To: fight_truth_decay
But he didn’t say how many sponsors he lost that were his.
To: Politics4US
>>>But he didn’t say how many sponsors he lost that were his.
Irrelevant. They have been replaced. Two want back...I hope he tells them to go to hell.
6 posted on
03/07/2012 11:10:42 AM PST by
Keith in Iowa
(Willard Romney, purveyor of the world's finest bullmitt. | FR Class of 1998 |)
To: Politics4US
To: Politics4US
What difference does it make? He’s got more lined up anyway.
Cindie
8 posted on
03/07/2012 11:14:14 AM PST by
gardencatz
(I'm lucky enough to live, walk & breathe among heroes! I am the mother of a US Marine!)
To: Politics4US
Of course not. That is just good business sense.
9 posted on
03/07/2012 11:15:02 AM PST by
jboot
To: Politics4US
But he didn’t say how many sponsors he lost that were his. He theoretically accepted their numbers as correct. He went on to explain that this kind of thing happens all the time, and when compared to the number of potential total of national and local advertisers combined (18,000?), it was not a significant event.
11 posted on
03/07/2012 11:15:55 AM PST by
Tex-Con-Man
(T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
To: Politics4US
Rush-bots are giving you crap but you are right. He was vague, ambiguous and evasive. He failed to point out exactly which companies were still buying ads, if any. Through all this, I liked his slut comments.
22 posted on
03/07/2012 1:11:57 PM PST by
steve86
(I have Schizoid Personality Disorder and am exercising the privileges thereof)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson