Rush Limbaugh: "Words mean things."

[OneGrassRoot]

My focus has shifted from the right-wing noise machine as a whole to very specifically Rush Limbaugh. He started the extreme nasty partisanship, making things very personal and vitriolic, back in the early 90s. He's now the voice of conservatives, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Beck and Palin are circling the drain; Limbaugh remains.

I haven't heard of even ONE high-profile conservative accept responsibility for his/her role in the hate-filled, toxic rhetoric. (If they have, please post.) They're resurrecting their "personal responsibility" meme, but only in the sense of the shooter having personal responsibility (which he does). They're not taking responsibility for their OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS. They continue to deflect.

No surprise.

As part of Limbaugh's 35 "Undeniable Truths" he said "Words mean things."

Yes, they do, you loathesome excuse for a human being.

I propose that rather than boycott existing advertisers and sponsors, we find who their competitors are, investigate whether they are worthy of support based on their own ideals and performance, and focus on promoting Rush's enablers' competitors. When we gather the information, we can start a grassroots campaign, very loudly and visibly, making it viral.

Let's offer a positive alternative, rather than focusing on the negatives of all things that are associated with Limbaugh. There are way too many and it's a cesspool; everything associated with him has a stench that I prefer to stay away from.

Think about this: "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” Now think about Rush Limbaugh. It seems he only makes people agitated and angry -- both his listeners and others. We don't need that. We can do better than that.

Those of us here on DU recognize this and have for a long time; we need to wake up any reasonable people who weren't aware of this previously.

I've been trying to find the most recent list of Limbaugh's advertisers and sponsors. The information below is shared on multiple websites, so I've copied and pasted. Note that the list is a year old, however.

Can you please help identify current advertisers/sponsors (if different from what is noted below), so we can then find and list their competitors?

Thanks! :hi:



* * * * * * * * * * *

Here is the List of current Rush Limbaugh advertisers as of 01/16/10. We have tried to keep our list updated as sponsors come and go but cannot guarantee the complete accuracy of our list.

eharmony
300 N. Lake Ave., Suite 1111
Pasadena, CA 91101
[e-mail]
Web contact form
Email
626.795.4814
FAX [phone]

Onstar
800-947-AUTO
Online comment form

CARBONITE, Inc.
617-587-1100
177 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115
[e-mail]
Direct Dial Office: 617-587-1100 EXT:1115

Sleep Number Bed
Select Comfort Corporation
6105 Trenton Lane N
Minneapolis, MN 55442
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
800-438-2233
[e-mail]

Oreck Upright Vacuum Cleaners
Oreck Corporation
100 Plantation Road
New Orleans, Louisiana 70123
Online contact form
800-289-5888

Mid-West Life Insurance Company of Tennessee
9151 Grapevine Hwy.
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
Phone [phone]
(web banner ads on rushlimbaugh.com)

AutoZone Inc.
901-495-7185; Fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 2198, Memphis, TN 38101
[e-mail]

Blue-Emu
Jennifer Golleher
<[e-mail]>
1-800-432-9334
http://www.blue-emu.com/

LegalZoom
800-773-0888; Fax: [phone]
Site has a Web Form

Citrix Online (GoToMyPC)
6500 Hollister Avenue, Goleta, CA 93117
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

American Forces Network
Contact Us: @MyAFN.net

Mission Pharmacal Company
10999 IH-10 West Suite 1000
P.O. Box 786099
San Antonio, TX 78278-6099
Telephone: [phone]
Bennett Kennedy - Citracal Product Manager

Life Quotes, Inc.
32045 Castle Court
Evergreen, CO 80439
1-800-670-5433
[e-mail]

Lending Tree
[phone]
Online Contact page



edited for clarity

[somone]

1. And Glenn Beck's sponsors

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101110002

So Who's Still Advertising On Beck? January 10 Edition

* SkiUtah.com

* Rosland Capital

* Lifestyle Lift

* MyLife.com

* RealtyBid.com

* News Corp. (Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier)

* Cenegenics

* Goldline

* MySolarBackup.com

* Publishers Clearing House

* American Advisors Group

* Zero Water

* News Corp. (Fox News' Special with Bret Baier)

* News Corp. (Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor)

* Easy Water

* FreeScore.com

* Merit Financial

* The Scooter Store

* News Corp. (Fox News' Hannity)

* Lear Capital

* ChristianMingle.com

* News Corp. (Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier)

* FreeMesoBook.com

* PetMeds.com

* IRSTaxAgreements.com

* News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)

* Rosland Capital

* Zero Water

* Publishers Clearing House

* RealtyBid.com

* Lifestyle Lift

[FreakinDJ]

2. Dear Autozone: In Honor of Christina Taylor Green ...

I won't be shopping at your Rush Limbaugh / Hate Speech patronizing establishments any more

[el_bryanto]

3. Yes, you too can be a Freelance Censor

Why should views as ugly as Rush's and Becks be allowed to continue?

