March 7, 2012

Rush Limbaugh: "I have not lost 28 sponsors... They lie... Everything is fine on the business side... There is nothing to worry about."

Rush, on the radio just now. He explains:  Sponsors are both local and national. The 600+ stations sell their own ads, and Rush doesn't even know who those local sponsors are. These sponsors don't cancel their ads on the station, they just put in an order that their ads not run during the Rush time slot. Things like this happen every day, and not just to Rush. "It's part of the business," but because there's attention to Rush's current problem, there are reports of these local advertisers putting in these orders, and the local stations don't even lose any revenue.

The left is just putting out propaganda, trying to create the impression that Rush's show is over. They are portraying local advertisers as if they were Rush's national advertisers. The 28 advertisers, at the 600+ stations, amount to virtually nothing in what is a pool of something like 18,000 advertisers at the local level.

He doesn't talk about how many of his national sponsors have canceled, but there must be some, because at one point, he talked said "2 of the sponsors who have cancelled have asked to return... one of them is practically begging," so there must be some.

177 comments:

tim maguire said...

Better that he had ignored it.

"Somebody's boycotting me? Huh. How's that going for them?"

gerry said...

What Rush said was bad.

He's apologized.

We all know that promiscuity is unnattractive and reduces attraction. Who wants to marry a skank?

This is already blowing over because the truth is settling in.

Scott M said...

A radio station's advertising can be thought of very much like a grocery store. There's only so much shelf space, ie, there's only so many 15, 30, and 60 second spots in an hour.

It's even worse for the local stations, because they are receiving a syndicated signal that's supposed to run a rigidly timed "clock" with very set break times and lengths. This allows local traffic managers to plan on how much shelf space they're going to have. It rarely changes.

Far from losing sponsers, even locally, there is usually a backlog of advertisers the station's sales manager can go to if one of those already using time on Rush's show fall away for whatever reason. The space is coveted and there are local companies waiting in the wing to leap into the empty space.

This was true in every market I worked, regardless of whether the IEB was being carried on an AM or FM signal.

It's far more likely to lose a national sponser than have problems filling up local slots. Even then, the national is often a co-opt buy with a local. If the national goes away, the local can use up whatever time the national was paying for in the same slot.

rhhardin said...

Carbonite is the begger, proved by stock price mention.

edutcher said...

As I noted yesterday, Carbonite, Geico, Sears, and Netflix all lost yesterday; Carbonite quite badly, but Rush is correct.

A lot of ads are sold during station breaks and they would be local.

The real measure is how many stations dropped him and I believe, except for one in MA (surprise), there was only one.

And I don't doubt Carbonite would like to rethink their decision.

Jay said...

The left is just putting out propaganda

If it weren't for propaganda, the left would have nothing to say.

John said...

Carbonite is one of the national sponsors that has dropped out.

Their stock dropped like a rock on Monday and Tuesday to way below the 52 week low.

As Glenn said: Would you trust your data to a company like this? If they are going to be political, might they go looking through your files? Or letting Obama's folks do so?

Pro-Flowers is another.

I think that this will be good for Limbaugh long term. Maybe even short term. The more people who listen, the more money he makes. Controversy, good or bad, is great for his business.

If I were Rush, I would be sending Markos a huge gift for organizing this boycott.

Listening to the No Agenda podcast www.seanhannity.com Sunday I learned something interesting. Romney is Rush's boss.

Here is how it goes, according to Adam Curry: Premier Radio Networks syndicates Limbaugh's show. Premier is owned by Clear Channel. Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital.

John Henry

Jay said...

trying to create the impression that Rush's show is over.

That's funny.

He makes $33 million a year as a host and has the largest radio program audience in America.

Which is why they hate him so much.

garage mahal said...

These sponsors don't cancel their ads on the station, they just put in an order that their ads not run during the Rush time slot

Okay then. Onward!

Carol_Herman said...

So let me see if I understand this, correctly? Rush is still the story. Mitt's "behind the times." And, even Sarah Palin's rush to support Newt, got nowhere.

Is Sandra Fluke Rush Limbaugh's Paula Jones?

Scott M said...

Is Sandra Fluke Rush Limbaugh's Paula Jones?

Absolutely not. Fluke's nose is much too small.

shiloh said...

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! :-P

Indeed, just the fact America's #1 bigot has to do damage control is somewhat entertaining.

Andy R. said...

At the very least, I think republicans have realized they shouldn't be shaming or punishing women because of their sexuality.

Quayle said...

Indeed, just the fact America's #1 bigot has to do damage control is somewhat entertaining.

Right, because you know and can point to other people that take the full brunt of well-funded, well-organized national attacks without even a flinch or a scratch, right.

You know the gold-standard and Rush is performing below that.

He's fended off more purposeful attacks than you'll ever see in your entire life.

But you laugh and scoff at his under-performance and underachievement.

And what have you ever done?

damikesc said...

Way OT: The judge who ruled against the voter ID law also signed a Walker recall petition?

And he's judging a case where Walker is the defendant?

I guess there couldn't be a conflict there.

His reference to Justice William Scalia was amusing.

Tank said...

One of the funniest riffs I've ever heard was when a lib caller mentioned that Rush made a million dollars a year so ....

Rush went nuts. He spent ten minutes elaborating on how insulted he was that the guy thought he only made a million a year, and proceeded to belittle him for his lack of knowledge of his subject [Rush} and for his spreading false information.

Andy R. said...

We all know that promiscuity is unnattractive and reduces attraction. Who wants to marry a skank?

It appears there is still work to be done. How Republicans can engage in so much slut-shaming when surely they have wives/mothers/sisters/daughters/etc. that are sexually active confuses me.

cubanbob said...

shiloh keep dreaming. sears is slowly dying like penney, there are cheaper policies available than geico's, carbonite is dead man walking and with his audience rush will have no problem replacing advertisers. next january 20th rush will be on the air and obama will be unemployed along with a number of elected democrats. and Fluke still won't get her birth control pils paid for by geoergetown university. she might as wlell start carrying a placard saying " need money for sex".

Rusty said...

His market share is huge so anybody that drops him is cutting their own throat.
He single handedly revived talk radio. Despite Air Americas attempts to sink it.


shiloh said...
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! :-P

Indeed, just the fact America's #1 bigot has to do damage control is somewhat entertaining.

Andy R. said...
At the very least, I think republicans have realized they shouldn't be shaming or punishing women because of their sexuality.


You two should really get together. And have somebody video the meeting. It would be a big hit on YouTube

Dust Bunny Queen said...

How Republicans can engage in so much slut-shaming when surely they have wives/mothers/sisters/daughters/etc. that are sexually active confuses me.

Here...let me help you out.

Women can have as much sex as they want. It isn't anyone's business.

Except.... when you want other people to pay for your sexual activity and subsidize your sexually promiscuous life style.

That takes you from the free to do with your body what you want category into the "paid for" sexual slut whore category.

