POL A list of Limbaugh sponsors that it is claimed dropped him.

Berean said:

This "college age girl" is a thirty year old unmarried woman who publicly demanded that the rest of us pay for her birth control. If my daughter had done this, I would be horrified.

Click to expand...

Why do I not hear a public outcry about the rest of us having to pay for 50 year old impotent men's Viagra or Cialas pills? Why the hell should I pay when a man can't get it up? I don't hear any of you neo-con angry old white men with limp ones begging to pay for your own hard on pills.... I will NEVER need Viagra, why should I have to pay one red cent for it? Plus, I will NEVER benefit from Viagra, so again, why should I have to pay for it? And yet, Viagra is a covered drug in most insurance plans and birth control is not.

You ask people to be decent once, you get shat on. Well screw off. And don't bother banning me, Dennis. I already think you're the head idiot just trolling for more money for your iToys.

Sligo said:

Why do I not hear a public outcry about the rest of us having to pay for 50 year old impotent men's Viagra or Cialas pills? Why the hell should I pay when a man can't get it up? I don't hear any of you neo-con angry old white men with limp ones begging to pay for your own hard on pills.... I will NEVER need Viagra, why should I have to pay one red cent for it? Plus, I will NEVER benefit from Viagra, so again, why should I have to pay for it? And yet, Viagra is a covered drug in most insurance plans and birth control is not.

You ask people to be decent once, you get shat on. Well screw off. And don't bother banning me, Dennis. I already think you're the head idiot just trolling for more money for your iToys.

Click to expand...

And you said you wanted civil discourse. ROFL.

Personally I don't want to pay for anyone's viagara either. If it is covered by their insurance then that is their insurance. HOWEVER, I don't think it should be covered by medicare or medicaid. Anyone on those plans should be too ill to need viagara or deal with its potential side effects. Sure as heck prisoners shouldn't be getting it as was revealed at one time.

Being covered by an insurance plan you pay for and being given away for free like candy are two different issues here. Most health insurance plans cover birth control. And you can buy condoms over the counter. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the tab for someone else's joy rides ... male or female.

Does anyone know if Carbonite and Sleep number bed are still advertising with Glenn Beck?



Also, doesn't anyone else think it is suspicious that Rush gets a suspicious package at his house, Breitbart dies, and Glenn Beck's show can't go on last week because the power is out?

Sligo said:

One little question. There are so many "good" Christians on this board, as evidenced the above posts. What would YOU do/say/or feel if it was YOUR daughter being called a SLUT and a PROSTITUTE on a national radio station? One that is listened to by a large number of people, and is sure to cause just such a reaction? I know that, being the Mother of two male children, I imagine that I would be LIVID beyond belief.

I tried to start a sane and reasonable discussion about family planning and birth control; one with no personal attacks on anyone's faith or belief systems. One that looks at the realities of the world we live in - not the one we'd all like to live in again. Dennis moved it to TIO within 5 minutes of my posting it. We have to stop hating on each other all the time and accept that each of us has a different view on things, and that that is okay. But it is NEVER okay to publicly SLANDER a college age girl by calling her a slut and a prostitute on a national radio program, NEVER. Surely, we can all agree to that. Please, please, in these horrid social times, before we speak, why don't we always think, "what if it were me or mine"? and let the answer to that question guide our answer. Let's not just be good Christians on Sundays in Church; let's be good ones every day. And the truth is, if it were you or your daughter, you would be seeing red like never, ever before. He was so out of line, his show should have been cancelled.

Click to expand...

Sligo, the problem that you've encountered is at the confluence of the various sides in the war over what will America's culture become. The focus of the current conflict is an unmarried 30 year old female law school student who admits that she is promiscuous, and wants someone else - you and me, to pay for her promiscuity, and that of her like minded friends. I know that it's a quaint idea that sex should be confined to married couples, but it is none-the-less a continuing cornerstone idea of our culture.

Ms Fluke got into everyone's face with her expressed desire to continue her misbehavior (cultural idea), but at the expense of others. Further, she insisted that a Catholic University be the mechanism to further enable her misbehavior, notwithstanding the clearly known institutional prohibition against the use of birth control chemicals.

Now, suppose, because she wants someone else to pay for her promiscuity that she asked the boys that she's sleeping with to pick up the tab. (Birth control pills can be obtained from Target, we are told, for $9.00 for a months supply, rather than the $80 to $90 dollars a month that she claimed in her testimony.) So, suppose she says to her playmate, "It's $9.00 on the barrel head if you want a piece of me, because I ain't paying for the birth control pills myself". Now some would view that transaction as only fair. On the other hand, others would view such a transaction/"price to play" as, well, something else.

Now, Mr. Limbaugh's language may have been a bit too strong for what the girl was desiring to get. However seen from a certain perspective it was quite accurate to describe her as a "slut", i.e., She's an unmarried woman, sleeping around, and asking someone else to pick up the expenses associated with her "fun".

The tragedy is that she raised all of these issues in a public forum, and thus heaped gasoline on an already raging cultural fire that is consuming the nation.

