#Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's Business Model

[2915 Dead]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003

Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
Business Model

March 21, 2012 10:59 am ET by Media Matters staff

In a March 20 Politico column, Media Matters founder David Brock
explained how the advertiser exodus from Rush Limbaugh has
"disintegrated" the business model that once fueled his show.

Three weeks ago, Limbaugh leveled misogynistic attacks at Georgetown law
student Sandra Fluke, smearing her as a "slut" and a "prostitute" after
she testified before Congress about the problems caused when women lack
access to contraception.

In the wake of Limbaugh's attacks on Fluke, numerous advertisers are
abandoning his show. It is also being reported that well over 100
companies have taken proactive steps to ensure that their ads don't run
on Limbaugh's program and similar shows.

In his column, Brock highlighted efforts by Media Matters and other
groups "to educate advertisers about the damage their financial support
of Limbaugh's program can do to their brands." Brock continued:

There is a myth that advertiser actions, like those now targeted at
Limbaugh, impinge on his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.
The truth is just the opposite: They are a demonstration of the power of
the First Amendment.

We are not a government entity attempting to stifle Limbaugh's
speech. Instead, we are using our right of free assembly to join together
and raise our voices against Limbaugh. We are, in fact, engaging in the
marketplace of ideas, one in which people, examining all of the facts,
can choose whether it is in their financial interest to support hate
radio.

We are confident, seeing the reaction over the previous two weeks,
that sponsors will take their dollars elsewhere.


--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[jane]

> zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

>
> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
>
> --
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
> inevitable” -JFK

It looks like he will have to adopt the "Air America" model, stealing
from children.

[2915 Dead]

Ah, so under all the libertarian bullshit resides the heart of a Usenet
crackpot.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 21, 12:28 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>
> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
> Business Model

I listened to Rush this morning.

It featured a full roster of paid commercials - not a PSA to be heard.

Next year, at this time, Romney will be President. Soon afterwards,
Media Matters will explain to the IRS why their tax exempt status
shouldn't be revoked.

[2915 Dead]

Why don't you tell us about some of the companies on this "full roster",
then. Surely you can remember a dozen of them or so.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

2915 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote on Thu 22 Mar 2012 02:09:14a

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:42:09 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 12:28 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>> http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>>>
>>> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
>>> Business Model
>>
>> I listened to Rush this morning.
>>
>> It featured a full roster of paid commercials - not a PSA to be heard.
>>
>> Next year, at this time, Romney will be President. Soon afterwards,
>> Media Matters will explain to the IRS why their tax exempt status
>> shouldn't be revoked.
>
> Why don't you tell us about some of the companies on this "full roster",
> then. Surely you can remember a dozen of them or so.

Most likely local stuff like an all-you-gorge-down-your-gullet "buffet" and
some shoe repair bidnuss [sic], the kind of less-than-hunnert-dollah [sic]
ads that power the 75-watt AM which only works line-of-sight.


--
America's fascists, who are recognized by the name
"Republican" and "Teabagger," are the evil that festers
when good, decent people look on in apathy, doing nothing.

[Sid9]

"Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote in message
news:XnsA01E2F446...@88.198.244.100...

> 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote on Thu 22 Mar 2012 02:09:14a
>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:42:09 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
>>

>>> On Mar 21, 12:28Â pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>> http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>>>>
>>>> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
>>>> Business Model
>>>
>>> I listened to Rush this morning.
>>>
>>> It featured a full roster of paid commercials - not a PSA to be heard.
>>>
>>> Next year, at this time, Romney will be President. Soon afterwards,
>>> Media Matters will explain to the IRS why their tax exempt status
>>> shouldn't be revoked.
>>
>> Why don't you tell us about some of the companies on this "full roster",
>> then. Surely you can remember a dozen of them or so.
>
> Most likely local stuff like an all-you-gorge-down-your-gullet "buffet"
> and
> some shoe repair bidnuss [sic], the kind of less-than-hunnert-dollah [sic]
> ads that power the 75-watt AM which only works line-of-sight.
>
>
> --
> America's fascists, who are recognized by the name
> "Republican" and "Teabagger," are the evil that festers
> when good, decent people look on in apathy, doing nothing.

.
.
.
.
I remember a "fear" salesman selling a burglar alarm.

Limbo's running givaways and lotteries to keep his vanishing audience.
Call his program and get a shot at an iPad, or something like that.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 21, 5:09 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:42:09 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 12:28 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >>http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>
> >> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
> >> Business Model

> > I listened to Rush this morning.

> > It featured a full roster of paid commercials - not a PSA to be heard.

> > Next year, at this time, Romney will be President.  Soon afterwards,
> > Media Matters will explain to the IRS why their tax exempt status
> > shouldn't be revoked.

> Why don't you tell us about some of the companies on this "full roster",
> then.  Surely you can remember a dozen of them or so.

kfi640.com

Listen for yourself.

[.MattB.]

I saw where Fred Phelps wanted to advertize with Rush. Good mix as
they are so much alike.

[Ray Fischer]

>It looks like he will have to adopt the "Air America" model, stealing
>from children.

You can tell that a rightard has no defense when they start making up
stupidly obvious lies.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Ray Fischer]

The crazy bigot beats a retreat.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:09:14 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:42:09 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 12:28 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>> http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>>>
>>> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
>>> Business Model
>>
>> I listened to Rush this morning.
>>
>> It featured a full roster of paid commercials - not a PSA to be heard.
>>
>> Next year, at this time, Romney will be President. Soon afterwards,
>> Media Matters will explain to the IRS why their tax exempt status
>> shouldn't be revoked.
>
>Why don't you tell us about some of the companies on this "full roster",
>then. Surely you can remember a dozen of them or so.
>

Can you name some of the stations that dropped Limbaugh last week as
you had predicted?

[2915 Dead]

This week, actually. But then, I guess calendars are a bit complicated
for you.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:28:18 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:07:55 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:09:14 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:42:09 -0700, Richard Steel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 21, 12:28 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>>>>>
>>>>> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated"
>>>>> Limbaugh's Business Model
>>>>
>>>> I listened to Rush this morning.
>>>>
>>>> It featured a full roster of paid commercials - not a PSA to be heard.
>>>>
>>>> Next year, at this time, Romney will be President. Soon afterwards,
>>>> Media Matters will explain to the IRS why their tax exempt status
>>>> shouldn't be revoked.
>>>
>>>Why don't you tell us about some of the companies on this "full roster",
>>>then. Surely you can remember a dozen of them or so.
>>>
>>>
>> Can you name some of the stations that dropped Limbaugh last week as you
>> had predicted?
>
>This week, actually. But then, I guess calendars are a bit complicated
>for you.
>

Nope. Here's what you said on the 13th -- that's last Tues.

"Expect to see many radio stations dumping his sleazy ass by week's
end."

It didn't say "end of next week" now did it? I enjoy watching libs
squirm from admitting when they're wrong about even the smallest
thing. You are the among the biggest offenders ("Cop punched woman in
face on video" anyone?).

[2915 Dead]

Well, let's just wait and see, shall we?

This IS getting interesting. We've known all along that Rush is heavily
subsidized by interests such as Clear Channel and the Koch Brother in
order to turn you from an American into a drooling fascist moron. And
you need constant reinforcement, just like any cultist. So someone is
covering Rush's revenue losses, and paying that $40 million annual salary
that you believe is covered by vacuum cleaner ads on a 750W radio station
in East Bumfuck, Oklahoma.

But how long can they keep that up? It's costing someone a couple of
million a week to keep Rush on the air.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 23, 8:56 am, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:48:02 -0400, NoBody wrote:

> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:28:18 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:07:55 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>

> >>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:09:14 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com>

KFI640.com

You can hear all the commercials yourself.

It starts in seven minutes.

Here is the reality - Rush has a large audience than American Idol.
(That show has 15 million viewers, Rush has between 16 - 25 million.)

The line goes around the block for people to replace whoever steps
down.

That being said, remember back when you were a First Amendment
Purist? Well, back when you pretended to be a First Amendment
purist. Actually, you're Obama's butt bunny.

[2915 Dead]

Um, no, I can't. Turns out KFI doesn't stream his show, but simply
shells out to Limbaugh's website. And to listen to him, you have to set
up an account. I have absolutely no interest in getting on his list.

So basically, KFI isn't even podcasting him, let along "running him" with
ads.

>
> It starts in seven minutes.
>
> Here is the reality - Rush has a large audience than American Idol.
> (That show has 15 million viewers, Rush has between 16 - 25 million.)
>
> The line goes around the block for people to replace whoever steps down.
>
> That being said, remember back when you were a First Amendment Purist?
> Well, back when you pretended to be a First Amendment purist. Actually,
> you're Obama's butt bunny.

[Milt]

What both Brock and the Steel Dick know about radio could fit into a
thimble.

While I'm happy to see Limbaugh take a hit, he's not going anywhere.

About 550 of the 650 stations that carry Limbaugh get the program on
barter, meaning they get it for free, with Premier Networks/Clear
Channel getting money for a number of spots. The local stations get
their money from the local commercials they sell. What Brock fails to
recognize is, many of those stations are Clear Channel stations.
Therefore, while they've suspended national ads, they're still making
money from local ads.

The stations in the largest markets, on the other hand, pay a fee for
the program, as well as turn over a percentage of the local ad
revenue to Premiere/Clear Channel. Of course, a number of those
stations are also Clear Channel.

Basically, national barter advertisers probably constitute about
10-20% of Limbaugh's ad revenue, That's a hell of a hit, but not
deadly. Why does Brock think his "leading advertisers" are companies
like Carbonite, 1-800-FLOWERS and Quicken Loans, and not Mercedes
Benz, Coca-Cola and McDonald's? It's because they sell THOSE ads
locally, not nationally.

Limbaugh brings in more revenue than any other radio talk show program
in the business, but given that radio in total only accounts for 48%
of revenue, and Premiere in total only accounts for about 30% of radio
revenues, Limbaugh probably accounts for 2-3% of revenues.

In other words, we've probably smacked Limbaugh's revenue stream by
maybe 20% which is maybe 0.6% of Clear Channel revenues. If they fire
him, he will end up somewhere else. That not only means a loss of 2-3%
of revenues, but it also means a loss of MORE revenue, as they now he
to compete against him. Of course, if they fired him, and he was
picked up by, say, Cumulus, Clear Channel could then pick up his show
on the same stations he was on before, and they would probably end up
only losing a little bit of money, if any at all. Plus, he'd then be a
"First Amendment martyr" and his audience would probably increase for
the first time in years.

Only in everyone's wildest fantasies will Limbaugh go anywhere as long
as we attack advertisers. You have to go after local stations and
station managers. Going after advertisers has a dangerous side effect,
in that advertisers might become skittish enough to refuse to support
ALL talk radio. Anyone could take a few sound bites from a left talker
and create a "boycott". And Dial Global isn't nearly strong enough to
take a mass exodus of advertisers.

Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
up hurting progressive talkers more.

