not picked up by his search engine from May 2, 2013:
> RUSH: "It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *Feminazis*,"
> 
> Limbaugh Declares Victory: 'I Have Succeeded In Stigmatizing' Feminism - YouTube
> 
> The pathological liar scrubs his transcripts of offending words that cost him advertisers, though he says it so many times his software misses it. You can see that the transcript on his site substitutes "activists" for "feminazis." On the YouTube track you can clearly hear him say feminazi.
> 
> RUSH: The Washington Times is reporting that feminism may be dead, at least in this way.  "Seventy-two percent of Americans say they're not 'feminists'. It is likely disappointing news for old-school bra-burners and Gloria Steinem-inspired *activists*.
> 
> 
> BTW, his stats are cooked because he is using men calling themselves feminists or not.  And when you use the dictionary definition of feminist rather than the insulting right-wing perversion of feminist, 57% of men and women combines say they are feminists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, I spent the last week listening to his show, or at least as much of it as I can stand.
> 
> I didn't hear him say "Feminazi" once all week.
> 
> Don't listen to him that often anymore, I do when I'm on vacation because where I go, there's no TV or Internet, and all I can get is Radio.
> 
> Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how I understand the Limbaugh theorem.
> 
> Obama is the reason why we are where we are right now on let's say the economy.
> 
> So Obama blames anyone and everyone else for it.
> And Obama wants credit for trying to clean up the mess.... He created.
> Did he create only some of it?....Most of it?
> 
> OK,you got me ...all of it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, too bad about the calendar reading "2008" at collapse time, huh?
Revisionistas just can't catch a break.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No TV or internet, though you "heard" him say something with a straight face?
> 
> There is a lie here somewhere. Do you need help finding it?
Click to expand...


Ernie, I have you on ignore for a reason.  You are too damaged a human being to talk to.  So I don't read your posts and I don't answer them.  

For your question, go and find out what a "Metaphor" is.


----------



## Pogo

Foxfyre said:


> Surfer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admire that he is not afraid to say controversial things and suffer the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well tens of millions of people out there think as you do.  Some of us still appreciate free speech and oppose a form of viscious political correctness that liberals use to attack and try to destroy anybody--anybody right of center anyway--who says anything they that doesn't fit the liberal prism of political correctness.  They are just fine with and defend their own media or other liberal famous figures no matter how cruel, crude, rude, or insensitive.  And they would be incensed and raise huge flags of first amendment rights if conservatives pressured THOSE people's advertisers or otherwise tried to force them off the air.   But they have no problem with liberal warfare against anybody who dares say anything that they can find any way to label racist or sexist or simply critical of liberal figures or concepts.   And they are jubilant if it appears to be working.
Click to expand...


Umm.. advertiser boycotts have nothing to do with the First Amendment, Foxy.  The First Amendment keeps government from infringing on speech.  It has no relationship with whether an advertiser wants to be associated with some program or other.



Foxfyre said:


> When is the last time you saw headlines emblazoned across the page or leading the story that a MSNBC or CNN host is losing audience?  But let ratings tick down even a little for Rush Limbaugh or a Fox News host, and that is front page news.



You mean like this?  Or this?
Or wait...more like this? 
Or do you mean something like this?

Yup, them's rare as hen's teeth.  Not to mention all the other threads where allusion to some despised CNN (or MSNBC or Fox or alphabet) program will be quickly attended by how said network's ratings are plummeting.

Of course all of that ratings-watching on every side is based on a fallacy anyway, that ratings somehow mean "votes" or something, so who cares.  Ya know I always wondered why advertisers of products thought that throwing in the line "we're the leading brand" was a selling point.  What if those buyers of the leading brand were wrong? 



Foxfyre said:


> It is never news if those ratings tick up though is it.   Look how obsessed so many of our liberal friends here are with Limbaugh and how they can't stand to think of him as successful.   And how insulting and critical they are of anybody who ever listens to the program, unless they do so to criticize it.
> 
> The hypocrisy and double standard is just amazing sometimes.



