"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:07:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
om...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular programs.

Hey, the listeners are there. Rush gots -earballs-! (40M ears/week )
He works hard for his $33 million annual pay.


But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers
whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants, Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

What a twisted crock that is. Don't the ANTIs do any homework about
the companies they choose to (attempt to) ruin or the way radio
advertising works? Maroons!

Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know it -- I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.

The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's why
they publicized the advertisers' names.

The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt. Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.

Rush will still get his $400 million, so don't worry about him.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 22, 12:04*pm, wrote:
On Jan 22, 9:11*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Jan 21, 4:47*pm, wrote:

On Jan 21, 12:55*pm, Ignoramus15648 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.

15648.invalid wrote:
On 2009-01-21, wrote:

This misses 2 important facts:

1) If Obama is successful, Rush thinks that means the country will be
far down the path to socialism- not what I want either.

Now, would it be correct to conclude that "if Obama is unsuccessful",
and we experience collapse that would likely go beyond the Great
Depression, would that lead you on a path that you would want?

--
* *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
* * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/

It's not necessarily a binary choice. He could fail to make us all
socialists without imploding the country.

And I don't think he's the socailists messiah, either.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wan't it Bush who is/was nationalizing the banks?

Sounds like a socialist to me.

TMT

I'm not the one saying he's leading us down that path.

marxist/animal rights nut/tax cheat cabinet members do concern me,
though.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They concern me too.

No Party is immune from graft or corrupt.

TMT

On Jan 22, 7:09*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
Ed is correct.

If you want a historical lesson, spend an afternoon listening to tapes
of Hitler's speeches.

They sound just like Rush.

TMT

Hitler was just a higher level of liberal. *Today's liberals believe in
killing humans before they are born, Hitler believed it was also OK to kill
them after birth. *Hitler wanted them killed to advance evolution, the
theory that liberals want to cram down kids throats. *Tell kids that they
are meaningless accidents with no purpose or meaning and then wonder why
they bring guns to school to kill. *Then turn it around and blame it on the
guns, you place the blame everywhere except where it belongs. *Hitler and
liberals were both Godless and will both burn in the same place for
eternity.

I know you think I'm so upset about Obama winning the election, I didn't
find McCain being very exciting but I think he was the better choice. *The
Bible tells me that the Godless will be winning in the end times, why should
I be upset that you and the other liberals are proving the Bible to be true.
I'm just along for the ride and Obama getting elected just proves that the
Anti-Christ could come to power at any moment. *All this "winning" you are
doing has to take place for God's word to be true so why would I be upset by
it. *I still vote for to lesser of the 2 evils but I'm not at all surprised
that the Godless are winning as it has been foretold.

RogerN

Well Roger...did you consider Bush to be "Godless"?

Millions do.

TMT

On Jan 22, 7:16*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:07:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:



"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
m...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the *Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular programs..

Hey, the listeners are there. Rush gots -earballs-! (40M ears/week )
He works hard for his $33 million annual pay.

But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants, Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

What a twisted crock that is. Don't the ANTIs do any homework about
the companies they choose to (attempt to) ruin or the way radio
advertising works? *Maroons!

* * -------------------------------------------
* * Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
* * ===========================================

"Hey, the listeners are there. Rush gots -earballs-! (40M ears/week )
He works hard for his $33 million annual pay. "

LOL...you and who else?

About a month ago I got stuck in traffic with a friend and he had Rush
on.

What I listened to was a man who sounded like a deer in the
headlights...rambling on with no point other than "we have to get
something on Obama"..whine, whine, whine.

For awhile I thought the man was on drugs.

If this is conservative entertainment, you folks really need to get
out more.

TMT

SteveB wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .
"Ignoramus26200" wrote in message
news It is hard to expect anything else from Rush Limbaugh.

i
Hard to add anything useful to that comment.

H

True, true. Rush is known for facts and truth. I don't expect anything
else from him.

Steve

I think you "didn't get it", Steve. I think he's nothing but a low down
slug. I'd rather slam the head of my dick in a door than listen to him
yammer. I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't know the truth if it jumped
up and hit him in the ass. He's all about telling you things he thinks
you want to hear. That may or may not have anything to do with truth.

Harold

Yeah. Maybe Al Franken was right about him. After all, Al has such a
reputation in statesmanship, oratory, lawmaking, and diplomacy, not to
mention his personal affairs. I don't agree with everything Rush says, but
he's a couple of light years ahead of most "knowledgeable" people.
Particularly leftie socialist liberals.

If you want real torture, I suggest you listen to Al Gore, or Alfred E.
Obama say "Uh" 34 out of 50 words.

Steve



If you want real enlightenment, listen to Rush for 30 days.
When he says something you KNOW is a lie, do the research
to prove him wrong.

Steve, you stopped too soon.


technomaNge
--
Listen to Rush daily at Chicago station WLS AM
http://www.wlsam.com/article.asp?id=152352

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 7:09 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
Ed is correct.

If you want a historical lesson, spend an afternoon listening to tapes
of Hitler's speeches.

They sound just like Rush.

TMT

Hitler was just a higher level of liberal. Today's liberals believe in
killing humans before they are born, Hitler believed it was also OK to
kill
them after birth. Hitler wanted them killed to advance evolution, the
theory that liberals want to cram down kids throats. Tell kids that they
are meaningless accidents with no purpose or meaning and then wonder why
they bring guns to school to kill. Then turn it around and blame it on the
guns, you place the blame everywhere except where it belongs. Hitler and
liberals were both Godless and will both burn in the same place for
eternity.

I know you think I'm so upset about Obama winning the election, I didn't
find McCain being very exciting but I think he was the better choice. The
Bible tells me that the Godless will be winning in the end times, why
should
I be upset that you and the other liberals are proving the Bible to be
true.
I'm just along for the ride and Obama getting elected just proves that the
Anti-Christ could come to power at any moment. All this "winning" you are
doing has to take place for God's word to be true so why would I be upset
by
it. I still vote for to lesser of the 2 evils but I'm not at all surprised
that the Godless are winning as it has been foretold.

RogerN

Well Roger...did you consider Bush to be "Godless"?

Millions do.

TMT

It seems that most of our elections is like trying to pick the lesser of the
2 evils. Bush was more in like with Biblical values than those he ran
against.

I hope Obama is a good president but I can't support him because he is for
too many things that I believe are wrong. He's planning to give Planned
Parenthood an increase from 300 million per year to 700 million per year to
fund abortions in other countries. With our countries financial situation
and many taxpayers being against abortion, it seems like a bad time to
increase the funding to such a cause.

