Rush is back!

[Foxfyre]

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.

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.

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

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.

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'.

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]

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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"??

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?

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.

So there!

Harumph!

Indeed.

 

[blastoff]

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.

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'.

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!

 

[Pogo]

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!

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!

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]

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!

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!

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]

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!

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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?

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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?

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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:

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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

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.

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.