Frankly, she was untruthful in making her point, and she has further revealed herself to be a careless, unthoughtful person, in her personal life. The stigma of those revelations of her character, or lack thereof, will burden her long after the precise words of Mr. Limbaugh have been forgotten. In fact, it is unlikely that she will ever live the revelations down.

Perhaps that is enough.

Woolly

Woolly said:

Sligo, the problem that you've encountered is at the confluence of the various sides in the war over what will America's culture become. The focus of the current conflict is an unmarried 30 year old female law school student who admits that she is promiscuous, and wants someone else - you and me, to pay for her promiscuity, and that of her like minded friends. I know that it's a quaint idea that sex should be confined to married couples, but it is none-the-less a continuing cornerstone idea of our culture.

Ms Fluke got into everyone's face with her expressed desire to continue her misbehavior (cultural idea), but at the expense of others. Further, she insisted that a Catholic University be the mechanism to further enable her misbehavior, notwithstanding the clearly known institutional prohibition against the use of birth control chemicals.

Now, suppose, because she wants someone else to pay for her promiscuity that she asked the boys that she's sleeping with to pick up the tab. (Birth control pills can be obtained from Target, we are told, for $9.00 for a months supply, rather than the $80 to $90 dollars a month that she claimed in her testimony.) So, suppose she says to her playmate, "It's $9.00 on the barrel head if you want a piece of me, because I ain't paying for the birth control pills myself". Now some would view that transaction as only fair. On the other hand, others would view such a transaction/"price to play" as, well, something else.

Now, Mr. Limbaugh's language may have been a bit too strong for what the girl was desiring to get. However seen from a certain perspective it was quite accurate to describe her as a "slut", i.e., She's an unmarried woman, sleeping around, and asking someone else to pick up the expenses associated with her "fun".

The tragedy is that she raised all of these issues in a public forum, and thus heaped gasoline on an already raging cultural fire that is consuming the nation.

Frankly, she was untruthful in making her point, and she has further revealed herself to be a careless, unthoughtful person, in her personal life. The stigma of those revelations of her character, or lack thereof, will burden her long after the precise words of Mr. Limbaugh have been forgotten. In fact, it is unlikely that she will ever live the revelations down.

Perhaps that is enough.

Woolly

Click to expand...

Nicely stated!

Jeff

Kathy in FL said:

... Being covered by an insurance plan you pay for and being given away for free like candy are two different issues here.

Click to expand...

OK, let me try to use your terminology. She is not arguing for free. Rather, she is arguing that it be covered by insurance. They are indeed two different issues, and you seem to miss her objective. You are both on the same side.

Most health insurance plans cover birth control...

Click to expand...

Some do, and some do not. She simply argues that all should.

BTW, contrary to many erroneous statements, this would not increase the costs of the insurance to either you, me, the employer, or the enrolled member. By covering such expenses, insurance companies avert much higher costs for other health-related issues.

On another issue, I must point out that access to the most effective birth control technology today, the Pill, does not imply that one is engaged in wild or frequent intercourse. Rather, the Pill must be taken over the course of time in order to be effective. One need only posit the eventual likelihood of such an occasion to be greater than nil over the course of the next quarter to require the investment in such technology.

I must also note that many women use the technology not for birth control at all, but rather to regulate some unpleasant side-effect of the usual feminine condition. Viagra, on the other hand, has only one real purpose and is covered by many, many insurance companies.

This issue does not seem to me to be about who will pay, but rather should an organization tangentially associated with a faith-based institution be required to provide by proxy some service for which it is opposed? My personal belief is that pretty much all private organizations operating in the U.S. today must perform some activity which is counter to the personal belief system of the owner. Whether it be the adherence to the minimum wage, overtime compensation, training requirements, licensing requirements, land-use requirements, or any of dozens of other requirements - all organizations are required to abide by the law of the land.

The test for each such law should be the law's constitutionality and the law's otherwise benefit to society versus the laws cost to the company. I believe it has been shown that access to inexpensive and effective birth control results in fewer unplanned pregnancies at an overall cost saving to employers, insurance companies, and society. Fewer unplanned pregnancies result in fewer abortions, and I can see no reason for opposing such a requirement that insurance companies grant such access.

.

I can't wait for all you liberals who think the constitution is useless to tell Muslims they have to provide abortions and food cards to buy pork to ANYONE.

Then we'll see which side of this issue we are really talking about here.

The war on Christians and Women in this country is out of control.
The left can demand anything or disparage anyone as long as they are in a group of people who are typically going to sit back and take it and not cause too much of a fuss.

But let's see this same game played on Muslims or some left wing org and then we will find out what this is really all about.

Smokesignals said:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/investors-flee-carbonite-after-limbaugh-announcement/

Click to expand...

Awesome!

I'm all for these liberals not reproducing!

Giskard said:

I'm all for these liberals not reproducing!

Click to expand...

On this we both agree. I would broaden my hopes to also include conservatives, but would soften the implied total injunction against pregnancy to make at least some reproduction possible. In any case, I would oppose any law requiring such adherence to my hopes and beliefs.

Constitutionally speaking Ms. Fluke is full of crap and so are her demands. The federal government has no business being in the sex trade. It is an individual's responsibility when it comes to their sexual/behavioral choices. The so-called "social benefit" is just the lastest twisting strategy used for the reinterpretation of the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees that a citizen has the right to purse happiness, it does not say that the rest of society has to pay for the pursuit.