Here's a little liberal logic for you, liberals are for abortion but they
are against capitol punishment. They claim that with capitol punishment the
innocent might be killed. That is true, but they are for abortion where the
innocent are always killed.

RogerN

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

All I can say is that I have bought stock in every product he has hawked,
and made money on them all. Snapple, Breathe Rite, Sleep Comfort, the list
goes on. Knowing when to get out helped, too.

Steve

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
On 2009-01-22, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what
programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages
that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular
programs.

But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers
whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants,
Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

The reason for my question was this. I have a shed and to keep pests
away, I keep a radio turned on in it that has some sort of a
conservative program, but I think that it is not Rush Limbaugh.

It works pretty well as, I think, pests think there are people in the
shed and become uncomfortable. (or maybe pests are liberal in nature)

I keep some welding gas tanks in the shed and other things. In any
case, when I am in the shed, I find the commercials to be of a little
peculiar nature. I do not want to offend anyone, so I will not
elaborate, but I found their selection a little odd.

That's why I asked about commercials on Rush Limbaugh radio.


That sounds like a great Idea, liberal talk shows are more likely to be
accepted by rats, rodents, and pests that the world is better off without
:-)

RogerN

Trouble is, liberal talk shows don't last. I wonder why that is ..........

Steve

"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .
"Ignoramus26200" wrote in
message news It is hard to expect anything else from Rush Limbaugh.

i
Hard to add anything useful to that comment.

H

True, true. Rush is known for facts and truth. I don't expect
anything else from him.

Steve

I think you "didn't get it", Steve. I think he's nothing but a low down
slug. I'd rather slam the head of my dick in a door than listen to him
yammer. I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't know the truth if it
jumped up and hit him in the ass. He's all about telling you things he
thinks you want to hear. That may or may not have anything to do with
truth.

Harold

Yeah. Maybe Al Franken was right about him. After all, Al has such a
reputation in statesmanship, oratory, lawmaking, and diplomacy, not to
mention his personal affairs. I don't agree with everything Rush says,
but he's a couple of light years ahead of most "knowledgeable" people.
Particularly leftie socialist liberals.

If you want real torture, I suggest you listen to Al Gore, or Alfred E.
Obama say "Uh" 34 out of 50 words.

Steve


If you want real enlightenment, listen to Rush for 30 days.
When he says something you KNOW is a lie, do the research
to prove him wrong.

Steve, you stopped too soon.


technomaNge
--
Listen to Rush daily at Chicago station WLS AM
http://www.wlsam.com/article.asp?id=152352

thank you.

Why do the terms pig wrestling and arguing with idiots come to mind?

Steve

On Jan 22, 7:46*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:07:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
om...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the *Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular programs.

Hey, the listeners are there. Rush gots -earballs-! (40M ears/week )
He works hard for his $33 million annual pay.

But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers
whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants, Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

What a twisted crock that is. Don't the ANTIs do any homework about
the companies they choose to (attempt to) ruin or the way radio
advertising works? *Maroons!

Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know it -- I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.

The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's why
they publicized the advertisers' names.

The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt. Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.

Rush will still get his $400 million, so don't worry about him.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It just further proves how much a minority Rush's followers are.

But it just takes one Rush nut with a gun to have the Country have a
bad day.

TMT

RogerN wrote:

Here's a little liberal logic for you, liberals are for abortion but they
are against capitol punishment. They claim that with capitol punishment the
innocent might be killed. That is true, but they are for abortion where the
innocent are always killed.


Well Roger, God itself does not have the slightest problem with killing
the unborn. Almost half of the zygotes formed do not reach the point of
birth, many never even implant. Many are not viable because of errors
in the meiotic process. That's the way it is, and God controls all
that, if you believe in God controlling things.

Second, if you back up from your end-of-days readings, and slide back
closer to the beginning of your book, right after God starts things off
twice, in different orders, he waits a few generations and then decides
to kill everybody in a terrific flood. Are you saying there were no
little innocent fetuses on all the earth as Noah built his boat?

Then after that, God gets ****y again because Sodom and Gemorrah are
just having way too much fun, and he tells Lot that unless Lot can find
a few innocent souls, He's gonna Nuke the place.... bet you there were
a bunch of little embryos in that town, so why did God nuke it? Maybe
he doesn't love embryos after all? Maybe embryos are not innocent after
all?

I love the story of Lot, after the escape, and after Mrs. Lot gets
radiation poisoning, the girls, whom the godly man Lot had offered to
whore out to the angry mob, got him drunk, and when he passed out, they
raped their own father, what a moral little book you have there.

The other story in the bible that I find truly inspirational, is the
story of job, Things work out really well for ol' Job, but have you ever
looked at it from the perspective of the firstborn son? God kills an
innocent man to 'test' his father? This is the God that cares so much
about a parasitic lump of tissue?

Your little book of absurd fairy tales is not really a very good guide
to how to deal with modern medical issues.

If you must read religious tracts, get a copy of "The Life and Morals of
Jesus of Nazareth" by Thomas Jefferson, it really is a far better book.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:46:12 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:07:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
news:KdGdnX37Bo1SHOXUnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@giganews. com...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular programs.

Hey, the listeners are there. Rush gots -earballs-! (40M ears/week )
He works hard for his $33 million annual pay.


But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers
whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants, Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

What a twisted crock that is. Don't the ANTIs do any homework about
the companies they choose to (attempt to) ruin or the way radio
advertising works? Maroons!

Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know it -- I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.

That doesn't matter one bit, Ed. The antis tried to nuke 'em anyway.


The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's why
they publicized the advertisers' names.

So it doesn't matter if the people are hurt as long as they never
advertise during Rush's show again? That's extremely bad policy.


The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt. Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.

Was that the initial intent of the antis, or are you reading that into
their actions through your emotions? You don't seem to like Rush too
awfully much, Ed. And you (and the antis) used the word "targets."
Targeting companies to make them lose business or ruin them is not
really very nice, is it? shrug


Rush will still get his $400 million, so don't worry about him.

Oh, I'm not. I'm disgusted that assholes like the antis might be able
to kill someone's business for no reason. "Not liking Rush" is not a
valid reason for those actions, IMO.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:20:03 -0600, the infamous technomaNge
scrawled the following:

SteveB wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .
"Ignoramus26200" wrote in message
news It is hard to expect anything else from Rush Limbaugh.

i
Hard to add anything useful to that comment.

