Rush Limbaugh Advertisers Start Jumping Ship

Sleep Train Mattress Makers has pulled its ads from Rush Limbaugh's show:

We don't condone negative comments directed toward any group. In response, we are currently pulling our ads from Rush with Rush Limbaugh.

Sleep Number Sara has done the same:

Recent comments by Rush Limbaugh do not align w/our values, so we made decision to immediately suspend all advertising on that program.

So has Quicken Loans:

Due to continued inflammatory comments– along w/valuable feedback from clients & team members– QL has suspended ads on Rush Limbaugh program.

Rush thinks the outcry over his Sandra Fluke remarks are hilarious. He is also unlikely to care if his advertisers jump ship. [More...]

His 2008 contract with Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks lasts through 2016 and pays him $38 million a year. (He also got a $100 million signing bonus.)

Rush doesn't lose a penny if advertisers bolt. But Clear Channel has been in a money crunch since at least 2009. While just this week it bought itself four more years when investors gobbled up $2.2 billion in subsidiary Clear Channel Communications, Inc. bonds, it still has $1.3 billion in interest payments due this year and "must still convince investors it can handle $12.3 billion of 2016 maturities."

Rush Limbaugh is not Clear Channel's cash cow. CC Media Holdings, Inc's.revenues for 2011 were $6.16 billion. It seems a primary focus of the conglomerate is digital media services and the relaunch of "I Heart Radio." Maybe that's not an app you want on your iPad and iPod. Easy enough to remove. It also entered "stategic partnerships" with "Facebook, Zynga, Microsoft/Xbox, Toyota, Ford, Vizio, HP and Motorola." It acquired "Thumbplay." It expanded its digital networks to Sweden and the U.K.

Besides radio and digital music, Clear Channel's other big business is digital billboards (advertising) here and abroad:

Americas outdoor revenues rose $47 million, or 4%, compared to 2010, fueled by growth across bulletin, airport and shelter displays, and particularly digital displays, due to increased capacity and rates. International outdoor revenues were up $159 million, or 11%, compared to 2010, resulting mainly from higher street furniture revenues across various markets.

What happens if advertisers stop buying ad space on its billboards, because their customers say they will stop buying their products so long as they see those products on Clear Channel billboards?

Seems to me, if you want Limbaugh gone, it's Clear Channel and companies that do business with it that need to be targeted, not advertisers of Limbaugh's show. He's a small flash in the pan.

I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, although he's listened to me. I have no idea why people pay so much attention to what he says. Even if Clear Channel canned his show, they'd still have to pay his $38 million a year salary through 2016, so he'd laugh all the way to the bank. Why not just ignore him?

Update: Also pulling their ads from Rush Limbaugh: Citrix; LegalZoom. Not all the companies whose names are floating around are current advertisers. Among those who say they don't advertise on Limbaugh's show: Oreck, Lending Tree; E-Harmony and Dominos Pizza.

Carbonite seems to be procrastinating. Its response:

I have scheduled a face-to-face meeting next week with Limbaugh during which I will impress upon him that his comments were offensive to many of our customers and employees alike.
< Perrish Cox: Not Guilty Verdict | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'd be surprised if there wasn't some clause (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    in Rush's $38m/yr contract that allowed CC to cancel if he willfully engages in egregious conduct that is severely detrimental and damaging to their corporate interests.

    Fluke turns out to be a friend of a friend (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:18:30 PM EST
    It's a small world.

    Carbonite (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    is the next sponsor that should leave Limbaugh.

    Carbonite, however, needs to be convinced.....

    Ignore him? (none / 0) (#4)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:29:55 PM EST
    Absolutely not. The man is poisonous. Better to continue pounding away at his advertisers and fellow travelers in the GOP universe. It seems to be working pretty well so far. I don't think this is going away. It's not about taking away his money, it's about attaching his statements to the conservatives with political power, and them to him. He's a gasbag who craves an audience. Take away the audience.

    Yup. I think pounding away on all fronts (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 06:24:16 AM EST
    is the right thing to do. Making the pols either denounce him or embrace him is a good step. And as Jeralyn says go after the stations and CC.