Your sexual life is YOUR personal business and shouldn't be paid for by your employer's wallet or mine either through higher insurance premiums to subisdise your freebies so you can fuck with impunity.

Rush was right.

Salamandyr said...

At the very least, I think republicans have realized they shouldn't be shaming or punishing women because of their sexuality.

Now, if only liberals would learn this lesson, the world would be a wonderful place.

MayBee said...

Geico might have felt they had to drop Rush, because they did fire their voice over talent for leaving a raging message on a tea party organizer's voicemail.

If QuickenLoans pulled out, that makes me sad. They were the sponsors for the really cool MSU basketball game on the aircraft carrier, which Obama used as a big promotion for himself. I hate to think QuickenLoans did either action for partisan political reasons.

Andy R. said...

Women can have as much sex as they want. It isn't anyone's business.

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

traditionalguy said...

Rush will always do well because he has so much talent. But his value to promote a GOP candidate has taken a hit.

By next week Fulke's Folly will be forgotten. At least forgotten until the Dems crank up their videos in October warning women about the GOP Monster who makes Gingrich seem sweet.

I ♥ Willard said...

Is Purdue Pharma a sponsor?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex.

That is a completely different topic.

The issue is forcing people, your employer or a religious institution (against their moral and religious laws) to PAY for you to have sex.

garage mahal said...

The issue is forcing people, your employer or a religious institution (against their moral and religious laws) to PAY for you to have sex.

I don't like paying for a lot of things either. You, me, and Hoosier need form some kind of club.

ISSUE 1: I don't like my tax dollars being used to broadcast Limbaugh to the armed forces.

I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE ANYMORE!

Andy R. said...

That is a completely different topic.

The issue is forcing people, your employer or a religious institution (against their moral and religious laws) to PAY for you to have sex.


Yes, there are at least two different issues. When Rush called the woman testifying a "slut" and many other people defended Rush for doing so (including many commenters here), it raised the issue of how Republicans try to shame and punish woman over their sexuality.

We are capable of discussing more than one issue at a time. Some Republicans want to stop talking about how they try to shame and punish women over their sexuality because they know that it makes them look like monsters to most Americans.

I ♥ Willard said...

The issue is forcing people, your employer or a religious institution (against their moral and religious laws) to PAY for you to have sex.

Little known fact (apparently): Contraception ≠ having sex.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

We are capable of discussing more than one issue at a time

And, it seems, totally incapable of being able to distinguish between issues.

Pogo said...

Forcing a Church to pay for something that violates its religious tenets is the only issue at hand, Andy R.

I know you and the lefties hope upon hope to make this about sexual freedom, but sadly no.

Sexual freedom has its own laundry list of problems, but it is not important at the moment, when our economy is shit and the President is trying to smash religious freedom.

At the ballot box, gas over $5 and real unemployment near 18% will dominate discussions, not free contraceptives.

Obama's hatred for religious freedom will be remembered, though.

Nathan Alexander said...

shorter Andy R:

Conservatives have and promote morals. That makes them monsters

Bruce Hayden said...

sears is slowly dying like penney, there are cheaper policies available than geico's, carbonite is dead man walking and with his audience rush will have no problem replacing advertisers.

I feel a bit bad about Sears. They allowed much of this country to get merchandise by mail order that they couldn't otherwise get. Unfortunately, they never really made the transition to the eEconomy. And, ditto with Pennys, though they did even worse until fairly recently. They must have a new ad agency, because theirs are some of the only ads on TV that stick out these days, and do so in a good way.

Several people recently asked why Geico could afford to advertise so much these days, esp. on TV. My response is that they can do this because they don't pay claims, or do so as much as other insurance companies do. This seems to be the consensus around the retail insurance industry at least. My experiences with the company was that a friend of mine got hit by one of their insureds. Clear liability, but they refused to pay. So, I sued their insured, and included a little discovery with the complaint. Got a full settlement immediately. Insureds don't like getting sued personally for fender benders - that is what their insurance is for. And, according to those friends in the retail casualty market, Geico is still one of those companies that you don't want to be hit by their insureds.

Of course, Flo with Progressive is worse than Geico's stupid little reptile.

Hagar said...

How is this for good taste?

Leora said...

Andy R says

Many people in America .... think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

Many people in America think there is something wrong with people having casual sex. And they are entitled to their opinion so long as it is expressed non-violently. And people who think there is nothing wrong with it are entitled to do as they please so long as it does not involve forcing others to give up their right to disapprove and not to pay for other people's choices. No one says that you can't disapprove of people who eat too much or smoke. Promiscuity is at least as much of a health risk and is regarded by many as sinful or tasteless.

Andy R. said...

Forcing a Church to pay for something that violates its religious tenets is the only issue at hand, Andy R.

And how was Rush participating in that discussion when he called Fluke a slut?

It's encouraging that so many Republicans are trying to avoid having this conversation because they know how terrible it makes them look. But stamping your feet and saying it's about religious freedom does not make Rush's slut-shaming go away.

I ♥ Willard said...

Forcing a Church to pay for something that violates its religious tenets is the only issue at hand, Andy R.

Forcing ANYONE (not just a church) to pay for something that violates his or her religious tenets is wrong!

As a Catholic, I'd like to have my share of tax dollars that have contributed to the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars returned to me immediately!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Little known fact (apparently): Contraception ≠ having sex.

Other than pathologies and medical issues (endometriosis, hormonal supplements after ovarian removal, hysterectomies etc) which are rather rare and which ARE covered even by the Catholic organizations.......

Pray tell, what is the main reason for contraception usage? OTHER than for medical issues, why should anyone, besides yourself, pay for it?

Hint: the dictionary definition of contraception might give you a clue.

Jay said...

Paragons of virtue:

The death threats to Rush are captured in several screen grabs of his Facebook page. "Execute Rush, now!" states one; "Don't just drop sponsorship someone kill this pig now please!!!!," reads another.

Those leftists.

Hagar said...

BH,
I had the same experience with State Farm 40-odd years ago. My insurance company finally paid me off and then filed suit for reimbursement against State farm, who immediately paid up. My insurance company then billed me $50 for the cost of filing the suit.
I was told this was S.O.P. with State Farm.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex


And millions of Americans disagree with you.

It is beyond parody you can't grasp that.

Scott M said...

As a Catholic, I'd like to have my share of tax dollars that have contributed to the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars returned to me immediately!

If the federal government had forced the Church, as an organization, to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would agree with you.

I ♥ Willard said...

Pray tell, what is the main reason for contraception usage?

A lot of people use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Believe it or not, though, contraception is not required for sex.

Andy R. said...

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex


And millions of Americans disagree with you.

It is beyond parody you can't grasp that.


I'm quite aware these people exist.

I'm thoroughly excited to have this conversation because almost all of them are Republicans and Christians and I think that not only are they wrong on the merits but it will expose to America what terrible people they are.

