Welcome to Blogster!
736,631 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 40651

Posts: 261

My Comments: 1779

User Comments: 3321

Photos: 164

Friends: 79

Following: 13

Followers: 22

Points: 6100

Last Online: 150 days ago



No Recent Visitors

More Rush Rage

Controversial Content
Added: Wednesday, March 14th 2012 at 4:55am by MrWilson

Still think the national outrage at Rush Limbaugh's "slut" comments are having no effect? Here are a couple of articles that suggest otherwise.

Please understand that I am not a Constitutional scholar, and I really don't care too much about the arguments about "libel" and "slander" that some of the readers of this blog seem to base their opinions on.  What I care about is much more personal than that. I am absolutely enraged that a man of Limbaugh's supposed stature would have the audacity to personally attack an American citizen strictly because he disagrees with her stance on a hot topic.

If he wished to dispute her opinions, that is one thing.  When he decided to indulge instead in pure character assassination, that is something quite different, in my opinion.

Like most people, I personalize many things that I hear and see, and, as I've said before, if somebody attacked my family or friends the way Limbaugh attacked this young woman, I would have a SEVERE problem with that!

And, he didn't even have his facts straight before he let loose with the vicious volley! He was accusing Fluke of wanting the public to pay for her having sex.  In fact, she was in favor of the new health legislation because a friend of her's needs birth control pills in order to fight ovarian cysts. AAAAANNNNDDDDD, come to find out, Rush himself didn't even actually believe what he was saying!!!!!! In his now-famous Saturday Apology, he admitted to doing it merely to be "absurd" (That's Rush's own word.)

The first article below from The Political Buzz Examiner that was published on March 13, 2012.  The second one is from ThinkProgess.org, and was published on March 12, 2012.

A closer look at Rush Limbaugh’s two remaining national sponsors

Yesterday Premiere Networks, the company which promotes and sells Rush Limbaugh’s show, announced that they were suspending national advertising for the show for the next two weeks.  The move comes after Limbaugh referred to Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and “prostitute” after she advocated for birth control coverage before Congress.  According to a list compiled by Think Progress , Limbaugh has now lost over 140 sponsors since he made those accusations against Fluke.  Premiere is clearly hoping to take some heat off of Limbaugh with the suspension and instead rely on less visible local advertisers.  However, two national advertisers are sticking with Limbaugh despite the controversy overhiscomments.  In their statement Premiere instructs local radio stations to, “Replace them [other national ads] with Lifelock and Lear Financial or a local spot of your choice.”  The statement begs the question as to why Lear and Lifelock would be willing to still financially support Limbaugh when 140 other businesses have deemed sponsorship of the show as either unprofitable or unethical.

Lear Financial and Lifelock share a number of characteristics which may enable them, or even force them to continue sponsoring Limbaugh.  Both companies operate on a fear-based approach to selling which may appeal to Limbaugh’s audience.  In addition, both companies have been accused of misleading their customers.  A relatively simple investigation of the two companies would likely lead many to avoid doing business with them altogether.  To overcome this weakness, the two companies may be relying on the endorsement of Limbaugh.  When Limbaugh’s loyal listeners hear him endorse the two companies, they likely trust Limbaugh and investigate no further as they do with many of Limbaugh’s claims.


Lifelock is the most obvious example.  The company claims to provide identity theft protection, clearly working off the of the fears many have about this particular crime.  However, one of the co-founders of the company actually resigned in 2007 amid allegations that he had stolen his father’s identity and used it to run $150,000 in fraudulent charges on an American Express card.  So Lifelock, who sells themselves as an identity protection company, was actually founded by a man who allegedly stole someone’s identity. 

Todd Davis, the former CEO of Lifelock, once famously posted his Social Security in public as proof that Lifelock’s services worked.  A subsequent investigation found that Davis was a victim of identity theft 13 times after posting that private information .  In 2010, Lifelock was fined $12 million by the Federal Trade Commission to “settle charges that the company used false claims to promote its identity theft protection services., which it widely advertised by displaying the CEO’s Social Security number on the side of a truck.”

Lear Financial is essentially a gold selling company.  Over the past few years conservative voices like Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, and Limbaugh have prominently relyied on gold-selling companies for sponsorships.  Beck’s television and radio show was supported by Goldline, and Beck told his listeners to “trust the people at Goldline.”   Last November Goldline was formally charged with fraudulent selling practices .  Specifically, Goldline was accused of running a “bait and switch” operation in which customers were tricked into buying gold coins that were marked up more than 50%.

Some customers of Lear Financial have made similar complaints against the company , arguing that they were directed away from their initial desired purchase towards other products that may have more of markup.  Customers also complain of not being informed of the true value of the products they are purchasing from Lear.  The “Shipping and Transaction Agreement” that all Lear customers must agree to contains fine print which describes how Lear is entitled to a profit margin and a “spread,” otherwise known as a markup, on the products they sell.  This agreement can be read by clicking on an otherwise indistinguishable link at the bottom of Lear’s website.