H

True, true. Rush is known for facts and truth. I don't expect anything
else from him.

Steve

I think you "didn't get it", Steve. I think he's nothing but a low down
slug. I'd rather slam the head of my dick in a door than listen to him
yammer. I'm of the opinion that he wouldn't know the truth if it jumped
up and hit him in the ass. He's all about telling you things he thinks
you want to hear. That may or may not have anything to do with truth.

Harold

Yeah. Maybe Al Franken was right about him. After all, Al has such a
reputation in statesmanship, oratory, lawmaking, and diplomacy, not to
mention his personal affairs. I don't agree with everything Rush says, but
he's a couple of light years ahead of most "knowledgeable" people.
Particularly leftie socialist liberals.

If you want real torture, I suggest you listen to Al Gore, or Alfred E.
Obama say "Uh" 34 out of 50 words.

Steve



If you want real enlightenment, listen to Rush for 30 days.
When he says something you KNOW is a lie, do the research
to prove him wrong.

Steve, you stopped too soon.

Iggy should do that, too.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:46:12 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:07:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
news:KdGdnX37Bo1SHOXUnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@giganews .com...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what
programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages
that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular
programs.

Hey, the listeners are there. Rush gots -earballs-! (40M ears/week )
He works hard for his $33 million annual pay.


But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers
whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants,
Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

What a twisted crock that is. Don't the ANTIs do any homework about
the companies they choose to (attempt to) ruin or the way radio
advertising works? Maroons!

Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know it --
I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.

That doesn't matter one bit, Ed. The antis tried to nuke 'em anyway.

That's what you get for living in a country where you're free to support
what you like, and to not support what you don't like. It didn't seem to
bother the righties when Clear Channel was threatened with a boycott for
playing the Dixie Chicks. It doesn't stop them from boycotting Community
Chest charities when they fund clinics that perform abortions.

You can't have it both ways.


The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's
why
they publicized the advertisers' names.

So it doesn't matter if the people are hurt as long as they never
advertise during Rush's show again? That's extremely bad policy.

Think about what you're saying here. The reason those advertisers pulled out
is because they were catching flak from consumers. And they caught flak from
those consumers only because they *hadn't known* that those companies were
supporting Rush Limbaugh's show with advertising. In other words, the
companies got away with it until it was no longer hidden. Once those
consumers knew what the company was doing, they withdrew their support.

So the anti-Limbaugh bunch was just promoting full disclosure. All they said
was "these companies are advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show."

Aren't you selective about who you support and not? If you contribute to
your United Way and found out that they were making contributions to the
Nation of Islam, wouldn't you pull out your contribution?

Again, you can't have it both ways. Commercial enterprises run into boycotts
all the time because of some position they take, or that they support
directly or indirectly.

Limbaugh's weekly Aribitron ratings runs around 14MM; the total weekly radio
audience in the US, using the same Arbitron measure, is 235MM. Forget about
timeslots, share, and so on: this tells you that 14 million people listen to
Limbaugh (that counts repeats during a week), and 221 million listen to
something else (likewise). The dittoheads GROSSLY overestimate Limbaugh's
share of the total radio audience. He has the highest *single show* ratings,
but the large majority of people who listen to radio don't listen to him,
despite the fact that he's got the closest thing to total national coverage
of any program in history.

A lot of those people despise him. I mean, they really would like to see him
drop dead. In other words, they feel the same about him as you feel about
Louis Farrakhan.

Because 221 million radio listeners don't know what's on his show, and many
of them hate him, it should be no surprise that many of them are going to be
****ed off to learn that some company whose products they buy are supporting
his show. So the anti-Limbaugh people just provided a public service in
making that fact known.

Don't you feel better now? Knowing that they're just doing to supporters of
Limbaugh what you'd probably do to Louis Farrakhan sort of puts it into
perspective, doesn't it? g?




The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt.
Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of
the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.

Was that the initial intent of the antis, or are you reading that into
their actions through your emotions? You don't seem to like Rush too
awfully much, Ed. And you (and the antis) used the word "targets."
Targeting companies to make them lose business or ruin them is not
really very nice, is it? shrug

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just reporting the facts. Advertisers
pull ads when they get complaints and feel it's hurting them more than it
helps.



Rush will still get his $400 million, so don't worry about him.

Oh, I'm not. I'm disgusted that assholes like the antis might be able
to kill someone's business for no reason. "Not liking Rush" is not a
valid reason for those actions, IMO.

See above. And if you still feel that way, I hope that you're not
withholding any contributions to charities that support abortion clinics or
the Nation of Islam for "no reason" -- the same reasons you don't want the
liberals to boycott advertisers on Limbaugh's show.

--
Ed Huntress

I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh very many times, but every time I
did, I was annoyed and felt that he was treating me like a fool. And
that, even during times when I voted for President Bush.

I do not understand why so much talk about him, he is a commercial
operator and works to have a big audience and to be talked about.

He is not any kind of oracle and his opinions, honest or not, do not
have very much value as far as predicting anything, and he is not
helpful if one wants to evaluate something impartially.

i

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh very many times, but every time I
did, I was annoyed and felt that he was treating me like a fool. And
that, even during times when I voted for President Bush.

I do not understand why so much talk about him, he is a commercial
operator and works to have a big audience and to be talked about.

He is not any kind of oracle and his opinions, honest or not, do not
have very much value as far as predicting anything, and he is not
helpful if one wants to evaluate something impartially.

Oh, cripes, you're thinking on the wrong side of the brain, Iggy. Think of
those monkeys with electrodes planted in the pleasure receptors of their
brains, and Rush is metaphorically pushing the button that gives them a
tingle. Got it?

That's what it is. It's like watching live video of Osama bin Laden catching
a .30 caliber bullet between the eyes. Hold that feeling of simultaneous
vindication and joy. That's what a dittohead feels, in small doses delivered
each day.

--
Ed Huntress

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
snip---.

Anyway, we were prescribed pain medication. Didn't even bother to
have the
prescriptions filled. I'm not keen on risking such things---although
I
have one hell of a strong constitution and rarely give in to such
temptation. The only thing that has ever run my life is my thirst for
gold, and my love for music. I'd hate to get hooked on one of those
little
magic vacations you spoke of. Be strong-----I have yet to meet a
person
that has an improved life because of drugs.

Harold



I agree.

I threw out nearly all the vicodin after having some intense dental
work done.

You need to eat before taking those things, and it's hard to eat when
your
mouth is a stitched up wreck. By the time you can eat again.