After all free speech really only applies to people who say helpful and useful things.

Bryant

[FreakinDJ]

4. I'll defend their Right - but I won't spend my Money there

Words have Consequenses

[OneGrassRoot]

5. Thank you, well said. n/t

[el_bryanto]

6. Is the goal of these sorts of lists for one person to decide not to shop there

Or to bring financial pressure on Limbaughs Sponsers such that he gets knocked off the air. What is the goal?

Bryant

[Cerridwen]

8. The goal is to allow the "free market" of ideas to determine the

amount of profit one's words can accumulate. Commercial speech, that which is paid for and from which one profits, is subject to market forces as is any product.

limbaugh and his ilk have been given a free ride for decades due to their patrons of neo-con business interests who have skewed those market forces.

Perhaps it is time for people to withhold their patronage in the form of their dollars to those who would support that which has been used to harm others.

Let the market decide...finally.

[el_bryanto]

9. What has prevented the Markets from working up till now? n/t

[Cerridwen]

12. Start with...

"limbaugh and his ilk have been given a free ride for decades due to their patrons of neo-con business interests who have skewed those market forces."

his appearance on Armed Forces Radio was manipulated by those neo-con politicians who sought to catapult his form of propaganda; against the wishes of the service members themselves who were polled and who made it clear they did not want his program broadcast to them. The article exposing this in the New York Times archives. his books were promoted and paid for by many of those same patrons from the extreme right.

The names you are looking for when you start to investigate this on your own are, richard mellon scaife, joseph coors, the heritage foundation, pat robertson, richard viguerie, the free congress foundation, for starters.

[el_bryanto]

15. Do cite the evidence that the Armed Forces don't want Limbaugh

I'm familiar with those names as far as it goes, they don't necessarily explain Limbaugh's success in and of themselves.

Bryant

[Cerridwen]

23. Didn't want. Words have meaning. The military personnel were polled

and they informed the pollsters they were not interested in having politics blasted at them. They wanted music. It was in the NYTimes and was quite controversial. My bookmarks are in disarray at the moment or I would have provided the link to the archived article. Though, for those of us who were paying attention at the time, we saw what was happening.

[el_bryanto]

25. Ok - well if you do come across it let me know

Obviously I oppose any boycott of Limbaugh's businesses to force him off the air, but his presense on Armed Forces Radio is a lot more of a grey area for me, so I'd appreciate some additional evidence.

Bryant

[Cerridwen]

28. I found this at the LATimes...

Spokeswoman Kathleen deLaski had said Tuesday that the service did not carry the shows because of a lack of demand. She cited a recent survey of military listeners that found "at least for the Rush Limbaugh TV show, only 0.02% of them wanted it. . . .. only 3.9% asked for any talk radio show at all."

<snip>

The Pentagon said 0.2% of the 50,000 surveyed had indicated a desire for the TV show. A total of 3.9%, asked what could make AFRTS radio more entertaining, answered "more talk radio-Rush Limbaugh-Paul Harvey."

Defense Secretary Les Aspin called Limbaugh on Wednesday night, a Pentagon spokesman said, to let him know that "despite some of the reporting that had gone on," there was nothing political about decisions on airing his show.

<snip>


The absence of Limbaugh's program from the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service became an issue when Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove) and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) complained that the military was cut off from the radio and television broadcasts.

link

And this article at Salon that discusses it:

<snip>

Eleven years ago it was Republican members of Congress whose pressure put Limbaugh on American Forces Radio in the first place. In 1993, then Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., along with 69 other Republican House members, sent a letter to President Clinton's first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, demanding that both Limbaugh's radio show and his syndicated television show (on which Limbaugh compared preteen Chelsea Clinton to a dog) be broadcast to the military. "Limbaugh has been called by his liberal critics 'the most dangerous man in America.' It appears the liberal leadership at the Pentagon agrees with that ridiculous assertion," Dornan wrote. "The bottom line is that the troops want Rush Limbaugh, and you should see to it that they at least have that opportunity."