Kathy in FL said:

... The so-called "social benefit" is just the latest twisting strategy used for the reinterpretation of the Constitution... The Constitution... does not say that the rest of society has to pay for the pursuit.

Click to expand...

This is true but meaningless in this instance. Please note that the dollar cost to employers, employees, and certainly to tax payers of requiring insurance companies to cover birth control technology would be nil. The benefit to society is manifest - it would lower the abortion rate and the incidence of unwed mothers.

.

Kathy in FL said:

. . . The Constitution guarantees that a citizen has the right to purse happiness, it does not say that the rest of society has to pay for the pursuit.

Click to expand...

Nor does the Constitution, as written, DEFINE "happiness" . . . nor does it GUARANTY that it shall/will be captured/given/awarded to all those in pursuit of it.

Uhhmmm... said:

This is true but meaningless in this instance. Please note that the dollar cost to employers, employees, and certainly to tax payers of requiring insurance companies to cover birth control technology would be nil. The benefit to society is manifest - it would lower the abortion rate and the incidence of unwed mothers.

.

Click to expand...

Glenn Beck wrote a book called The Overton Window.

It is about the nudge technique that you are displaying in your logic here.

Simply put, it means that if you can make a case to nudge away from the true meaning of the constitution over just a tad, not so much as people will really notice and "makes sense" on the surface it is okay. But the reality is that it is not really sticking to the true meaning, and you eventually negate the constitution and it can be interpreted in the future by any logical argument nudging it further and further away from the intent which is a republic (all citizens sovereign and have guaranteed individual rights)

Uhhmmm... said:

This is true but meaningless in this instance. Please note that the dollar cost to employers, employees, and certainly to tax payers of requiring insurance companies to cover birth control technology would be nil. The benefit to society is manifest - it would lower the abortion rate and the incidence of unwed mothers. .

Click to expand...

Any statistics to support this premise? Any links to cite the stats?

Seeker said:

Any statistics to support this premise? Any links to cite the stats?

Click to expand...

Thanks for asking Seeker.

The internet is your friend. For a definitive study on costs, please try this link:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml#_ftn12

For a study regarding the coincidence of birth control and abortions, please try this link:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2900603.html

Seeker said:

Nor does the Constitution, as written, DEFINE "happiness" . . . nor does it GUARANTY that it shall/will be captured/given/awarded to all those in pursuit of it.

Click to expand...

True, very true ... vicodin is NOT your friend. As a right you can pursue it, whether you catch it or not is not part of that right.

Nor does the document say that anyone is required to financially support that pursuit by any citizen.

Uhhmmm... said:

This is true but meaningless in this instance. Please note that the dollar cost to employers, employees, and certainly to tax payers of requiring insurance companies to cover birth control technology would be nil. The benefit to society is manifest - it would lower the abortion rate and the incidence of unwed mothers.

.

Click to expand...

Hardly meaningless regardless of how you try and paint it. The federal government's powers are limited and do not include the forced purchase of health care nor any type of health care. That is the part of Obamacare that is unconstitutional and is being challenged by several states. Or are you for that abomination as well?

Kathy in FL said:

Hardly meaningless... That is the part of Obamacare that is unconstitutional and is being challenged by several states. Or are you for that abomination as well?

Click to expand...

Kathy, not every thread is about the Affordable Health Care Act. Perhaps you could start yet another thread on that topic if it is what you wish to discuss.

.

Uhhmmm... said:

Kathy, not every thread is about the Affordable Health Care Act. Perhaps you could start yet another thread on that topic if it is what you wish to discuss.

.

Click to expand...

And I rarely bring it up; however, the same principles apply here that apply to that particular issue. The federal government was never granted that kind of authority in our Constitution.

Now if a state level government wants to do that it may be a different issue unless the state level Constitution forbids it as Florida's state constitution does.

It is an issue of authority, not social engineering as too many are trying to turn it into. The feds just don't have the authority and trying to dress that pig up with lipstick doesn't change the fact that it is still a pig.

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/6646?type=bloomberg



Viagra Would Need Therapist OK in Ohio Bill
By Mark Niquette on March 07, 2012 Tweet Facebook LinkedIn Google Plus 11 Comments
If women considering abortions must face government-mandated examinations, it’s only fair that men who want drugs such as Viagra to treat impotence get the same treatment, an Ohio (STOOH1) lawmaker says.

State Senator Nina Turner, a Cleveland Democrat, has introduced a bill to require that physicians take specific actions before prescribing such drugs, including giving a cardiac stress test and making a referral to a sex therapist for confirmation that “the patient’s symptoms are not solely attributable to one or more psychological conditions.”

“We want to make sure that men, vulnerable, fragile men, who are not capable of making decisions for themselves, understand all of the side effects and the implications of these types of drugs,” Turner said in a telephone interview.

Her bill takes its place alongside similar efforts by Democratic lawmakers in states including Virginia (STOVA1), Georgia (STOGA1) and Missouri (STOMO1) in response to moves by Republican-controlled legislatures to limit abortions or oppose a federal requirement to include contraceptives in health-care plans.