    Agreed, he already has all the money 100 men would need to be rich for a lifetime (which is part of what is so disgusting) so he is untouchable there, but getting off even some stations, and having no politicians on his show, would at least limit his influence.


    then go after the company (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:55:16 PM EST
    and local networks that put him on the air. They are the ones with the power to remove him.

    totalitarians of the left and right (none / 0) (#29)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    If Bill Mahar made his movie Religulous today, in which he thoroughly mocks every religion he could think of (except the beloved Dalai Lama), I could see people of the Right demanding that the HIS TV advertisers pull their ads and that theaters not show the movie.
    Is the world filled with nothing but totalitarians of the left and right?

    So what? Let 'em (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    Pointing out the incredibly offensive nature of Limbaugh's comments and letting advertisers know you will not purchase their services or products is hardly "totalitarian".  To the contrary, it's exercising your own right to free speech and choosing where to spend your own money.  Limbaugh has 1st Amendment rights, but he also (occasionally) has to bear some responsibility for the @ssinine things that he says.

    Re: Maher and his movie - he put the movie out only a few years ago, and there were many on the right who were very vocal in their criticism.  So what?  But I guess if you can't if you can't defend Limbaugh's indefensible comments, I guess a false equivalency is the next best thing ...


    What was that word Maher called Sarah Palin? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 10:38:28 PM EST
    Worse than what Limbaugh used (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    And your point is?

    See if you can spot the differences ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:59:29 AM EST
    ... (apart from their choice of slurs).

    I bet you can.


    Well, that is why he has not advertisers (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    His show is subscription based, through HBO.

    And actually, have you seen Religulous? (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    The 'insults' to religions come from giving the representatives of the religions a microphone. Maher repeatedly says that unlike the adherents of religion, he himself is not claiming to know the truth about god. We can't know. And letting people who claim they can know determine the future of the world is dangerous.  That might be  insulting, but at the same time it is a reasonable approach.  

    I have (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    no choice but to ignore him.

    I can't stand to listen to him.
    That bellowing sound.
    (Not unlike Ed Schultz who I can also not stand to listen to.)

    I must say that for the few sentences that I have heard him quoted, or excerpts posted on mostly liberal blogs, I am immediately struck by how dumb, how stupid he is. The same goes for the likes of Santorum. But there are many people who are entertained or comforted by this type of show business - as cruel and dumb as it is.

    But - bottom line - it is show business. He is moving product.

    I agree that the best way to get his bloated posterior off the air is to not listen to CC - and not buy products that choose to associate themselves with him.

    I wouldn't mind if liberal blogs also ceased reprinting videos of this madman. But, I sense that they like to be enraged at this obvious buffoon. Especially since they can't really express any outrage at the present occupant of the white house whose actions are too often not totally at odds with the excretions of Limbaugh.


    Some people listen to him (none / 0) (#5)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:46:56 PM EST
    because he tells them exactly what they want to hear.

    Or what he and Fox have convinced the (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 11:20:17 AM EST
    listeners what they want to hear.

    I've come to the conclusion (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    that people like Limbaugh and for that matter Fox "News" wouldn't be able to convince anyone who wasn't already, at the very least, tempted to think along the same line.

    Limbaugh, Fox, etc. put in the open the worst and darkest tendencies of many people, giving public voice to their worst instincts.

    They're certainly not appealing to the better angels of our nature.


    Unambiguous (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    and backward-looking: to a mythic time when hard-working white people and unimpeded, committed-to-"progress" businesses made America great..

    Sponsors love him and won't give him up because regulation, the-sky-is-falling liberals and lazy and less-gifted minorities are always the ONLY cause of the country's malaise..



    i notice those companies didn't say (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 01:10:02 AM EST
    they were no longer going to advertize on his show, merely that they were suspending their ads. big difference. after a brief period, they'll return, because the ratings will draw them like a magnet.

    mr. limbaugh's target audience is white, male, high school diploma or less, 45 - dead. this pretty much describes your average tea party member. no doubt they think mr. limbaugh's crude verbal assaults on ms. fluke are just hysterically funny, which is normal for someone with the emotional level of a 16 year-old male. they don't care about ms. fluke's (or anyone else's) feelings, so neither does he. his audience pays his bills, so he gives them what they desperately want, validation. absent being fired, he has no good reason not to.

    what i really don't get is why any woman would listen/watch his show, or associate with any man that does? worse, why they would they remain married to these men, or marry them in the first place?