I suspect if you have a decent pain tolerance and something called will
power, you don't need most of that stuff and won't get addicted to
drugs/pills/whatever in the first place.

Those that are weak and can't control themselves always find destructive
addictions anyways.

Yep! Needy people. They generally have a crutch of
sorts ----smokes----beer-----drugs-----anything but facing the world cold
turkey.

No need to get in my face for my comments. I smoked a pipe for years,
and enjoy a scotch and water as much as anyone---- (but no drugs).
However, the harsh reality is many folks simply don't function without
their crutch. It may even be the religion of their choosing..but they
have something that acts as a detraction, or what ever you choose to call
it.

Not me------I just slog along and deal with things as they come up. And
listen to music! :-)

Harold

I choose to let each person decide for themselves, not to judge, and to
let everyone answer in their own way for what they've done. I know I sure
spend less time thinking about them. Got two friends right now, one
dealing with multiple surgeries from Crohn's disease and related kidney
ailments, the other bladder cancer. Boy, they sure like their pain pills.
Guess they're just weak minded people who can't handle reality. If you're
so strong, pour the scotch down the sink.

Steve


You're a little (or a lot) delusional if you think I'm speaking to folks
that have a medical condition and require sedation. Way to go, Steve,
twisting things so you come out looking like a winner. You failed).


My comments are directed to those morons that use "recreational" drugs-----a
term that makes no sense to anyone that has enough sense to come in out of a
storm.

Why should I pour my scotch down the drain? I don't have need to show the
world I'm stupid. What the hell has that got to do with anything, anyway?
Surely you can do better than that.

Or can you?

Harold

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 7:50 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in
s.net...



"Ignoramus26200" wrote in message
news
It is hard to expect anything else from Rush Limbaugh.

i

Hard to add anything useful to that comment.

H

True, true. Rush is known for facts and truth. I don't expect anything
else from him.

Steve

If there is ANYTHING Rush is NOT known for it is FACTS and TRUTH.

Do you subscribe to a newspaper, listen to real news, watch
television?

Even Faux News is better than Rush.

Steve, you really need to get out and see/hear the world for yourself.

TMT

Heh! No need. He's already "educated" beyond his ability. His mind is
made up and no amount of truth is going to change it.

Harold

"RogerN" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
On 2009-01-22, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
Just out of pure curiosity, what sorts of products are advertised in
commercials on the Rush Limbaugh radio?

i

First off, national radio advertisers often don't even know what
programs
air their commercials. Radio time at that level is bought in packages
that
guarantee demographics and numbers of listeners, not particular
programs.

But there is an anti-Limbaugh campaign targeting some big advertisers
whose
commercials appear on the show, and they've listed Darden Restaurants,
Red
Lobster, Pfizer, and AutoZone among their targets.

The reason for my question was this. I have a shed and to keep pests
away, I keep a radio turned on in it that has some sort of a
conservative program, but I think that it is not Rush Limbaugh.

It works pretty well as, I think, pests think there are people in the
shed and become uncomfortable. (or maybe pests are liberal in nature)

I keep some welding gas tanks in the shed and other things. In any
case, when I am in the shed, I find the commercials to be of a little
peculiar nature. I do not want to offend anyone, so I will not
elaborate, but I found their selection a little odd.

That's why I asked about commercials on Rush Limbaugh radio.


That sounds like a great Idea, liberal talk shows are more likely to be
accepted by rats, rodents, and pests that the world is better off without
:-)

RogerN


What chapter and verse taught you to love your fellow man that way, Roger?

Hypocrisy amongst the religious seems endless.

Harold

On Jan 23, 1:07 am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jan 21, 11:20 pm, "Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote:



wrote in message

...
snip--

It's not necessarily a binary choice. He could fail to make us all
socialists without imploding the country.
And I don't think he's the socailists messiah, either.
Dave

What he is is our new president. Every citizen should give him a chance to
prove himself---and to show respect until he has given cause for we citizens
to not do so.

Given the conditions of the past eight years, how in hell could he be any
worse?

Harold

I agree.

If he turns out to be failure, I will be one of the first to say it.

Considering that Bush has left him with what another poster called "a
live gernade", he has his work cut out for him.

If you are an American, you better hope that he succeeds.

Anyone who is condemning Obama now at the beginning of the term is
showing their true unpatriotic colors.

TMT

TMT

And so does the rest of the world Steve - he has said, at his
inauguration, in his books, in other speeches that he alone cannot do
the massive reconstruction that needs to be done, it must be done by
the American people, working co-operatively , without partisan
politics. Neither Left nor Right have a monopoly on truth or good
ideas, as shown by him appointing numerous avowed Republicans to vital
posts.You have done harder things under greater threat before , and,
with luck, will do it again.

And maybe he offers hope, and people want that - that the last eight
years of stupidity, of arrogance, of blind adherence to a clearly
failed economic philosophy, of sacrificing great and noble principles
to expediency, can be overcome, and you Americans can resume your
rightful place in the world, as innovators, as leaders, with clear
moral principles again gaining the respect of the world.

What has been of real interest to me is Obamas frequent references to
Thomas Paine, one of the founders of your country. Noble sentiments,
just as valid today. And not partisan in any way.

I honestly and in all sincerity wish you well - if you fail, it will
be because you lack the will to succeed. And no one wants a
continuation of the present chaos.

Andrew VK3BFA.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
snip----
For awhile I thought the man was on drugs.

Chuckle!

You "thought" he was on drugs? Wasn't he convicted? :-)

Harold

On 2009-01-23, Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
snip----
For awhile I thought the man was on drugs.

Chuckle!

You "thought" he was on drugs? Wasn't he convicted? :-)


He is an "honest man on drugs".

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Hmm...sounds like a domestic terrorist to me.

TMT


Limbaugh: 'I Hope Obama Fails'»
"Are conservative talk-show hosts eager to go on the attack, after
years of defending Bush?" asks the Louisville Courier-Journal's Larry
Muhammad. The answer is clearly yes.

Barack Obama has not yet taken office, and Rush Limbaugh is already
rooting for his failure. On his radio show last Friday, Limbaugh said,
"I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the
aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds.'"

Rush Limbaugh is a moron. Who the hell cares what he thinks or wants?

He should stick to the things he does best----drugs.

