• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cumulus: Nearly All Top Advertisers Have 'Exclude Rush Limbaugh' Orders

:lol: He's doubling down. Trying to support his statement.

She wasn't talking about condoms, dude. :lamo Oh god you really don't know anything about this do you?

Are you even aware that birth control pills have medical uses other than contraception? Seeing as how you think she was talking about condoms, I suspect not.

Who claimed she was specifically talking about condoms? I merely linked birth control that is inexpensive and effective. Nothing more. You're laughably grasping at straws.

You have yet to offer any credible argument why taxpayers are responsible for the slut Sandra Fluke's birth control

Oh and Target matches Wal-Mart drug cuts - TwinCities.com

Minneapolis-based Target is matching rival Wal-Mart in expanding a discount program that offers dozens of generic medications for $4 each - a change that includes selling a one-month supply of birth control pills for $9.

It's laughably embarrassing that you're even defending that slut
 
Who claimed she was specifically talking about condoms? I merely linked birth control that is inexpensive and effective. Nothing more. You're laughably grasping at straws.

You have yet to offer any credible argument why taxpayers are responsible for the slut Sandra Fluke's birth control

Oh and Target matches Wal-Mart drug cuts - TwinCities.com



It's laughably embarrassing that you're even defending that slut

I take it you aren't familiar with ovarian cysts. You know, one of the key points Fluke brought up in that transcript you linked but clearly didn't read? Keep digging, dude! Maybe you'll discover that there's more than one type of birth control pill.

Oh, another thing I should point out: taxpayers wouldn't be funding this. You see, there's these things called insurance premiums...
 
I take it you aren't familiar with ovarian cysts. You know, one of the key points Fluke brought up in that transcript you linked but clearly didn't read? Keep digging, dude! Maybe you'll discover that there's more than one type of birth control pill.

Oh, another thing I should point out: taxpayers wouldn't be funding this. You see, there's these things called insurance premiums...

Even if birth control cured cancer that doesn't justify taxpayers subsidizing that slut's birth control

Try again
 
Even if birth control cured cancer that doesn't justify taxpayers subsidizing that slut's birth control

Try again

So if they actually cure cancer, which oddly they do help for some people, you are totally against them being cured? Well, as long as the cure is for women's bits. Of course, you are fine with penis pumps and viagra being covered by public money. So let us just put this in one definitive statement. you are against cures for cancer for women, but are fine with paying for Rush's penis pump if he needed one.

So since a penis pump actually puts suction on a penis you would be for helping to ...Rush's.....Ok that explains things quite well for me.
 
Libs declared him dead when he was found to be using oxycodone for one.

those crazy liberals expecting rush fans to actually turn on their drug addicted leader for being weak and using drugs like he had insulted so many others for. I am really not sure where they got the idea Rush fans had morals, integrity, or could even think for themselves well enough to walk away from a delusional fat man on a vicadin high. Boy were they fooled. He got them good and showed them that his fans will follow him no matter how hypocritical, full of ****, or weak he was. It is a real accomplishment to show liberals they gave rabid conservatives too much credit.
 
Nothing is free here, we are capitalists.

But under a system of capitalism if you do not have the income to pay for commercial airwaves because you lost all your sponsors and listeners do not actually pay then.......Oh now i get it. Rush fans are socialists who think the government should fund rush and we all should pay to hear his speech. I never knew they were secret commies. better not let rush know because he might go along with it and become socialist and then we would be in a mighty paradox.
 
That's part of what this is all about. His crap has crossed the line too many times and he is toxic to too many advertisers.

Your talking about a man who has had terms he MADE up added to the dictionary they became so popular for instance feminazi. Many people have said his career was over before many times. He is still after 20 something years the number 1 talk show in America with 14 million listeners. That's more than 3 times the NRA's membership. I don't care who you are, 14 million pairs of ears is a lot of people. If the top 48 advertising firms don't want to advertise with him they can and WILL be replaced by newcomers that will be salivating at getting crack at that kind of audience. If Cumulus wants to drop him it their choice. However I think they will find they wish they will not have because they have no ready replacement. There's a reason Rush is number one. He's consistent in his content. I used to listen to Glen Beck, much more because he was much funnier at one time, but he changed a lot of his content and a lot of his style and I don't listen near as much as I used to. So I went back to Rush. I actually prefer it when he talks about football and his cats and his life and golf and cigars and all. But the main reason I listen is when he gets on a roll and does a riff like he did at CPAC then he can be quite good in the political realm.
 