    Rush Limbaugh loves this (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:37:27 AM EST
    It keeps his name in the news and we all know that controversy is good for ratings.

    In no way does he want a Republican to win the WH because ir's better business (and easier) to attack a "Kenyan-born Socialist Muslim" than to hold a member of your own party accountable.

    If Limbaugh said there are liberals (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 09:20:35 AM EST
    who should be killed, you can be sure that there would be a number of his listeners who would go out and kill the nearest Democrat they could find and think nothing of it.

    Remember, that classic experiment in which people were told by an authority figure to cause another pain by giving them an electric shock?  It proved that about 1 out of 6 people will gladly do just that, even if they ae told that what they are doing will kill the other person.  Am I saying 1 out of 6 Limbaugh listeners would go kill Democrats if he told them to?  No.  But I'd bet 1 out of 100 would, and that's a lot of people.

    The actual numbers in Milgram's experiments (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 12:26:27 PM EST
    were much, much higher.  65% of the subjects administered the 450V shocks.

    They were assured that there would be no permanent tissue damage.  You may recognize this phrase as the one which has mollified many Americans into supporting waterboarding of 'terrorists' and what has become the routine Tasering of American citizens by police officers.


    Juan Cole doesn't think Limbaugh (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    is a harmless entertainer:  Informed Comment

    donald please (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    don't use words like obamab*t. It's insulting and starts hostile fights in comments, requiring me to spend a lot of time cleaning threads. Thank you.

    Sorry I just saw you were (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    repeating what another commenter said. That comment was filled with insults and attacks and I deleted it.

    To everyone: Please use comments to discuss the topic and post your hate-filled screeds with stereotyped name-calling elsewhere.


    Rush (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    has issued an apology (for what it's worth)

    Well, well (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 05:31:53 PM EST
    Take a few days off to concentrate on non-blog things and the world explodes, or maybe implodes is a better description.

    I wish I could tell you guys how I heard what the Big Guy said and offer some first hand analysis but I missed it. Not that I have been unaware, mind you, just too busy to focus.

    And, as your (probably) only Social Liberal, and undoubtedly the only one who has actually attended a Tea Party meeting or so, I gotta say that if you want to whip Limbaugh I'll hold him for you.

    What he said was vulgar and unwarranted and there is no excuse. Period. End of report. Nothing to analyze. Nothing to explain.

    It's just that, even though I know this is a Left wing blog and that the zapping of Limbaugh is not news and is considered great sport and fun.... I wish someone would have jumped up screaming when Maher called Palin a "c--t" and her and Bachmann "Bimbos." I'd throw in the use of the word "Tea baggers" and Letterman's totally inappropriate jokes about her daughter. But I wouldn't want to pile on. (But props to Letterman for belatedly apologizing.)

    Okay, I've set the scene, now the pitch.

    Seeing as how we all agree that the world is in a mess, could we all just agree to ignore each other's crazies and instead of arguing about a flawed healthcare plan.....and screaming over each side's over the top statements... concentrate on getting a true single payer plan for the country?

    Just thinking, mind you.

    Yes - a shock comedian ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    .... doing a standup routine is the equivalent of one of the leaders of the Republican party and conservative movement.

    Pfffttttt ....


    Defending the use of that ugly word (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:17:48 AM EST
    on the basis that there is no equivalence between the stature or role of the speaker is just wrong; all you've managed to do is give Maher cover for saying it - and for saying it about a woman who's at the other end of the political spectrum.

    The use of that word deserves condemnation no matter who says it; it's really too bad that you aren't able to acknowledge and admit that because it's jim who's raising the issue of selective outrage.


    I'm not defending the use of that word ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:19:38 AM EST
    ... at all - in fact, I roundly condemn Maher's use of it.

    My point was that Jim's (and diogenes') comparison was a false equivalency on a number of levels, not the least of which is the fact that Maher is a comedian who frequently uses profane/vulgar words as part of his standup routine.  He may lean left or libertarian on many issues, but he is not a leader or representative of Democrats or progressives. Limbaugh, OTOH, is a leader of the Republicans/conservative movement, but when he makes an indefensible attack on someone that even they can't defend, they try to deflect by creating a false equivalency (i.e. "Everyone does it").