A bill in Missouri would allow vasectomies only to protect a man from serious injury or death, according to the Associated Press, and in Virginia, which passed a bill requiring women to get an ultrasound before an abortion, state Senator Janet Howell sought an amendment requiring doctors to perform a rectal exam and stress test before prescribing erectile-dysfunction drugs.

For the Gander
“I think we should just have a little gender equity here,” Howell testified in January, according to a video posted on her YouTube channel.

Medications such as Viagra, manufactured by Pfizer Inc. (PFE), the world’s largest drugmaker, increase blood flow to the penis. Side effects can include headaches, blue-tinted vision and long- lasting and painful erections, according to the Viagra website.

Turner, 44, said she modeled her Ohio bill in response to a measure in the Republican-dominated Legislature that would prohibit doctors from performing an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The legislation passed the Ohio House last year, and Republican Senate President Tom Niehaus has said he will resume hearings on it after yesterday’s primary.

‘Equal Opportunity’
The Turner bill mimics provisions of the so-called heartbeat bill, including requiring a doctor to place medical records about prescriptions for erectile dysfunction in a patient’s file and keep them for at least seven years.

“If we are going to be in the business as policy makers of regulating sexual health or medical health, then we should do it across the board,” Turner said. “We should be equal opportunity in that.”

The legislation will be assigned to a committee, and it will be up to the chairman to decide when it is considered, said Angela Meleca, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans. Senate leaders have not yet reviewed the measure can’t comment on its status, Meleca said.

Peter O’Toole, a Pfizer spokesman, said by phone that the company doesn’t comment on specific legislation.

Turner said she is serious about passing her bill, pointing to the drugs’ potential side effects. It’s also telling that legislation about women’s reproductive health is common and measures about men’s health aren’t, Turner said.

“Instead of focusing in on the crisis that we’re still trying to dig ourselves out of as a country related to the fiscal crisis of 2008, some of us have found leisure time to deal with reproductive health -- and not deal with it in a very productive manner,” she said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Niquette in Columbus, Ohio, at mniquette@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Tannenbaum at mtannen@bloomberg.net

http://www.alternet.org/health/61605

Here's a link that shows some of the other uses for viagra. It turns out that it helps people with hypertension, premature babies, diabeties, MS, and even keeps flowers fresh longer.

Still, why does any of this even matter? Some 30 year old lies on the stand and all the birth control fanatics seem to believe that those evil republicans are going to take your precious pills away. Your being played.

Such useful idiots.

(CNN) - Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday he would like the Armed Forces Network to drop the controversial Rush Limbaugh program from its service that provides radio and television shows to U.S. service members around the world.

"I would hope the people that run it see just how offensive this is and drop it on their own volition," Levin told CNN in an exclusive interview in the Capitol.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

Levin's comments come in the wake of a widening uproar over Limbaugh's characterization of a young female law student as a "slut" and a "prostitute" for advocating insurance coverage of contraceptives.

The Pentagon said Monday the Defense Department currently has no plans to stop broadcasting the show. DOD's policy is to broadcast shows that "reflect a wide range" of opinion, said Pentagon press secretary George Little.

Levin, a generally liberal Democrat from Michigan whose top spot on Armed Services makes him very influential inside the Pentagon, said he would "love" to see the program dropped, but he doesn't think it should be up to Congress to pass a law to make it happen.

"I think that is probably an issue that should be left to the folks that run that network," he said. "In other words, I'd love to see them drop it but I don't think I'd legislate it."

The liberal leaning advocacy group Vote Vets and other progressive voices in the blogosphere have called for the AFN to drop Limbaugh's program.

Levin said he was "delighted" so many advertisers had pulled their commercials from the program.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-should-be-dropped-from-armed-forces-network/

LoomisLady said:

(CNN) - Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday he would like the Armed Forces Network to drop the controversial Rush Limbaugh program from its service that provides radio and television shows to U.S. service members around the world.

"I would hope the people that run it see just how offensive this is and drop it on their own volition," Levin told CNN in an exclusive interview in the Capitol.

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

Levin's comments come in the wake of a widening uproar over Limbaugh's characterization of a young female law student as a "slut" and a "prostitute" for advocating insurance coverage of contraceptives.

The Pentagon said Monday the Defense Department currently has no plans to stop broadcasting the show. DOD's policy is to broadcast shows that "reflect a wide range" of opinion, said Pentagon press secretary George Little.

Levin, a generally liberal Democrat from Michigan whose top spot on Armed Services makes him very influential inside the Pentagon, said he would "love" to see the program dropped, but he doesn't think it should be up to Congress to pass a law to make it happen.

"I think that is probably an issue that should be left to the folks that run that network," he said. "In other words, I'd love to see them drop it but I don't think I'd legislate it."

The liberal leaning advocacy group Vote Vets and other progressive voices in the blogosphere have called for the AFN to drop Limbaugh's program.

Levin said he was "delighted" so many advertisers had pulled their commercials from the program.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-should-be-dropped-from-armed-forces-network/

Click to expand...