All radio is ultimately local.

[lsrlts]

On 3/23/2012 9:51 AM, Milt wrote:
> Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
> up hurting progressive talkers more.

What an interesting admission, : "we're using to go after Limbaugh"...

It's always been evident that libs are fascist censors, even as often as
they deny such.

But a statement like this certainly reinforces how much the average lib
wants to change free speech.

[2915 Dead]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:20:46 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:01:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
> <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Here is the reality - Rush has a large audience than American Idol.
>>(That show has 15 million viewers, Rush has between 16 - 25 million.)
>

> Figure out what percentage of the American voting demographic that is,
> Stupid
>
> What? About 10-12%?
>
> Is there something about it you don't understand?

It's hard to get accurate ratings for Rush, but word is he actually has
somewhere around 2-3 million.

Figures that there would be a BOTTOM 1%, huh?

[Billary]

> zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
>

> Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
>
> --
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
> inevitable” -JFK

There is a myth. That liberals can put Rush out of business. Keep
dreaming assholes.

[Milt]

He can say whatever he wants. But if he wants to use OUR airwaves to
do so, we'll make it uncomfortable.

[Tom Ography]

"losersluts" <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote in message
news:jkibuv$r1p$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 3/23/2012 9:51 AM, Milt wrote:
>> Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
>> up hurting progressive talkers more.
>

> It's

This is you, spammy:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_yXG6T3EKPsw/TStt84tQIcI/AAAAAAAAAXY/D2vNQ8u6J3c/s1600/SNF08FAT1-682_701744a.jpg

Or maybe it's this:

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16100000/Princess-in-a-TuTu-chihuahuas-16192763-450-338.jpg

Bark, spammybitch, bark!

Still jamming your nose up the sphincters of everyone who threatens you,
eh? Poor little skidmark. Do you ever dream of people talking to you
like the adult you will never be? You don't have enough wit to carry on
half of an intelligent conversation and are easily cornered. You live
merely to grunt, fart and vent your frustration with your sad excuse of
a life, hoping above everything else that someone pays attention to
you.

Shut the fuck up, spammyshitstain. You are a treason-loving, America-
hating piece of shit. You will die alone and afraid, just like your
useless miserable excrement-filled excuse for a "life."

'Shit happens'
---Traitorous spammyshitstain's reply to the fact that 34
Americans died and 170 were injured when Israel attacked the USS
Liberty. Spammyshitstain is a gutless coward who has never served
his country in uniform, and hates anyone who has.

[Salty Stan]

On Mar 22, 6:07 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:09:14 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com>

Yes, Zepp, that reminds me, didn't you also predict Sarah Palin's
imminent divorce? Two years ago? Whatever happened to that?

[Salty Stan]

Rush has already apologized, and will not ever do it again. What more
do the liberals want?

[Ray Fischer]

Steelloon is a moron who doesn't understand that comparing a RADIO
market that is dominated by just a few providers with a market of
hundreds of TV providers is a fool's game for idiots.

[Salty Stan]

On Mar 21, 5:09 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:34:45 -0700, jane wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 3:28 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> >>http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203210003
>
> >> Media Matters' Brock: Advertiser Exodus Has "Disintegrated" Limbaugh's
> >> Business Model
>

> > It looks like he will have to adopt the "Air America" model, stealing
> > from children.

Yikes - you disagreed with Zepp! Expect a devastating personal attack!

>
> Ah, so under all the libertarian bullshit resides the heart of a Usenet
> crackpot.

Warned you.

[Milt]

He didn't apologize. Not really. Jere's the apology, in full:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity,
three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the
wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal
attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious
political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational
activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that
American citizens should pay for these social activities. What
happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we
draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will
we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all
students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue,
I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going
on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach
a Presidential level.

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."

-------------------------

In short, it's "everything I said was correct, but I shouldn't have
said those two words.

He lied about her for THREE DAYS! He defamed her for three entire
shows. That's nine hours of slandering a regular citizen exercising
her free speech rights. He lied about her constantly, but he only
apologized for calling her two names.

So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister, wife
or mother as having fucked everything in sight, as going to Congress
to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex with
every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you settle for
an apology because she might have been offended for two words?

Chances are, you'd want to go to the station and wring his fucking
neck, and that weak ass apology wouldn't do it for you. And I wouldn't
blame you one bit. If I was Todd Palin, I'd want to beat the shit out
of Bill Maher for calling her a cunt, too. But Maher didn't defame
Palin for three solid shows.

Like I said, I doubt seriously Limbaugh will be taken down by the
"boycott." But my bet is, he's going to have to pay mightily for his
tirade, and the judge is unlikely to accept his "apology." And I don't
feel bad about that.

[Salty Stan]

On Mar 23, 3:43 pm, 2915 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:20:46 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:01:55 -0700 (PDT), Richard Steel
> > <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>Here is the reality - Rush has a large audience than American Idol.
> >>(That show has 15 million viewers, Rush has between 16 - 25 million.)
>
> > Figure out what percentage of the American voting demographic that is,
> > Stupid
>
> > What?  About 10-12%?
>
> > Is there something about it you don't understand?
>
> It's hard to get accurate ratings for Rush, but word is he actually has
> somewhere around 2-3 million.

Just curious, how many do you have on zepps_essays?

[Ray Fischer]

No he hasn't. He's demanded sex tapes from Fluke.

[Slackjaw]

Milt wrote:

> I sincerely apologize to Ms.
> Fluke for the insulting word choices."



--
---

If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---

[Richard Steel]

I'm sorry, that's simply not true.

>  And to listen to him, you have to set
> up an account.  I have absolutely no interest in getting on his list.

Nonsense. Try this:

http://www.kfiam640.com/main.html

> So basically, KFI isn't even podcasting him, let along "running him" with
> ads.

No, they stream his show. You do know the difference between
"podcasting" and "streaming", don't you?

[Richard Steel]

And that opinion is based on what, exactly?

> While I'm happy to see Limbaugh take a hit, he's not going anywhere.

> About 550 of the 650 stations

Actually, it's over 660 stations.

> .... that carry Limbaugh get the program on

> barter, meaning they get it for free, with Premier Networks/Clear
> Channel getting money for a number of spots.

That was the original business model. But over the years, Rush as
become so popular that he can (and does) demand a hefty fee for the
privilege of broadcasting his show. His numbers are larger than
"American Idol" - and at times, far larger.

> The local stations get
> their money from the local commercials they sell. What Brock fails to
> recognize is, many of those stations are Clear Channel stations.
> Therefore, while they've suspended national ads, they're still making
> money from local ads.

What evidence do we have the Clear Channel suspended national ads
other than Media Matters?

> The stations in the largest markets, on the other hand, pay a fee for
> the program, as well as turn over a percentage of the local ad
> revenue  to Premiere/Clear Channel. Of course, a number of those
> stations are also Clear Channel.

But you just said they didn't pay fees. Now you say they do.

> Basically, national barter advertisers probably constitute about
> 10-20% of Limbaugh's ad revenue, That's a hell of a hit, but not
> deadly. Why does Brock think his "leading advertisers" are companies
> like Carbonite, 1-800-FLOWERS and Quicken Loans, and not Mercedes
> Benz, Coca-Cola and McDonald's? It's because they sell THOSE ads
> locally, not nationally.

And giving small companies a platform to become a national success is
a bad thing because....?

Rush's show MADE Snapple - it was a small, local New Jersey beverage
until they started advertising on Rush.

> Limbaugh brings in more revenue than any other radio talk show program
> in the business, but given that radio in total only accounts for 48%
> of revenue, and Premiere in total only accounts for about 30% of radio
> revenues, Limbaugh probably accounts for 2-3% of revenues.

> In other words, we've probably smacked Limbaugh's revenue stream by
> maybe 20% which is maybe 0.6% of Clear Channel revenues.>

The element that you leave out of the mix that there IS NO DROP IN
ADVERTISING REVENUE. All the empty slots created by departing
advertisers were quickly gobbled up by other companies. There is no
dead air, there are no PSAs...just different advertisers, happy for
the chance to be running with the big dogs. The boycott's only real
effect has been to create yet more interest in Rush's show, and
increase traffic.

> If they fire
> him, he will end up somewhere else. That not only means a loss of 2-3%
> of revenues, but it also means a loss of MORE revenue, as they now he
> to compete against him. Of course, if they fired him, and he was
> picked up by, say, Cumulus, Clear Channel could then pick up his show
> on the same stations he was on before, and they would probably end up
> only losing a little bit of money, if any at all.

Or making much more, thanks to his increased audience.

> Plus, he'd then be a
> "First Amendment martyr" and his audience would probably increase for
> the first time in years.

Mission accomplished.

> Only in everyone's wildest fantasies will Limbaugh go anywhere as long
> as we attack advertisers. You have to go after local stations and
> station managers.

And why exactly would a station manager throw away his biggest money
generating show, simply to keep a handful of cranks happy?

> Going after advertisers has a dangerous side effect,
> in that advertisers might become skittish enough to refuse to support
> ALL talk radio. Anyone could take a few sound bites from a left talker
> and create a "boycott". And Dial Global isn't nearly strong enough to
> take a mass exodus of advertisers.

Conservatives really don't think that way. They may try to get the
state to stop funding NPR, government funding of an art project which
shows a yam shoved up a woman's ass.....but stopping a private company
from producing content that people want to buy with their own money?
Nope, we don't do that.

> Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
> up hurting progressive talkers more.

Not to mention that it reveals Leftists to be thugs who are terrified
of free speech.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 3/23/2012 9:51 AM, Milt wrote:

> > > Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
> > > up hurting progressive talkers more.

> > What an interesting admission, : "we're using to go after Limbaugh"...

> > It's always been evident that libs are fascist censors, even as often as
> > they deny such.

> > But a statement like this certainly reinforces how much the average lib
> > wants to change free speech.

> He can say whatever he wants. >

No, you're trying to destroy his show so his views can't be heard.
There is nothing honorable or reasonable about your position. It's
book burning with slightly better PR.

> But if he wants to use OUR airwaves to
> do so,

Really? The government owns the air? And because they own the air,
they can control anything that's broadcast? HBO is microwaved through
the air, does that mean FCC Chief Sarah Palin can kick that network
off the air on whim? A stronger case can be made for banning
newspapers and magazines - they travel on roads that were built by the
government.

> we'll make it uncomfortable.

Or you could simply make better arguments, so you don't have to shut
down other voices.

So, the government owns the air, say you?

[Richard Steel]

And he's correct.

> He lied about her for THREE DAYS! He defamed her for three entire
> shows. That's nine hours of slandering a regular citizen exercising
> her free speech rights.

My, my. Look who's suddenly the Free Speech purist.

> He lied about her constantly, but he only
> apologized for calling her two names.

Nope, he told the truth about here.

> So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister, wife
> or mother as having fucked everything in sight,

My mother and/or sister didn't testify in front of Congress and
strongly implied she burned through $1000.00 of condoms. When bought
in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
doesn't cough up for the contraceptive. That averages to about seven
romps a day, every day, for years.