Limbaugh and Beck encourage their listeners to buy gold based on the fear that hyper-inflation or a market collapse may someday ensue.  However, their listeners are not informed about the tremendous markups these companies make when selling gold coins.  In some cases, consumers would need to sell their gold at double the price they bought it for just to recoup their initial investment. 

If these sponsors dropped Limbaugh it may cause their customers to start looking a bit deeper into their past practices.  If the two companies stick with Limbaugh they will face some backlash from the broader public, but this likely matters little to Lifelock and Lear.  The most important is keeping the blind trust of their current and potential consumers, and that blind trust largely relies on the sponsorship of Limbaugh.

Continue reading on Examiner.com A closer look at Rush Limbaugh’s two remaining national sponsors - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/a-closer-look-at-rush-limbaugh-s-two-remaining-national-sponsors#ixzz1p5aWIqlL




EXCLUSIVE: 140 Companies Drop Advertising From Rush Limbaugh

ThinkProgress has obtained an internal memo from Premiere Radio Networks listing 96 national companies that have “specifically asked” their advertisments not be played during the Rush Limbaugh Show. Premiere is the distributor of Limbaugh’s program. The advertisers have also requested to be excluded from other right-wing hosts including Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. According to the memo, the listed companies’ advertisements should be excluded from these programs because they have been “deemed to be offensive.”

The existence of the memo was first reported over the weekend by Radio-info.com , an industry newsletter. Radio-info did not publish the full list of companies. The memo was posted website of the Traffic Directors Guild of America , an association of professionals who distribute paid advertisements to radio stations. It was quickly deleted but ThinkProgress obtained a copy from a Google snapshot of the site taken on March 9 .

Previously, ThinkProgress has reported that 50 companies requested their advertising be pulled from the Rush Limbaugh show following his sexist attacks on Sandra Fluke. The publication of the memo adds an additional 90 companies to the list of companies that have dropped Limbaugh:

21st Century Insurance • Hotels.com • Rite Aid • Ace Hardware • Honda • Robitussin • Acura • IBM • Sam Adams • Advance Auto Parts • Icy Hot • Sam’s Club • Advil (All products) • Intuit/Small Business • Schiff – Digestive Advantage • Alacer/Emergen-C • Schiff – Mega Red • Allegra (all products) • Johnson & Johnson (All Brands) • Schiff – Move Free • Kohl’s • Schiff – Sustenex • Ally Bank • La Quinta • Scotts Miracle-Gro (all products) • American Express • Lifetime • Autozone • Little Caesars • Sony • Lowe’s • State Farm • British Petroleum • Luxottica • Staples • Bullfrog Sunblock • Macy’s • Sterling/Kay Jared Jewelers • Caltrate • MasterCard • Subway • Centrum • McDonalds • Takeda Uloric • Chapstick • Midas • The Home Depot • Clorox (Pinesol/Homecare) • Napa Auto Parts • ThermaCare • Cortizone • National Realtor • Toyota • DeVry • NBC-TV • Discover Card • Office Depot • Twinings of London • Domino’s Pizza • Office Max • Tyson/Wright Brand Bacon • Exxon/Exxon Mobil • OneMainFinancial • Unisom • Farmers Insurance • United Healthcare • Ford • Orkin • U.S. Army • Outback • U. S. Postal Service • General Motors (All products -GM Certified Service • Chevy • Onstar • Cadillac • etc) • Preparation H • Visa • Gold Bond (all products • ProNutrients (all products) • Walgreens • Grainger • Progressive Insurance • Wal-Mart • Green Mountain Coffee • Prudential • Wells Fargo • Hallmark • Radio Shack • Wrigley • H&R Block • Rent-A-Center • Yahoo!

Check out all 140 companies (plus their statements, when available) on our Pinterest .

You can view a copy of the memo below:


Premiere Networks List Of Advertisers Asking Not To Advertise On Limbaugh And Other Right-Wing Hosts



The post initially listed 141 sponsors. Boston Beer and Sam Adams were listed separately but are the same company.

User Comments

Same thing happened to Glenn Beck when his attacks became too violent; couldn't have happened to two nicer people.

Couldn't agree with you more, kid.  To me, this is a personal matter, not a legal or a constitutional one.  It has something to do with being a civil human being living in a democratic republic.

We all know you don't like what Rush "SAID".

What is your point?  You want "FREE SPEECH" eliminated?....people punished for speaking freely?