Yeah, especially when there's so many strawmen about.  Because clearly there's no such equivalent for the Maddows and Olbermanns and Piers Morgans and Lawrence O'Donnells and Ed Schultzes, right?



*per·spec·tive*  (pr-spktv) n.
1.a. A view or vista.
b. A mental view or outlook
2. The appearance of objects in depth as perceived by normal binocular vision.
3.a. The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole: a perspective of history; a need to view the problem in the proper perspective.
b. Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view.
c. The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance
4. The technique of representing three-dimensional objects and depth relationships on a two-dimensional surface.


----------



## edthecynic

Pogo said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair, I spent the last week listening to his show, or at least as much of it as I can stand.
> 
> I didn't hear him say "Feminazi" once all week.
> 
> Don't listen to him that often anymore, I do when I'm on vacation because where I go, there's no TV or Internet, and all I can get is Radio.
> 
> Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.  It's just silly, but he said it with a straight face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did here him babble on about 'the Limbaugh Theorom" that Obama doesn't talk about his scandals and remains blameless for them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how I understand the Limbaugh theorem.
> 
> Obama is the reason why we are where we are right now on let's say the economy.
> 
> So Obama blames anyone and everyone else for it.
> And Obama wants credit for trying to clean up the mess.... He created.
> Did he create only some of it?....Most of it?
> 
> OK,you got me ...all of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah*, too bad about the calendar reading "2008" at collapse time,* huh?
> Revisionistas just can't catch a break.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but the mindless drones have been told by their MessiahRushie that Obama was the controlling influence on the economy because everyone knew that Obama would win the election while McCain was in the lead. It doesn't matter that the Bush Depression started in Dec 2007, Obama crashed the economy the instant he won the nomination.

March 2, 2009
RUSH:  Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. *He won the Democrat nomination last August*, six months ago. Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.

RUSH:  So the economy stopped. The stock market started tanking. They knew Obama was going to win.

RUSH:   To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. *Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.*


----------



## American_Jihad

He smokes liberals like a cheap cigar & gets em wee weed up...

*The Massive Pessimism of the Millennials*​
August 06, 2013


RUSH: 
...

Young people do not at all think they have a future economically.  They see themselves burdened with student loan debt that they can never repay. They see themselves in many cases with degrees that don't matter to anything.  You have the Democrat Party -- Obama exempted -- the Democrat Party, news media focuses on pessimism, they focus on what's wrong, by definition.  Everybody in this country is inundated with negativity at every turn.  Newspapers, television, movies, TV shows, songs, whatever, the negative pessimism is there, and young people are just obsessed.  The number of Millennials, that the age group now up to, 18 to 25 I think right now, living at home still. 

And the first thought that I had about this was I recall what Steven Rattner said as Obama's first car czar.  He's Little Pinch Sulzberger's best friend in New York, Steven Rattner.  He's an investment banker of sorts.  He's worked at Lazard, wherever the liberals need a Mr. Fix It, this guy goes there.  He was talking about Detroit.  And he said, "Aside from participating in elections, the people of Detroit are no more to blame for what happened to their city than people that don't live there."  And I said, "But isn't that the point?  They voted for it, they are responsible for it!  What do you mean, aside from participating in the democratic process, they're not to blame?  They voted for it!  The people in Detroit voted for it!"

I'm sorry to yell.  I know I'm scaring 25-year-old women.  They voted for it.  Well, the Millennials voted for this.  So when I hear that they're depressed because they don't think they have a future, they don't think they have an opportunity for a future, because there isn't a growing economy, there's no place for them, there's no opportunity, I get frustrated. And I say, "Yeah, well, you voted for it!  When are you gonna wake up and realize that you are partly to blame.  You voted for this." 