What does one call a woman who believes that level of sexual activity
is typical?

> ...as going to Congress

> to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex with
> every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you settle for
> an apology because she might have been offended for two words?

Where was your concern when a West Hollywood "artist" hung Sarah Palin
in effigy? When David Letterman strongly implied that 14 year old
Willow Palin was a pregnant whore?

You talk about Ms. Fluke's three day ordeal - where was this concern
when Bristol Palin was a subject of scorn for three years?

[Ray Fischer]

Richard Steel <rstee...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > On 3/23/2012 9:51 AM, Milt wrote:
>
>> > > Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
>> > > up hurting progressive talkers more.
>
>> > What an interesting admission, : "we're using to go after Limbaugh"...
>
>> > It's always been evident that libs are fascist censors, even as often as
>> > they deny such.
>
>> > But a statement like this certainly reinforces how much the average lib
>> > wants to change free speech.
>
>> He can say whatever he wants. >
>
>No, you're trying to destroy his show so his views can't be heard.

Look at Steelloon trot out his fascism, insisting that people who
disagree with Limbutt should not be allowed to criticize.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:56:41 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:48:02 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>

>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:28:18 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:07:55 -0400, NoBody wrote:
>>>

>>>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:09:14 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>

But you're already wrong since you claimed it would happen *last*
week. My but you libs are dense....

>
>This IS getting interesting. We've known all along that Rush is heavily
>subsidized by interests such as Clear Channel and the Koch Brother in
>order to turn you from an American into a drooling fascist moron. And
>you need constant reinforcement, just like any cultist. So someone is
>covering Rush's revenue losses, and paying that $40 million annual salary
>that you believe is covered by vacuum cleaner ads on a 750W radio station
>in East Bumfuck, Oklahoma.
>
>But how long can they keep that up? It's costing someone a couple of
>million a week to keep Rush on the air.

Blah blah blah. You're prediction was still wrong.

[NoBody]

Probably the thing that happened to that "cop punches woman in face"
video that he claimed existed. He really is an embarrassment. If
he'd just be honest I'd have *some* respect for him.

[2915 Dead]

And it didn't happen. Oh well.

Think Rush's position is just peachy now, do you?

>
>
>>This IS getting interesting. We've known all along that Rush is heavily
>>subsidized by interests such as Clear Channel and the Koch Brother in
>>order to turn you from an American into a drooling fascist moron. And
>>you need constant reinforcement, just like any cultist. So someone is
>>covering Rush's revenue losses, and paying that $40 million annual
>>salary that you believe is covered by vacuum cleaner ads on a 750W radio
>>station in East Bumfuck, Oklahoma.
>>
>>But how long can they keep that up? It's costing someone a couple of
>>million a week to keep Rush on the air.
>
> Blah blah blah. You're prediction was still wrong.

[Milt]

You've never seen this?

http://youtu.be/YxYZX_gQT2A

The video does exist.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:32:06 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
wrote:

This was not the story Zippo was talking about. Has a cop never
punched anyone on tape? Never said that. He knows the specific case
and posted video that showed no such thing. Thanks though.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:47:17 +0000 (UTC), 2915 Dead <de...@gone.com>

Wow, you almost admitted you were wrong...real close....
Personally I think you'll be claiming he's in trouble for years to
come - just like you lefties have been claiming for over 10 years now.

[Salty Stan]

What libs are saying that Rush didn't apologize now?

[Milt]

He apologized for two words. He didn't apologize for haranguing Sandra
Fluke for three solid shows.

He even lied about her in his apology. Here it is, again, in full:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity,
three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the
wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal
attack on Ms. Fluke.

"I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious
political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational
activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that
American citizens should pay for these social activities. What
happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we
draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow?
Will
we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all
students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue,
I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is
going
on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach
a Presidential level.

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."

-------------------------

In her testimony, Fluke didn't even mention "personal sexual
recreational activities," nor has anyone asked ANY "American citizen"
or anyone else to "pay for these social activities." She's paying for
her health insurance. No one else is. She doesn't think she should pay
for her heath insurance and then also pony up for actual health care.

He rightfully apologized for the two words. He didn't apologize for
lying about her and defaming her for three days. In fact, the
"apology" actually doubled down on that.

[Billary]

On Mar 26, 12:24 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have Rush on right now. And listening to all of the Ads. Lots of
them!!!!!!!!!!!

[Milt]

I've always been a free speech purist. You, on the other hand...

>
> >  He lied about her constantly, but he only
> > apologized for calling her two names.
>
> Nope, he told the truth about here.

No he didn't. She never once even mentioned her own sex life, nor did
she mention the sex lives of anyone else. Everything he said about her
testimony and about her was a lie.

>
> > So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister, wife
> > or mother as having fucked everything in sight,
>
> My mother and/or sister didn't testify in front of Congress and
> strongly implied she burned through $1000.00 of condoms.

There you go, lying about her too.

> When bought
> in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about seven
> romps a day, every day, for years.

You are such an ignorant fuck.

Here's a transcript of her testimony:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.

>
> What does one call a woman who believes that level of sexual activity
> is typical?

Tell you what, fucktard; show me where in her testimony she even
implies that she has sex, let alone more than a few times, with
multiple partners. There is nothing about her sex life at all. Based
on her actual testimony, one would be unable to tell if she was gay.

>
> > ...as going to Congress
> > to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex with
> > every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you settle for
> > an apology because she might have been offended for two words?
>
> Where was your concern when a West Hollywood "artist" hung Sarah Palin
> in effigy?   When David Letterman strongly implied that 14 year old
> Willow Palin was a pregnant whore?

I'm a free speech purist. I don't give a shit about effigies, unless
they were threatening to set her on fire. As for Letterman, he should
have and did apologize effusively. I thought it was a dumb joke,
because he was actually talking about the wrong daughter, and in bad
taste, but he apologized for it into the camera, with sincerity, and
Palin said she accepted.

But those are different. It is far different when a public figure uses
his status as a public figure to defame a private citizen.

And the boycott to take down Limbaugh IS a free speech issue. Limbaugh
has the right to say what he will, and the rest of the public has a
right to tell advertisers they don't approve. As I said, ultimately it
won't work, and such a boycott may triiger the law of unintended
consequences, but it falls within the context of free speech.

>
> You talk about Ms. Fluke's three day ordeal - where was this concern
> when Bristol Palin was a subject of scorn for three years?

I don't recall very many people going after Bristol. They went after
her mother's hypocrisy.

[Milt]

On Mar 24, 6:17 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > On 3/23/2012 9:51 AM, Milt wrote:
> > > > Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
> > > > up hurting progressive talkers more.
> > > What an interesting admission, : "we're using to go after Limbaugh"...
> > > It's always been evident that libs are fascist censors, even as often as
> > > they deny such.
> > > But a statement like this certainly reinforces how much the average lib
> > > wants to change free speech.
> > He can say whatever he wants. >
>
> No, you're trying to destroy his show so his views can't be heard.

Are you actually positing that he's entitled to advertising? What
about the right of all of us to write a sponsor and tell them I won't
support them if they sponsor hate speech?

> There is nothing honorable or reasonable about your position.  It's
> book burning with slightly better PR.

No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh has no right to be on the radio. He has a
right to free speech; no one has a guaranteed right to a forum. He's
using the public airwaves. Everyone else has to right to say he's
abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.

>
> > But if he wants to use OUR airwaves to
> > do so,
>
> Really?  The government owns the air?

Yes.

> And because they own the air,
> they can control anything that's broadcast?

Who is this "they" you're talking about? WE own the government, fool.
And as people residing in the UNited States, WE have he right to tell
his sponsors we disapprove of their support of his garbage. Even if
he's entitled to speak, he's not entitled to 15 hours of radio time on
650 publicly licensed broadcast stations every week.

> HBO is microwaved through
> the air, does that mean FCC Chief Sarah Palin can kick that network
> off the air on whim?  A stronger case can be made for banning
> newspapers and magazines - they travel on roads that were built by the
> government.

No wonder Bill Vallely made you stop using his name. You're one dumb
motherfucker. HBO isn't broadcast. The FCC has no jurisdiction over
cable. HBO also has no advertising, so there are no advertisers to
contact. But if Rush Limbaugh were to say the same things on HBO,
subscribers could drop the channel, couldn't they?

Why are you so against the average person having the right to tell an
advertiser he won't buy their shit if they keep sponsoring Limbaugh?
You're not much for free speech, are you?

>
> > we'll make it uncomfortable.
>
> Or you could simply make better arguments, so you don't have to shut
> down other voices.

Shut down? Like I said in my previous post, I doubt if it will work.
Even if he lost his radio show, he has the money to broadcast over the
web, or get a show on Fox, or to even pop up on another network on
radio.

But for your sorry ass to suggest that he has a right to say anything
he wants, but no one else has the right to protest, and complain to
advertisers, demonstrates you to be a hypocrite when it comes to free
speech. So, did Vallely send you an email, or call you to tell you to
knock it off?

>
> So, the government owns the air, say you?

Yes. WE own the airwaves. I can't believe you don't know that.

[Milt]

On Mar 26, 9:43 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:32:06 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>

Oh, so your argument is, "Oh, I didn't mean that one..."? Really?

You really are a "nobody."

[Salty Stan]

On Mar 26, 12:24 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

That sounds like an apology to me...

[Salty Stan]

On Mar 26, 12:57 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:17 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who is this "they" you're talking about? WE own the government, fool.

If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell
you.

[Milt]

That wasn't all he said, you moron.

Enjoy your ignorance.

[Milt]

Tell you what; why don't you read my original post on this. I said, it
probably wouldn't work. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't put the
heat on him...

[Milt]

If you don't believe that, you're a more qualified buyer.

[Slackjaw]

And the clueless liberal is shot down in defeat...

[Slackjaw]

Salty Stan wrote:

> On Mar 26, 12:57 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 6:17 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who is this "they" you're talking about? WE own the government,

> > [signed] fool.

Come back and tell me again on April 15

>
> If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell
> you.

[Milt]

Salty Stan is a liberal?

[Slackjaw]

So whose sex life was she talking about?

> Everything he said about her
> testimony and about her was a lie.
> >
> > > So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister,
> > > wife or mother as having fucked everything in sight,
> >
> > My mother and/or sister didn't testify in front of Congress and
> > strongly implied she burned through $1000.00 of condoms.
>
> There you go, lying about her too.

Well, no actually, that was true. Didn't you read her testimony?

>
> > When bought
> > in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> > doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about
> > seven romps a day, every day, for years.
>
> You are such an ignorant fuck.
>
> Here's a transcript of her testimony:
>
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra
> -fluke-48z2
>
> There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.
> >
> > What does one call a woman who believes that level of sexual
> > activity is typical?
>
> Tell you what, fucktard; show me where in her testimony she even
> implies that she has sex, let alone more than a few times, with
> multiple partners. There is nothing about her sex life at all.