You realize that it is Democrats who want to talk about how there is nothing wrong with women being sexually active and Republicans who are trying to avoid this conversation or pretend there are other issues that we must discuss instead.

Please Jay, enlighten us on the horrors of women having recreational sex. While you're at it, I'm sure you will have something delightful to say about gay sex as well.

AJ Lynch said...

I have tried to boycott this blog many, many times [because of the amount of time I spend reading it] but it keeps pulling me back in.

I ♥ Willard said...

If the federal government had forced the Church, as an organization, to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would agree with you.

Ah, you missed the point. The federal government forced me to fund wars that conflict with my religious beliefs. :(

Nathan Alexander said...

@Andy R,
At the very least, I think republicans have realized they shouldn't be shaming or punishing women because of their sexuality.

You are arguing against yourself.

The only way shaming makes any difference is if people care about reputation.

Seriously, think it through: if most Americans really don't care about the amount of a person's sexual behavior, then "shaming" would have no effect.

Let's say I try to shame you for wearing a yellow shirt. I can rail about how horrible you are for doing so for hours at end. We both know you would laugh, and rightly so.

But calling someone a slut clearly offended Ms Fluke and liberals/Democrats. Why?

If there is nothing wrong with being a slut, they wouldn't be offended.

Remember "slut walks"?

By the very fact of being offended, they have conceded that Rush's judgment is correct in the eyes of most Americans.

The protest is an attempt to change that, sure. Your arguments are an attempt to change that, of course.

But by making the argument, you are admitting that being a "slut" is a bad thing, indeed.

You are confirming the truth of what you want to deny.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
And how was Rush participating in that discussion when he called Fluke a slut?


Um, why don't you go read the transcript and figure it out for yourself, idiot?

I ♥ Willard said...

I have tried to boycott this blog many, many times [because of the amount of time I spend reading it] but it keeps pulling me back in.

I blame the vortex.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ! Good to see you - hadn't seen your comments in a while- glad you are back with your unique common sense.

Jay said...

I'm thoroughly excited to have this conversation because almost all of them are Republicans and Christians and I think that not only are they wrong on the merits but it will expose to America what terrible people they are

Yes!!

Because in homo Andy's world - one of glory holes, bug chasing, and hundreds of anonymous partners - anyone any single person who may have qualms about casual sex is terrible!!

And in the next sentence gay, dumb Andy argues for gay marriage.

Without a trace of irony.

I ♥ Willard said...

Nathan Alexander is a moron.

Chip Ahoy said...

That's very good taste, Hagar. That Brokaw is such a cut up. Did you see the time he put toilet paper tubes on his ears and acted like a robot Obama? That killed me.

Scott M said...

Ah, you missed the point. The federal government forced me to fund wars that conflict with my religious beliefs.

You appear to have missed the point of the whole controversy. Isn't it that the federal government is trying to make an organization do something internally, with it's own funds, that it's explicitly against?

Roger J. said...

Hmmm--I dont now, and have never listened to Mr Limbaugh--but it does seem to me he has what might be the single biggest listening audience in the country--this little contretemps appears to be already over as the MSM is now focusing back on the republican primary. Limbaugh wins. No advertiser is going to ignore an audience the size of Mr Limbaugh.

And, presuming the exit polls were reasonably accurate (I know, a big assumption), voters are focusing on 5 dollar a gallon gasoline and an economy that is in the tank.

I am sure Mr Limbaugh is thinking, if not saying, Fluke you all.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Believe it or not, though, contraception is not required for sex.

That is quite true. SO why should I pay for you to have birth control pills if contraception is not required for sex.**

Fuck your brains out then. Who is stopping you?

**Other than for purely medical needs....since the ability to separate issues seems to be somehow a congenital defect, I guess we have to restate this everytime

I ♥ Willard said...

Because in homo Andy's world - one of glory holes, bug chasing, and hundreds of anonymous partners

Ok, who asked Jay to share his obsession with homosexuality?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ! Good to see you - hadn't seen your comments in a while- glad you are back with your unique common sense

Thanks. I wasn't going to come back but THIS topic just gets my goat.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Please Jay, enlighten us on the horrors of women having recreational sex.


Because when I'm looking for commentary on how women feel about casual sex, I turn to a gay college boy!!!

Roger J. said...

point of order, please--I have heard of "glory holes." But what praythee is bug chasing?

Jay said...

Roger J.

Bug chasing is when gay males intentionally catch HIV as a "rite of passage"

But don't worry, you and I get to pay for their AIDS coctails...

I ♥ Willard said...

SO why should I pay for you to have birth control pills if contraception is not required for sex.

Aren't you redefining the issue now?

The issue is forcing people, your employer or a religious institution (against their moral and religious laws) to PAY for you to have sex.

In any case, my insurance covers contraception. No one is asking you to pay. We are both happy.

The end.

Tank said...

Looked it up. Who knew?

Bugchasing is a slang term for the alleged practice of pursuing sexual intercourse with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers. It is a form of self harm.[original research?][citation needed]

Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV positive; giftgivers are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser's efforts to become infected with HIV.

Others dismiss the idea of bug chasers as urban legend.[1]


Wiki

I ♥ Willard said...

Fuck your brains out then.

By the way, my religious beliefs aren't consistent with that type of salty language. :(

Have a super day!

Roger J. said...

To the commenters that enlightened me on bug chasing--I can only say, that is really disgusting. But I appreciate the information and it reinforces my approbium for promiscous gays. Bon appetit.

I ♥ Willard said...

Isn't it that the federal government is trying to make an organization do something internally, with it's own funds, that it's explicitly against?

Internally? o_O

I want the share of my tax dollars that went to funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars back on the basis of my religious beliefs!

Roger J. said...

damn--opprobrium with an o and not an a

Hagar said...

Right Andy R.

"You've got to be liberated, Baby, and the way you prove you're liberated is that you come jump into the sack with me!"

The number of women who have fallen for this line does not say much for those who claim female intelligence is our most under-employed resource!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In any case, my insurance covers contraception.

Good for you. Your employer has chosen of his/her own free will to provide you with that coverage.

FREE WILL is the operative phrase here.

No one is asking you to pay

Au contraire my deluded friend.

Under Obamacare and the mandatory, or we will fine you, purchase of insurance it is REQUIRED that insurance companies cover birth control, maternity and other services that I do not need or want.

"Under Obama’s law these requirements will expand dramatically in 2014, when all policies will be required to cover maternity expenses as an essential health benefit."

The more crappola you force the insurance companies to add to their policies the more expensive it is.

When you FORCE the insurance companies to provide goods and services that they don't want you are violating their rights to operate in a free market.

When you FORCE me to buy something I don't want or need....you are infringing on my rights.

What next. FORCE me to buy milk at the store or pay for milk that I don't want so we can subsidize YOUR use of milk?

Beta Rube said...

Remember when the lefties gave so much support to Air America that sponsors were on a long waiting list?