Then I remember the Limbaugh Theorem, where Obama is not held accountable for any of this, especially among people that voted for him.  He's constantly campaigning as far as people that voted for the guy are concerned.  He feels the same way as they do.  He's worried.  He's pessimistic.  He's trying to fix it.  But then intellectually, and this is the trap I fall into, intellectually -- by intellectually, I mean, thinking about it.  They elected it, and they're living it.  When they voted for Obama, they thought the exact opposite of this was gonna happen.  I'm sure they thought they were voting for a brighter future, sunshine, lollipops and roses. They thought they were voting for panacea, utopia or whatever, and they got the opposite of what they wanted.  And there was a part of me, "You're all pessimistic, I don't feel sorry for you.  You voted for it; live it."  And it's frustrating that they don't see that. 

...

The Massive Pessimism of the Millennials - The Rush Limbaugh Show


----------



## edthecynic

American_Jihad said:


> He smokes liberals like a cheap cigar & gets em wee weed up...
> 
> *The Massive Pessimism of the Millennials*​
> August 06, 2013
> 
> 
> RUSH:  And I said, "But isn't that the point?  They voted for it, they are responsible for it!  What do you mean, aside from participating in the democratic process, they're not to blame?  They voted for it!  The people in Detroit voted for it!"
> 
> I'm sorry to yell.  I know I'm scaring 25-year-old women.  They voted for it.  Well, the Millennials voted for this.  So when I hear that they're depressed because they don't think they have a future, they don't think they have an opportunity for a future, because there isn't a growing economy, there's no place for them, there's no opportunity, I get frustrated. And I say, "Yeah, well, you voted for it!  When are you gonna wake up and realize that you are partly to blame.  You voted for this."
> 
> Then I remember* the Limbaugh Theorem,* where Obama is not held accountable for any of this, especially among people that voted for him.  He's constantly campaigning as far as people that voted for the guy are concerned.
> The Massive Pessimism of the Millennials - The Rush Limbaugh Show


First of all, there is no Limpburger Theorem! He plagiarized it from Noah Rothman.

But even better, your own link exposes him as the worthless hypocrite he is!!! He attacks reporters as ELITISTS because he projects them as thinking people are stupid, then he, by his own definition, brands himself and his DittoNazis as ELITISTS by calling people stupid idiots. I'm sure that went over your head when he said it and you will refuse to see the hypocrisy now even after it has been shown to you in black and white!

August 06, 2013
RUSH: Why is the Washington Post in trouble?* Could part of the answer to the question be that the *reporters*, the people that work there who put out the product don't understand why their paper is such a mess?* You think they're asking themselves what they're doing wrong?* Guarantee you they're not.** They think they're great.* They're elites, after all.* They're special.* The paper's in trouble 'cause you're stupid, you're not smart enough to see how good it is, how brilliant they are.**

RUSH: Look, you and I, the people that did not vote for Obama, we're pessimistic because *we are asking ourselves why is the rest of the country such a bunch of idiots.* Can I be honest?** That's what we're depressed about. How in the hell did this happen?** How is this country populated with so many stupid idiots?*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Didn't know he was gone in the first place....


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obamacare Can't Work? What a Surprise!*

February 11, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Well, well, well, well.  Look.  I know that Obama has done another -- in fact, we mentioned yesterday he was gonna do it, this three-year extension on the employer mandate, three years.  Folks, this plan is never gonna work.  It is impossible to implement.  That is what this means.  It really isn't complicated at all.  The only reason Obama's doing this is to make sure this law does not harm him and his party politically, period, that's it.  It is proof positive this thing is a disaster, it is an albatross, it isn't going to do what everybody supporting it promised it would do.  It is not going to guarantee the uninsured have insurance.  It isn't gonna lower costs.  It isn't gonna promote jobs. It isn't gonna lower the deficit. 

...

Obamacare Can't Work? What a Surprise! - The Rush Limbaugh Show


----------



## IlarMeilyr

whitehall said:


> The alleged boycott was just a fluke.



That's just all kinds of Fluked up.


----------