Uh, do you actually know what "contraceptive" means?

> Based
> on her actual testimony, one would be unable to tell if she was gay.
> >
> > > ...as going to Congress
> > > to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex
> > > with every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you
> > > settle for an apology because she might have been offended for
> > > two words?
> >
> > Where was your concern when a West Hollywood "artist" hung Sarah
> > Palin in effigy?   When David Letterman strongly implied that 14
> > year old Willow Palin was a pregnant whore?
>
> I'm a free speech purist. I don't give a shit about effigies, unless
> they were threatening to set her on fire. As for Letterman, he should
> have and did apologize effusively. I thought it was a dumb joke,

Are you going to call for a boycott?

> because he was actually talking about the wrong daughter, and in bad
> taste, but he apologized for it into the camera, with sincerity, and
> Palin said she accepted.
>
> But those are different. It is far different when a public figure uses
> his status as a public figure to defame a private citizen.
>
> And the boycott to take down Limbaugh IS a free speech issue. Limbaugh
> has the right to say what he will, and the rest of the public has a
> right to tell advertisers they don't approve. As I said, ultimately it
> won't work, and such a boycott may triiger the law of unintended
> consequences, but it falls within the context of free speech.
> >
> > You talk about Ms. Fluke's three day ordeal - where was this concern
> > when Bristol Palin was a subject of scorn for three years?
>
> I don't recall very many people going after Bristol. They went after
> her mother's hypocrisy.

By attacking her daughter.

[Slackjaw]

Milt wrote:

> On Mar 26, 8:22 pm, "Slackjaw" <Oklah...@spacealliance.com> wrote:
> > Milt wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 1:03 pm, Salty Stan <wsjames...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 26, 12:24 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

-

> > > > "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."
> >
> > > > That sounds like an apology to me...
> >
> > > That wasn't all he said, you moron.
> >
> > > Enjoy your ignorance.
> >
> > And the clueless liberal is shot down in defeat...
> >
> Salty Stan is a liberal?

And the stupid liberal falls even lower.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:01:20 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yup.

>
>You really are a "nobody."

I guess that's what I deserve for trying to be civil....

Here's the thread I was talking about.

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/4ca0c2a475b6c705?dmode=source

[NoBody]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:10:47 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:05:38 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You really are a "nobody."
>>
>>I guess that's what I deserve for trying to be civil....
>

>You---Civil?
>

I'm civil until it's clear that the person to whom I speaking doesn't
understand civil. Sort of like talking to you....

>You think the definition of "americans" is the narrow, self-serving,
>selective one that republicans use when talking about how their
>policies "help" "americans"

Absolutely no idea of what you are trying to say but it just sounds
more and more like your standard nonsense that means nothing.

>
>"Civil" in one of your zany applications is as worthless as the rest.

Irony anyone?

[Richard Steel]

> > > He lied about her for THREE DAYS! He defamed her for three entire
> > > shows. That's nine hours of slandering a regular citizen exercising
> > > her free speech rights.

> > My, my.  Look who's suddenly the Free Speech purist.

> I've always been a free speech purist. You, on the other hand...

"(I) on the other hand..." what?

> > >  He lied about her constantly, but he only
> > > apologized for calling her two names.

> > Nope, he told the truth about here.

> No he didn't. She never once even mentioned her own sex life, nor did
> she mention the sex lives of anyone else. Everything he said about her
> testimony and about her was a lie.

When a woman says that it's typical for her peer group to go bankrupt
buying rubbers, at a rate that breaks down to about seven sexual
episodes a day....that's a slut.

> > > So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister, wife
> > > or mother as having fucked everything in sight,

> > My mother and/or sister didn't testify in front of Congress and

> > strongly implied she burned through $1000.00 of condoms every year.

> There you go, lying about her too.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
policy."
Sandra Fluke

> > When bought
> > in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> > doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about seven
> > romps a day, every day, for years.

> You are such an ignorant fuck.

> Here's a transcript of her testimony:
>

> http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandr...

>
> There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
policy."
Sandra Fluke

> > What does one call a woman who believes that level of sexual activity
> > is typical?

> Tell you what, fucktard; show me where in her testimony she even
> implies that she has sex, let alone more than a few times, with
> multiple partners. There is nothing about her sex life at all. Based
> on her actual testimony, one would be unable to tell if she was gay.

"Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
policy."
Sandra Fluke

> > > ...as going to Congress
> > > to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex with
> > > every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you settle for
> > > an apology because she might have been offended for two words?

> > Where was your concern when a West Hollywood "artist" hung Sarah Palin
> > in effigy?   When David Letterman strongly implied that 14 year old
> > Willow Palin was a pregnant whore?

> I'm a free speech purist. I don't give a shit about effigies, unless
> they were threatening to set her on fire.

But you're cool with the idea that they simply want to lynch Palin?

Here's more death threats that you endorse, because, like, you're a
hypocrite....

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621


Really? Where's your outrage over the Black Panthers threatening
elderly

> As for Letterman, he should
> have and did apologize effusively. I thought it was a dumb joke,
> because he was actually talking about the wrong daughter, and in bad
> taste, but he apologized for it into the camera, with sincerity, and
> Palin said she accepted.

You don't accept Rush's apology - why should anyone accept Letterman's
creepy apology? An "apology" which consisted of insisting that he
meant to call the Palin's OTHER teen age daughter a slut. Letterman
then crawled into his "secret bedroom" (not a joke, BTW) to cheat on
the woman who gave him his bastard son by screwed yet another nameless
intern.

> But those are different. It is far different when a public figure uses
> his status as a public figure to defame a private citizen.

30 year old "activist" Fluke testified to Congress on national
television. In what way is she not a public figure?

> And the boycott to take down Limbaugh IS a free speech issue.>

Ah, yes - denying up to 25,000,000 Americans their preferred news
source is "free speech".

> Limbaugh
> has the right to say what he will, and the rest of the public has a
> right to tell advertisers they don't approve.

And in what way is that any different than a book burning?

> As I said, ultimately it
> won't work, and such a boycott may triiger the law of unintended
> consequences, but it falls within the context of free speech.

No, it falls into the context of fascism trying to destroy free

speech.

> > You talk about Ms. Fluke's three day ordeal - where was this concern
> > when Bristol Palin was a subject of scorn for three years?

> I don't recall very many people going after Bristol.

I don't recall them stopping for three years.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-4-2008/bristol-palin-s-choice

Bristol rose to the occasion nicely.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-should-i-expect-your-call/

> They went after
> her mother's hypocrisy.

I believe you guys should deal with your own massive hypocrisy.

[Milt]

On Mar 28, 10:23 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > He lied about her for THREE DAYS! He defamed her for three entire
> > > > shows. That's nine hours of slandering a regular citizen exercising
> > > > her free speech rights.
> > > My, my.  Look who's suddenly the Free Speech purist.
> > I've always been a free speech purist. You, on the other hand...
>
> "(I) on the other hand..." what?

You don't care for it.

>
> > > >  He lied about her constantly, but he only
> > > > apologized for calling her two names.
> > > Nope, he told the truth about here.
> > No he didn't. She never once even mentioned her own sex life, nor did
> > she mention the sex lives of anyone else. Everything he said about her
> > testimony and about her was a lie.
>
> When a woman says that it's typical for her peer group to go bankrupt
> buying rubbers, at a rate that breaks down to about seven sexual
> episodes a day....that's a slut.

You just lie. She never said anything resembling that comment. Once
again, here's the transcript:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

Please show us where she even mentioned "rubbers."

>
> > > > So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister, wife
> > > > or mother as having fucked everything in sight,
> > > My mother and/or sister didn't testify in front of Congress and
> > > strongly implied she burned through $1000.00 of condoms every year.
> > There you go, lying about her too.
>
> "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> policy."
>                                  Sandra Fluke

In your tiny little mind, only condoms can be considered
"contraception"? So, you admit you're an idiot?

>
> > > When bought
> > > in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> > > doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about seven
> > > romps a day, every day, for years.
> > You are such an ignorant fuck.
> > Here's a transcript of her testimony:
>
> >http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandr...
>
> > There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.
>
> "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> policy."
>                                  Sandra Fluke

Law school is three years, typically, which makes that number a
reasonable one, dontcha think? . They pay $1895 per semester for
health insurance. Why should they have to pay an extra $500 per
semester on top of that just to maintain their health? Oh, wait; you
have no concept that contraception does anymore than prevent
pregnancy, because you're a complete idiot.

Here's a question, fucktard. What if your boss was a Scientologist,
and decided your coverage would no longer include prescriptions? Would
that be okay?

>
> > > What does one call a woman who believes that level of sexual activity
> > > is typical?
> > Tell you what, fucktard; show me where in her testimony she even
> > implies that she has sex, let alone more than a few times, with
> > multiple partners. There is nothing about her sex life at all. Based
> > on her actual testimony, one would be unable to tell if she was gay.
>
> "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> policy."
>                                  Sandra Fluke
>
> > > > ...as going to Congress
> > > > to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex with
> > > > every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you settle for
> > > > an apology because she might have been offended for two words?
> > > Where was your concern when a West Hollywood "artist" hung Sarah Palin
> > > in effigy?   When David Letterman strongly implied that 14 year old
> > > Willow Palin was a pregnant whore?
> > I'm a free speech purist. I don't give a shit about effigies, unless
> > they were threatening to set her on fire.
>
> But you're cool with the idea that they simply want to lynch Palin?

Who? Do you mean physically? I'd be against that.

>
> Here's more death threats that you endorse, because, like, you're a
> hypocrite....
>
> http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
>
> Really?  Where's your outrage over the Black Panthers threatening
> elderly

I don't do outrage, fucktard.

>
> > As for Letterman, he should
> > have and did apologize effusively. I thought it was a dumb joke,
> > because he was actually talking about the wrong daughter, and in bad
> > taste, but he apologized for it into the camera, with sincerity, and
> > Palin said she accepted.
>
> You don't accept Rush's apology - why should anyone accept Letterman's
> creepy apology?

Letterman's apology was complete, and he apologized for even
conceiving the joke and promised to never make such a joke again about
anyone. Limbaugh apologized for two words, "slut" and "prostitute."
His apology actually reinforced his misogyny.

> An "apology" which consisted of insisting that he
> meant to call the Palin's OTHER teen age daughter a slut.

That was an excuse some liberals used for excusing Letterman's bad
judgment. That wasn't Letterman's apology. Letterman's apology was
complete.

> Letterman
> then crawled into his "secret bedroom" (not a joke, BTW) to cheat on
> the woman who gave him his bastard son by screwed yet another nameless
> intern.

Liar.

>
> > But those are different. It is far different when a public figure uses
> > his status as a public figure to defame a private citizen.
>
> 30 year old "activist" Fluke testified to Congress on national
> television.  In what way is she not a public figure?

She didn't testify on national television, you fucking moron. She
testified before Congress, and it just happened to appear on C-SPAN.
She's not a public figure.