I don't either. Rush is a target because he buries his adversaries in both audience size and revenue.

He apologized, get over it.

Almost Ali said...

Okay, let me ask it this way: does it even matter what Sandra Fluck's (sic) sexual orientation is?

Sofa King said...

I want the share of my tax dollars that went to funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars back on the basis of my religious beliefs!

This issue has nothing to do with taxes. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

shiloh said...

"Conservatives have and promote morals."

Indeed! Mark Sanford was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

David Vitter was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

Larry "wide stance" Craig was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

John Ensign was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

etc. etc.

IOKIYAR

>

"Nathan Alexander is a moron."

Apologies to morons!

Roger J. said...

Almost Ali--it matters not one whit--Ms Fluke is a useful idiot who has gone the way of Cindy Sheehan, only faster.

bagoh20 said...

I want my sex life subsidized
by you under penalty of law.

Agree or disagree, that's the issue. When people insist on talking about this in some other way, it's because they know that's a loser.

Every time one of you lefties hit your keyboard in the last few days, you were admitting this.

cubanbob said...

I ♥ Willard said...
Pray tell, what is the main reason for contraception usage?

A lot of people use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Believe it or not, though, contraception is not required for sex.

3/7/12 12:32 PM

try expressing a cogent thought. come on, you can do it.

Pogo said...

"I want my sex life subsidized
by you under penalty of law.
"

Correct.
Even more damning:
I want my sex life subsidized
by Churches, against their beliefs, under penalty of law.

William said...

If some woman whose name rhymes with fuck had appeared before a Congressional Committee and spoke in favor of abstinence, the bet here is that liberal comedians would not have let that pass unnoticed. All things considered, Ms. Fluke got off pretty easy.

Scott M said...

All things considered, Ms. Fluke got off pretty easy.

Why are you so obsessed about what she's doing to herself and how easy is it to accomplish?

Jenner said...

"They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex."

I agree. I also think there is something wrong with men having casual sex.

machine said...

If Romney can't stand up to Limbaugh, how will he stand up to Ahmadinejad?

cubanbob said...

Andy R. said...
Women can have as much sex as they want. It isn't anyone's business.

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

3/7/12 12:07 PM

I know it's a stretch for you but when a woman does the equivalent of walking around with a sign saying "need money for sex" she pretty much defined herself. Rush's comment was in bad taste but it is factually true. She defined herself.

The democrats can go on and make this a campaign issue, in fact please do so. Just let them explain to the sane voters and insurance policyholders why it's so important to pay higher premiums for other people's sex life. See if they can sell that to the working class voters with Fluke as a poster girl: she can afford $50,000 for a prestigious law school but needs your help but needs you help to avoid getting pregnant by her boyfriend who doesn't want to pay for her pills. You got a real winning argument there. Go for it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

A lot of people use contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy

A lot of people use abstinence and it doesn't cost anything!!

Plus...abstinence is 100% effective and has no medical side effects.

Note: I am not advocating abstinence at all.....just pointing out that there are other methods.

Please explain why (other than for medical pathologies) I or anyone else should pay for your contraception use.

And explain why the Federal Government should force anyone to use their own funds, their private money, especially the Catholic Church which considers it a sin to pay for your use.

Go ahead. Explain those in a cognizant paragraph.

Try not to get confused with public taxes. We are talking about private industry and private entities.

Just Lurking said...

We all know that promiscuity is unnattractive and reduces attraction. Who wants to marry a skank?

"It appears there is still work to be done. How Republicans can engage in so much slut-shaming when surely they have wives/mothers/sisters/daughters/etc. that are sexually active confuses me."

Maybe you can change their minds by pointing out the benefits to society from increased sexual promiscuity. Get a real dialogue going.

And if you ask them, rather than just assume they are terrible, hateful people for not agreeing with you, they might even explain why they hold such views. It might clear up some of your confusion.

Nathan Alexander said...

Direct personal attacks by liberals, devoid of content/advocacy/argument.

That's as good as an admission by liberals of being defeated as you will ever see.

Especially ironic as it comes in a thread where they try to pile on Rush for the personal nature of his attacks on a "private citizen".

Scott M said...

We are talking about private industry and private entities.

I did mention "internally" but it went right past him.

Nathan Alexander said...

The best part of all this?

When liberals come in with their scripted talking points, they give conservatives more opportunities to use the marketplace of ideas to hone, share, and disseminate effective counter-arguments to the leftist echo chamber.

Coming soon: more whining from the liberals how conservatives are better at "message delivery", as part continuing avoidance of introspection into the problems of the liberal dogma.

gerry said...

At the very least, I think republicans have realized they shouldn't be shaming or punishing women because of their sexuality.

I absolutely agree. Antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea will create more than enough unintentional, otherwise-avoidable misery.

damikesc said...

Indeed, just the fact America's #1 bigot has to do damage control is somewhat entertaining.

Al Sharpton had to do damage control? When?

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

Outside of gays who hate "breeders" like you, who is doing this?

As a Catholic, I'd like to have my share of tax dollars that have contributed to the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars returned to me immediately!

So, "as a Catholic", you're behind rape rooms and religious totalitarianism?

Lovely.

You realize that it is Democrats who want to talk about how there is nothing wrong with women being sexually active and Republicans who are trying to avoid this conversation or pretend there are other issues that we must discuss instead.

So Republicans are forced to focus on the ins and outs of assorted college girls' vaginas because Democrats find it fascinating?

In any case, my insurance covers contraception.

So, LOTS of people have to cover the contraception.

You're aware that insurance companies get money from premiums people have to pay, right?

Indeed! Mark Sanford was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

David Vitter was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

Larry "wide stance" Craig was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

John Ensign was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.


Sanford's career is dead.
Craig's career is dead.

Can you name a Democrat whose career died over sexual matters? Even their sacred cow of "sexual harassment" ceased being an even noteworthy concern once a Democrat got stuck in that mess.

AJ Lynch said...

Libs are way over-confident about Obama's re-election prospects.

I believe most voters will look at his three biggest achievements and see nothing but three unpopular failures:

1-Obamacare,
2-the Stimulus Plan and
3- this contraception mandate.

Think about that.

Pogo said...

"Please explain why (other than for medical pathologies) I or anyone else should pay for your contraception use."

Easy peasy.

All ponies should be free.

Next!

BTW, technically speaking, "contraceptives" refers only to hormone therapies used for the purpose of contraception.

Other use, such as for migraines and other hormonally-responsive conditions, it is called "hormonal therapy".

The sloppy use by MDs of "OCPs" to cover all uses is to blame for blurring the line.

damikesc said...

If Romney can't stand up to Limbaugh, how will he stand up to Ahmadinejad?

If Obama can't stand up to his wife, how can he stand up to Ahmed...oh wait, he CAN'T stand up to him.

Or anybody else.

Scott M said...

Can you name a Democrat whose career died over sexual matters?