Harold

I'll second that. I happened to see a bit of Limbaugh being interviewed by
Sean Hannity today. Limbaugh is nothing but a blowhard. What is amazing is
how this guy is so popular. He's really a dumb**** and doesn't know what
he's talking about but he comes across with extreme confidence. He's no
expert on anything and is just like the man on the street giving his opinion
on things he knows little about. That so many people listen to him and
follow him is really astonishing. As someone else said, if you were to read
what he says instead of hearing it you wouldn't give this guy the time of
day. You would just write him off as a loon. He's just a great example of
what kind of weird person people will chose to follow. They don't have to
have anything going for them and people will still follow. Limbaugh is fat,
ugly, uneducated, misinformed, and an arrogant and cocky guy. Now that I
think of it, he's a perfect example of a right winger's leader.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Hmm...sounds like a domestic terrorist to me.

TMT


Limbaugh: 'I Hope Obama Fails'»
"Are conservative talk-show hosts eager to go on the attack, after
years of defending Bush?" asks the Louisville Courier-Journal's Larry
Muhammad. The answer is clearly yes.

Barack Obama has not yet taken office, and Rush Limbaugh is already
rooting for his failure. On his radio show last Friday, Limbaugh said,
"I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the
aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds.'"

Rush Limbaugh is a moron. Who the hell cares what he thinks or wants?

He should stick to the things he does best----drugs.

Harold

I'll second that. I happened to see a bit of Limbaugh being interviewed by
Sean Hannity today. Limbaugh is nothing but a blowhard. What is amazing is
how this guy is so popular. He's really a dumb**** and doesn't know what
he's talking about but he comes across with extreme confidence. He's no
expert on anything and is just like the man on the street giving his
opinion
on things he knows little about. That so many people listen to him and
follow him is really astonishing. As someone else said, if you were to
read
what he says instead of hearing it you wouldn't give this guy the time of
day. You would just write him off as a loon. He's just a great example of
what kind of weird person people will chose to follow. They don't have to
have anything going for them and people will still follow. Limbaugh is
fat,
ugly, uneducated, misinformed, and an arrogant and cocky guy. Now that I
think of it, he's a perfect example of a right winger's leader.

Hawke

It's pretty simple, Hawke.

Years ago, when I lived in Utah, I made the acquaintance of a real nice guy
named David Stanley. He owned a Cord automobile, which was my passion at
the time. Dave was a bachelor, and lived with his aged father, who was
beyond retirement age. A most charming man that had worked as a porter on
the railroad in the glory days.

I paid a visit to the Stanley household a few times and enjoyed some
wonderful conversation with the two. I can still remember the comments made
by the father, who said that if he were to live his life over again, he'd
probably become a preacher. His logic was that he'd tell people what they
want to hear, a sure recipe for success. It need not be true, it just has
to fit the bill of the listener. Sound familiar?

I have a neighbor that owns three horses, all Belgians. He named one of
them Rush. I have been in his company enough to understand how convoluted
the minds are of these people. He has made having a relationship (as
friends) nearly impossible. If you don't agree with his philosophy, you're
surely a communist-----or worse. He insists global warming isn't
fact------but has yet to explain the melting icecaps and retreating
glaciers.

I have concluded that people that are overly political are much the same as
people that are overly religious (this neighbor is both). They have no
concept of fairness or equality, only the sense of always being right, with
everyone that doesn't agree with them being wrong.

Harold

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
On 2009-01-23, Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
snip----
For awhile I thought the man was on drugs.

Chuckle!

You "thought" he was on drugs? Wasn't he convicted? :-)


He is an "honest man on drugs".

A contradiction of terms, eh? :-)

Harold

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:17:40 -0600, Ignoramus1711
wrote:

I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh very many times, but every time I
did, I was annoyed and felt that he was treating me like a fool.


Well...politically...you do seem to fit the bill at times.....

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:47:34 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


That sounds like a great Idea, liberal talk shows are more likely to be
accepted by rats, rodents, and pests that the world is better off without
:-)

RogerN


What chapter and verse taught you to love your fellow man that way, Roger?

Hypocrisy amongst the religious seems endless.

Harold


Liberals are hardly "fellow man"

They are rats, rodents, pests AND pond scum.

Gunner

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:43:26 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:


True, true. Rush is known for facts and truth. I don't expect anything
else from him.

Steve

If there is ANYTHING Rush is NOT known for it is FACTS and TRUTH.


Im sure then, that you can provide 8 cites where he was wrong, or
lied?

If he is so well known for it..with being on the air for 22 yrs, Im
sure you can provide dozens.

Ill be waiting

Gunner

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:27:03 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:

He insists global warming isn't
fact------but has yet to explain the melting icecaps and retreating
glaciers.


Which melting icecaps and retreating glaciers might those be?

He was very likely correct.

Gunner

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:12:59 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:46:12 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know it --
I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.

That doesn't matter one bit, Ed. The antis tried to nuke 'em anyway.

That's what you get for living in a country where you're free to support
what you like, and to not support what you don't like. It didn't seem to
bother the righties when Clear Channel was threatened with a boycott for
playing the Dixie Chicks. It doesn't stop them from boycotting Community
Chest charities when they fund clinics that perform abortions.

You can't have it both ways.

I never said I supported a Clear Channel boycott. AAMOF, I didn't know
about it until now. And I'm pro-choice, so you can be sure I didn't
support killing innocent abortion doctors in their clinics.


The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's
why
they publicized the advertisers' names.

So it doesn't matter if the people are hurt as long as they never
advertise during Rush's show again? That's extremely bad policy.

Think about what you're saying here. The reason those advertisers pulled out
is because they were catching flak from consumers. And they caught flak from
those consumers only because they *hadn't known* that those companies were
supporting Rush Limbaugh's show with advertising. In other words, the
companies got away with it until it was no longer hidden. Once those
consumers knew what the company was doing, they withdrew their support.

So the anti-Limbaugh bunch was just promoting full disclosure. All they said
was "these companies are advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show."

Aren't you selective about who you support and not? If you contribute to
your United Way and found out that they were making contributions to the
Nation of Islam, wouldn't you pull out your contribution?

You bet. But if they -weren't- contributing to the bad guys and you
said they were, you'd be the one in the wrong.


Again, you can't have it both ways. Commercial enterprises run into boycotts
all the time because of some position they take, or that they support
directly or indirectly.

Limbaugh's weekly Aribitron ratings runs around 14MM; the total weekly radio
audience in the US, using the same Arbitron measure, is 235MM. Forget about
timeslots, share, and so on: this tells you that 14 million people listen to
Limbaugh (that counts repeats during a week), and 221 million listen to
something else (likewise). The dittoheads GROSSLY overestimate Limbaugh's
share of the total radio audience. He has the highest *single show* ratings,
but the large majority of people who listen to radio don't listen to him,
despite the fact that he's got the closest thing to total national coverage
of any program in history.