The Pentagon responded by pointing to an internal survey of 50,000 military listeners that found that only 4 percent requested more long-format talk radio. Most respondents overwhelmingly requested continuous music. The Pentagon also said that Limbaugh's daily three-hour radio program would monopolize too much of the network's limited airtime.

Notably, on Nov. 29, 1993, American Forces Radio and Television Services issued this statement: "The Rush Limbaugh Show makes no pretense that his show is balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point of view."

Yet just three days later, as the controversy was stoked in conservative media and Republicans cried censorship, Aspin called Limbaugh to assure him that the Pentagon would find a way to get his program on the then-named Armed Forces Radio. link

[el_bryanto]

33. Thank you. n/t

[Tsiyu]

58. That's it? "Thank you n/t"

Did something wake up there? Are you starting to get a clearer picture of what we're up against?

You asked for this info and expressed extreme doubt that the poster was telling the truth about Bloody Rushbag being forced down our Armed services' throats and you have absolutely NO response?

Telling, that is. Very telling....apparently you think it's okay...by hook or by crook they will force Bloody Rushbag down the miltary's throats, even when the men and women fighting for this naiton DO NOT WANT TO HEAR HIM.

Amazing.....

[el_bryanto]

69. I'm sorry what should I have written?

I was grateful for the additional information. As I said, I see Limbaugh's presense on Armed Forces Radio as a much more debatable problem; and I was grateful.

I don't think it's ok to force Limbaugh down the militaries throat; and I do think that if they are going to put him on they should put on other views as well - or stick to entertainment radio.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

70. maybe what you just wrote there?

You claimed some all-encompassing concern for Rush's freedom to spew his bile.

i was curious as to why you expresed no similar concern for our armed forces who are strongarmed into listening to his bile against their freewill.


Since you seem concerned with unfairness toward Bloody Rush, it just struck me as rather telling.

But you covered it well and I do agree with your last statement.

[Erose999]

27. For me, its awareness. I'm sure lots of folks would boycott Lush Rimjob's sponsors if only they had

a list. No one wants to sit through 3 hours of Oxy-Moron to keep track of every single sponsor they should boycott.

I choose to do business with companies who don't support hate rhetoric. I'm also boycotting Chick-Fil-A for giving money to groups that oppose gay marriage, and Georgia Pacific (maker of paper goods including TP) because their owners are the financiers of the Tea Party.

I don't want my money going to that hateful crap!

[FreakinDJ]

20. Quite True - and I was just starting to like AutoZone too

But as I said - NOT 1 MORE PENNY WILL I SPEND THERE

If they CHOOSE to spend their advertising dollar on such vile show that promotes political violence and spews disinformation on epic proportions I Can Not in Good Faith Shop There

[Cerridwen]

24. When I was growing up, businesses stayed the hell away from politics.

This is why. Business owners didn't want to be associated with any one set of ideas and they wanted customers. Limiting your customers due to their political, or any other set of beliefs, was bad business.

[Erose999]

29. You should call their corporate office and tell them you'll be boycotting them as well.

Call them or e-mail them every day if you can.

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. No, it is about personal responsibility

The thrice divorced, heroin addicted fat man has every right to make a living as a radio host. His advertsiers have every right to support his hate speech. We, as consumers, have every right NOT to do business with the companies that support and enable his hate speech.

I will offer though that Rush' national advertisers are almost all modern day snake oil salesmen. They are simply preying on the weak and stupid that listen to Limbaugh. They are somewhat immune to boycotts becuase their business model relies almost exclusively on the stupid rubes that worship the fat drug addict Limbaugh. It is vital that ALL those wishing to boycott Rush's advertisers look to the LOCAL advertisers that have ads on his show. Each radio station that carries Rush's show sells ads to LOCAL businesses to fill out ad space not taken by the national advertisers. THIS IS THE KEY to getting at Limbaugh. Tell your local Ford dealer or jeweler or gutter installer that you will not do business with them becuase of their support of Rush Limbaugh.

[OneGrassRoot]

11. My goal is to shift patronage from companies who support hate speech...

through advertising and sponsorship, to companies who don't.

I'm not even calling for a boycott. I'm suggesting we support companies who don't support the likes of Limbaugh et al.

I listed the Limbaugh advertisers and sponsors only so we can find alternatives. That's what I wrote in the OP.

Simple, really.

:hi:

[el_bryanto]

13. Yes you simply want to penalize companies for supporting Limbaugh

And reward companies who do not. In that way, if people follow your lead, you can drive Limbaugh off the air.