Weiner. For his weener.

(it just never gets old)

cubanbob said...

DBQ what the proggs don't seem to get is that if the Supreme Court overturns dem care (and it probably will) the secondary effects will be disastrous for mandates in general. Like the recent gun control rulings to use an analogy the the pendulum is swinging back to more deference to enumerated rights and powers. The smarter proggs understand this and fear it.

If the court rules the way I believe it will (based on recent gun control rulings) then Obama, Pelosi and Reid would have inadvertently become the architects of the roll back of the entitlement state. Under Obama and the progressive democrats they may well have passed the jump-the-shark moment without even realizing it. The court will rule soon enough, probably before the election.

cubanbob said...

Nathan Alexander said...
The best part of all this?

When liberals come in with their scripted talking points, they give conservatives more opportunities to use the marketplace of ideas to hone, share, and disseminate effective counter-arguments to the leftist echo chamber.

Coming soon: more whining from the liberals how conservatives are better at "message delivery", as part continuing avoidance of introspection into the problems of the liberal dogma.

3/7/12 1:25 PM

Conservatives are actually worse messengers, they don't do propaganda well. However they do have a better message. If the product doesn't work, hype can only get you so far.

Pogo said...

@cubanbob

From your lips to God's ears.

I hope the shark has been jumped, sliced, diced, cooked, broiled, boiled, sauteed, burnt, and a fork stuck in.

shiloh said...

damikesc gets an A+ for illogical/irrelevant rationalizations and disingenuous sarcasm.

Congrats!

And the bold face was a nice touch ~ thanx for the added effort lol.

Hopefully you feel much better now. :-P

chickenlittle said...

re: "bug chasing"

I learn something new here everyday.

Could we hear from the pro-bug chaser cohort please?

Pogo said...

The Catholic church should pay for bug chasing, urban legend or not.

But not Muslims, because, well, they blow shit up, and we're afraid of that shit. If Catholics start blowing shit up, then the new laws will have exemptions.

Remember, you religious nuts:
If you threaten violence, the US gubmint will honor your wishes, and even apologize.
If not, well, bend over.

Micia said...

This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse. Any female, parent, or just anyone with a sense of common decency would willingly boycott any sponsor that would support Lush Limpbaugh's divisive and abusive sexism, bigotry, and vitriol.

Alex said...

It's all nice and fine that the Democrats will try to make Rush the central campaign issue, but all that blows up in their face when Israel bombs Iran. Once again another Ayatollah undoes a Democrat president!

Alex said...

Micia - welcome to the jungle troll.

Pogo said...

Micia is no female.

shiloh said...

"This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse."

Micia, don't hold back er candy-coat your words lol.

In Limbo's defense, his mom and dad liked him ... probably.

chickenlittle said...

Micia said...
This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse.

Althouse is a Limbaugh listener, Micia. Is Althouse a "fucktard"?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Micia is no female.

Certainly ain't no lady.

Quaestor said...

gerry wrote:
What Rush said was bad.

Bad in only this one sense: bad as in inaccurate. Sandra Fluke isn't a slut, or more specifically there is insufficient evidence to warrant the label. Sandra Fluke is a social parasite.

MayBee said...

Via Taranto, this is a doozy.

There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

 A debate over the role of religion in political life has shaped recent clashes over contraception and abortion.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence


This is from their "On Faith" section.

edutcher said...

I'd say I can't believe Hatman is trying to push sexual promiscuity as a good thing, but we all know he really is that mindless.

More to the point, off Insta, what the Lefties really want:

Rush has been threatened. Can't wait for all the tolerant Leftes here to cheer if anything happens to him.

As Prof Reynolds notes, "That’s their approach. Marginalize, then brutalize.

When will President Obama speak out against this hatred and extremism? Probably never. But since it’s been established that this sort of thing happens via close coordination between the White House and Media Matters, etc., there’s no denying responsibility now. I call upon the President to denounce his supporters’ hateful violent rhetoric, to promise not to engage in or encourage it again, and to apologize to Limbaugh for stirring up this cesspit of hatred among his followers. A President is supposed to lead, not incite violence"

PS ♥ (actually another of some phony folksy's/bathtub swabbie's multiple personalities) says he/she/it doesn't use words like fuck because of his/her/its religious beliefs. Funny, ♥ was bragging the other day how he/she/it doesn't believe in religion for the same reason he/she/it doesn't believe in fairies.

Don't tell Hatman.

He'll be crushed.

chickenlittle said...

MayBee linked: ...the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

Is the new injunction: "be fruitless and divide"?

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann, you misrepresent what people have been saying, that I've seen anyway. You accuse people of lying but you don't actually show anyone's actual words to back up your claim. You could quote them, like this:

"...trying to create the impression that Rush's show is over."

Instead, you erect a false and dishonest strawman contention and then say people are lying.

I was just reading lefty people saying this morning that Rush has survived these things before and probably will again.

"I was somewhat dubious that this sponsor boycott of Rush Limbaugh for his days of misogynistic comments against Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke would be able to gain steam. "
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/07/rush-limbaugh-boycott-up-to-at-least-36-advertisers/

"Here's the thing, though: as Meteor Blades wrote, Limbaugh has been here before, repeatedly. And every time, sponsors wait for the storm to blow over and then eventually come back."
Dailykos. today.

TPM: "All that being said, will Limbaugh — who has up to 20 million weekly listeners —take a big hit over this latest controversy? It’s not likely, the publisher of a talk radio trade magazine said. “Life will go on; Rush will continue,” "

Yeah, I can't find anyone saying what you claim they say, Ann. may say things like "keep up the pressure until they drop him" but are not optimistic the talk show addict will be taken off the air.

Does your integrity mean anything to you?

Quaestor said...

shiloh wrote:
damikesc gets an A+ for illogical/irrelevant rationalizations and disingenuous sarcasm.

Well done, damikesc, you've been awarded a 4.0 by the past master of illogic and irrelevance. Your degree in the field of sarcasm is, however, non-accredited.

AlphaLiberal said...

Also, Ann, you don't actually know any more than I do how much revenue he has lost due to these national advertisers. You just believe him, for some reason.

Netflix and other reacted to local station advertising and they have put out the word they don't want advertising on local stations, as well.

Here are more examples of lefties not saying the words you attribute:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_03/34_and_counting035868.php

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/02/436852/rush-limbaugh-advertisers/

Have you heard of the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness?" Apparently not.

Mutnodjmet said...

BRIETBART: Now, MORE POWERFUL than anyone can possibly imagine!Many citizens are motivated to push back on Team Obama and his cultural Stormtroopers: This includes a Hollywood producer and a freelance journalist giving "Managing Media" lessons.

Carbonite and the other sponsors acted stupidly.

Thought: When will Obama host a Beer Summit with Rush, Fluke, Biden and himself??? It's time to heal, afterall.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

From MayBee's link

"And now, with their crusade against birth control, the Catholic bishops are helping to articulate and elevate that unspoken and archaic value in public. Fertility is a gift from God, they say. To mess with that gift goes against God’s plan."