>
> > And the boycott to take down Limbaugh IS a free speech issue.>
>
> Ah, yes - denying up to 25,000,000 Americans their preferred news
> source is "free speech".

First of all, you're the most gullible asshole in the world if you
imagine 25 million people even listen to Limbaugh.

But let's look at that argument for a minute, fucktard...

Isn't that a PERFECT argument for a Fairness Doctrine? What do the
people who don't want to listen to Limbaugh have to listen to on
radio? Using that same fucked-up argument, didn't you just make a
rationale for making sure progressive talk radio has at least as many
stations?

Of course, it's a stupid argument. Radio is market-based, isn't it?

So, why shouldn't the people who are outraged by Limbaugh attacking
this woman be able to contact his sponsors and express their
displeasure?

I would also point out that Clear Channel is perfectly free to keep
him on the air as long as they want without ads, if they want. Are you
making the argument that Limbaugh has an inherent right to be paid for
his opinion?

>
> >  Limbaugh
> > has the right to say what he will, and the rest of the public has a
> > right to tell advertisers they don't approve.
>
> And in what way is that any different than a book burning?

Because Clear Channel can keep him on the air if they want, without
any advertising, if it comes down to it. Even if they fire Limbaugh,
he can still be heard, anyway. He could make millions on a podcast, or
(more likely) being hired by satellite radio or another terrestrial
radio network. He could write some books, or put up a blog. If
Limbaugh was no longer on the radio, he would still have free speech
rights.

Burn a book, and it can never be read by anyone else.

See the difference?

>
> > As I said, ultimately it
> > won't work, and such a boycott may triiger the law of unintended
> > consequences, but it falls within the context of free speech.
>
> No, it falls into the context of fascism trying to destroy free
> speech.

Um, no, actually. Go learn the definition of "fascism."

>
> > > You talk about Ms. Fluke's three day ordeal - where was this concern
> > > when Bristol Palin was a subject of scorn for three years?
> > I don't recall very many people going after Bristol.
>
> I don't recall them stopping for three years.
>

> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-4-2008/bristol-palin-...

You think that was attacking Bristol? You pussy. That wasn't an attack
on Bristol Palin; it's about the concept of choice. The GOP is against
choice, except when one of their own is involved.

>
> Bristol rose to the occasion nicely.
>

> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-s...

Petulant much? Please show me where an entire Left wing propaganda
machine went after Bristol Palin and attacked her for anything.

Yawn.

Again, I don't recall very many people going after Bristol. I see them
going after her opinions, not her.

>
> > They went after
> > her mother's hypocrisy.
>
> I believe you guys should deal with your own massive hypocrisy.

I do go after left wing hypocrisy when I see it. Stop Lying, Fake
Bill.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 26, 9:57 am, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:17 am, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 1:30 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3/23/2012 9:51 AM, Milt wrote:
> > > > > Yes, that's right. The method we're using to go after Limbaugh may end
> > > > > up hurting progressive talkers more.
> > > > What an interesting admission, : "we're using to go after Limbaugh"...
> > > > It's always been evident that libs are fascist censors, even as often as
> > > > they deny such.
> > > > But a statement like this certainly reinforces how much the average lib
> > > > wants to change free speech.
> > > He can say whatever he wants. >

> > No, you're trying to destroy his show so his views can't be heard.

> Are you actually positing that he's entitled to advertising? What
> about the right of all of us to write a sponsor and tell them I won't
> support them if they sponsor hate speech?

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to boycott Rush - your
rights in that matter are every bit as solid as the Westboro Baptist
Church's protest at the funeral of a Marine, the KKK's march in
Skokie, or some yahoos burning Luke Skywalker Light Sabers (TM)
because they're convinced George Lucas has sold his soul to Satan
(that last group may have a point.)

It's legal, but scummy. You've surrendered the moral ground to
consider your self in favor of free speech.

> > There is nothing honorable or reasonable about your position.  It's
> > book burning with slightly better PR.

> No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh has no right to be on the radio.>

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> He has a
> right to free speech; no one has a guaranteed right to a forum.>

He doesn't demand a forum, he built one. He's not asking to be given
anything - you're trying to steal that which he created.

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> He's using the public airwaves.

So free speech doesn't apply to broadcasters? Or anyone on the
Internet? (That travels through the air, too.) Cable. Newspapers
(they're delivered on public roads.)

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> Everyone else has to right to say he's
> abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.

I see. So, you get to decide who's allowed on the radio, and who
isn't?

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> > > But if he wants to use OUR airwaves to
> > > do so,

> > Really?  The government owns the air?

> Yes.

So you support free speech of which the government approves.

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> > And because they own the air,
> > they can control anything that's broadcast?

> Who is this "they" you're talking about? >

Fascists who hate free speech. For an example, pick up your local
mirror.

> WE own the government, fool.>

"WE" can be very intolerant to other views, which is why Americans
have a Bill of Rights to limit, well, people like you.

> And as people residing in the UNited States, WE have he right to tell
> his sponsors we disapprove of their support of his garbage.

Again, you have that right. Just don't lie to me and insist that you
support free speech. You don't.

> Even if

"...if...."??????

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> he's entitled to speak, he's not entitled to 15 hours of radio time on
> 650 publicly licensed broadcast stations every week.

Why not? He wants to broadcast, the stations want to carry him, his
audience wants to listen.

> > HBO is microwaved through
> > the air, does that mean FCC Chief Sarah Palin can kick that network
> > off the air on whim?  A stronger case can be made for banning
> > newspapers and magazines - they travel on roads that were built by the
> > government.

>You're one dumb
> motherfucker. HBO isn't broadcast.

Yes, it is. Are you under the impression that there are billions of
cables which all connect to HBO headquarters in New York? The signal
is bounced off several satellites and travels through the air. And,
according to you, when that signal is in the air, it's subject to the
whims of the federal government.

> The FCC has no jurisdiction over
> cable.

Until they decide they do. And with the precedence created by the
Obama administration, I'm not sure how any court could deny them that
power. Did you hear the whispers that Sarah Palin is interested in
being Romney's Head of the FCC?

> HBO also has no advertising, so there are no advertisers to
> contact. But if Rush Limbaugh were to say the same things on HBO,
> subscribers could drop the channel, couldn't they?

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to boycott Rush - your
rights in that matter are every bit as solid as the Westboro Baptist
Church's protest at the funeral of a Marine, the KKK's march in
Skokie, or some yahoos burning Luke Skywalker Light Sabers (TM)
because they're convinced George Lucas has sold his soul to Satan
(that last group may have a point.)

It's legal, but scummy. You've surrendered the moral ground to
consider your self in favor of free speech.

> Why are you so against the average person having the right to tell an
> advertiser he won't buy their shit if they keep sponsoring Limbaugh?

Do it if you like - just don't call yourself a "free speech advocate",
and don't ask for my help when it's YOUR goose being censored.

> You're not much for free speech, are you?

I'm very much in favor of free speech - when have you ever read me try
to start a boycott of anyone?

> > > we'll make it uncomfortable.
>
> > Or you could simply make better arguments, so you don't have to shut
> > down other voices.
>
> Shut down?

Yes, that is what you're trying to do, best case shut down free
speech, second best option is to make it "uncomfortabnle" for people
to disagree with you.

But you consider yourself a free speech champion. (snicker)

> Like I said in my previous post, I doubt if it will work.

Not the point - this is what you and your ilk are trying to do.

> Even if he lost his radio show, he has the money to broadcast over the
> web, or get a show on Fox, or to even pop up on another network on
> radio.

But it would serve as a warning to other people you don't like that
you'll destroy their careers if they disagree with you.

> But for your sorry ass to suggest that he has a right to say anything
> he wants, but no one else has the right to protest, and complain to
> advertisers, demonstrates you to be a hypocrite when it comes to free
> speech.

Again, I never said that that you and your ilk didn't have a right to
protest, or boycott. Only that doing so takes away your right to
claim to be a free speech advocate

> > So, the government owns the air, say you?

> Yes. WE own the airwaves. I can't believe you don't know that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First Amendment

[lsrlts]

On 3/26/2012 9:57 AM, Milt wrote:
> Everyone else has to right to say he's
> abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.

Because he said something stupid that THEY disagree with?

Is that like Randi Rhodes threatening Pres. Bush's life?

http://michellemalkin.com/2005/04/27/air-americas-assassination-chic/

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of “Godfather” fame,
Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during
her Monday night broadcast: “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out
fishing and phuw. ”

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In “Godfather II,” Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at
the end of the film.

[lsrlts]

On 3/26/2012 9:43 AM, Milt wrote:
> I've always been a free speech purist.

"Rush Limbaugh has no right to be on the radio.

Everyone else has to right to say he's
abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.

[Richard Steel]

> > > I've always been a free speech purist. You, on the other hand...

> > "(I) on the other hand..." what?

> You don't care for it.

I'm no the one trying to shut down opinions which I disagree. That
honor belongs to you.

> > > > >  He lied about her constantly, but he only
> > > > > apologized for calling her two names.
> > > > Nope, he told the truth about here.
> > > No he didn't. She never once even mentioned her own sex life, nor did
> > > she mention the sex lives of anyone else. Everything he said about her
> > > testimony and about her was a lie.

> > When a woman says that it's typical for her peer group to go bankrupt
> > buying rubbers, at a rate that breaks down to about seven sexual
> > episodes a day....that's a slut.

> You just lie. She never said anything resembling that comment. Once
> again, here's the transcript:
>

> http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandr...

>
> Please show us where she even mentioned "rubbers."

> "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> policy."
> Sandra Fluke


> > > > > So, tell us. If, for nine hours, someone described your sister, wife
> > > > > or mother as having fucked everything in sight,
> > > > My mother and/or sister didn't testify in front of Congress and
> > > > strongly implied she burned through $1000.00 of condoms every year.
> > > There you go, lying about her too.

> > "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> > woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> > me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> > summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> > reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> > policy."
> >                                  Sandra Fluke

> In your tiny little mind, only condoms can be considered
> "contraception"?

Rubbers are the only form of contraception that can add up to a
$1000.00 a year. The others can easily be bought for about $100.

>
> > > > When bought
> > > > in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> > > > doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about seven
> > > > romps a day, every day, for years.
> > > You are such an ignorant fuck.
> > > Here's a transcript of her testimony:
>
> > >http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandr...
>
> > > There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.
>
> > "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> > woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> > me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> > summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> > reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> > policy."
> >                                  Sandra Fluke

> Law school is three years, typically, which makes that number a
> reasonable one, dontcha think? .

No. That averages out to $1000.00 a year.

Sandra Fluke Says She Didn't Know Target Sells Birth Control Pills for
$9
By Elizabeth Harrington
March 21, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – Thirty-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke,
who told a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing convened by
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that contraception can
cost a student $3,000 during law school, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday
that she did not know that the Target store 3 miles from the
Georgetown Law campus sells a month's supply of birth control pills
for just $9.