Bryant

[OneGrassRoot]

14. Yes. And that's a problem why? n/t

[el_bryanto]

17. I suppose it goes to your goals

Your goal is to get Limbaugh off the air. That's censorship. It doesn't matter that the method's you are using aren't likely to be successful. It's still an attempt at silencing a voice you don't like. And I feel a requirement to argue against that.

Bryant

[OneGrassRoot]

19. Okay. :) n/t

[AspenRose]

26. It's censorship when governments and governing bodies decide it is

not when it's the will of the people. The public may exercise their free will by making the choice to patronize other places. No person, institution or government is forcing anyone to make that choice; it's being made available to those who want to participate.

CENSORSHIP

a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

There's a big difference between a boycott organized by a group of people and Congress coming down and telling Rush he can't say what he wants. The former are offering people a choice. The latter is censorship and doesn't offer a choice.

I have a feeling you are being deliberately obtuse.

[el_bryanto]

30. In my opinion, the end goal is the act of censorship

You are right that Government Censorship would be far more of a problem (if for no other reason than it would more likely to actually work), but the end goal of a boycott is the same as the end goal of censorship - i.e. the person gets taken off the air.

Consider the following thought processes.

A. I don't like Rush Limbaugh because he says hateful and nasty things
B. Rush Limbaugh should be taken off the air because he says hateful and nasty things
C. I will call my Congress Person and urge him or her to pass a law banning Rush Limbaugh from the air.

or

A. I don't like Rush Limbaugh because he says hateful and nasty things
B. Rush Limbaugh should be taken off the air because he says hateful and nasty things
C. I will organize a boycott of the businesses that sponser Rush Limbaugh and in so doing will drive him from the air.

or

A. I don't like Rush Limbaugh because he says hateful and nasty things
B. Rush Limbaugh should be taken off the air because he says hateful and nasty things
C. I will use the power of thoughts to think Rush Limbaugh off the air.

Here is the difference, perhaps, between ourselves. You are focused on C while I think the problem starts with B. Obviously I don't have a problem with A (since that is more or less my opinion as well).

Bryant

[OneGrassRoot]

31. "hateful and nasty things"

I think we're approaching a time that we must evaluate free speech once again. (Edit to add that I believe Canada has stricter regulations regarding hate speech; I'm going to research that next)

It's one thing to say "hateful and nasty things," it's quite another when it is inciting violence very directly, as Limbaugh's words have done.

His repeated violent hate speech has very directly created a toxic atmosphere as it pertains to political discourse in this country. His talking points become the talking points not only of his listeners, but of the Republican Party.

I don't know the line, and I agree it's a slippery slope.

It needs to be addressed, however. This is my way of addressing it.

[Cerridwen]

35. Nope.

Free speech does not guarantee an audience or a megaphone. he is free to say what he wants wherever he wants to whomever he wants if they will listen, if they will have him. he isn't censored or silenced. he just loses the megaphone and the audience. Market forces at work in the realm of free speech as applied to commercial speech.

However, his patrons will insure it never happens and we'll continue to be subjected to the bloviations of limbaugh.

[el_bryanto]

36. I don't care what tool you use to silence someone; I care about trying to silence someone

Market forces or governmental forces. The goal is the same.

Bryant

[Cerridwen]

38. I've made my points. You've chosen to ignore or misinterpret them.

You and I will not agree on this. If you don't like how the market works, take it up with the free marketeer crowd. Except, as I've noted above, limbaugh and his ilk are not subject to the free market since they have the patronage of a questionable group of people. And you would defend the rigged game.

Have a great day.

[el_bryanto]

40. Thank you, and have a great day as well.

I agree that the game is rigged and that boycotts are unlikely to actually work; which begs the question why oppose them? Because the attempt to silence people who disagree with us will ultimately hurt us more than it will hurt those we try to silence.

But you are probably right, not much point in continuing this. Have a nice day.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

44. So you support Rush

And you think that America wants him shoved down our throats?

the market is what the right justifies to COMPLETELY shut dems off the air.
COMPLETELY. "It's the Free Market at work" they say.

But they can do that, we can't? There are different rules depending on which side you're on? FUCK THAT....Rush has a tiny tiny market share that is subsidized by Corps. The American public DOES NOT WANT HIM. The Airwaves he is broadcast on belong to the American people and they should be able to boot his drug-addled ass OFF the air if they want.


Why are you against the Free Market?.

If we choose to say "no" and stop helping subsidize his hate, that is free market at work.

i suppose next you want to force us to buy McDonald's food? You want to tell us any other choices you want to make for the American people, Bryant?