How completely dishonest is this article.

There is no "crusade" against birth control by the church.

The Catholic church is not trying to tell anyone other than their own religious adherents what they should or should not do regarding birth control.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything....not even their own parishioners.

The Church has a moral stand that only affects the consciouses of their own people.

The Church is merely objecting to being FORCED to provide and pay for something that goes against it's religious teachings.

The Church is NOT preventing anyone, anywhere or at anytime access to birth control.

The Church is just not going to pay for it.

If it isn't FREE, that now constitutes a crusade?

Seriously?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

eerrr..... conscience

Let your conscience be your guide.

Quaestor said...

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence...

Lisa Miller is worried about the wrong thing. If they don't reform themselves from within Lisa Miller and regressives like her will eventually be demographed into political oblivion.

MayBee said...

Isn't it bizarre, DBQ?

It interests me the writer sees holding women down as some goal of the GOP/Church, when it was the left who wrote - in the Washington Post- encouraging Palin to reconsider her VP candidacy because of the needs of her children.

Jay said...

Micia said...
This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse.


As opposed to you, potty mouthed goof ball typing f-bombs on the Internet.

You're like a boon to political discourse and stuff!!!

Jay said...

AlphaLiberal said...
Ann, you misrepresent what people have been saying, that I've seen anyway


We're still waiting for you to acknowledge that people on the left say vile and nasty things about conservative women.

Quaestor said...

I have added the sweet Mut's blog to my bookmark bar.

AlphaLiberal said...

Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

This whole brouhaha was manufactured to attack Obama. When the Feds passed a nearly identical rule under Bush there was not a peep of protest. Because the cardinals are heavily partisan and waging culture war on the rest of us.

Anyway, their employees can but contraceptives with wages from the church. How is that any different than an insurance policy that doesn't discriminate? It's a dumb issue.

Although, frankly, it does seem pretty clear that the Catholic church is above the law. They have run an international racketeering conspiracy to aid child sex abusers in avoiding the law and obstructing justice. The same pattern has shown up in multiple countries but, to my knowledge, they have been allowed to skirt the law.

Monsignor: Philly cardinal shredded abuse list

Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago

These people have the nerve to harangue anyone over morals? And now many of them are denying these things even happened, or blaming the 60s. It's galling to hear them claim they are moral superiors to the rest of us who should be able to control the most intimate details of other peoples' lives.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Isn't it bizarre, DBQ?

It interests me the writer sees holding women down as some goal of the GOP/Church, when it was the left who wrote - in the Washington Post- encouraging Palin to reconsider her VP candidacy because of the needs of her children.


Yes it is. The cognitive disconnect is huge and the left and especially the feminist leftists are totally oblivious to how duplicitous they really are.

A big part is also projection. The left is full of hatred, bigotry and spews pure evil

like this: This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse. Any female, parent, or just anyone with a sense of common decency would willingly boycott any sponsor that would support Lush Limpbaugh's divisive and abusive sexism, bigotry, and vitriol.

Yet. They don't see this as evil or hatred and project all of those qualities onto others.

None so blind as those who will not see.

AlphaLiberal said...

Jay again with its demands. Jay thinks Jay is boss and all must jump when Jay say jump.

We're still waiting for you to acknowledge that people on the left say vile and nasty things about conservative women.

This debate device is known as "so's your momma."

You are wrong. There are many people on the left and very few have said these things. It is by no means a pattern. Those who have faced criticism from within our community.

Ed Schultz apologized, sincerely and not for two words. He was put on a week leave.
Here, compare it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

Josh Marshall, also, takes down your dumb talking point here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/stating_the_obvious_with_regret.php

AlphaLiberal said...

This is idiotic:

it was the left who wrote - in the Washington Post- encouraging Palin to reconsider her VP candidacy because of the needs of her children.

Was it really one mass group of people who wrote that? or an individual?

Do you know the difference?

If you don't want to be called dumb, don't write nonsense like that. To be fair, you cold be hopped up on Oxycontin like Lush Windbag.

MayBee said...

nyway, their employees can but contraceptives with wages from the church. How is that any different than an insurance policy that doesn't discriminate? It's a dumb issue.

Between this and the "it's just like taxes" argument, I fear we are seriously losing track of what money belongs to who.

Rusty said...

AlphaLiberal said...
Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

Yeah. They kinda do if you subscribe to their programs, or go to their schools.
If you don't agree with their doctrine, don't have anything to do with them. Nobody is forcing you to believe what they believe, but you want to force them to go against the dictates of their god.

Alex said...

Just wait until the big advertisers pressure the local stations. Rush is done.

edutcher said...

AlphaLiberal said...

This whole brouhaha was manufactured to attack Obama. ...

Because the cardinals are heavily partisan and waging culture war on the rest of us.


I really feel sorry for people like Alpha. Without their little talking points, they really have nothing to say.

And he clearly knows nothing about the Catholic Church in this country.

PS Who's this "us"?

Quaestor said...

Alex wrote:
Just wait until the big advertisers pressure the local stations. Rush is done.

Care to wager on that rash prognostication? I'll give you ten to one that on 7 March 2013 Rush will be on the air with 20 million listeners.

shiloh said...

"Care to wager on that rash prognostication? I'll give you ten to one that on 7 March 2013 Rush will be on the air with 20 million listeners."

$10,000 :-P

btw, good thing nobody wagered on Breitbart re: 2013.

>

Also Limbo could just say fuck it and quit ie he doesn't need the $$$ and his doctors may suggest a less stess filled lifestyle.

Bottom line, Quaestor's bluster is childish.

Alex said...

shiloh - what do you care one way or another? Rush is not the real issue. The real issue is will #OWS be bigger and badder then ever this spring?

Alex said...

Will Occupy be heard from?

It seems the Occupy crowd are more in it for the experience of protesting then affecting an overthrow of the hated capitalist system. Where are the out and proud Communists quoting Marx & Lenin?

Scott M said...

Just wait until the big advertisers pressure the local stations. Rush is done.

Just how, pray tell, Alex, does that work? Please give us the gift of your radio advertising expertise.

damikesc said...

Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

They aren't doing so. However, Obama IS trying to impose values the Church holds to be offensive upon them.

The 1st Amendment --- it is a 2 way street here.

This whole brouhaha was manufactured to attack Obama. When the Feds passed a nearly identical rule under Bush there was not a peep of protest. Because the cardinals are heavily partisan and waging culture war on the rest of us.

Bush insisted they cover contraceptives? Then "compromised" and said insurance companies have to offer it for free, as if that is even remotely different?

Can you link to this Bush policy insisting upon this?

Anyway, their employees can but contraceptives with wages from the church. How is that any different than an insurance policy that doesn't discriminate?