    That's fair and, if I didn't have such a (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    visceral reaction to the word in question, I'd have seen that was what he -jim - was doing.

    You're right, though: "you guys are doing it, too" doesn't make any of it okay, least of all Rush's latest rhetorical spewing.

    Why we elevate people like Maher and Limbaugh to positions where people see them as founts of wisdom is beyond me - maybe because people like it when other people express the ugliness that they, themselves, are thinking.

    I'm just, frankly, tired of the constant misogyny, no matter what quarter it comes from.


    Anne (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:49:34 PM EST
    I'd like to go back and quote what I said.


    I gotta say that if you want to whip Limbaugh I'll hold him for you.

    What he said was vulgar and unwarranted and there is no excuse. Period. End of report. Nothing to analyze. Nothing to explain.

    I thought that was plain enough.

    Yman, who I have decided to not respond to since 1/1/12 follows me around and is always ready with some comment, no matter what I say.

    And no where did I say that since both sides do it it was okay. I closed with this:

    Seeing as how we all agree that the world is in a mess, could we all just agree to ignore each other's crazies and instead of arguing about a flawed healthcare plan.....and screaming over each side's over the top statements... concentrate on getting a true single payer plan for the country?

    I say that because we cannot stop them. Maher won't go away, he makes his living do what he does. Same for Limbaugh.

    If we don't, as a society, we're gonna continue to be lead by the extremes. And that never works for either side.


    Actually, what you did ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 08:19:52 AM EST
    ... was attempt to create a false equivalency by comparing a shock comedian's standup routine to a leader of the Republicans/conservative movement, then call them both "crazies".  The difference being, of course, that the "crazies" on your side are mainstream and representative of a large majority of the whole.

    Funny, ... but also transparent.


    end justifies the means (none / 0) (#28)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 08:15:43 PM EST
    If you can trash rightwingers (e.g. Sarah Palin) by caricature and nasty names, that's "good" for the world.  No one is going to blame Maher.  If you trash rightwingers by accusing them (e.g. Rush) of using nasty names, that's "good" for the world.  
    Basically, whatever trashes rightwingers is "cool", "hip", and "right".

    Typcial Republican response (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    to being caught--is to say the Democrats do it to.

    This was about Rush Limbaugh.  And Republicans want to say the Democrats do it too.

    A simple condemnation is what is needed.

    The argument that Democrats do it too is a good admission that Republicans acknowledge they have been caught.

    The "Democrats do it too" distraction defense goes back to the Republicans defense of Nixon that everyone does it....


    Ah, but the Demos do "do it too" (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:29:55 PM EST
    And I gave you but three examples.. and there are many more.

    And yes, the Repubs "do it too."

    And let us all raise our hands at point at each other.... It is just so much fun and accomplishes so much..


    What "Demos"? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 08:29:27 AM EST
    Apart from the fact that they're comedians, Bill Maher and David Letterman aren't "demos".  They're independents.





    True enough, from the Left side (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 11:09:15 PM EST
    but the Right side has given as good as they have got in many cases. Of course the media, being basically an Obama supporter, will always give the Right's rants much more attention than they will the Left's.

    That's just the nature of the beast. No intelligent Repub should be surprised or unprepared.

    This deal is pure politics. Rather than fighting the issue on the grounds that Obamacare's mandate violates the First Amendment the Repubs took the bait and charged in waving their arms and talking about birth control. Dumber than dirt.

    You know, I have often heard it said, and basically agree, that President Obama is the only person who could make President Carter look good. I will add that Santorum and company are the only people who could run a worse campaign than Goldwater.


    False claim: "Obamacare's mandate violates (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Peter G on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 12:22:25 PM EST
    the First Amendment."  As has been pointed out in the comments on this subject over and over again.  Since Reynolds in 1878, where the Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of polygamy in what was then the Utah Territory, the Court has been remarkably consistent in proclaiming that neutrally framed laws that are not targeted at particular religious practices "cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Like it or not, the Supreme Court has held there is no First Amendment constitutional right to recognition as a religious conscientious objector to military service, for example, or to paying taxes that in large measure support warmaking efforts.  The Court even upheld a state law providing that a religious pacifist could be denied admission to the bar as a lawyer. And when Congress amended the draft law to allow alternate service for CO's who object to all wars, the Court held there was no Free Exercise or other violation in the failure to accommodate Catholic CO's, for example, who adhered to a selective, "just war" belief. No First Amendment violation to deny unemployment insurance to a Native American fired from his job as a drug counselor because he used peyote in religious services. I could go on and on.  The "First Amendment" objection to the mandatory inclusion of contraceptives in health insurance policies under the AHCA is totally bogus, as a matter of settled constitutional law.  Not only that, but there is a general provision for limited religious objector exceptions to all federal laws and programs already in place, so the Catholic bishops' objection to this provision is also legally misplaced -- and clearly a mask for some other agenda.