Free Market baby. It's time we used it to our advantage.


\Hmmm be careful. your double standard is showing

[el_bryanto]

47. It's not a double standard - were there organized boycotts of Air America

I would have opposed them as well. I do think it's a shame that our side wasn't willing to give Air America the same support that Conservatoids have given Rush and his cronies over the year. However, I lack the resources of a Coors family or Scaife, so can't do much about it.

I'm not against the free market; I am opposed to organized boycotts to silence someone's speech. If you personally choose not to support those companies that's fine. I largely gave up Chik Fil A in part over their support for groups I disagree with (and say what you will, they made some good chicken). I just disagree with organized boycotts - of which these lists are a part of.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

50. I would not care if there were

You seem to lack some understanding of radio, You and I and every other American OWN the airwaves.

WE own them.

In the past, the FCC recognized our primary ownership. There was a Fairness Doctrine in place so that both sides could air political speech.

Once the doctrine was killed, corporations rushed in to lease all of the airwaves. they put on ONLY right leaning hate radio. That is all you get, Buddy. Is there freedom of speech there? Are they not censoring half of the American public who OWN THE Airwaves?

YOU have decided that the American people cannot decide for themselves what they want through their sponsorshp?

sorry, Corporations now decide for us what we will hear, and now decide for our Armed Forces - who do not even want that Rush crap - what our armed forces will hear on THEIR OWN radio station,

Our removing sponsorship is the only way WE have Free Speech.

Stop trying to derail this procoss.

Stop trying to censor this thread or this movement.

[el_bryanto]

51. I suspect I will continue to disagree and express disagreement

No matter how much you tell me to shut up.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

53. Where have I told you to shut up?

So you are a liar as well?

Where did I tell you to shut up? You're writing, bryant, not speaking.

I told you to stop derailing this thread.

YOU are trying to be the censor here.

And you have exhibited your gross ignorance concerning censorship. Armed Forces Radio and the Free Market.

It's not my fault if you now feel foolish.

[el_bryanto]

56. This has reached the point of parody

Above you wrote these lines.

Stop trying to derail this procoss.

Stop trying to censor this thread or this movement.

Those I took to be semantically the same as "Shut up." But I gather you see it differently because we are writing rather than speaking.

And . . . somehow that makes me a liar.

What's interesting is that other than you and that other guy most people have been able to hold this discussion without personal insults. But you don't seem to be able to. What that suggests to me is that you just aren't that secure in your position. Part of you thinks I'm right and so you feel compelled to attack me.

I don't feel foolish, though. I've been arguing this point for years, I've encountered most of the arguments before (although i will say that this has been a more productive and interesting discussion than usual, yourself excluded of course).

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

59. Dude, you started off on this post with absolutely no idea what

you were talking about. Nada. Zip. Zilch.


You came onto this thread defending Rush Limbaugh of all people, as if he is some poor victim you must protect. How naive is that?

You don't know what censorship is.

You don't understand how Radio works.

You have no understanding of the free market.


I never told you to stop posting. I never told you to stop writing. YOU are claiming that the OP and others are engaged in censorship. while at the same time trying to censor them, trying to demonize them for making their own choices about what they will buy and where they will spend their money and what they will listen to in their cars and homes.


If you're unhappy with the results of forcing your uninformed, childish opinion on this thread, you have only yourself to blame.

[el_bryanto]

68. You know there's a difference between assertion and proof

How am I trying to censor the OP? By disagreeing with him? Where have I said that he or she shouldn't be able to make this argument? What I have said is that he or she shouldn't make the argument. That's different. And no different than what you are doing to me, for that matter.

I am reasonably happy with the discussion as I mentioned above. You may think you are really slamming me, but time was it wouldn't be just one or two people, but the whole thread accusing me of being a Rush Limbaugh lover.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

71. I am not trying to slam you

you slammed yourself with your own comments.

OGR is trying to do something to help us.


"What I have said is that he or she shouldn't make the argument." YOUR WORDS.


She gave an informed presentation of her argument.

You, on the other hand, presented a gross misunderstanding of the topic in your attempt to hijack this thread.

That's the difference.

[el_bryanto]

74. Ah I see - the difference is that you agree with her and you disagree with me.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

75. No. the difference is, she presented her argument fairly

You presented a bunch of nonsense.

[el_bryanto]

76. I think you will just have to accept that I don't see things the same way you do.

At any rate, good luck with your endeavors.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

77. Educate yourself and you may change your mind

thank you for the well-wishes and also for keeping this thread kicked

Peace

[AspenRose]

37. That's the Webster definition of censorship, not mine.

It implies government involvement.