Because a wage isn't the Church's money. It is the agreement they made to pay you for your work. It is your money under your terms of employment.

A Church can't just withhold salaries. They can drop insurance easily.

Although, frankly, it does seem pretty clear that the Catholic church is above the law. They have run an international racketeering conspiracy to aid child sex abusers in avoiding the law and obstructing justice.

Can you cite why the Catholic Church is above the law but public education isn't?

Public schools have a FAR more pronounced issue with pedophilia and are STILL sending "problem" teachers to other schools.

The only difference is that my money isn't stolen from me to pay for the Catholic Church.

It's galling to hear them claim they are moral superiors to the rest of us who should be able to control the most intimate details of other peoples' lives.

You should be able to control your most intimate details.

If I have to pay for it --- then YOU aren't controlling it.

You're demanding I do it for you.

Meade said...

AlphaLiberal said...
"Ann, you misrepresent what people have been saying, that I've seen anyway. You accuse people of lying but you don't actually show anyone's actual words to back up your claim."

Alpha, would you do me a favor? Copy and paste the exact line where Ann "accuse[s] people of lying".

I've looked but I can't find it and I want to be able to draw her attention to it.

Unless you are lying in your accusation. In which case, I'd be inclined to delete your comment... for lying.

Synova said...

"Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others."

Actually they do have a special right. It is so special that it is explained and guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

And of course you know very well that the Catholic Church has zero ability to impose their religious views on anyone. All they can do is attempt to persuade, while the United States Constitution protects and guarantees their right not to have their religions freedom infringed.

The definition of "impose" does not stretch to mean "failure to abandon doctrine wholesale."

I ♥ Willard said...

Please explain why (other than for medical pathologies) I or anyone else should pay for your contraception use.

You don't pay for the contraception available to me. My health care benefits are provided by my employer.

I do appreciate how much time and energy you're spending thinking and talking about my sex life, however. I hope it makes you happy. :)

Clark said...

'On the business side.'. There's something fabulous about that phrase in this context. It's like a subtle reminder to all of his detractors (as if they needed one) that, while he's pissing them off, he's making a ton of money. And, yes, despite all of this, he's still making a ton of money.

Synova said...

Pedophilia isn't a doctrinal tenet of the Catholic Church and no claim is made that employees or priests have a clerical version of diplomatic immunity.

Where a religious practice conflicts with criminal law, or anything else, the State has to prove a compelling interest. If you're sacrificing children to Baal that probably would not be a hard standard to meet.

There is no possible way that the State can claim it has that great a necessity to provide contraception, abortions or sterilizations. And even if it could show that necessity there are numerous ways to provide those things without destroying 1st Amendment protections. It is, in fact, almost trivially easy to respect the conscience of religion. No one is made to do without as things stand. There is no need being denied. It's just an arbitrary, capricious, law passed and the only problem is utter laziness because following the Constitution of the United States is a bother.

Or if not laziness, it's malice.

I ♥ Willard said...

Nathan Alexander: "By the very fact of being offended, they have conceded that Rush's judgment is correct in the eyes of most Americans."

That seemed like a curious argument to me, so I decided to test his logic by calling Nathan Alexander a moron. He was offended. Therefore, by his own logic, Nathan Alexander confirms that he's a moron.

P.S. Nathan Alexander is a communist.

I ♥ Willard said...

When liberals come in with their scripted talking points, they give conservatives more opportunities to use the marketplace of ideas to hone, share, and disseminate effective counter-arguments to the leftist echo chamber.

In the "marketplace of ideas," Nathan Alexander ekes out an existence as a panhandler. :(

purplepenquin said...

Just how, pray tell, Alex, does that work? Please give us the gift of your radio advertising expertise

I ain't an expert, nor am I Alex, but I was part of the sales team for a college radio station. We had an advertiser really upset about one of the overnite DJs (call-in show with some edgy topics) so we told him that we wouldn't run any of his ads during that timeslot. The business owner said that wasn't enough; he wasn't gonna run any ads as long as that show was aired on the station. Being it was only one client it was an easy choice for us to choose to stand by our show...


(Ain't saying that Limbaugh's career is over or anything like that...simply sharing what I experienced.)

I ♥ Willard said...

Unless you are lying in your accusation. In which case, I'd be inclined to delete your comment... for lying.

Meade, do you really delete comments for lying?

BTW, I think you're wonderful! :)

chickenlittle said...

I ♥ Willard said...[Meade]
BTW, I think you're wonderful! :)


Wasn't "wonderful" Bissage's sobriquet?

Nathan Alexander said...

@I ♥ Willard,
First, "slut" is a value judgment. "Moron" is not. If you can't see that it is impossible to be offended by a value judgment you don't share, well, then I guess the entire conversation is over your head.
Second, you'll have to provide some evidence I was offended by you calling me a moron.
I wasn't. I considered the source, and was amused.

Complete failure at basic logic, reason, and understanding context: that is probably why you are a liberal.

chickenlittle said...

I mean, I think the adjective "wonderful" was retired along with bissage, much like the No. 15 Packer jersey.

cubanbob said...

AlphaLiberal said...
Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.


Setting aside a pesky enumerated right in the constitution your argument works against you. The mandate to must provide is also a moral statement and view being imposed on those who do not share that view.

virgil xenophon said...

@DBQ/

Please keep coming back. I realize its not been quite the same here since the great "purge," but this place is the lesser for your absence. I would propose marriage to entice you back, but for some strange reason my wife and your husband, they...well....OTHER THAN THAT, what can I do to entice you to stay? :)

chickenlittle said...

@Nathan: I see Willard more like someone holding up a red hot coal to see who is repelled by it, who is attracted to its warmth, who fears getting scorched by it, and who fears not to walk on it.

I ♥ Willard said...

PS ♥ (actually another of some phony folksy's/bathtub swabbie's multiple personalities) says he/she/it doesn't use words like fuck because of his/her/its religious beliefs. Funny, ♥ was bragging the other day how he/she/it doesn't believe in religion for the same reason he/she/it doesn't believe in fairies.


Does anyone have an edutcher-to-english dictionary?

In case anyone cares, I've never said I'm not religious. edutcher is just a bit dim. :(

I ♥ Willard said...

First, "slut" is a value judgment. "Moron" is not.

So when I called you a moron, you viewed that as a factual statement.

Good to know.

Nathan Alexander said...

@chickenlittle

Red-hot coal? Heh.

More like a soggy match.

cubanbob said...

Micia said...
This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse. Any female, parent, or just anyone with a sense of common decency would willingly boycott any sponsor that would support Lush Limpbaugh's divisive and abusive sexism, bigotry, and vitriol.

3/7/12 1:45 PM

When Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a twat and cunt he confused her with you. And guess what, judging from exceptionally stupid and nasty comment he was right!

Another ho who wants feebies. As dadavocate said she wants others to pay their fair share so she can get her free share. Hey by the way, did ever occur to you that boycotts work both ways? It must kill you that his property tax for one year is probably more than you will earn legally in ten years.

