On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:35:55 -0500, Mr.B1ack wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:14:57 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts
wrote:

On Jan 22, 8:56Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:35 -0800 (PST), Stevie Nichts
wrote:

What you overlook is the simple fact that the Big Corporations
have TONS and TONS of money, waaay more than any union or "other
left-wing special interests" could ever hope to scrape up.

Y'know, I keep hearing about this boogeyman, but I've yet to see
stats to back it up.

Even a rudely educated twit knows that Union Dues cannot match the
massive wealth of corporations

Idiot.

Ah, another liberal who only understands insults. Okay, I'll speak
Liberal, just for you: Hey, asshole! Even a moron leftist knows that
unions aren't limited to union dues. They raise money through their
501s and 527s, and use it to elect liberal Democrats.

workers who give money to elect politicians are not the same as those
corporations who funnel tens of millions to elect politicians who
benefit only a small percentage of the wealth class.

And corporations are composed of WHAT exactly ? Aliens ? Robots ?
Devils ?

Nope. People.


more like ... hmm .. "rich person".
Not "real People", and more then likely not a person from America.

How about the owner of the FAUX network, who is Australian and has most
of his investments in Asia. He has allot to gain from the failure of
america. Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?

What gets me the most is how people will believe a 30 second advert with
obvious falsehoods!
Short attention span?!

The real answer takes too much time to understand?!

Pretty sad when most of the civilized world laughs at the stupidity of
the united states when we vote in people like GW Bush or seriously
nominate someone like Pailin who obviously failed elementary school
geography. (Africa is not a country)

Ima wrote:


How about the owner of the FAUX network, who is Australian and has most
of his investments in Asia. He has allot to gain from the failure of
america. Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?


I wonder about Limbaugh and the thousands of his laid-off Clear Channel
colleagues, because the dichotomy is striking: Last July, just months
before the radio economy went into free-fall, Limbaugh's bosses at Clear
Channel, who enjoy deep ties to Texas Republicans and who have been at
the forefront of promoting right-wing radio, rewarded the turbo-talker
with the biggest contract in terrestrial radio history. The contract
included an eye-popping 40 percent raise over his already gargantuan
pay, despite the fact it's doubtful any other radio competitors could
have even matched Limbaugh's old pay scale.

The astronomical worth of Limbaugh's eight-year pact: $400 million. The
amount of money Clear Channel execs have been trying to scrimp and save
this year as they lay off thousands from the struggling company: $400
million. Ironic, don't you think?

The simple truth is that Limbaugh lives in the lap of Clear
Channel-backed luxury, while Clear Channel employees are being axed with
abandon. And those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs are told to
do the work of three or four employees.

http://www.alternet.org/media/139891?page=entire

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:26:18 -0800, dave wrote:

Ima wrote:


How about the owner of the FAUX network, who is Australian and has most
of his investments in Asia. He has allot to gain from the failure of
america. Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales
do not support this money?


I wonder about Limbaugh and the thousands of his laid-off Clear Channel
colleagues, because the dichotomy is striking: Last July, just months
before the radio economy went into free-fall, Limbaugh's bosses at Clear
Channel, who enjoy deep ties to Texas Republicans and who have been at
the forefront of promoting right-wing radio, rewarded the turbo-talker
with the biggest contract in terrestrial radio history. The contract
included an eye-popping 40 percent raise over his already gargantuan
pay, despite the fact it's doubtful any other radio competitors could
have even matched Limbaugh's old pay scale.

The astronomical worth of Limbaugh's eight-year pact: $400 million. The
amount of money Clear Channel execs have been trying to scrimp and save
this year as they lay off thousands from the struggling company: $400
million. Ironic, don't you think?

The simple truth is that Limbaugh lives in the lap of Clear
Channel-backed luxury, while Clear Channel employees are being axed with
abandon. And those who are lucky enough to keep their jobs are told to
do the work of three or four employees.

http://www.alternet.org/media/139891?page=entire

here's another one....

FAUX News reported a $780m profit!
Even though advert revenue is down all across the industry, (including at
FAUX News) FAUX News posted a profit! Faux refuses to let anybody know
where the extra revenue came from. Is it from drug money? So, I would
guess it's from money coming from special interest to have FAUX be the
mouthpiece of special interest.

This is only going to get worst!

Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?


Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in
advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running
the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal
compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator.

Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a
subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his
newsletter.

There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid.

http://www.rense.com/general89/bs.htm

Marketers, when they dream at night, their dreams are brown.

Aw haw haw haw,,, that's Good, that's Good.
Enough to eff up a wet dream.
cuhulin

On 1/25/10 10:12 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:36:28 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:




Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?


Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in
advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running
the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal
compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator.

Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a
subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his
newsletter.

There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid.

Well, it's like the old saying says: You can fool some of the people
some of the time---but a conservative only needs to be fed compliments
and legitimize their beliefs and their happy as clams.


Yes, because only Conservatives are naive.

On 1/25/10 14:52 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:23:52 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/25/10 10:12 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:36:28 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:




Where does the $400M for Ru$h come from when his advert sales do
not support this money?


Advertising on Rush's show isn't cheap. There's a LOT of money in
advertising, alone. But stations also pay a carriage fee for running
the show. These fees, and advertising, easily cover Rush's personal
compensation and bonuses as well as profits for his syndicator.

Then, there's his website, also advertising supported, with a
subscription base for access to premium content, as well as his
newsletter.

There's nothing sinister going on in the way Rush is paid.

Well, it's like the old saying says: You can fool some of the people
some of the time---but a conservative only needs to be fed compliments
and legitimize their beliefs and their happy as clams.


Yes, because only Conservatives are naive.



Must be some reason why an entire belief system would oppose nearly
all modern change for the better, like voting rights, civil rights,
womens rights, childrens rights....and fight viciously for policies,
ideas and socially failed beliefs so hard.


Check your history. Voting rights, civil rights, women's rights
and childrens rights were all passed by Republican majorities, while
Democrats fought viciously fought them.

Start with the Civil Rights act of 1964. That'll keep you
occupied for a while.

On 1/25/10 19:43 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:59:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Must be some reason why an entire belief system would oppose nearly
all modern change for the better, like voting rights, civil rights,
womens rights, childrens rights....and fight viciously for policies,
ideas and socially failed beliefs so hard.


Check your history. Voting rights, civil rights, women's rights
and childrens rights were all passed by Republican majorities, while
Democrats fought viciously fought them.

Start with the Civil Rights act of 1964. That'll keep you
occupied for a while.


Christ, whatta doofus

First of all, Party label doesn't qualify for the issue

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.