[el_bryanto]

39. Implies but does not necessitate. n/t

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tsiyu]

45. Do you like Rush?

Admit it here.

People have provided you the proof you asked for.

Do you like Rush?

Is Rush "Too Big To Fail?"

[el_bryanto]

48. What?

If only there were some evidence I could present to suggest that I don't support Rush. Wait - I have a website. I've been running it for quite a few years now.

It looks like i have 156 posts dedicated to Limbaugh (and another 73 dedicated to his brother, David Limbaugh). Maybe if you search through them all you can find the one or two times where I express faint praise for Limbaugh, quote them (without referencing my regular attacks on him) and pretend that I'm a secret Rush Lover. http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/search/label/Rush%20Limbaugh

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

52. So you hate the Free Market then?

?


You want to force people to consume (listen) to someone they don't want on the airwaves? If we want a different talk format, you call that censorship?

Are you going to tell us which cars to drive next? Are you going to tell me where I should eat and what i should wear too?

How far does your forcing me to listen to hate-speech go? What other choices do you wish to tell us all we should make.

To all the rest on this thread, DO NOT patronize Rush's sponsors if that is what you feel you must do.. call them and tell them why you do not want to support hate speech and call the FCC every day and demand a Fairness Doctrine.


This IS our only way to exercise our freedom of speech.

[Flubadubya]

54. Since when does Rush deserve even "faint praise"?...

In all the words he has spouted and spewed throughout the years I can't find a single string of them that deserves anything but contempt, disdain, criticism, and/or ridicule. Now, if one can actually find some "faint praise" a "time or two" on your site, then I can't find a way to give any of your arguments about "censorship" here any credence. Sorry.

[el_bryanto]

57. I think I praised his political acumen at one point

But boy that's a high standard to clear isn't it. I've been paying attention to Limbaugh for years, and I'm required to hate everything he says without reservation. Do you think Limbaugh is pure evil?

I take him to be dispicable but a human being. Which means he is sometimes (99% of the time, in his case) an asshole and sometimes not.

Perhaps our views on human nature are different, if you think the fact that I think Rush is an asshole only 99% of the time makes me a Rush Limbaugh fan.

Bryant

[dbmk]

72. Censorship?

Consumer choice is now censorship?

:eyes:

[verges]

80. So it was censorship that silenced

"My Mother the Car"?

[FreakinDJ]

21. I know a Little Girl who doesn't want you to patronize those companies

who support Hate Speech

[el_bryanto]

22. Which little girl is that? Christina Green?

Real tragedy there; I was particularly touched by the story of the poor woman who took her to the event. Very sad.

Bryant

[Erose999]

32. Thats how the free market works, right? Look at whats going on with Glenn Beck...

there was an organized boycott of his sponsors, lots of pressure put on them to stop supporting his show. Most of the big names pulled out.

Fox lost so much advertising revenue they had to put his show on at 5 instead of prime time. And the only businesses that advertise on his show anymore are his lackeys at Goldline and Rosland Capital, and two-bit hucksters the likes of the Slap-Chop guy and Billy Mays. Faux News has to fill the rest of the unsold space with "special reports" and promos for other Faux News programs.

Its obvious those at Faux News who want his show on the air are still putting up the money to do so. But by forcing his show from its prime-time timeslot to 5:00, we've slowed his role quite a bit. If we were to "force him off the air", its because the free market decided not to support him.

He will be free to take his programming to youtube or the blogosphere. Hell, he can even come on DU and post his rants here, if he follows the rules. LOL

[montanto]

43. I'm really trying to figure out what you are saying here.

I've read all of your posts on this topic up to this point. Are you really saying that my choice to not put money into someone's pocket is censorship? If I go to Autozone to buy a quart of oil for my car, some small portion of that purchase makes its way into Limbaugh's pocket. I choose not to have that be the case. I choose not to put money into Limbaugh's pocket, and that is censorship? So, in order not to abridge someone's right to free speech I must necessarily buy my quart of oil at Autozone to ensure that I am not a hypocrite about first amendment rights?

I also choose not to listen to Rush's radio show at all. I have also refused, I must confess, to purchase any of his written material. I have censored Palin and Beck similarly, for the record--and GWB too. If it's not okay to boycott autozone it must also not be okay to boycott Rush's radio show, his radio producer-distributer (whoever that is) and his publisher (whoever that is) and even his own written texts. If I must buy my oil at autozone to prove that I am all for the first amendment, then I must also listen to limbaugh's show, buy his books, etc., otherwise I am censoring him.