> They pay $1895 per semester for
> health insurance.

If they think that they're being overcharged for insurance, they
should but it someplace else.

> Why should they have to pay an extra $500 per
> semester on top of that just to maintain their health?

Because it's not $500 a month. It's $50 a month.

> Oh, wait; you
> have no concept that contraception does anymore than prevent
> pregnancy, because you're a complete idiot.

If the birth control pills have legitimate medical reasons, most
insurance companies will carry them. They certainly did with my wife.

> Here's a question, fucktard. What if your boss was a Scientologist,
> and decided your coverage would no longer include prescriptions? Would
> that be okay?

I'd serously consider leaving. Of course, I have marketable job
skills, so I have that option.

> > > > What does one call a woman who believes that level of sexual activity
> > > > is typical?
> > > Tell you what, fucktard; show me where in her testimony she even
> > > implies that she has sex, let alone more than a few times, with
> > > multiple partners. There is nothing about her sex life at all. Based
> > > on her actual testimony, one would be unable to tell if she was gay.
>
> > "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> > woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> > me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> > summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> > reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> > policy."
> >                                  Sandra Fluke
>
> > > > > ...as going to Congress
> > > > > to get "free" contraception because she couldn't stop having sex with
> > > > > every man she saw, and any number of vile things, would you settle for
> > > > > an apology because she might have been offended for two words?
> > > > Where was your concern when a West Hollywood "artist" hung Sarah Palin
> > > > in effigy?   When David Letterman strongly implied that 14 year old
> > > > Willow Palin was a pregnant whore?
> > > I'm a free speech purist. I don't give a shit about effigies, unless
> > > they were threatening to set her on fire.
>
> > But you're cool with the idea that they simply want to lynch Palin?
>
> Who?

These assholes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h56ZACTxa6k

> Do you mean physically? I'd be against that.

So, let's see if I've got this straight. Threatening to murder Sarah
Palin is good, clean, fun, but calling Fluke a "slut" is a horrible
violation.

Amazing.

> > Here's more death threats that you endorse, because, like, you're a
> > hypocrite....

> >http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

> > Really?  Where's your outrage over the Black Panthers threatening
> > elderly

> I don't do outrage, fucktard.

Not when people like like are fascist. You certainly express outrage
over conservatives.

> > > As for Letterman, he should
> > > have and did apologize effusively. I thought it was a dumb joke,
> > > because he was actually talking about the wrong daughter, and in bad
> > > taste, but he apologized for it into the camera, with sincerity, and
> > > Palin said she accepted.
>
> > You don't accept Rush's apology - why should anyone accept Letterman's
> > creepy apology?
>
> Letterman's apology was complete, and he apologized for even
> conceiving the joke and promised to never make such a joke again about
> anyone.

Nope. Letterman's "apology" was rambling, disjoined, and simply
claimed that he intended to call Sarah Palin's OTHER teenaged daughter
a slut.

That's not an apology.

> Limbaugh apologized for two words, "slut" and "prostitute."
> His apology actually reinforced his misogyny.

But it's OK for David Letterman to call Sarah Palin a "slut". And her
17 year old daughter.

> > An "apology" which consisted of insisting that he
> > meant to call the Palin's OTHER teen age daughter a slut.

> That was an excuse some liberals used for excusing Letterman's bad
> judgment. That wasn't Letterman's apology.

>That was EXACTLY Letterman's "apolgoy" Letterman's apology w
> complete.

Really? Letterman apologized for calling Sarah a slut? Or Williows
19 year old sister? All on the same night? He did that? When?

> > Letterman
> > then crawled into his "secret bedroom" (not a joke, BTW) to cheat on

> > the woman who gave him his bastard son by screwing yet another nameless
> > intern.

> Liar.

David Letterman had a special 'suite' above the 'Late Show'
theater, according to an ex-staffer. >

BY HENRICK KAROLISZYN IN NORWALK, CONN., LUCAS GARCIA IN SEBASTOPOL,
CALIF. AND SAMUEL GOLDSMITH AND RICH SCHAPIRO
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Sunday, October 04, 2009

An ex-"Late Show" intern unmasked herself Saturday as one of David
Letterman's former flings - and sources revealed the randy funnyman
keeps a bachelor pad atop the Ed Sullivan Theater.

"I was madly in love with him at the time," said Holly Hester. "I
would have married him. He was hilarious."

The NYU alum, who it appears went on to become a top Hollywood
producer, told TMZ.com that the relationship started in the early '90s
when Letterman called and asked her on a date to the movies.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-10-04/entertainment/17935900_1_david-letterman-show-secret

David Letterman marries longtime girlfriend
by Adam B. Vary


David Letterman announced during a taping of tonight’s Late Show that
he and his longtime girlfriend, Regina Lasko, were married last
Thursday in a small town in Montana, reports the Associated Press.
Lasko and Letterman have a five-year-old son, Harry. The host said he
began dating Lasko in 1986, and joked that in staying unmarried for so
long he was the "last of the real gunslingers."

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/03/23/david-letterman-2/

> > > But those are different. It is far different when a public figure uses
> > > his status as a public figure to defame a private citizen.
>
> > 30 year old "activist" Fluke testified to Congress on national
> > television.  In what way is she not a public figure?

> She didn't testify on national television, you fucking moron. She
> testified before Congress, and it just happened to appear on C-SPAN.
> She's not a public figure.

And in what way is "C-SPAN" not national television?

> > > And the boycott to take down Limbaugh IS a free speech issue.>

> > Ah, yes - denying up to 25,000,000 Americans their preferred news
> > source is "free speech".

> First of all, you're the most gullible asshole in the world if you
> imagine 25 million people even listen to Limbaugh.

And that's based onnnnnnnnnnnn - you wishing it weren't so.

> But let's look at that argument for a minute, fucktard...

> Isn't that a PERFECT argument for a Fairness Doctrine? What do the
> people who don't want to listen to Limbaugh have to listen to on
> radio?

Another AM radio station. Or FM radio station. Or Broadcast TV. Or
basic cable TV. Or books. Or magazines.

Literally 10,000 radio stations stream online. Let them listen to
one of those.

> Using that same fucked-up argument, didn't you just make a
> rationale for making sure progressive talk radio has at least as many
> stations?

Indeed, you presented a "fucked-up" argument.

Tell me, would you also support laws which force just as many
television shows be conservative as liberal? How about movies -
what's wrong with half the films featuring virtuous businessmen and
Christians? Forcing the New York Times to hand over half their pages
to be edited by Ann Coulter? How about demanding half the teaching
staff in American educational systems be Registered Republicans?

It seems to me that your demands for "equal treatment" is limited and
self serving.

> Of course, it's a stupid argument. Radio is market-based, isn't it?

> So, why shouldn't the people who are outraged by Limbaugh attacking
> this woman be able to contact his sponsors and express their
> displeasure?

They have every right in the world to do that. Just don't pretend
that those who do defend free speech, because they don't.

> I would also point out that Clear Channel is perfectly free to keep
> him on the air as long as they want without ads, if they want. Are you
> making the argument that Limbaugh has an inherent right to be paid for
> his opinion?

I'm saying that people, like yourself, who try to destroy the business
model of people to stop their opinions from being heard are no better
than book burners.

> > >  Limbaugh
> > > has the right to say what he will, and the rest of the public has a
> > > right to tell advertisers they don't approve.

> > And in what way is that any different than a book burning?

> Because Clear Channel can keep him on the air if they want, without
> any advertising, if it comes down to it.

I see - so it's WORSE than book burning.

> Even if they fire Limbaugh,
> he can still be heard, anyway. He could make millions on a podcast, or
> (more likely) being hired by satellite radio or another terrestrial
> radio network. He could write some books, or put up a blog. If
> Limbaugh was no longer on the radio, he would still have free speech
> rights.

And when he tried to do that, you and your Hitler youth would work to
shut him down there.

Seriously, dude, why are you so afraid of ideas being spoken. Oh,
wait, because you're a little Nazi, aren't you?

> Burn a book, and it can never be read by anyone else.

They'd just print more.

> See the difference?

No, not really.

> > > As I said, ultimately it
> > > won't work, and such a boycott may triiger the law of unintended
> > > consequences, but it falls within the context of free speech.

> > No, it falls into the context of fascism trying to destroy free
> > speech.

> Um, no, actually. Go learn the definition of "fascism."

I looked it up, and found your picture under the word "fascist."

> > > > You talk about Ms. Fluke's three day ordeal - where was this concern
> > > > when Bristol Palin was a subject of scorn for three years?
> > > I don't recall very many people going after Bristol.

> > I don't recall them stopping for three years.

> >http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-4-2008/bristol-palin-...

> You think that was attacking Bristol?>

Yes, they were ridicluing a 17 year old girl.

> You pussy. >

You fascist.

> That wasn't an attack
> on Bristol Palin; it's about the concept of choice. The GOP is against
> choice, except when one of their own is involved.

Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - you're in favor of "choice," are you? WHY
DIDN'T YOU SAY SO?

How about the 25 million Americans who like listening to Rush
Limbaugh? How about THEIR choice?

> > Bristol rose to the occasion nicely.

> >http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-s...

> Petulant much?

I believe she knocked it out of the ballpark.

> Please show me where an entire Left wing propaganda
> machine went after Bristol Palin and attacked her for anything.

> Yawn.

> Again, I don't recall very many people going after Bristol. I see them
> going after her opinions, not her.

How about when David Letterman, during his "apology", said that it was
OK to call her a slut?

> > > They went after
> > > her mother's hypocrisy.

> > I believe you guys should deal with your own massive hypocrisy.

> I do go after left wing hypocrisy when I see it.

But then, you're blind.

[Milt]

Excuse me? So telling Staples we'll stop shopping in their stores is
morally equivalent to screaming "God hates fags" at the funeral of a
dead Marine (who, coincidentally, wasn't even gay), or declaring that
caucasians are the superior race and that everyone else should die to
make room for them?

YOU have not only surrendered the "moral ground," you've buried
yourself deep under it.

I still avoid Exxon stations like the plague, and have since the
Valdez oil spill. I am in the process of developing a page showing
where we can buy American-made products, and I have made a personal
decision to buy American whenever I can. It's my right as a consumer
to do what I want with my money.

Yet, according to you, exercising that right puts me on a par with
Nazis and Phelpses. Or is it only Rush Limbaugh? I bet if there was a
campaign to take the douchebags from the Jersey Shore off the air,
you'd have no problem. So Limbaugh gives you a bigger boner than
Snooki; that doesn't mean the rest of us have no morals.

>
> > > There is nothing honorable or reasonable about your position.  It's
> > > book burning with slightly better PR.
> > No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh has no right to be on the radio.>
>
> But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

Rush Limbaugh does not have the right to be on the radio. Neither do I
and neither do you.

If people were demanding Limbaugh be put in jail for what he said, I'd
be with you. But don't presume that having free speech means you have
the right to have the rest of us provide you with a forum. I don't
have an obligation to buy a newspaper, either.