Nope! In fact, Rachel, in my own little, ignorant way, I think I am defending Freedom of Speech. I think Rush is the one who is trying to stifle that right by intimidating folks like Sandra Fluke and others who think like her.  He is trying to do it by unleashing a vicious personal attack filled with lies, thus trying to scare others who disagree with him into silence.  He later said that knew his attack was unwarranted and not accurate, but that he did it to be "absurd". To me, that is the worst kind of intimidation. Do you think that bullies in school who verbally attack others have a constitutional right to do so? The answer is no. In fact, there are laws against it.

Rush Limbaugh is  to free speech is like  Hitler is to human kindness.Most of  the republican girls are camp tramps anyway.I'll bet that some of you even have an OBAMA MAMA button squirreled away that you massage to the point of ecstasy when you are alone.

Your attacks agains Rush....seem quite the opposite of claiming he has a right to speak.

"TDo you think that bullies in school who verbally attack others have a constitutional right to do so? The answer is no. In fact, there are laws against it." 

Laws against speech.....are imo UNCONSTITUTIONAL....either you have free speech or you don't.....Which is it?

Easy there, Ragged! Let's refrain from the name-calling, or you lower yourself to Limbaugh's level.  (And HE said in his Saturday Apology to Fluke that HIS problem was that he "lowered himself to the level of the Liberals" by name-calling. Guess he doesn't consider terms like "Femi-Nazis" name-calling, huh?)

Nope again, Rachel! I'm decidedly in favor of Freedom of Speech.  I think you are mistaking "Freedom" with "License," which are two decidedly different concepts.

So, you're in favor of lying and bullying. That's fine with me. I, however, am not. ONCE AGAIN, if Rush attacked Fluke's words, that is fine.  When he launches a character assassination campaign, leaving all facts and truth in the dust, that is where he overstepped the boundries.

So, in other words, you are okay with intimidation.  Okay! You and I differ on this point to! Simple as that.

You don't believe in the laws pertaining to hate crimes then?


My apologies sir.But the comparison of Limbaughs disdain for human rights is valid I beleive.

Rag - imo you are a hypocrite. Free speech has nothing to do with Hitler, it has to do with an Americans RIGHT, not a foreigners actions.

You have defended Flukes right to speak, while I don't know of ANY "republican girl" who believes she didn't have a right to speak.

You speak, say what's on your mind.....I don't challange your right to do so.

You use an avatar to personally degrade the Christian faith....I don't challenge your right to do so.

It is your words I challenge.....LIES....so go ahead ...PROVE your words...

You call "MOST of the republican girls" camp tramps.....lol....PROVE IT...or leave it alone and be a liar. 


Hey Ragged,

I agree with you on your assessment of Limbaugh's distain for other with opposing views. However, I believe the man is calculated in his words and actions; he does it for profit.  This time, however, I think he went to far, and it is becoming the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

If he stuck to the facts, and stayed away from the dramatics and the character assassination tactics, he would have been fine. But he consciously chose not to do that.

Nope again, Rachel! I'm decidedly in favor of Freedom of Speech.  I think you are mistaking "Freedom" with "License," which are two decidedly different concepts.

So, you're in favor of lying and bullying.


Those are YOUR words....not mine.....

You want to speak FOR ME?  Who gave you that authority?...I didn't!!

I am not mistaking "freedom" with "license"......I know exactly the differences.  License has nothing to do with this conversation!

Laws against speech.....are imo UNCONSTITUTIONAL....either you have free speech or you don't.....Which is it?

Rachel, I tired of arguing in circles with you. You know my stance on these things, and this is where I'm ending the discussion with you on this topic. 

And, just for your information, laws against speech are not unconstitutional. We have laws against hate crimes and obscenity, just to name a few areas. Again, please look up the difference between "Freedom" and "License."

Have a GREAT day, kid!

Thanks for your opinions!

"Most of  the republican girls are camp tramps anyway.I'll bet that some of you even have an OBAMA MAMA button squirreled away that you massage to the point of ecstasy when you are alone."

Hey, a question. Exactly how is it that you're any different from Rush Limbaugh here? Looks to me like you're perfectly willing to degrade and insult women based on nothing more than petty politics and spiteful partisanship, which is the soul of what trash like Limbaugh preaches.

What makes you any different, any better when you're doing the same thing he is?

And for your information............there are numerous unconstitutional laws on the books.

A law on the books does not make it constitutional.  The words of the law compared to the limits of the constitution is what makes it a true law. (Read the Federalists Papers.  They will clue you in as to what defines a Constitutional law and what doesn't.  And those papers ARE the legal interpretation for the Constitution....not the feelings of the People or a rep)

Bully, as you brought up is a general term.  Anything that involves something you don't like can be generally shoved into that term.  Slapping, pushing, hitting.........we already have laws against assault.  Threatening.....we already have laws against threatening.  Stealing lunch money, other belongings...........we already have laws against theft.  Saying something that is a LIE..........why limit speech.........when the LIE is the issue?  NOT SPEAKING....but what is spoken.