Please tell me what I can do to both be "down" with the first amendment AND also satisfy my desire to not pay people that I don't care for.

BTW I have abstained from any purchases that might support rush for over a decade. My position is personal, arrived at independently, and not inspired by DU, or any of its members.

[el_bryanto]

49. Your independent choices aren't an issue; feel free not to

An organized boycott is the issue. You are, presumably, under no illusions that your choosing to stay away from Autozone will bring down Rush. Once you organize a boycott your goal is to get him off the air. That's the difference in my opinion.

Bryant

[Tsiyu]

55. Why is it wrong if we want someone different on the air?

If a network TV show makes no money, does the network have to keep paying for the show or it's "censorship?"

Do we, as the American people, have no right to decide what we want to hear on OUR radio airwaves?

Are we asking the government to shut him down? No. THAT would be censorship. No, we are declining to support his radio show so that we can force the Free market to place someone else there who will not spread hate, lies, call our President nasty names.

We don't want to hear that, though he can still speak his mind on some other format. his freedom of speech will still be well intact, you can believe it.

Free Market, Baby. Read about it. it will do you some real good. You are way out of your league here.

[Tsiyu]

46. So let me get this straight

if a TV show has no ratings or sponsors, it still has to remain on the air or it's censorship?

i don't think you understand censorship


When we finally get that Oxy soaked gumball off the air, he will still be free to spew his bile. he can buy his own radio station. No one can stop him. he can write books, give speeches, etc.

He is on PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves. You and I own them. We can decide who we want to listen to through ratings and through support or non-support of sponsors. That is OUR right to free speech.

[OneGrassRoot]

60. I agree, Tsiyu. Censorship is done by the government...

Choosing which businesses to give our money to based on their own decisions -- positive or negative, as we each perceive it -- is one of the few tools at our disposal.

[backscatter712]

63. He has the right to say what he wants, but the rest of us doesn't have to pay for it.

I have the right to spend my money how I want, and I have the right to band together with others to use our buying power to deprive him of his livelihood.

[Hosnon]

83. You misunderstand freedom of speech.

Two basic tenets:

(1) The market of ideas requires competition via freedom of speech;

(2) Each of us must accept that the rest of us have the freedom to discourage speech that causes harm or is disfavored.

Number 2 does not mean government or private censorship (by way of prior- or post-restraint). Number 1 allows each of us to continue to speak as we wish, but we must accept the consequences of that speech (e.g., economic).

[KharmaTrain]

7. Also The Corporate Media That Profits From Him

The other day I heard someone say that Rushbo has no boss. In many ways he doesn't. He "owns" his show and has an organization that has manipulated numbers like they do the truth to make people, especially those in the beltway think he's got a legion of millions of followers. He doesn't. Fact is there hasn't been a true rating of his show in over a decade...they manufacture the numbers based on the sheer number of stations that carry his show. The fact he's on so many stations must somehow mean he's a mighty voice. It's all a well played ruse.

Truth is radio ratings have been tanking for years...thanks in good part to media "consolidation". His timeslot has always been one of the medium's weakest...and he deliberately airs during middays as he's cheap programming for most stations. He's put a lot of people out of work and the radio business as large chains outsource more and more of their programming.

Rushbo does have bosses...they're the operators of the major chains that carry his show. Companies like Cheap Channel that also own the syndication company that distributes his bilefest. Whenever there's a controversy, it's like free publicity for all these stations and thus these companies not only look the other way when Rushbo spews yet another racist lie, they applaud it. They know it'll be the buzz of the teevee food fights and draw desperately needed listeners to their failing stations.

If you really want to see Rushbo sweat...put the heat on the radio corporates who are his true bosses and enablers.

[Erose999]

41. I see your point here, we really need to study radio advertising and see whether a lot of these

advertisers are buying their time from Rushbo or the local stations. They may be buying time on the stations unaware that their ads are being broadcast during Rushbo's show. In that case we would ask them to agree not to place their ads in Rushbo's timeslot.

If they are buying their time from Rushbo himself, thats worse IMO as they are definitely aware that they are supporting Rushbo.

For local stations that carry Rushbo, it'd be best to just boycott the stations and not listen to any of their programming. Which is easy to do because most of the rest of their programming is just other hate talkers. But the key is to let them know you are boycotting them and to encourage others to do so as well. Raise awareness in your community that these local businesses are working to spread hate over the airwaves. Encourage people to go to public radio for their news.