A lot of those people despise him. I mean, they really would like to see him
drop dead. In other words, they feel the same about him as you feel about
Louis Farrakhan.

Because 221 million radio listeners don't know what's on his show, and many
of them hate him, it should be no surprise that many of them are going to be
****ed off to learn that some company whose products they buy are supporting
his show. So the anti-Limbaugh people just provided a public service in
making that fact known.

But those companies couldn't have known their ads were on his shows
because the radio folks don't let them choose.


Don't you feel better now? Knowing that they're just doing to supporters of
Limbaugh what you'd probably do to Louis Farrakhan sort of puts it into
perspective, doesn't it? g?

Don't go there, Ed. I wouldn't knowingly try to hurt someone on a
whim. I ferret out the facts before waging war.


The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt.
Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of
the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.

Was that the initial intent of the antis, or are you reading that into
their actions through your emotions? You don't seem to like Rush too
awfully much, Ed. And you (and the antis) used the word "targets."
Targeting companies to make them lose business or ruin them is not
really very nice, is it? shrug

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just reporting the facts. Advertisers
pull ads when they get complaints and feel it's hurting them more than it
helps.

Yes, advertisers pull ads when they feel it's hurting them, but to
have to pull ads from a large pool because some asshole says you
_might_ be airing on so-and-so station is assinine. What I'm railing
against is the unfairness of the accusations the antis throw.

Instead, why didn't the antis contact the advertisers and ask them to
request that their ads not be broadcast during Rush hour?


Rush will still get his $400 million, so don't worry about him.

Oh, I'm not. I'm disgusted that assholes like the antis might be able
to kill someone's business for no reason. "Not liking Rush" is not a
valid reason for those actions, IMO.

See above. And if you still feel that way, I hope that you're not
withholding any contributions to charities that support abortion clinics or
the Nation of Islam for "no reason" -- the same reasons you don't want the
liberals to boycott advertisers on Limbaugh's show.

I don't, but could, contribute to abortion clinics. I don't, and
won't, support any church. I believe that organized religion has done
us far more harm than good during its history.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:12:59 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

I said:
That doesn't matter one bit, Ed. The antis tried to nuke 'em anyway.

That's what you get for living in a country where you're free to support
what you like, and to not support what you don't like.

I forgot to say "With freedom come responsibilities."

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:20:24 -0800, the infamous Gunner
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:17:40 -0600, Ignoramus1711
wrote:

I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh very many times, but every time I
did, I was annoyed and felt that he was treating me like a fool.

Well...politically...you do seem to fit the bill at times.....

Please don't taunt the liberals, mon.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:26:20 -0800, the infamous Gunner
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:27:03 GMT, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:

He insists global warming isn't
fact------but has yet to explain the melting icecaps and retreating
glaciers.


Which melting icecaps and retreating glaciers might those be?

He was very likely correct.

Glaciers are always retreating -between- ice ages, mon. Perhaps S.
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery's book, _Unstoppable Global Warming:
Every 1,500 Years_ could shed some light on it.
http://tinyurl.com/bglazc

Warming is real. It's the extent and time frame which are being
severely distorted by the extremists. The reality is "about 1 degree C
every 100 years", not "7 degrees before the extremists die."

Oh, Tucker's chapter on the CA electricity meltdown was a mindbender.
I hadn't known about all the pieces before now. What a total gov't
cluster**** that was/is. I'm glad to be paying 70% less here than I
was as a Californicator, TYVM.

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:12:59 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:46:12 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

Before you Rush to judgment, here are two other facts: Several of those
advertisers were not happy that their participation in Limbaugh's show
was
exposed to the public at large (one or two claimed they didn't know
it --
I
find that unlikely), and promptly pulled out. They found the whole thing
pretty embarrassing.

That doesn't matter one bit, Ed. The antis tried to nuke 'em anyway.

That's what you get for living in a country where you're free to support
what you like, and to not support what you don't like. It didn't seem to
bother the righties when Clear Channel was threatened with a boycott for
playing the Dixie Chicks. It doesn't stop them from boycotting Community
Chest charities when they fund clinics that perform abortions.

You can't have it both ways.

I never said I supported a Clear Channel boycott. AAMOF, I didn't know
about it until now. And I'm pro-choice, so you can be sure I didn't
support killing innocent abortion doctors in their clinics.

I'm just pointing out that these advertiser boycotts are more common among
righties than lefties. Frequently it's the Christian Right. Sometimes it's
just conservative groups, like the ones that supplied Wal-Mart with a list
of "disapproved" books. Wal-Mart complied.



The second thing is, the antis know perfectly well how it works. That's
why
they publicized the advertisers' names.

So it doesn't matter if the people are hurt as long as they never
advertise during Rush's show again? That's extremely bad policy.

Think about what you're saying here. The reason those advertisers pulled
out
is because they were catching flak from consumers. And they caught flak
from
those consumers only because they *hadn't known* that those companies were
supporting Rush Limbaugh's show with advertising. In other words, the
companies got away with it until it was no longer hidden. Once those
consumers knew what the company was doing, they withdrew their support.

So the anti-Limbaugh bunch was just promoting full disclosure. All they
said
was "these companies are advertising on Rush Limbaugh's show."

Aren't you selective about who you support and not? If you contribute to
your United Way and found out that they were making contributions to the
Nation of Islam, wouldn't you pull out your contribution?

You bet. But if they -weren't- contributing to the bad guys and you
said they were, you'd be the one in the wrong.

But they were. It wasn't a lie. Nobody misrepresented anything. Those
advertisers *were* advertising on Limbaugh's show. That's why they were
targeted.



Again, you can't have it both ways. Commercial enterprises run into
boycotts
all the time because of some position they take, or that they support
directly or indirectly.

Limbaugh's weekly Aribitron ratings runs around 14MM; the total weekly
radio
audience in the US, using the same Arbitron measure, is 235MM. Forget
about
timeslots, share, and so on: this tells you that 14 million people listen
to
Limbaugh (that counts repeats during a week), and 221 million listen to
something else (likewise). The dittoheads GROSSLY overestimate Limbaugh's
share of the total radio audience. He has the highest *single show*
ratings,
but the large majority of people who listen to radio don't listen to him,
despite the fact that he's got the closest thing to total national
coverage
of any program in history.

A lot of those people despise him. I mean, they really would like to see
him
drop dead. In other words, they feel the same about him as you feel about
Louis Farrakhan.

Because 221 million radio listeners don't know what's on his show, and
many
of them hate him, it should be no surprise that many of them are going to
be
****ed off to learn that some company whose products they buy are
supporting
his show. So the anti-Limbaugh people just provided a public service in
making that fact known.

But those companies couldn't have known their ads were on his shows
because the radio folks don't let them choose.

Not so. See below.



Don't you feel better now? Knowing that they're just doing to supporters
of
Limbaugh what you'd probably do to Louis Farrakhan sort of puts it into
perspective, doesn't it? g?

Don't go there, Ed. I wouldn't knowingly try to hurt someone on a
whim. I ferret out the facts before waging war.

So, you wouldn't try to "hurt" Farrakhan by refusing to advertise on his
Saturday radio show? (I don't think he has such a show, but it's a good
hypothetical.)



The third is, with Limbaugh's audience size, nobody is getting hurt.
Nobody
is trying to "ruin" anybody. The point they were making is that a lot of
the
people the advertisers want to appeal to don't think very highly about
companies that support Limbaugh. And it proved to be correct.

Was that the initial intent of the antis, or are you reading that into
their actions through your emotions? You don't seem to like Rush too
awfully much, Ed. And you (and the antis) used the word "targets."
Targeting companies to make them lose business or ruin them is not
really very nice, is it? shrug

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just reporting the facts.
Advertisers
pull ads when they get complaints and feel it's hurting them more than it
helps.

Yes, advertisers pull ads when they feel it's hurting them, but to
have to pull ads from a large pool because some asshole says you
_might_ be airing on so-and-so station is assinine. What I'm railing
against is the unfairness of the accusations the antis throw.

No, no. You misunderstand. The advertisers can say which shows they want or
don't want; it's just that some of them didn't, in this case, say that they
didn't want Limbaugh. They claim they were surprised that they were on his
show. First, I think that's stupid, because I've bought millions of dollars
of time and space and I can't imagine not telling my client what's in the
package. If you buy a package of local spots, it's true that you won't even
know what those shows are, but you should know if you're buying nationally
syndicated programs. I'm sure that many of them don't care and some didn't
know. But beyond that, if they cared, they could have said "no Limbaugh."

Now they have. Now they care. Mission accomplished. It's just like your
agency telling you that, surprise, you've been advertising on Louis
Farrakhan's weekly radio program, and once you learned that, you decided to
pull out.

That's all it is. They don't want to support Limbaugh. They aren't trying to
keep anyone from advertising there; they're just informing the advertisers
that they won't buy products from people who support him. It's up to the
advertisers whether they care enough to pull out.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh very many times, but every time I
did, I was annoyed and felt that he was treating me like a fool. And
that, even during times when I voted for President Bush.

I do not understand why so much talk about him, he is a commercial
operator and works to have a big audience and to be talked about.

He is not any kind of oracle and his opinions, honest or not, do not
have very much value as far as predicting anything, and he is not
helpful if one wants to evaluate something impartially.

i

The reasons most people find Rush objectionable are two: they do not
understand his sarcastic approach, and secondly, he challenges people to
think. Say what people will, the fact that Rush does spew a HUGE amount of
facts is not arguable. Lots of people do not want to hear facts, because
that goes against what they believe. Others do not want to hear facts
because they then have to change their minds, investigate, and come to new
conclusions, which is work. I have listened to Rush since day one when he
came into the Las Vegas market so long ago I don't remember. For the first
week, I was calling the station complaining. Then I started to HEAR what
the man was saying.

Did you see his interview with Hannity over the last two nights? Nothing
but pure facts, and that's what most people can't handle.

Fact: we're broke, as a country. Where are all these trillions of dollars
and millions of jobs going to come from, Mr. Obama?

I'd personally love to see it, and wait to give him a chance to prove he can
do what he says. But if his choices of staff and personnel are any
indication, it's a dark and stormy night.

Steve

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
snip---.

Anyway, we were prescribed pain medication. Didn't even bother to
have the
prescriptions filled. I'm not keen on risking such things---although
I
have one hell of a strong constitution and rarely give in to such
temptation. The only thing that has ever run my life is my thirst
for
gold, and my love for music. I'd hate to get hooked on one of those
little
magic vacations you spoke of. Be strong-----I have yet to meet a
person
that has an improved life because of drugs.

Harold



I agree.

I threw out nearly all the vicodin after having some intense dental
work done.

You need to eat before taking those things, and it's hard to eat when
your
mouth is a stitched up wreck. By the time you can eat again.

I suspect if you have a decent pain tolerance and something called will
power, you don't need most of that stuff and won't get addicted to
drugs/pills/whatever in the first place.

Those that are weak and can't control themselves always find
destructive
addictions anyways.

Yep! Needy people. They generally have a crutch of
sorts ----smokes----beer-----drugs-----anything but facing the world
cold turkey.

No need to get in my face for my comments. I smoked a pipe for years,
and enjoy a scotch and water as much as anyone---- (but no drugs).
However, the harsh reality is many folks simply don't function without
their crutch. It may even be the religion of their choosing..but they
have something that acts as a detraction, or what ever you choose to
call it.

Not me------I just slog along and deal with things as they come up. And
listen to music! :-)

Harold

I choose to let each person decide for themselves, not to judge, and to
let everyone answer in their own way for what they've done. I know I
sure spend less time thinking about them. Got two friends right now, one
dealing with multiple surgeries from Crohn's disease and related kidney
ailments, the other bladder cancer. Boy, they sure like their pain
pills. Guess they're just weak minded people who can't handle reality.
If you're so strong, pour the scotch down the sink.

Steve


You're a little (or a lot) delusional if you think I'm speaking to folks
that have a medical condition and require sedation. Way to go, Steve,
twisting things so you come out looking like a winner. You failed).


My comments are directed to those morons that use "recreational"
drugs-----a term that makes no sense to anyone that has enough sense to
come in out of a storm.

Why should I pour my scotch down the drain? I don't have need to show the
world I'm stupid. What the hell has that got to do with anything, anyway?
Surely you can do better than that.

Or can you?

Harold

If the reader cannot read the above and form their own conclusion, they
should go over to rec.kites, or some other similar newsgroup. I'm not
delusional. I'm just like you - opinionated.

Steve

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 7:50 pm, "SteveB" wrote:
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in
s.net...



"Ignoramus26200" wrote in message
news It is hard to expect anything else from Rush Limbaugh.

i

Hard to add anything useful to that comment.

H

True, true. Rush is known for facts and truth. I don't expect anything
else from him.

Steve

If there is ANYTHING Rush is NOT known for it is FACTS and TRUTH.

Do you subscribe to a newspaper, listen to real news, watch
television?

Even Faux News is better than Rush.

Steve, you really need to get out and see/hear the world for yourself.

TMT

Heh! No need. He's already "educated" beyond his ability. His mind is
made up and no amount of truth is going to change it.

Harold

Just like every person here, Harold. Time will tell. Let's see how Alfred
E does in the next six months.

Steve

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
.. .

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Hmm...sounds like a domestic terrorist to me.

TMT


Limbaugh: 'I Hope Obama Fails'»
"Are conservative talk-show hosts eager to go on the attack, after
years of defending Bush?" asks the Louisville Courier-Journal's Larry
Muhammad. The answer is clearly yes.

Barack Obama has not yet taken office, and Rush Limbaugh is already
rooting for his failure. On his radio show last Friday, Limbaugh
said,
"I disagree fervently with the people on our [Republican] side of the
aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds.'"

Rush Limbaugh is a moron. Who the hell cares what he thinks or wants?

He should stick to the things he does best----drugs.

Harold

I'll second that. I happened to see a bit of Limbaugh being interviewed
by
Sean Hannity today. Limbaugh is nothing but a blowhard. What is amazing
is
how this guy is so popular. He's really a dumb**** and doesn't know what
he's talking about but he comes across with extreme confidence. He's no
expert on anything and is just like the man on the street giving his
opinion
on things he knows little about. That so many people listen to him and
follow him is really astonishing. As someone else said, if you were to
read
what he says instead of hearing it you wouldn't give this guy the time of
day. You would just write him off as a loon. He's just a great example of
what kind of weird person people will chose to follow. They don't have to
have anything going for them and people will still follow. Limbaugh is
fat,
ugly, uneducated, misinformed, and an arrogant and cocky guy. Now that I
think of it, he's a perfect example of a right winger's leader.

Hawke

It's pretty simple, Hawke.

Years ago, when I lived in Utah, I made the acquaintance of a real nice
guy named David Stanley. He owned a Cord automobile, which was my passion
at the time. Dave was a bachelor, and lived with his aged father, who
was beyond retirement age. A most charming man that had worked as a
porter on the railroad in the glory days.

I paid a visit to the Stanley household a few times and enjoyed some
wonderful conversation with the two. I can still remember the comments
made by the father, who said that if he were to live his life over again,
he'd probably become a preacher. His logic was that he'd tell people
what they want to hear, a sure recipe for success. It need not be true,
it just has to fit the bill of the listener. Sound familiar?

I have a neighbor that owns three horses, all Belgians. He named one
of them Rush. I have been in his company enough to understand how
convoluted the minds are of these people. He has made having a
relationship (as friends) nearly impossible. If you don't agree with his
philosophy, you're surely a communist-----or worse. He insists global
warming isn't fact------but has yet to explain the melting icecaps and
retreating glaciers.

I have concluded that people that are overly political are much the same
as people that are overly religious (this neighbor is both). They have
no concept of fairness or equality, only the sense of always being right,
with everyone that doesn't agree with them being wrong.

Harold

Harold, what is your address? I'd like to send you a mirror and a copy of
what you just wrote. Sure, we disagree on things, but I bet you a Franklin
that if we were neighbors we would be out there helping each other in time
of need, and having an ongoing friendship. This newsgroup has that effect
on people.

Steve

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:13:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

You bet. But if they -weren't- contributing to the bad guys and you
said they were, you'd be the one in the wrong.

But they were. It wasn't a lie. Nobody misrepresented anything. Those
advertisers *were* advertising on Limbaugh's show. That's why they were
targeted.

Uh, wasn't it that the advertisers bought so many plays (airtime) and
the radio network dispersed them as they saw fit? That's the norm.

--snip--

No, no. You misunderstand. The advertisers can say which shows they want or
don't want; it's just that some of them didn't, in this case, say that they
didn't want Limbaugh. They claim they were surprised that they were on his
show. First, I think that's stupid, because I've bought millions of dollars
of time and space and I can't imagine not telling my client what's in the
package. If you buy a package of local spots, it's true that you won't even
know what those shows are, but you should know if you're buying nationally
syndicated programs. I'm sure that many of them don't care and some didn't
know. But beyond that, if they cared, they could have said "no Limbaugh."

OK, the difference here may be in the level of advertising done.
People who buy multi-million dollar packages might be able to say when
and where the ads air, but we little guys can't. I know, I've tried
it. I had to stick to a 12-hour selection: AM or PM in LoCal. (of
course, $400 doesn't give you a lot of pull.)

-------------------------------------------
Jack Kevorkian for Congressional physician!
===========================================

On 2009-01-23, SteveB wrote:

"Ignoramus1711" wrote in message
...
I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh very many times, but every time I
did, I was annoyed and felt that he was treating me like a fool. And
that, even during times when I voted for President Bush.

I do not understand why so much talk about him, he is a commercial
operator and works to have a big audience and to be talked about.

He is not any kind of oracle and his opinions, honest or not, do not
have very much value as far as predicting anything, and he is not
helpful if one wants to evaluate something impartially.

i

The reasons most people find Rush objectionable are two: they do not
understand his sarcastic approach, and secondly, he challenges people to
think. Say what people will, the fact that Rush does spew a HUGE amount of
facts is not arguable. Lots of people do not want to hear facts, because
that goes against what they believe. Others do not want to hear facts
because they then have to change their minds, investigate, and come to new
conclusions, which is work. I have listened to Rush since day one when he
came into the Las Vegas market so long ago I don't remember. For the first
week, I was calling the station complaining. Then I started to HEAR what
the man was saying.

Did you see his interview with Hannity over the last two nights? Nothing
but pure facts, and that's what most people can't handle.

Steve, if you can point me to somewhere where I can watch it online, I
will.

Fact: we're broke, as a country. Where are all these trillions of
dollars and millions of jobs going to come from, Mr. Obama?

I'd personally love to see it, and wait to give him a chance to
prove he can do what he says. But if his choices of staff and
personnel are any indication, it's a dark and stormy night.

I am sure that we are going to face a lot of troubles, indeed. We'll
see how it goes and I fully open to the possibility that Obama may be
a bad president, which I hope will not be the case.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/