Guess you missed the explanation of how this sponsor stuff really works and Levin hasn't got a clue ... and given that he is admittedly "a generally liberal Democrat from Michigan" why should his stance surprise anyone? LOL!

Kathy in FL said:

Guess you missed the explanation of how this sponsor stuff really works and Levin hasn't got a clue ... and given that he is admittedly "a generally liberal Democrat from Michigan" why should his stance surprise anyone? LOL!

Click to expand...

Thousands Sign Petition to Get Rush Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio
FILED UNDER: Life in the Military, Women in the military, Armed Forces Radio Network, birth control, contraception, Georgetown Law School, insurance coverage, Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke
42 Comments
Email PostPermalink
Jeff Berman / Flickr
Rush Limbaugh
There are no plans to remove Rush Limbaugh‘s radio program from Armed Forces Radio Network, according to Pentagon spokesman George Little. But that hasn’t stopped more than 9,000 (at this writing) people from signing an online petition to remove Limbaugh’s program from taxpayer-funded airwaves, according to the Marine Corps Times.

The petition, aimed at Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Obama administration, reads in part:

[Limbaugh's] remarks this week were well beyond the pale of what should be broadcast to our military and their families, supported with our tax dollars.

We have a moral objection to our tax dollars being used for such a purpose.

Last week, Limbaugh called Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke a slut and prostitute for testifying before a Congressional panel on contraception. At issue was whether religious institutions should be allowed to change the kind of insurance coverage employees get based on those institutions’ own moral beliefs.

In addition, a group of female Iraq War veterans have issued their own call to Armed Forces Radio Network to remove Limbaugh from its airwaves. Their statement reads in part:

Rush Limbaugh has a freedom of speech and can say what he wants, but in light of his horribly misogynistic comments, American Forces Radio should no longer give him a platform. Our entire military depends on troops respecting each other – women and men.* There simply can be no place on military airwaves for sentiments that would undermine that respect.

http://homepost.kpbs.org/2012/03/th...-to-get-rush-limbaugh-off-armed-forces-radio/

Rush Limbaugh: Over 40 Advertisers Flee, Host Says ‘Everything’s Cool’
* Email261Smaller FontTextLarger Text|Print
Talk show host*Rush Limbaugh sought to reassure listeners Wednesday after the tally of*local and national companies that have*pulled their advertisements*from his time slot topped 40,*insisting*that the show will go on and that the program is not losing revenue from the exodus.
At last count, 42 advertisers, two radio stations and two musicians have closed the door on Limbaugh following incendiary comments he made last week about a Georgetown law student who testified before Congress in favor of having birth control covered under insurance plans.
Limbaugh called the student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” and a “prostitute.” *The conservative commentator apologized for his “insulting” comments in a statement posted to his website on Saturday and again on his radio show Monday.
Despite the apology, which Fluke said she did not think “changes anything,” customers and listeners have taken to social media to inundate advertisers, stations and sponsors of Limbaugh’s show with calls to boycott Limbaugh.
Limbaugh told his listeners today that “everything’s cool,” noting that many of the advertisers that have yanked their support are local and thus have little if any impact on the show’s revenues.
“Nobody is losing money here, including us, in all this,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday. “[The advertisers] are not canceling the business on our stations. They’re just saying they don’t want their spots to appear in my show.*We don’t get any revenue from ‘em anyway. The whole effort is to dispirit you.”
The conservative commentator estimated that as many as 18,000 companies could be advertising on any one of the 600 or so stations that broadcast his three-hour radio program.
“ABC News, who understands how this works and are purposely misrepresenting it, is out there ballyhooing that we have lost 28 sponsors,” Limbaugh said. “Twenty-eight sponsors out of 18,000! That’s like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it’s delivered to you at the drive-thru. You don’t even notice it.”
While he would not name companies, Limbaugh said three new sponsors have signed onto his show in the past two weeks.
“None of what’s happening is out of the ordinary,” Limbaugh said. “It’s just part of an onslaught to try to convince you that this show’s history and our days are numbered. And I’m happy to tell you nothing could be further from the truth.”
Here is the list of confirmed companies who have officially pulled their advertisements from the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
Service Magic home contractor
Hadeed Carpets
Accuquote Life Insurance
Vitacost vitamin supplier
Bonobos clothing company
Sensa weight- loss program
Thompson Creek Windows
AOL
Tax Resolution Services
ProFlowers
Legal Zoom online document creator
Carbonite web security firm
Citrix software maker
Sleep Train Mattresses
Sleep Number mattresses
Quicken Loans
Girl Scouts of Oregon and Southwest Washington
Cascades Dental
Consolidated Credit Counseling Services
Constant Contact email marketing firm
Philadelphia Orchestra
Reputation Rhino online reputation consulting firm
St. Vincent’s Medical Center
Cunningham Security
Regal Assets precious medal*investment*group
Freedom Debt Relief
Norway Savings Bank
Portland Ovations performing arts center
Stamps.com
These companies say their ads were mistakenly run during Limbaugh’s program and have contacted radio stations and media buyers to ensure their ads do not run during his program again.
JCPenney
Capital One
Goodwill
Geico
Sears
PolyCom web conferencing
Matrix Direct
Netflix
The following companies said they did not intentionally have their ads run during Limbaugh’s show, but are also not specifically taking steps to remove the ads from his time slot.
John Deere
Bethesda Sedation Dentistry
Amberen menopause medication
Other news outlets have reported that the following companies have pulled their advertisements. ABC News is working to confirm.
Downeast Energy in Maine
RSVP Discount Beverage *of *Portland, Maine (declined to comment to ABC whether they had pulled their ads)
SHOWS: World News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...advertisers-flee-host-says-everythings-cool/#

And what of the thousands more who want to listen to Limbaugh on Armed Forces Radio? Hmmm? Guess a few people that got their widgets in a knot because someone actually utilized their freedom of speech should be able to out shout everyone else right?

Puh-leeze. I can see it now ... they'll replace Limbaugh's show with something nauseating from CurrentTV and everyone will just get thrills up their legs from ol' Keith O's show.

RushLimbaugh.com Removes Offensive Attacks On Sandra Fluke From Transcript Archives
By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Mar 8, 2012 at 11:33 am
For days, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh personally attacked Georgetown Law student and women’s health advocate Sandra Fluke, smearing her at least 70 times. Now, he’d like to pretend that some of the things he said never actually happened.
The Atlantic Wire points out that his website has scrubbed a few offensive comments. While the “slut” comments still show up in other rants by Limbaugh, his site has removed his sex tapes comment from March 1. “The pages were clearly working a few days ago — several sites linked to them,” Elspeth Reeve reports. “The pages don’t show up on the February 29 and March 1 archives, either, though links to them still exist on other transcripts related to the controversy.” Here’s the blank archives page for February 29:

Limbaugh may want to scrub some of his insulting remarks from the historical record, but they will not be forgotten. ThinkProgress has preserved Limbaugh’s sex tape comments on video here.
Limbaugh issued an apology to Fluke on March 3, and apologized on air on March 5. But in between, he has continued to attack Fluke and even turned his wrath on female journalist Tracie McMillan as well. Meanwhile, advertisers continue to abandon Rush Limbaugh’s show, with more than 40 dropping their ads since his attacks against women began.



http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/08/440622/limbaugh-scrubs-fluke-attack/

LoomisLady you really need to read how radio advertising works. And you're seriously telling us with your face all hanging out that you'll take the MSM's word for what is going on?

Here's some alternative views:

Advertisers will be back: Here's a prediction that "does not really require psychic powers," says Brian Dunning at Skeptoid: Within a month or two, Limbaugh's advertisers will return. They only yanked their ads so they'd be "seen in a positive light" during the scandal, but once the commotion dies down, they'll come crawling back. "The Rush Limbaugh Show is, by a strong margin, the #1 radio show in the country. Advertisers do not let a property like that go to waste. They'll be back after everyone's forgotten this week's offense."

Click to expand...

The old maxim "principle above profit" is nice in theory, says John S. Wilson at Mediaite. But the companies abandoning Limbaugh's show are losing a platform that connects them to 15 million to 20 million listeners each day. These companies didn't do anything wrong — instead, they're losing out because of something Limbaugh stupidly said. Research shows that consumers eventually abandon their boycotts, while a company's decision to yank ads does little to impress actual customers. Once the dust settles, companies may realize that pulling ads was a mistake.

Click to expand...

One company that pulled ads from Limbaugh's show, Tax Resolution Services, said it encountered a similar backlash 14 years ago when it advertised on The Howard Stern Show, but that the backlash wasn't nearly as bad because "social media was nowhere near where it is today," says Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast. The "speed and immediacy" with which Americans have turned on Limbaugh is alarming, and takes us to dangerous, uncharted territory. "It's a free country, but I get queasy with boycotts" that target free speech. Remember: Revolting speech is still free speech.

Click to expand...

No. This won't bring Rush down: Limbaugh "makes his living saying outrageous things," says Peter Grier at The Christian Science Monitor. That's what his 20 million listeners like most about him. Even an advertiser boycott "probably won't faze him."

Click to expand...

Liberals say worse things than Rush: The Left is using one radio outburst to "demonize the entire Right," says syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin, but "it's the progressive Left... that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs." Where were the leftist feminists when liberals were calling me a "Manila whore" for expressing conservative opinions, or when "MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz" called "talk show host Laura Ingraham a 'talk slut' for criticizing Obama's petty beer summit"?

Click to expand...

Free speech, including speech which is really stupid, is and should be legally protected under the First Amendment (which should also be extended to broadcast media such as radio and television). Audiences and sponsors are free to walk whenever they want to. Almost 30 advertisers have fled Rush's show and one of them, Carbonite, has been further punished in the stock market, supposedly by conservatives who are in fact fed up with politically correct corporations. Or something. And some conservatives and liberals (think Bill Bennett and Donna Brazille) have even found common ground around the idea that calling women twats, ****s, and sluts is no way to conduct a conversation about politics.

The important thing being: This whole brouhaha shows that what Albert Hirschmann called the strategies of "exit, voice, and loyalty" are still fully in play, even in Janet Reno's/John Ashcroft's/Eric Holder's Amerika. Some people have bailed from what offends them, others have screamed bloody murder from every possible position on the political spectrum, and others are doubling down with the odious creature of their choosing (there are more characters to choose from in terms of misogyny than there were members of the Village People).

Click to expand...

From Rush Limbaugh transcript:

“We have three brand new sponsors that will be starting in the next two weeks. Obviously I’m not going to tell you who they are today, but we’ve got three brand new full-fledged sponsors that will be starting in the next two weeks,” Limbaugh said. “Two of the sponsors who left have asked to return.”

He added, “Whatever you are seeing on television about this program and sponsors and advertisers is just incorrect."

Click to expand...

"There are no plans to remove Rush Limbaugh‘s radio program from Armed Forces Radio Network, according to Pentagon spokesman George Little. But that hasn’t stopped more than 9,000 (at this writing) people from signing an online petition to remove Limbaugh’s program from taxpayer-funded airwaves, according to the Marine Corps Times."


And how many of these 9000 people were actual serving members of the Armed Forces? My guess is not too many cause they're busy working and probably don't have the time.

I personally find a lot of the cr@p on PBS offensive and my tax dollars are used to support that propaganda.

Loomis, you need to learn how advertising works on radio. There are sponsers that advertise on the national show (national market) Then there are sponsers that advertise on the nationally sydicated show in the local market. Over half of your list, I would guess are of the local variety. I worked with the Girl Scouts for a number of years. I know that there used to be very little if any funding for advertising at the national level. The only advertising done at the local level was usually donated by the local radio station or newspaper and used during the cookie drive. Your listing of "Girl Scouts of Oregon and Southwest Washington" is exactly that local and most likely donated.

Well, I really don't care how advertising works on radio. What I care about is that Rush Limbaugh is going to be the poster child for the right wing's War on Women's Heath Care.

Everyday he opens his mouth and abusive, derogatory words against women come pouring out like diarreha. He will do more to get Obama re-elected than any Super PAC can do. Women make up the largest component of the consumers. And they also vote. People are taking a stand against the incivilty taking place in this country, and again, Limbaugh will stand out as he really is out of control and no Rpublican leader has the balls to take him to task.

companies added to the boycott, (regardless if they actually sponsor him or place ads on local affiliate stations that carry his show), don't want to preceived as having the same view as Limbaugh when it comes to degrading women since women make up the majority of consumers.

Really? And they are more likely to vote Democrat because of Rush. Laughable. Were that the case, Bill Mahr and Howard Stern should send the screaming to the Republican candidates.

LoomisLady said:

Well, I really don't care how advertising works on radio. What I care about is that Rush Limbaugh is going to be the poster child for the right wing's War on Women's Heath Care.

Everyday he opens his mouth and abusive, derogatory words against women come pouring out like diarreha. He will do more to get Obama re-elected than any Super PAC can do. Women make up the largest component of the consumers. And they also vote. People are taking a stand against the incivilty taking place in this country, and again, Limbaugh will stand out as he really is out of control and no Rpublican leader has the balls to take him to task.

companies added to the boycott, (regardless if they actually sponsor him or place ads on local affiliate stations that carry his show), don't want to preceived as having the same view as Limbaugh when it comes to degrading women since women make up the majority of consumers.

Click to expand...

Loomis, you'll find that a few minutes of oxygen will help clear your head. You clearly have a need.

Woolly

Giskard said:

Really? And they are more likely to vote Democrat because of Rush. Laughable. Were that the case, Bill Mahr and Howard Stern should send the screaming to the Republican candidates.

Click to expand...

The war on women's health is a wedge issue. There will be women who normally vote Republican who do not want to go back to the 1950's where women's reproductive rights were non existent. You only have Romney who might not put women back in time but since he is a " flip-flopper " on any issue presented to him no one can trust his stand on any issue. And he's your leading candidate.

LoomisLady said:

The war on women's health is a wedge issue. There will be women who normally vote Republican who do not want to go back to the 1950's where women's reproductive rights were non existent. You only have Romney who might not put women back in time but since he is a " flip-flopper " on any issue presented to him no one can trust his stand on any issue. And he's your leading candidate.

Click to expand...

uh huh


yep, the morons who were ignorant enough to go for this pile of TURD the first time are just pathetic enough to get their votes bought off another time

LoomisLady said:

The war on women's health is a wedge issue. There will be women who normally vote Republican who do not want to go back to the 1950's where women's reproductive rights were non existent. You only have Romney who might not put women back in time but since he is a " flip-flopper " on any issue presented to him no one can trust his stand on any issue. And he's your leading candidate.

Click to expand...

There is no "war on women's health." It is a fabricated issue to delude the gullible and apparently more than a few are drinking the koolaid over it.

This is an issue of freedom of speech plain and simple. Trying to obscure that is how women who fall for that garbage are going to really lose their rights ... as will the men around them and the children now and of the future.

Uhhmmm... said:

This is true but meaningless in this instance. Please note that the dollar cost to employers, employees, and certainly to tax payers of requiring insurance companies to cover birth control technology would be nil. The benefit to society is manifest - it would lower the abortion rate and the incidence of unwed mothers.

.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing the obvious here. The reason the dollar cost of covering birth control would be nil is because the per dose cost is in fact so low that there is absolutely no reason for it to be an expense covered by insurance. It's about the same as expecting retail purchases of Advil to be covered by health insurance, which is an utterly ludicrous proposition, at least in most cases.

That's what makes this argument by Sandra Fluke and her handlers so laughable. Fluke decried the tragedy that befell her friends when they found out that their birth control prescription was not covered by health insurance. It apparently never occurred to either Sandra or her friends that they could obtain their goods at the Wal-Mart or Target pharmacy, where a 30-day supply of birth control pills can be had for $9.00. Not $9,000.00, not $900.00, not $90.00. $9.00 for a 30-day supply.

You don't purchase car insurance in order to file claims for oil changes. You don't maintain homeowner's insurance to cover the cost of mowing the lawn. Insurance is a means by which an insured can avoid financial catastrophe because of illness or casualty loss. It's not for the purpose of paying people to pick up the beer bottles the neighborhood teenagers chucked into your yard.

Oil changes and lawn maintenance are routine everyday, out-of-pocket expenses. Birth control technology, in this day and age, is no different.

Except it's a whole lot cheaper than oil changes.

Kathy in FL said:

There is no "war on women's health." It is a fabricated issue to delude the gullible and apparently more than a few are drinking the koolaid over it.

This is an issue of freedom of speech plain and simple. Trying to obscure that is how women who fall for that garbage are going to really lose their rights ... as will the men around them and the children now and of the future.

Click to expand...

You must be spending all your time responding to posts on this board and not watching tv.

Kathy in FL said:

There is no "war on women's health." It is a fabricated issue to delude the gullible and apparently more than a few are drinking the koolaid over it.

This is an issue of freedom of speech plain and simple. Trying to obscure that is how women who fall for that garbage are going to really lose their rights ... as will the men around them and the children now and of the future.

Click to expand...

I've Googled lots of current news on the war on women as I know you're preoccupied creating comments to post.

Happy International Women's Day!


http://news.google.com/news/story?q...sult&ct=more-results&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQqgIwAQ

naturallysweet said:

http://www.alternet.org/health/61605

Here's a link that shows some of the other uses for viagra. It turns out that it helps people with hypertension, premature babies, diabeties, MS, and even keeps flowers fresh longer.

Still, why does any of this even matter? Some 30 year old lies on the stand and all the birth control fanatics seem to believe that those evil republicans are going to take your precious pills away. Your being played.

Such useful idiots.

Click to expand...

SUN FEB 26, 2012 AT 03:15 PM PST
P.O.V. – the Price Of Viagra – and its Real Social Costs?
byMikeMcSheaFollow


I kept waiting for the theologians over at God Central, that somehow are unquestionable experts on natural law, to tell us how good and or bad Viagra is in the Big Guy’s POV on sex (general) or sex (specific).

Of course all sex is good, must be unprotected and only for procreation?

Somehow with all the begats it takes to begat some of the biggest murderers (strike that last word) and best and noblest of the God anointed kings in the Old Testament, one forgets about all the social costs of men begetting in their old age.

What are the real social costs of supporting a child in foster care, social security, Medicaid and food stamps once ancient Pop goes to his eternal reward and leaves young children behind for the system to take care of.

What are the real social costs of Viagra, the P.O.V., the Price Of Viagra on the other side of the abortion/procreation debate?

I was taken aback with an independent thought on today’s article about Virginia State Senator Janet Howell’s attempt to balance the insane abortion debate with the other side of the equation and a mere whisper about male impotency.

Anti-choice forces are relentless. Like it or not, so must their foes be.

Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell wanted to amend a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound bill by requiring rectal exams and cardiac stress tests before allowing prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication. The amendment failed but brought national media attention to the law. Six of the seven women in the 40-member senate voted for her amendment. All of them Democrats.
And over and above that, what are the social costs of a seventy year old geezer begetting a brat or two, dropping dead at seventy five and the cost of social security, Medicaid, food stamps etc. supporting Old Geezer’s progeny for fifteen to twenty years on the system’s not dime but trillion?
That this invasive ultrasound rape thing to prevent abortion is like really trying in many cases to bring a fetus into the world that might have multiple birth defects and or likely kill the mother to bring it to term. *Like that worst case scenario from incubator to long term multiple decades care is in the tens of millions of expense. *But all life is sacred, including Old Geezers’ brats. Right?

That the Pharmas are selling this Mad(ison) Avenue propaganda that Viagra or its other brand names is to enhance sexual pleasure once the male equipment wears out is a crock of bogus horse manure. Pleasure sex is one and the same procreative sex or at least that force in nature if you have a new younger spouse and or girlfriend.

How many real men who go to the trouble of getting a Viagra prescription totally share its effects solely with the old model wife as the commercials make in their visual storyboard presentation? How much social disorder and or divorce can be directly attributable to this one "miracle drug"? *Any Pharma funded studies available on that? To start with.

If all religious definitions of sex is procreative sex, perhaps many elderly and evisioned Pat Buchanan type white Christian armies of the future are already in the making right below our very noses and at our future tax payer’s expense.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...he-Price-Of-Viagra-and-its-Real-Social-Costs-