>
> >  He has a
> > right to free speech; no one has a guaranteed right to a forum.>
>
> He doesn't demand a forum, he built one.  He's not asking to be given
> anything - you're trying to steal that which he created.
>
> But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

No one is stealing shit. I also happen to think the attempt to take
him off the air will fail. But even if it succeeds, he has the right
to speak, still.

>
> >  He's using the public airwaves.
>
> So free speech doesn't apply to broadcasters?  Or anyone on the
> Internet?  (That travels through the air, too.)  Cable.  Newspapers
> (they're delivered on public roads.)

I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that there are no
consequences to speech? Or do you think speaking out against what
someone says infringes their free speech?

Funny. I bet you didn't think that when Janet Jackson's tit set off a
national furor. I bet if Ed Schultz said "Fuck Bush!" on his radio
show, you'd be running to his defense.

>
> But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

Yes, I am. You're showing to be not so much, ironically. You think
Limbaugh should be able to say what he wants, but those who object
should shut the hell up and not say anything to advertisers or station
licensees.

>
> > Everyone else has to right to say he's
> > abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.
>
> I see.  So, you get to decide who's allowed on the radio, and who
> isn't?
>
> But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

Of course, I didn't say that. What's a Fake Bill post without a lie,
anyway? He's allowed on the radio, and he's allowed to say what he
wants. And everyone else is allowed to register their opinion of what
he says. YOU, OTOH, want Limbaugh to have all the rights in the world,
but you want everyone else to STFU.

<repetitive bullshit snipped>

[Milt]

On Mar 28, 12:22 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/26/2012 9:57 AM, Milt wrote:
>
> > Everyone else has to right to say he's
> > abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.
>
> Because he said something stupid that THEY disagree with?
>

Yes. It's called free speech. Perhaps you might want to look into it.

[Richard Steel]

You're excused.

> So telling Staples we'll stop shopping in their stores is
> morally equivalent to screaming "God hates fags" at the funeral of a
> dead Marine (who, coincidentally, wasn't even gay), or declaring that
> caucasians are the superior race and that everyone else should die to
> make room for them?

No, they are nothing at all alike.

Trying to destroy Limbaugh's business model to keep his audience from
hearing what he says is just another form of Nazi book burning.

> YOU have not only surrendered the "moral ground," you've buried
> yourself deep under it.

\Where am I calling for censorship?

> I still avoid Exxon stations like the plague, and have since the
> Valdez oil spill.

Do you know who forced Exxon to clean up the Alaska coast? Who stood
up to the Republican establishment, and as a private citizen got the
job done?

Sarah Palin.

And why didn't you know that? Because you're willfully ignorant, and
refuse to listen to any new-source that doesn't reinforce your
prejudges.

> I am in the process of developing a page showing
> where we can buy American-made products,

Someone's already done it.

http://www.americansworking.com/

> and I have made a personal
> decision to buy American whenever I can. It's my right as a consumer
> to do what I want with my money.

Who's said otherwise?

> Yet, according to you, exercising that right puts me on a par with
> Nazis and Phelpses.

If the Iron Cross fits, fella. Sorry, but you're no defender of Free
Speech. Deal with it.

> Or is it only Rush Limbaugh? I bet if there was a
> campaign to take the douchebags from the Jersey Shore off the air,
> you'd have no problem.

I'd have no problem in the sense that I wouldn't bother with it. I
have no interest in shutting down "The Jersey Shore". But Rush
Limbaugh is the most important political pundit in the past 30 years.
Period.

> So Limbaugh gives you a bigger boner than
> Snooki; that doesn't mean the rest of us have no morals.

Oh, dear. The Leftists are now screaming "faggot." How lovely.

> > > > There is nothing honorable or reasonable about your position.  It's
> > > > book burning with slightly better PR.
> > > No it isn't. Rush Limbaugh has no right to be on the radio.>

> > But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> Rush Limbaugh does not have the right to be on the radio. Neither do I
> and neither do you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

> If people were demanding Limbaugh be put in jail for what he said, I'd
> be with you.

I assumed as much....until just now.

> But don't presume that having free speech means you have
> the right to have the rest of us provide you with a forum.

No one provided Rush with a forum - he built it himself. You're
trying to steal the forum from him.

> I don't
> have an obligation to buy a newspaper, either.

Not a valid analogy. An honest one would be people crazy-gluing
newspaper vending machines shut, so readers couldn't buy a copy of
The New York Times.

> > >  He has a
> > > right to free speech; no one has a guaranteed right to a forum.>

> > He doesn't demand a forum, he built one.  He's not asking to be given
> > anything - you're trying to steal that which he created.

> > But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> No one is stealing shit.>

Destroy it, then. You're trying to wreck a man's life work, so that
his ideas can't be heard.

But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> I also happen to think the attempt to take
> him off the air will fail. But even if it succeeds, he has the right
> to speak, still.

Where? From his forced re-education prison cell?

> > >  He's using the public airwaves.
>
> > So free speech doesn't apply to broadcasters?  Or anyone on the
> > Internet?  (That travels through the air, too.)  Cable.  Newspapers
> > (they're delivered on public roads.)
>
> I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that there are no
> consequences to speech? Or do you think speaking out against what
> someone says infringes their free speech?

> Funny. I bet you didn't think that when Janet Jackson's tit set off a
> national furor.

I'd like a piece of that bet.

> I bet if Ed Schultz said "Fuck Bush!" on his radio
> show, you'd be running to his defense.

Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right wing slut". I never called
for a boycott. I'm perfectly happy to have Schultz show the world
just how corrupt the Left has become.

> > But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> Yes, I am.

Unless it's speech you disagree with.

> You're showing to be not so much, ironically.

In what way am I against free speech?

> You think
> Limbaugh should be able to say what he wants, but those who object
> should shut the hell up and not say anything to advertisers or station
> licensees.

I'm not saying anyone should "shut the Hell up." More am I saying
that they should be forbidden from boycotting whoever they like.

Just don't call yourself a free speech advocate.

> > > Everyone else has to right to say he's
> > > abusing the privilege of using the public airwaves.
>
> > I see.  So, you get to decide who's allowed on the radio, and who
> > isn't?

> > But you're a free speech advocate. (snicker)

> Of course, I didn't say that.

Then who's allowed on the radio.

>He's allowed on the radio, and he's allowed to say what he
> wants.

But you said that Rush DIDN'T have the right to be on the air.

> And everyone else is allowed to register their opinion of what
> he says.

I have no problem with people saying mean things about Rush. I also
don't have any problem with their running a boycott. But if you do,
you're ot a free speech advocate.

> YOU, OTOH, want Limbaugh to have all the rights in the world,
> but you want everyone else to STFU.

Who have I told to STFU, exactly?

[2938 Dead]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:10:52 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:22:19 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 3/26/2012 9:57 AM, Milt wrote:
>>> Everyone else has to right to say he's abusing the privilege of using
>>> the public airwaves.
>>
>>Because he said something stupid that THEY disagree with?
>>
>>Is that like Randi Rhodes threatening Pres. Bush's life?
>

> Didn't know pond scum had a "life"

Why would you? After all, lsrlts doesn't.





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK





--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 28, 4:12 pm, 2938 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:10:52 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:22:19 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>On 3/26/2012 9:57 AM, Milt wrote:
> >>> Everyone else has to right to say he's abusing the privilege of using
> >>> the public airwaves.
>
> >>Because he said something stupid that THEY disagree with?

> >>Is that like Randi Rhodes threatening Pres. Bush's life?

> > Didn't know pond scum had a "life"

> Why would you?  After all, lsrlts doesn't.

How much of your life have you flushed away insisting that people who
disagree with you are less than human?

[Steve]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:12:31 +0000 (UTC), 2938 Dead <de...@gone.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:10:52 -0600, Yoorghis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:22:19 -0700, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/26/2012 9:57 AM, Milt wrote:
>>>> Everyone else has to right to say he's abusing the privilege of using
>>>> the public airwaves.
>>>
>>>Because he said something stupid that THEY disagree with?
>>>
>>>Is that like Randi Rhodes threatening Pres. Bush's life?
>>
>> Didn't know pond scum had a "life"
>
>Why would you? After all, lsrlts doesn't.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
>inevitable” -JFK

That's from David (Zepp) Jamieson who apparently refused to
allow the woman he claims to still be married to use of his
Internet account, and then when she got fined for broken tail
lights and failure to licence the family pets, he refused to
help her pay the fines and then after a decade, she was forced
to do community service.

The truth may be that Zepp has been lying about still being
married to her and instead, she left him for reasons Zepp doesn't
want to admit.

What's porky hiding here?

[NoBody]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:19:16 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:11:24 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:10:47 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:05:38 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You really are a "nobody."
>>>>
>>>>I guess that's what I deserve for trying to be civil....
>>>
>>>You---Civil?
>>>
>>
>>I'm civil until it's clear that the person to whom I speaking doesn't
>>understand civil. Sort of like talking to you....
>

>My job isn't to be nice to diipshit rightwing halfwits

Your basic thought process explains why no poster treats you with any
respect...

>
>I've told you that before
>
>You have nothing good to defend in your dregs-of-politics party, no
>historical record of anything good building america---it's all been
>obstruction, negativity, thirst for power, greed, racism, and
>self-serving entitlement.
>

Yet I'm not the person who tells half truths and then runs from
virtually every thread I'm challenged in (and before you go any
further, make sure you find examples of me "running" from threads...)

>Bottom line is there is no reason to be "nice" to scumbag
>conservatives and their even worse cousins---Loonytarians.

Yeah don't let a think like basic human kindness and manners get in
the way of your half-truths...

>
>The more real americans can pick you apart, poke fun at you and show
>exactly what you are---the better off this nation is.

Can't say I've found many here who actually can do that. Oh there are
plenty of those who *think* they have (including you) but yet when you
ask them for an example, they vanish into the wind.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 29, 6:14 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:19:16 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:11:24 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

There's something about Yogart that you need to understand. He's
heavily invested in the idea that all virtue comes from the Left, and
all evil slithers from the corrupt Conservatives. Now, you and I both
know that this is literal madness - people are people.

However, in Yorgarts world view, you are evil because you're not no
board with everything he believes. Not expect a rational argument
from the person, he just doesn't have it in him.

[Richard Steel]

:
> >I listened to Rush this morning.

> We know

> Your intellect reflects it.

Whereas you refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't pamper your bloated
ego. And your intellect reflects THAT.

[Milt]

On Mar 28, 1:18 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > I've always been a free speech purist. You, on the other hand...
> > > "(I) on the other hand..." what?
> > You don't care for it.
>
> I'm no the one trying to shut down opinions which I disagree.  That
> honor belongs to you.

Shut them down how? I choose not to give my money to businesses who
support Limbaugh's crap. That doesn't shut him down? Even if he got
fired from CC, it's absurd to think he wouldn't get a show with
someone else. Even if he didn't, he could write, he could give
speeches at $100k a pop, he could do a blog. How is choosing to bring
his misogyny to advertisers' attention "shutting him down"?