But under a system of capitalism if you do not have the income to pay for commercial airwaves because you lost all your sponsors and listeners do not actually pay then.......Oh now i get it. Rush fans are socialists who think the government should fund rush and we all should pay to hear his speech. I never knew they were secret commies. better not let rush know because he might go along with it and become socialist and then we would be in a mighty paradox.

With 14 million listeners Rush aint gona have a problem getting advertisers, he just wont be able to charge quite as confiscatory rates as he does normally. The top 48 advertisers can advertise elsewhere and their slack will be taken up by others.
 
I explained how this isn't really relevant 5 months before Glenn Beck was taken off the air.

Glen Beck is still on the air, 99.7FM KNZR here in Bakersfield, and has 7 million listeners according to Arbitron.
 
Hmm...3 days ago Benghazi gains momentum. 3 days ago Rush Limbaugh gets attacked over "ad revenue". Ya, that's a coincidence.


BTW, ad revenue always falls after an election as listeners fall. Here's the direct listener numbers: Rushlimbaugh.com Traffic and Demographic Statistics by Quantcast They fell after the 08 election and stabalized only slightly higher than they did after this election. If WABC/Cumulous isn't happy, they can find someone else with the same revenue draw.

Since Sean Hannity is in the same boat as Rush, I don't see the advertisers having much luck replacing them anytime in the near future. Content is KING. No content, no listeners, no advertising, no money.
 
Glen Beck is still on the air, 99.7FM KNZR here in Bakersfield, and has 7 million listeners according to Arbitron.

All irrelevant. Advertisers and demographic groups tuning are what matters. Even then, demographic groups aren't all that important if nobody wants to be associated with your message. One advertiser jumps ship, it's not important. 40-50 advertisers jump ship and the rest start getting worried. At the end of his run Glenn Beck was running on gold and fertilizer companies. Quite a far cry from Progressive, Pepsi and McDonald's.
 
Who knows if they will actually get rid of Rush or not. beck was one thing, but rush is another. The problem most of the Rush supporters seem to not recognize is that if you lose advertisers listeners don't actually matter. It is a business and listeners are valuable as an audience that allows you to sell exposure through advertising revenue. If the advertisers are going away because you message is so disgusting that they won't buy time then it is time to move on.

there is also another problem with rush and the faux news demographic. Their audience is not the desired demographic. You can argue that rush and faux have an audience but they have a real problem coming around the bend in that their audience is much older, and they are alienating the younger audience who is also the big spending audience. It is not just the age demo either, but faux also tends to attract the lower educated poorer demographic which advertisers are probably well aware of.

It is just a matter of time before Rush leaves and pretends it is his choice to search out a venue on his own. I am sure he will get listeners wherever he goes. However, once he leaves his present umbrella his ratings will never recover, and his power will be gone.

Not quite correct. Numbers is what attracts advertising, cost effectiveness is what keeps them. Rush will lose advertising from the majors but he will pick up lesser advertisers at a lesser rate. He aint going away not by a long shot. Especially with 14 million listeners in key demographics. His listeners help put Proflowers and the rest on the map. If his advertisers have a good service or product they will have a very good ROI advertising with Rush.
 
All irrelevant. Advertisers and demographic groups tuning are what matters. Even then, demographic groups aren't all that important if nobody wants to be associated with your message. One advertiser jumps ship, it's not important. 40-50 advertisers jump ship and the rest start getting worried. At the end of his run Glenn Beck was running on gold and fertilizer companies. Quite a far cry from Progressive, Pepsi and McDonald's.

Very relevant. Advertising IS a numbers game. It comes down to ROI on their adverting dollar. Beck is still in the game and he has a large audience and is STILL charging top tier rates. All the majors jumping ship is just opportunity for others to try their hand at major radio campaigns. Controversial media has ALWAYS been this way, and in the end it always boils down to numbers, how many listeners and what they are charging for access to those listeners.

Point of interest Beck still has twice the audience then the NRA has members.
 
With 14 million listeners Rush aint gona have a problem getting advertisers, he just wont be able to charge quite as confiscatory rates as he does normally. The top 48 advertisers can advertise elsewhere and their slack will be taken up by others.

Then why are they having trouble? It is like I have mentioned here Rush may have listeners, but all listeners are not the same. He sucks in the prime demo. There is a desired demographic. It is basically the young adult through middle aged area where they have the most disposable income. rush gets most of his listeners from the elderly. good for selling gold to, bad for pitching verizon wireless for your iphone to. This is why rush is in trouble. He pulls the **** listeners. he has a lot of them, but they are also dying and on fixed incomes. I am sorry to tell you that all people are not the same when it comes to demographics.
 