And no decent person would ever watch Madow or Shultz and the rest of the commie crazies.

chickenlittle said...

@Nathan: You were supposed to get a whiff of Torquemada from my description.

Alex said...

What Rush should have done is call her a Marxist. Then her media enablers would have had to defend the virtues of Marxism. But Rush took the bait.

I ♥ Willard said...

You were supposed to get a whiff of Torquemada from my description.

Nathan Alexander says he didn't pay attention in school. :(

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

Many people in America...think there is something wrong with women having casual sex.

Maybe it's our 50 million abortions since 1973.

Or maybe we're worried about the
record number of single moms in our country. (Over half of all births to women under 30 are to single moms).

Many of us are unhappy with our feminist utopia. The feminists have given us a choice. And it sucks! It's a horrible choice.

Of course, you're gay, so having a baby isn't an option for you. But for the rest of us, sex is a big deal, precisely because sex leads to babies.

B said...

Andy R. said...

it raised the issue of how Republicans try to shame and punish woman over their sexuality.

For some time now, since I pegged you as a self-satisfied hypocrite, I've dumped you into the Bozo bin and don't read your comments. So I don't know what you've been spouting about the latest vapors about Rush from the left.

However, in this particular thread I have read through your comments. What is striking is that you appear to have an extraordinarily difficult time understanding, interpreting, and placing in context very simple concepts.

I suggest that you find someone who knows you personally to explain current events to you in the simplest terms possible. I don't think the commenters here have the patience.

Quaestor said...

shiloh wrote:
$10,000 :-P

So shiloh takes up the gauntlet. Methinks shiloh will be nowhere to be seen (at least under that nom de réseau) come next March.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I said: Please explain why (other than for medical pathologies) I or anyone else should pay for your contraception use.

You don't pay for the contraception available to me. My health care benefits are provided by my employer.

Your employer, buys insurance from a (so far) private company. When that company and your employer are FORCED to provide goods and services by the Government at less than optimal/market costs (aka free in Obama's latest mandate from upon high)....those costs get passed onto everyone else who is also buying insurance or paying for the insurance.

Paying for YOUR benefits through higher premiums. Or in other words subsidising your lifestyle, wants and desires through higher premiums on my part.

You really aren't very good at this economic/business thingy...are you?

I ♥ Willard said...

Your employer, buys insurance from a (so far) private company. When that company and your employer are FORCED to provide goods and services by the Government

You really aren't paying attention or grasping the obvious. My employer has been providing health care benefits that include contraception without being FORCED by the government.

So you can whine all you like about paying for my health care benefits (or as you call them, "sex"), but the simple unavoidable fact is that my benefits were not changed by the mandate. I guess that means that in your world, you've been paying for my "sex" since 2006.

Thanks for that! :)

Paying for YOUR benefits through higher premiums. Or in other words subsidising your lifestyle, wants and desires through higher premiums on my part.

Ok, now your complaint is with the way the health insurance business works. You should really get on the phone and talk to the insurance industry about this.

While you're at it, tell the insurance companies to stop using categories like age and gender to set auto insurance rates. I don't like paying higher rates because I'm a younger driver. Why should I have to pay for the poor driving habits of other drivers my age? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

You really aren't very good at this economic/business thingy...are you?

That sounds Palinesque. It made me laugh. Thanks. :)

Hoosier Daddy said...

I still don't understand why we can't mandate cosmetic surgery that will help raise self esteem. Thats as much of a health issue as subsidizing consequence free recreational sex.

I ♥ Willard said...

consequence free recreational sex.

Contraception isn't "consequence free recreational sex." It's amazing how really slow some of the Professor's readers are. :(

wildswan said...

Hey Mr. President,
If Sasha and Malia rebel and become conservative Republican women, will it be OK to for Bill Maher to call them names?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually it is Willard. People have sex for two reasons. Procreation or pleasure. If you're just going for the pleasure then you use contraception so you don't get the consequence of making a child.

It's a pretty simple concept that I thought even you could grasp.

Saint Croix said...

If you're just going for the pleasure then you use contraception so you don't get the consequence of making a child.

It's a pretty simple concept that I thought even you could grasp.


Gee whiz, it's almost like we don't have 1.2 million abortions a year. Or single moms up the ass. How's that consequence free sex working out for you, America?

It's always men who are the real fuckwits when it comes to reproduction, have you noticed?

Saint Croix said...

"But...but...we used birth control!"

I personally think a lot of drunk fuckers are not using birth control. And when I say "drunk fuckers," I mean drunk fuckers.

Drinking. Driving. Having sex. Never do two of those at the same time.

Consequence free sex. Your penis has addled your brain.

I had a woman intentionally wreck my BMW one time. On purpose she wrecked it. You know why? Neither do I!

But I kinda think sex had something to do with it.

Jay said...

AlphaLiberal said...

This debate device is known as "so's your momma."




Actually, it isn't.

You're a silly hypocrite.

You fake outrage was nowhere when leftists were talking about Palin, Malkin, and Ingraham.

Jay said...

So you can whine all you like about paying for my health care benefits (or as you call them, "sex"), but the simple unavoidable fact is that my benefits were not changed by the mandate. I guess that means that in your world, you've been paying for my "sex" since 2006.


Hysterical.

Are people really this dumb or are you just trolling?

You're really unable to grasp the fact that the mandate requires changes to employers?

You're pretty stupid and it is beyond bizarre why you keep commenting.

Jay said...

Josh Marshall, also, takes down your dumb talking point here:


It is funny you don't know how to provide a link.

But I don't have a "talking point"
I have facts.

And the facts are that leftists say all kinds of nasty things about conservative women, including hoping they are raped, and you are utterly silent.

In fact, you pretend such things are never said at all.

Idiot.

I ♥ Willard said...

People have sex for two reasons. Procreation or pleasure. If you're just going for the pleasure then you use contraception so you don't get the consequence of making a child.

So in Hoosier's world, gay men having sex need contraception so they don't make a baby.

As I said before, it's amazing how really slow some of the Professor's readers are. :(

I ♥ Willard said...

You're really unable to grasp the fact that the mandate requires changes to employers?

Employer, not employers. I've been quizzed about MY health care benefits provided by MY employer. I've been responding to incessant baseless whining about how the mandate requires the taxpayer to pay for my benefits (or what some of you continue to call "sex").

The mandate has not changed the coverage provided by my employer. Why are you so slow to grasp this? Is it because I've only repeated it 5 times?

It's really quite sad how slow some people are. :(

I ♥ Willard said...

I had a woman intentionally wreck my BMW one time. On purpose she wrecked it. You know why? Neither do I!

But I kinda think sex had something to do with it.


Ok, you're on the record saying you provide unsatisfactory sex. Anything else you want to share?

I ♥ Willard said...

Rush has now lost 43 sponsors. It appears that many advertisers don't want their product associated with a perv.