Answer: it's not.

I keep producing the transcript, dipshit; have you even read it? $1000
a year is about $85 a month. Even common birth control pills can run
as much as $50-60 per month, but some can run well over $100. Plus,
there is the annual physical examination, which can run as much as
$250.

Her actual words were "UP TO $3000." If it only comes to $2400, is
that better, given that Georgetown students (yes STUDENTS, not the
SCHOOL") pay for health insurance? They pay $1850 per semester for
their health insurance; why should that number double, just because
Catholics run the law school?

>
> > > > > When bought
> > > > > in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> > > > > doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about seven
> > > > > romps a day, every day, for years.
> > > > You are such an ignorant fuck.
> > > > Here's a transcript of her testimony:
>
> > > >http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandr...
>
> > > > There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.
>
> > > "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> > > woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> > > me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> > > summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> > > reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> > > policy."
> > >                                  Sandra Fluke
> > Law school is three years, typically, which makes that number a
> > reasonable one, dontcha think? .
>
> No. That averages out to $1000.00 a year.

Or $85/month

>
> Sandra Fluke Says She Didn't Know Target Sells Birth Control Pills for
> $9
> By Elizabeth Harrington
> March 21, 2012
>
> (CNSNews.com) – Thirty-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke,
> who told a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing convened by
> House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that contraception can
> cost a student $3,000 during law school, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday
> that she did not know that the Target store 3 miles from the
> Georgetown Law campus sells a month's supply of birth control pills
> for just $9.

She didn't know that because it's irrelevant to her testimony.

UP TO $1000/year.

WTF, do you think birth control pills are like Sudafed? You go to the
pharmacy, hand them $9 and say "Gimme some of them there birth control
pills"?

No.

A woman needs a prescription, which requires an examination. And
different women need different types of pills. Birth control pills CAN
run as much as $50, even at Target. Some women can't take them at all,
and need other forms of birth control, that can run upwards of $100
per month.

And again, she said UP TO $1000/yr. If you can't imagine that someone
with ovarian cancer who needs contraception to stay alive can rack up
$1000/yr in medical bills, you're a bit out of touch.

But we knew that.

<repetitive bullshit snipped.>

[Richard Steel]

> > > > > I've always been a free speech purist. You, on the other hand...
> > > > "(I) on the other hand..." what?
> > > You don't care for it.

> > I'm no the one trying to shut down opinions which I disagree.  That
> > honor belongs to you.

> Shut them down how?>

By disrupting their business model, in the hopes of destroying Rush's
company.

> I choose not to give my money to businesses who
> support Limbaugh's crap.>

Because you hate free speech.

> That doesn't shut him down?>

What other reason can you have than to hurt and/or untimately destroy
Rush Limbaugh's radio show?

> Even if he got
> fired from CC, it's absurd to think he wouldn't get a show with
> someone else.

At which point you little Nazis would work tirelessly to destroy THAT
show.

> Even if he didn't, he could write, he could give
> speeches at $100k a pop, he could do a blog.

Which you guys would protest, and dump manure on the front steps of
the lecture hall, and take down the liscense numbers of anyone who
attended.

> How is choosing to bring
> his misogyny to advertisers' attention "shutting him down"?

Because the goal is to have all his advertisers leave, thereby
destroying his radio show.

And, of course, it doesn't end with Rush. The entire point of going
after Limbaugh is to tell all other conservatives that they can be
gotten to. The plan is to intimidate Medved, Sean, Beck, Hewitt,
Gallager, and the rest.


> Answer: it's not.

Answer: You hate free speech.

My wife puts the number as between $10 and $20 dollars a month. And
she actually uses them.

> Her actual words were "UP TO $3000." If it only comes to $2400, is
> that better, given that Georgetown students (yes STUDENTS, not the
> SCHOOL") pay for health insurance? They pay $1850 per semester for
> their health insurance; why should that number double, just because
> Catholics run the law school?

For that kind of money, 20 something women can easily find another
health plan that's more to their liking.

> > > > > > When bought
> > > > > > in bulk, condoms are two for a dollar - and that assumes the guy
> > > > > > doesn't cough up for the contraceptive.   That averages to about seven
> > > > > > romps a day, every day, for years.
> > > > > You are such an ignorant fuck.
> > > > > Here's a transcript of her testimony:
>
> > > > >http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandr...
>
> > > > > There is not one mention of sex, not one mention of condoms. Not one.
>
> > > > "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a
> > > > woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like
> > > > me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire
> > > > summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law
> > > > reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this
> > > > policy."
> > > >                                  Sandra Fluke
> > > Law school is three years, typically, which makes that number a
> > > reasonable one, dontcha think? .

> > No. That averages out to $1000.00 a year.

> Or $85/month

So, using your numbers, if the insurance company pays out $60 dollars
a month for a woman who's only paying in $85 a month, she's only
paying $25 a month for full coverage. How can the insurance company
cover anything else EXCEPT her birth control? Insurance is simply a
way to spread risk, in case of a disaster. It's not a way of taking
care of every single need this 30 year old "student" craves.

> > Sandra Fluke Says She Didn't Know Target Sells Birth Control Pills for
> > $9
> > By Elizabeth Harrington
> > March 21, 2012
>
> > (CNSNews.com) – Thirty-year-old Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke,
> > who told a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing convened by
> > House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last month that contraception can
> > cost a student $3,000 during law school, told CNSNews.com on Tuesday
> > that she did not know that the Target store 3 miles from the
> > Georgetown Law campus sells a month's supply of birth control pills
> > for just $9.

> She didn't know that because it's irrelevant to her testimony.

No, it pretty much destroys her argument.

> UP TO $1000/year.

In the sense that Sandy has had UP TO 1000 "boyfriends"/year.

> WTF, do you think birth control pills are like Sudafed? You go to the
> pharmacy, hand them $9 and say "Gimme some of them there birth control
> pills"?

> No.

> A woman needs a prescription, which requires an examination.

Which is already covered by her insurance.

> And
> different women need different types of pills. Birth control pills CAN
> run as much as $50, even at Target. Some women can't take them at all,
> and need other forms of birth control, that can run upwards of $100
> per month.

The problem is that Sandy strongly implied that using $1000 worth of
birth control is typical of her peer group, not the exception. Now
you're talking about rare women with special medical needs.

> And again, she said UP TO $1000/yr. If you can't imagine that someone
> with ovarian cancer who needs contraception to stay alive can rack up
> $1000/yr in medical bills, you're a bit out of touch.

Wait wait....now we're talking about women with OVARIAN CANCER?
Before we were talking about birth control for co-eds. Now this has
spilled over OVARIAN CANCER?

Tell you what - find some examples of Catholic run institution
insurance companies refusing to offer birth control medication as a
treatment for OVARIAN CANCER, then get back to me.

You're exploiting people with cancer to score cheap political points?
Really?

[NoBody]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:04:47 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:14:45 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>My job isn't to be nice to diipshit rightwing halfwits
>>
>>Your basic thought process explains why no poster treats you with any
>>respect...
>

>That's a remarkably stupid statement...
>

Thanks for proving my point!

[NoBody]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:09:13 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>See above

Here's a hint for you: you will never persuade anyone to see your
point of view if you're obnoxious while doing attempting to do so.
What you do proves to be little more than a source of amusement.

[Richard Steel]

On Mar 31, 2:18 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:31:19 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Here's a hint for you:  you will never persuade anyone to see your
> >point of view if you're obnoxious while doing attempting to do so
>

> Nowussy, you don't seem to get it
>
> I'm not trying to persuade anyone to see MY point of view
>
> My entire presence here is to make sure YOU (and the other loony
> assholes on your side) NEVER get to present the bullshit you  believe
> and make it acceptable.
>
> There's NOTHING in what you believe, past or present, that ever made
> America a better place to live---for the vast majority of people
>
> Your side was the southern aristocracy, the institutionalized racism
> in Jim Crow and a history of conservative/loonytarian greed,
> opposition and obstruction for everything that progressed America.
>
> One of the Few things that made your ideology acceptable---was the
> ability to steer progressive policies so they wouldn't get out of
> hand.
>
> But you have no history of ever making america better
>
> It's all been geared to a small elite wealth and corporate business
> class and the idiots who serve them
>
> So---I don't give a rats ass whether you like it---my job is to make
> sure you NEVER get your racist, bigoted, homophobic, greedy, beliefs
> accepted as "good"
>
> Is that clear?

Here's the problem - when you write literal madness, such as your
insistence that all evil comes from conservatives and all virtual from
liberals....all you do is convince people that liberals are nuts.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:18:07 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:31:19 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

>>Here's a hint for you: you will never persuade anyone to see your

>>point of view if you're obnoxious while doing attempting to do so
>
>
>Nowussy, you don't seem to get it
>
>I'm not trying to persuade anyone to see MY point of view

Then you're wasting everyone's time. Thanks for your admission.

>
>My entire presence here is to make sure YOU (and the other loony
>assholes on your side) NEVER get to present the bullshit you believe
>and make it acceptable.

By presenting *your* BS you believe and attempting to make it

acceptable.

>
>There's NOTHING in what you believe, past or present, that ever made
>America a better place to live---for the vast majority of people

You have no idea what I believe.

>
>Your side was the southern aristocracy, the institutionalized racism
>in Jim Crow and a history of conservative/loonytarian greed,
>opposition and obstruction for everything that progressed America.
>
>One of the Few things that made your ideology acceptable---was the
>ability to steer progressive policies so they wouldn't get out of
>hand.
>
>But you have no history of ever making america better

And you can say (without laughing) that America is better today under
Obama and the Dems. Please provide credible cite to back your
opinion.

>
>It's all been geared to a small elite wealth and corporate business
>class and the idiots who serve them
>
>So---I don't give a rats ass whether you like it---my job is to make
>sure you NEVER get your racist, bigoted, homophobic, greedy, beliefs
>accepted as "good"

And yet the wealthy are getting wealthier and the poor getting poorer
and the middle class vanishing under *your* Dems and Obama. Talk
about intellectually dishonest....

>
>Is that clear?

It's clear you're a fool.

[Steve]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:12:51 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:18:07 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:31:19 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a hint for you: you will never persuade anyone to see your
>>>point of view if you're obnoxious while doing attempting to do so
>>
>>
>>Nowussy, you don't seem to get it
>>
>>I'm not trying to persuade anyone to see MY point of view
>
>Then you're wasting everyone's time. Thanks for your admission.
>
>>
>>My entire presence here is to make sure YOU (and the other loony
>>assholes on your side) NEVER get to present the bullshit you believe
>>and make it acceptable.

That's funny, I'd always assumed Roselle's entire presence on Usenet
was to provide comedic relief...

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/qB8eTqq1I_w

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/elee-6399-antennas-propagation/lecture-summaries
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/qB8eTqq1I_w