Not quite correct. Numbers is what attracts advertising, cost effectiveness is what keeps them. Rush will lose advertising from the majors but he will pick up lesser advertisers at a lesser rate. He aint going away not by a long shot. Especially with 14 million listeners in key demographics. His listeners help put Proflowers and the rest on the map. If his advertisers have a good service or product they will have a very good ROI advertising with Rush.

Actually, that is a simplistic view from a person way outside of the industry. The elderly are not a key demo, yet they compose the majority of rush and right wing radio's listeners. Rush and faux do not pull big numbers in the prime demographics desired by companies who advertise. I won't say all companies have the same key demo as Gold sellers would probably prefer a soft in the head elderly crowd, but Rush's listeners are not hard to give up for advertisers because you can get better listeners elsewhere.

You may be right. Rush may not yet be primed for pruning. They may still get a couple more years out of him. Especially considering they really do not have a replacement groomed yet. Rush is falling, and you can bet they are planning on replacing him at this point. It depends on how solid they think their listener base is. Rush is in a slightly more precarious position as his listeners are not going to jump ship to a liberal or moderate program if he goes away like a regular radio talk personality. His base is looking for a right wing voice, and there is only one big market in town. I would imagine the only thing protecting Rush right now is competition from people like Glen Beck.
 
Literally nobody is suggesting that limbaugh doesn't have a right to do what he does. So have fun with your straw man.

Harassing someone till they shut up is not respecting freedom of speech.
 
LOL...

Liberals once again, find a way to eliminate the free speech they don't like.
 
That's part of what this is all about. His crap has crossed the line too many times and he is toxic to too many advertisers.
I don't buy that. Advertisers promote their products with outlets by audience share. Rush has more than an adequate audience base. Anyone who says they will boycotts such advertisers is probably just full of hot air anyway.
 
I'm a businessman. I wouldn't allow advertising on any politically charged venue. I want to sell to people of all political parties and see no point in losing any because of where I advertise. I can't imagine why this is even interesting. It is just common sense. It doesn't mean the advertisers don't like Limbaugh. It means they don't want to advertise on politically charged venues. I wouldn't either. But then I'm not a partisan and wouldn't care about supporting a political view with my advertising. I'm sure there are enough of those folks to keep Limbaugh in business.
 
You know, even if the major advertisers pull, Limbaugh will still be #1. The infrastructure around him would just be less profitable. People will lose jobs, but liberal/progressives will celebrate such job losses, out of spite.
 
The fact that you'd call her a slut indicates that you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much. What other opinions has he spoon fed you? :lamo



You don't have a constitutional right to advertising dollars, but I see you've retreated from the previous "free speech" argument.

If you don't buy something from MSNBCs advertisers, are you trying to silence MSNBC?

Hell, some of these companies advertise on all sorts of programs. I guess this means I'm trying to silence everyone at one
! :lamo

Fluke was a known political activist, she wasn't some innocent student trying to acquire healthcare. She purposefully put herself into this situation to make a big deal out of a religious school that wouldn't offer to pay for contraceptives. She is a political animal and got criticized. Don't try to make it as though poor little old her got called a slut, and everyone listening to Rush got brainwashed. There is nothing at all innocent about this woman.
 
You know, even if the major advertisers pull, Limbaugh will still be #1. The infrastructure around him would just be less profitable. People will lose jobs, but liberal/progressives will celebrate such job losses, out of spite.

Limbaugh is a professional, and knows more about how radio operates than these leftwing twits. He has been preparing himself for just such a situation by going on the Internet, publishing a newsletter, and developing sponsorship there. Every show eventually loses its appeal one way or another. But people listen to him by the millions, and that talks to sponsors. Some evern returned to him after a short period. Cumulus isn't even the main company he's with, that's Clear Channel which is the largest company.
 
Even if birth control cured cancer that doesn't justify taxpayers subsidizing that slut's birth control

Try again

He's not even reading the posts.

This wasn't a taxpayer-funded health plan, chief. And you don't know anything about her sex life. Limbaugh told you she was a slut, and you're regurgitating his words. But by all means, continue to double down on the misogyny. Really helping out your team here ;)

edit: and quite frankly, if pills you think cost $9/month cured cancer, that absolutely would justify taxpayer subsidization of birth control pills. Eliminate cancer in 50% of the population for that cheap? Do you have any idea how many tax dollars that would save, not to mention lives? Are you seriously some kind of monster who just wants women to die?
 
Last edited:
Making vague comments about choice and what not implies censorship and similarly deflects the real issue which is America rejecting Rush and the bigger picture of America rejecting far right propaganda.

No, but I can understand how your wish to see people like Rush and Hannity silenced doesn't strike you as censorship. I can also appreciate how much you hope what you believe is true.
 
Back
Top Bottom