Hate crime?  Really?  Isn't HATE an emotion?  You think the government has the authority to regulation emotions? ( AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, ONE PERSONS EMOTIONS ARE DECIDED BY ANOTHER PERSON, AS THE TALKING POINT ) so.....THINK AGAIN.....or better yet....PROVE IT....their POWERS ARE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution.......IDENTIFY SUCH POWER!

Freedom is gifted to us from GOD....not the government.  The government is simply SUPPOSE to KEEP that acknowledgement.....as a matter of fact, they promise by oath to do so.

THE LIMITS of freedom was never designed to be a fell swoop by laws....but rather by INDIVIDUALS.....and LOCAL limitations....meaning....I don't need a Federal law to run the government of my household.......I DECIDE the limits.

The schools don't need a Federal law.........THEY set the limits of acceptable behavior WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES.....IN THEIR JURISDICTION...THEIR buildings...for whomever chooses to walk into their jurisdiction...PERIOD..

This whacked idea that the Federal government has carte blanc nation wide jurisdiction is ludicrous.  And further that they have ANYTHING close to having authority to regulate emotions is almost as ridiculous as people falling for the nonsense.

Yes and by all means....you look up the handful of enumerated powers the Congress has....and the smaller handful of Presidental powers......and then read how you determine if a law is constitutional or not.....and what about it when it is unconstitutional...(Federalist Papers.....they wrote the Constitution, so take their word for the facts) because by your way of thinking it is...not much different than saying you have to obey Canadas laws....simply because they appear in a law book....


"You want to speak FOR ME? Who gave you that authority?...I didn't!!

According to your definition of "Freedom of Speech", I don't need your permission or authorization to speak for you, do I? According to your previous arguments, I can say whatever I want to say, right?

You're not attempting to limit my Free Speech rights with that statement, are you?


Yes, it is unfortunate, but freedom of speech ~does~ grant people the freedom to be a liar. Question is, is being a liar a worthwhile endeavor? Speaking for others when you know your views don't represent theirs is a form of lying, you understand, implicit deceit.

{#rofl.gif}, Join the crowd Wilson, it is an eddy not just circles .... extremely confused eddy. Lots of books, lots of unrelated out-of-context statements and lots of weird questions.

Yes, it is unfortunate, but freedom of speech ~does~ grant people the freedom to be a liar. Question is, is being a liar a worthwhile endeavor? Speaking for others when you know your views don't represent theirs is a form of lying, you understand, implicit deceit.



Talk to survivors of Hitlers Europe and ask them about free speech.Here in Limbaugh land,free speech means Rusty  say what he wants with no thought to how it might effect someone.

Rag - I have no need to talk to survivors of Hitlers Europe regarding free speech in America.  One has nothing to do with the other...(you know different jurisdictions....different laws....and free speech in America is a legal matter)

I don't live on Limbaugh's property....but if you do and don't like it...you figure out what to do about that.

I don't know any Rusty....so that point is mute.

Oh...how language effects someone.....I see your point.  It appears you think that a person should consider how it might effect another before someone speaks....

I can't answer for what Rush said.....but you can answer for what you said.... So what is the effect you were going for when you said, "MOST republican girls are camp tramps"?

That's right wilson.......you can speak lies all you want......and I can point out your lies.....and the reader can determine your hypocracy.

Thanks, Rachel. We'll leave the conclusion of this discussion up to them then. Again, have a great day, and thanks for your opinion!

Ah Blogster...  never a dull moment. As you know I agree with you sir! Keep on rockin in the free world! 

Hey, Kristy! Man! Is fun to get these Blogster folks riled up!!!!!!!!{#basic-mouth-shut.gif} (It's too easy though.  Not even a sport!)



LOL - who got upset? angry? - seriously wilson you do have a silly notion thinking you have some control over peoples emotions....


LOL!!!!! Nope again Rachel! I'm not looking for any kind of control over anybody. Kristy knows me well enough to know that! (I mean, hell! She and I have had beers together at The Main Street Pub in beautiful, downtown Willimantic!) I'm just having a good time. Hope you are too!

Just going by what you write about others, who don't know you well.... {#basic-smile.gif}

lmao, I've only banned 1 person from my page, guess who it is? Your right, it has nothing to do with libel or slander, ir has to do with a personal attack on not a celebrity, or a politician, but a citizen who was invited to speak her mind. He crossed the line of decency in broadcasting when he attacked her personally instead her point of view, which we both know he didn't even understand at the time, and to top it off he wanted sex tapes? Thats waaaay pass the edge of decency and he's getting what he's been asking for. The people of this country are fed up with the crap, the divide. I hope he goes to satellite radio....

wilson....was this blog about banning from blogs.... lol 

Post A Comment