    But, but, (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    Jim "has often heard it said......"

    i.e., the rights of the state to unlimited (none / 0) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    supplies of cannon fodder shall not be infringed.

    Peter, I would not bother to argue (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:36:17 PM EST
    law with you. But I think we all know that the SC can see and has seen things differently over a period of time and with different players.

    Will that happen here? I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait and find out.


    Peter, I would not bother to argue (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:36:17 PM EST
    law with you. But I think we all know that the SC can see and has seen things differently over a period of time and with different players.

    Will that happen here? I don't know. I guess we'll have to wait and find out.


    Sorry if you find it a "bother" (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 07:13:00 PM EST
    to try to defend a politically-motivated falsehood you chose to repeat.  And no, on this issue, the Supreme Court has not really changed its position in 120 years (except for an interlude of less than ten years during the height of the Warren Court), as I specifically pointed out, and I don't figure they will.  In fact, the last case I linked to (O Centro) was written by Chief Justice Roberts for a unanimous Court. And all the links I provided were to Wikipedia and other non-technical sources, so as not to seem to be pulling "rank" or anything tricky.  Sorry, the First Amendment assertion (can't really call it an "argument," because I haven't heard one) is simply bogus.  And perhaps you just missed my point about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act already providing the hospitals a generous opt-out avenue, if they choose to invoke it.  Instead, they are propagandizing against women's freedom, that's all.

    Yes Peter (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    I think it is a bother for me to tell you I disagree, which I believe is my right.

    Now I meant nothing untoward with it, just didn't believe stating the obvious was necessary.

    My point remains. The Court changes. Slowly, but it does.


    No intelligent Republican (none / 0) (#36)
    by observed on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 01:28:03 AM EST
    is not an oxymoron in the flesh.

    You provide an excellent example (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    of why we can't have a reasoned debate. Though again to be fair there is a mirror image of you somewhere on the Right.

    As someone who sees both sides of this issue I can only shake my head and say, "Do we want to fix a problem or argue?"


    If there were a Republican on this site (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by observed on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 06:45:14 PM EST
    who dealt with facts honestly, you might have a point, here.
    My lesson for YOU is that if you don't respect the facts in arguments, people will not respect you.

    You know, it would be better (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:26:05 PM EST
    if people on the Left and on the Right would cease trying to give the other side a "lesson" and try to listen to what they have to say.


    Because that is the only way we are going to make any progress.

    Let me be straight forward. I place you way to the Left on most issues. That doesn't make you bad and I add that in some other venues I visit there are people just as far to the Right and that doesn't make them bad.

    But I don't think either of you could come together and find solutions that would work. You are both too concerned with "winning."

    Yet there are a whole range of problems that middle ground could be easily reached.


    Not what I'm talking about. (none / 0) (#56)
    by observed on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:31:09 AM EST
    Case in point: a person who frames a scientific debate in terms of whether someone from Hollywood of some political persuasion has opined on the topic---that's someone who's not interested in the truth.
    Know anyone like that?

    So you think that when supporters (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    claim that "consensus" has been reached on a scientific subject and that we should all just shut up when there is no such thing.... pointing out the nut cases and gollywood swells who buy into the argument is wrong?

    I think you're just ashamed of those folks.

    BTW - I'm an old dude. And right now the far Left reminds me very much of the far Right back in the early-mid 60's. I'm waiting for someone to start talking about their "precious bodily fluids."


    Have a nice day!


