98 Major Advertisers Dump Rush Limbaugh

Aw Pain, only 'bout 10 posts and you’ve already broken my heart! (See the bolded red statement) … /Jack breaks down in uncontrollable sobs …:Thud: … :howler: I was so hoping you would turn out to be a deep thinker!

Limbaugh is not perfect, he’s made a lot of mistakes (who hasn’t?), but Rush has also made thousands …THOUSANDS … of most excellent and irrefutable arguments.

You’d need to be very well versed … VERY …before you went head to head with the Rush-man.

:cool:

I’d rather take on Mark Levin than him, he’s not worth recognizing to be fair. He’s gone off on a lot of fits that have made no sense. He doesn’t seem to understand when enough is enough, when to let things go, when to not even bring them up PERIOD because they have no validity. Honestly, if this man represents the typical conservative “think-tank” out there, then I am VERY happy to be calling myself a libertarian. He needs to get off the air, take a breather, and come back with a desire to actually help his cause–not shoot it in the foot.

All you are revealing with this comment is that you never listen to Rush and just take the word of Liberals as to what he said and hear clips out of context.

Rush even prefaces his joke bits by saying “I am going to joke about this now, the entire context will make that obvious but the Extreme Left will step in it once again even though I am clearly warning them that I am setting them up to look like fools”.

And then, sure enough, the Liberals who all get their marching orders from George Soros run with it again and again no matter how many times they have had to wipe the egg off their face.

The Extreme Left is nothing if not predictable, I guess they get points for consistency?

Just for fun why don’t you name one, show us all how your opinion of Rush is based on first hand knowledge of his show and not Extremist Liberal Indoctrination.

[quote=“The_Progress_of_Pain, post:18, topic:33898”]
Yes but he tries to be controversial in more interesting and intelligent ways, granted I don’t watch much television these days. He doesn’t just randomly spat out over radio about how the enemy of a film somehow correlates to a political issue–when there is actually, literally, no connection at all. That is someone desperately reaching and trying to keep an enraged group raging over any tiny thing he can possibly fine. In fact, it is downright scary at times what he’ll get his flock frothing over.
[/quote]:coffee_spray:I listen to Stossel as well sometimes so I guess that applies to him as well–you know frothing at the mouth.

Then I never have seen it. Again, I don’t watch much television.

I just did…

[quote=“The_Progress_of_Pain, post:27, topic:33898”]
I just did…
[/quote]So you admit you have never listened or seen Rush? Your responses to date shows that you do not even have a clear understanding of libertarianism or its beginning. Just another Paulbot who came to instruct us.

That is what I thought, strong opinion with no personal knowledge to justify it.

You’re actually making little sense to me right now. We’re talking about Rush, a talking-head, in which I already named one instance(as RET desired) of him going overboard and I suddenly don’t have a clear understanding of libertarianism? Even more comical about that is how varied libertarianism is, it’s not single-file and simplistic as conservatism truthfully. So that’s really not even something accurate to say in the least.

[quote=“The_Progress_of_Pain, post:30, topic:33898”]
You’re actually making little sense to me right now. We’re talking about Rush, a talking-head, in which I already named one instance(as RET desired) of him going overboard and I suddenly don’t have a clear understanding of libertarianism? Even more comical about that is how varied libertarianism is, it’s not single-file and simplistic as conservatism truthfully. So that’s really not even something accurate to say in the least.
[/quote]Of course I am not making any sense to you because unlike you I actually have knowledge of what I speak of which surpasses the paulbot literature you receive. We have been inundated with your type before uneducated on the very subject you came to teach us.

Oh yes, because the subject of a fat, angry little man is something worth having an advanced knowledge of.

No thanks, I prefer to utilize my time in more meaningful ways. I can teach you much but your minds are too closed as you’re proving now, rambling on in a nonsensical manner.

:coffee_spray::howler::rofl: We’ve never heard that before 'round here…:cowboy:

Someone with more ambition than me should collect up copies of some of the posts from the folks that have showed up here to “educate” us into a thread of their own.

I listen to Rush on the radio if I am alone in the car when he is on and the only two commercials I remember is Carbonite and the Mattress one but then again I blank out commercials usually. I know that other programs like Don Wade and Roma have the same commercials.

I remember once when a liberal had Roma crying because he made derogatory remarks about her son.

Come on, he tried linking the villain of the new Batman film to our current political quandary over Bain Capital–he’s just outright obscene at times in his quackiness.

Just for fun why don’t you name one, show us all how your opinion of Rush is based on first hand knowledge of his show and not Extremist Liberal Indoctrination.

I just did…

We’re talking about Rush, a talking-head, in which I already named one instance(as RET desired) of him going overboard

Just one problem, PoP. The instance you cited didn’t happen as you posted, and in making the claim, you proved that you do not listen to Rush, relying instead on some media source that either doesn’t listen to him or makes a habit of misrepresenting him:

WaPo Claims Rush Said Batman Movie is ‘Liberal Attack’ on Romney
by Warner Todd Huston 18 Jul 2012

On July 17, Paul Farhi of the Washington Post claimed Rush Limbaugh said the super villain in the new Batman movie is a “liberal attack on Romney.”

Farhi’s headline reads, “Rush Limbaugh claims ‘Dark Knight’ movie is liberal attack on Romney,” but the truth is, of course, that Rush, did not say that the terrorist character Bane in the soon-to-debut Batman movie is meant as an underhanded slap at Mitt Romney. He just didn’t.

My guess is that Farhi only briefly scanned the transcript of Rush’s comments about the Batman movie made during his July 17 show because tone is telling when you actually hear the Rush’s comments as I did when the show was on the air. Rush was not saying that the movie was planned as an attack on Mitt but that some pundits were making such a claim. He was also ambivalent on the whole thing.

Rush did note that many “brain-dead people” will hear the name Bane and then immediately think of Romney’s association with Bain Capital, but he did not say that this was the purpose of the character in the movie, as Farhi leads readers to think.

Rush’s tone is not readily apparent in the written transcript of the segment that was posted to his website but when you listen, it is far more evident that he wasn’t stating the Bane-as-Romney allegation as fact. But, Farhi takes a few sentences of Rush’s comments out of context to make it seem like Rush was saying that the Batman bad guy is a swipe at Romney nonetheless.

[quote=“qixlqatl, post:33, topic:33898”]
:coffee_spray::howler::rofl: We’ve never heard that before 'round here…:cowboy:

Someone with more ambition than me should collect up copies of some of the posts from the folks that have showed up here to “educate” us into a thread of their own.
[/quote]Yeah we just dumb county bumpkins unlike some who know how to make the world right if only we give up our guns and religion. (read this with a southern accent)

:rofl:

Liberals, it’s so easy…Rush sometimes even says “ok liberals, are you recording ? , because I’m going to say something you are certain to edit for your propaganda piece…” :howler:

There was a time when I would reread the Rush transcripts and find EVERY TIME the liberal is WRONG !!!

I don’t bother anymore.

:deadhorse:
.

I actually heard the line and yes, he was trying to connect the release of the movie as coinciding with the current political backdrop. Not that necessarily the character himself was made for that sole reason but rather that the entire point of releasing the movie, this year, that it somehow was a plot by liberals to make people correlate the villain to the company itself and therefore Romney. Funny enough, the character is very much like an OWS individual and I firmly believe it wouldn’t have that kind of affect in the least if Rush cared to look into it.

How come those countries that gave up their guns and religion aren’t better off than when they kept them?

What’s your definition of “better off” and we’ll get some stats to analyze and answer that question.