[KharmaTrain]

73. It's More Than Advertising...

I come at this with too many years in the broadcast arena...saw the rise of Rushbo back in 1988 and knew the people involved.

Here's the rub with "boycotting advertisers"...it doesn't work. I constantly ask when was the last time there was a successful economic boycott; especially against a large corporate? I sure don't remember. It's even more nebulous as many of these corporations have many different products and companies and if one loses its offset by another that isn't.

Radio has fallen big time in the past 10 years. Revenue are 10% of what they were prior to the dot com bust and most of these corporates ran up huge debts that has stagnated the business...destroyed what was left of local radio and driving more and more listeners away. Rushbo can claim he's a big drawing card, but its in a smaller and smaller arena.

Most broadcast companies are selling "bulk"...they'll sell lots of commercials for low rates and put them wherever. That's why you see so many of the same ads on the teevee...and its worse on radio. Ad buyers used to buy stations based on ratings and formats...now it's buying bulk through a large chain like Cheap Channel that will get their commercials on thousands of stations for pennies on the dollar. Most advertisers don't know where their ads are placed and I'll bet they don't care.

The pressure should be on the corporate owners...those who need both goodwill and cash. It's shaming a Bob Pitman of Clear Channel or Lew Dickey of Cumulus or Edward Antzinger of Salem. Put them in the spotlight...make them defend the bile they put on their radio stations rather than them hiding behind a Rushbo or Dreck who are either calling cards or loss leaders. It's time to focus on the license holders...hold them accountable for the manure they put out on the public airwaves and their lack of serving the public interest. Not a "Fairness Doctrine" as much as having access to those airwaves.

Cheers...

[lonestarnot]

16. Ackety! Just ackety!

:puke: I could smell them before you listed them.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. LOL....I don't even know if this is the most current list.

I'm asking for help in determining the most current list, and then help in finding who their competitors are to investigate whether it may be worth supporting them.

Just because a company doesn't advertise/sponsor Limbaugh, doesn't mean they are good corporate citizens, imho. But, hell, it's a start!

:hi:

[Kookaburra]

42. Well the Lendingtree one doesn't surprise me

I've heard from a credible source that their CEO is a great big tea bagger.

[Tsiyu]

61. You go Girl!!!!!!

:applause:


I gotcherback ;)

[Kalyke]

62. Wow! A list of things I never purchase, anyway.

:)

Seriously, the one store/product I've ever used in that list is AutoZone. I don't go there enough that they would notice a boycott, but I can email them.

[OneGrassRoot]

66. Me, too...lol. But, again, I don't know if this is current or not --

trying to get help to see if these are all of the current advertisers/sponsors.

Not with the intention of boycotting these, but to potentially promote their competitors (if they're worthy of it, that is). I want to support companies making better decisions than those who knowingly choose to support Limbaugh & Company.

[Generic Other]

64. Most of these run ads on Air America too

They don't care about what anyone says, just profits.

[Dappleganger]

65. Thanks for the call to action!

I will be contacting those sponsors this week, that's for sure. Keep up the good work, friend!

[madokie]

67. I just fired off an email to all who provided an email address on this list

rush limbaugh
I will not be doing any business with you or your company as long as you advertise on this vile persons program
thank you and have a good day

Pretty much covers what I said to each of them.
thanks for the list

screw rush limbaugh and all those who advertise on his show.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Realize several of them also advert in places like

The Ed Shultz show and the Thom Hartman Show.

Oh and Oreck is made in the US of A.

Some place adds on all radio to reach all possible audiences.

[OneGrassRoot]

79. Yes, I'm seeing that's how it works.

I would imagine they still have the ability to choose where their ads are run, even if it's part of a block provided by advertising services.

IMHO, they still need to be responsible for where their ads run. Surely by now all advertisers on Limbaugh's show are aware of how controversial he is, yet they choose to continue.

We all make choices, and all of those choices have consequences.

I have enough issues with huge corporations as it is; those who align with Limbaugh -- even passively by advertising (let alone "sponsoring") -- are a huge part of the problem as I see it.

So, I want to support those companies I can have respect for as much as possible.

Granted, I don't even use many of the services in Limbaugh's advertising list, but I still want to research the issue further and act on it in a positive way...as I see it.

:hi:

[RainDog]

81. boycotts get them where they hurt - their pocketbooks n/t

[Hannah Bell]

82. kr. limbaugh is a scourge.