    Funny you mention the "left" in the (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by observed on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:40:34 PM EST
    60's, because I remember the RIGHT in the 60's, and I thought you couldn't see crazier.
    Boy, was I wrong.
    And you didn't answer my point.
    If there's a discussion of a scientific question and you derisively mention some Hollywood figure, YOU are not serious.
    And, my dear friend, scientific consensus is not determined by your opinion or mine. The legitimate method of determining scientific consensus is to examine PEER-REVIEWED literature.
    You've been reminded of this dozens of times, but you never even respond to the point.
    So, in conclusion---act like a joke, and people will laugh.
    I'm not saying that everything you say is ridiculous, but with this well-educated group you are not going to get away with pushing pseudoscience as fact.
    No mercy on this front.

    Ah, I see that you don't get it (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    by bringing the gollywood swells the joke is on those who defend "consensus" as I am sure you do.
    Birds of a feather, etc.

    Besides, I'm not sure how many times I have played the joke but I am sure you can tell me.

    And no matter how many peer reviewed what evers there is, consensus is meaningless because there is no proof... just a theory. They're no different than the birthers.

    Anyway, the tide has turned and the wind is now blowing the hoaxers skirts up for all to see who and what they are.... and why. Money and political power.

    BTW - Did I mention that Canada pulled out of the Kyoto treaty????


    "Just a theory" (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    Like evolution.



    Did I mention that you have not once (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by observed on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    cited a single scientific study?
    All you do is cite right wing blogs, meaningless declarations of unqualified people, and now this.. the Kyoto Treaty????
    Your argument against a scientific consensus is that Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty?
    Have you been hiding something from us, Jim?
    Are you really a Libertarian suffering from reefer madness? It's hard to match the crazy that you type when the topic of global warming comes up.

    peer-reviewed whatevers.. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    buncha' tenured-radical, secularist eggheads -- smartas* folk who say we descended from monkeys..

    There IS scientific consensus (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    You just have to get your information from actual climatologists and experts in the field, rather than political hacks at climatedepot.c0m.


    97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ...

    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

    too bad the "far left" (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    in your universe is anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman -- which is pretty much exactly how the Birchers framed things in the early sixties..

    Which is one is the real Jim (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    the one who sounds reasonable here, or the one who, at his own website, says There Are No Moderate Democrats, and shows a picture of Uncle Sam committing suicide with a gun marked "Liberalism"?

    Ah I see that Jondee is not paying attention. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    Maybe we should play a drinking game. Every time the media writes "moderate Republican" you take a drink.

    Every time they write "moderate Democrat" I take a drink....

    Now since we aren't in a bar..... let's use Google.

    "Moderate Republican" 1,470,000

    "Moderate Democrat" 676,000

    I'd better drive you home.


    a mere 600,000 hits (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 06, 2012 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    means, in your universe, that they don't exist?

    'sides, everybody knows Google is a bunch of Obama-lovin' secular-socialists..


    Jondee (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:22:06 AM EST
    That's what, a 66% deal???

    If that was an election for one of your heroes you would be declaring a landslide.

    But we both know that my comment was done in an ironic. humorous  and satirical way. You just wanna complain.

    Your complaint reminds me:

    A mule will labor ten years willingly and patiently for you, for the privilege of kicking you once. - William Faulkner



    whereas (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    I've been kicking you from day one..

    And you're still fast asleep.


    that gun marked "liberalism" (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    that Uncle Sam's holding to his head: is that meant ironically and satirically, too?

    Inquiring minds are curious.


    It is about cultural resentment (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    Here we get to the resentment over Liberals being "cool" and "hip," while the Republicans are not.

    It is very rarely about the economy, and never about jobs, with Republicans.....


    Rarely about the economy and never (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 11:37:36 PM EST
    about jobs??

    Have you watched any of the debates???


    Yes, I learned that (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    unemploymnet benefits just encourages laziness and that the jobless are just lazy bums...

    We also hear that Mitt (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    has a plan to heal the economy because he's rich and was in business, so he must have a plan.

    Well, we've just went 5 trillion dollars (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    into debt for Obama's plan.....

    And it hasn't worked.

    Maybe it is time we try something else.


    I agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    All the delusional batsh*t crazy bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans never had a chance of producing anything worthwhile for anyone anyway except probably getting a republican re-elected this fall.

    Well, it's nice that you learned something (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    even if it is wrong.

    Limbaugh's just "one of the crazies"? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 10:01:08 PM EST
    The problem being, of course, that Republicans love them some Rush ... by 3-to-1.


    .... waiiiiiiitttttt a second ......