Posted on 03/03/2012 8:43:31 PM PST by gaijin
Rush almost single handedly launched and made Snapple a household name. When it was sold to the Quacker Oats the Cintonistas put the regulatory pressure on and Rush was given the bums rush.
Snapple sales shortly cratered. Something else will come along and Rush will recover. It just says something of the left that they would resort to economic blackmail to silence vocal opposition.
Because the way you wrote your story, it sounded like more liberal rant on Rush.
I have since taken a second look (in a bit calmer frame of mind) and understand the point you were trying to make.
If I may, allow me to offer a suggestion - the headline suggests that Rush betrayed Dale and Sleep Train. Also, the bulk of the story sounds like a whiney, tear-jerking zing on Rush who seems to think all women are sluts (not your words, but the current leftist talking point).
The last line finally clears up the story and the point you were trying to make. So, allow me to pull back my IBTZ <—ZTBI! and thank you for adding a little more information to an ugly non-story whipped up by the left.
Rats sort of figured that Rush or other prominent commentators might go overboard and say something not justified by the facts. This is all pure Alinsky of course. But in the end, the stiff, proud demonic will fail and the human heart of flesh, even when it errs and needs to repent, will be recognized as the true object of God’s blessings.
millions of years of rushbo?
Lying about a hypocrite is still lying.
I’d like to know where you obtained data on Ms. Fluke’s personal love life? Or even about what Ms. Fluke even claimed her love life to be?
It seems that circumspect speaking has suddenly gone out of vogue. Ms. Fluke is a sympathizer to sluts and an advocate for sluttiness, and taxpayer funded sluttiness at that. But we know nothing of her personal love life that would justify identifying her personally as a slut. If such a thing were known, Rush would have no reason to regret calling her a slut.
Now let me get you totally clear, here:
1. Snapple sponsored Rush
2. Snapple flourished
3. Snapple betrayed Rush
4. Snapple cratered
5. Rush started his OWN brand of ice-tea
Still with me?
6. Sleep Train sponsored Rush
7. Sleep Train flourished
8. Sleep Train betrayed Rush
9. (this step is not yet knowable, though I have a preference)
—>10. WHAT SHOULD GO HERE IN THIS STEP, HMMMMMMMM......?!! <—
THINKING WHAT I’M THINKING.....?
Sleep Train still seems to owe much of its fame to Rush. If it wants to walk away from Rush, it had better be able to survive on its own purchased publicity. I have doubts that it can. Even the metaphor in its name isn’t particularly pleasant.
He will. He'll grovel to his sponsors.
Can't wait to see him on the Dittocam tomorrow chomping away on his expensive cigars, begging forgiveness from the sponsors.
Then after that, the story will have died because Rush refused to fight for what's right.
Why should Carbonite associate itself with those comments? They have every right to bail on Rush. They don't need Rush, Rush needs them. Market forces at play that has nothing to do with Sandra Fluke or her begging government for a handout.
Ms. Fluke is the source. She's single and taking birth control. She claimed no other medical need for birth control.
That's all I need.
But we know nothing of her personal love life that would justify identifying her personally as a slut.
Yes we do. You just don't like high standards for what constitutes as much.
If such a thing were known, Rush would have no reason to regret calling her a slut.
No reason? You call losing millions in advertising contracts "no reason?
Horse pucky. I don't care if she's shacked up with but one guy in her whole life. As far as I am concerned, if she expects me to pay to "protect" her from pregnancy and she isn't married then she fits the definition. She values orgasms more than family, responsibility, or children.
Used to be they would call that "common law marriage."
Not in states where it doesn't exist, California being a prime example. Moreover, "common law marriage" both cheapens the commitment and actually gives people motive to break up before the long arm of government inserts cements the relationship perforce. In either case, it is usually bad for children.
So who’s in California that it matters?
Try a question in English, please.
You can pretend all you want that standards of individual sexual behavior bear no impact on the society at large and that therefore communities have no business enforcing said standards. It's not true, but go ahead.
This is why people were once "FREE" to set up and enforce social norms according to either religious or cultural preferences. Don't like the rules? Move to a town or State that offers rules to your liking. That way, State behavior was regulated by natural law competition.
Now, thanks to the "enlightened" usurpations of the Federal government we all enjoy (/s) Federally enforced norms pursuant to the fruits of an atheist Cultural Marxism that was specifically intended to destroy Western Culture.
That may be what you want but it isn't what I want. If it is what you want, one wonders what you are doing here.
This is undisputable proof you have jumped the shark in your "arguments." Next!
Huff and run, I don’t care.
I must yield the crown of huffing to you. Huffing tonpost.
I don't think they even know with whom they are angry. IMO I see no reason to be angry with Rush. We don't know any of the activities going on behind the scenes and it was not an apology for calling her a s***, but for not using the correct words to do so. LOL
I'd be more angry at the advertisers for jumping ship so fast. Yes, it was a business deal, but they are chicken-butts for leaving Rush's show as soon as the Liberals whined.
“It’s not like there are independent radio stations and alternate syndication opportunities any longer.”
Over the years Rush has dismissed anyone bringing up objections to the consolidation of the radio business, and the resulting domination of the airwaves by a small number of companies.
I suspect that he’s now learning why such a near-monopoly is a threat to free speech. When you had hundreds of independent stations around the country that could program as they pleased then it was much harder to enforce political correctness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.