List of limbaugh sponsors

[panader0]

Life Lock
Lumber Liquidaators
Laser Sheild
Cartridge World
Quicken Loans
Barnes & Noble
Gold Central
Dollar Imprint
Big Baby
Big Red Consulting
PCFaster
Constant Contact
Premier Radio Network
I have been told that GM and Snapple are also sponsors. This list was provided bt fellow DUer Fridays Child.

[Raven]

1. Thanks! It's a beautiful day here...

perfect weather to nail that bastard. I'm on it!

[YOY]

2. Barnes & Noble?

Oh that makes me sad. I would never have thought they would sponsor him.

Guess I'm shopping for books elsewhere.

[Supersedeas]

61. Support of Big Box Books is support for Shock Jock Crooks

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Not Barnes & Noble??! Oh, no...

Borders is clear on the other side of town. :cry:

[DemGa]

4. Barnes & Noble just heard from me n/t

[madinmaryland]

5. "Big Baby" Isn't that the definition of Rushbo??

:rofl:

[bullwinkle428]

And this is how the big baby gets to the studio every day!

[shenmue]

6. Dang, I like Snapple

And I thought B&N was mostly Dem.

:dunce:

Guess it's time to change, until they jump ship.

[bryant69]

7. Nothing more American than a boycott to silence someone saying

something you don't agree with. Hooray for America!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[buff2]

8. Are you telling us you approve of the poison

spewing,racial bigotry and the hate filled lies Lush spews out? There ARE limits to what you can say on the air. Just ask Imus.

[bryant69]

9. Yes of course because if I don't want to silence someone

I must approve of what they are saying.

And I'm well aware that many DUers believe there should be limits to free speech and are keen on silencing voices they don't agree with. I don't happen to be one of them.

Bryant

[maxrandb]

10. We're not trying to silence Rush

We're just letting the "market forces" dictate whether or not GM should be subsidizing a Minstrel Show in the year 2007.

Those "market forces" are a curious thing. Look at the Dixie Chicks. We were told that no one was trying to silence them, it's just capitalism at it's best, or worst, depending on which side of the fence you sit.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks weren't flaming bigots.

"Jesus Christ how stupid are people around here?"

Quite. Apparently.

[bryant69]

16. I guess you are following me around?

Nice to have a following.

So you are dedicated to protecting speech you agree with? How noble of you.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Actually no.

I saw one silly argument in one thread. I saw another silly argument in another thread. The fact that both silly arguments were posited by the same person is of no consequence to me.

"So you are dedicated to protecting speech you agree with? How noble of you."

I'm dedicated to protecting all speech. That said, Limbaugh can go take a long walk off a short pier.

[bryant69]

18. So you are not in favor of a boycott to drive Limbaugh off the air?

Or are you?

It's a simple equation, if you want to silence Rush Limbaugh you aren't really that keen on free speech.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Absolutely.

"It's a simple equation, if you want to silence Rush Limbaugh you aren't really that keen on free speech."

LOL. And I suppose the Founding Fathers didn't care about free speech either, because of that tea boycott.

:rofl:

This ain't a free speech issue, silly.

[bryant69]

22. Boy I don't get the connection there

They weren't throwing the tea in the harbor to silence people they disagreed with - or people guilty of hate speech. They were protesting what they considered to be an unfair tax.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. What do you think about DU?

If some freeper troll shows up, and starts posting racist bullshit, and I hit alert, and the message gets deleted and the user banned, did I just violate his first amendment rights?

[bryant69]

27. Ah - float like a butterfly sting like a bee, eh?

DU is a moderated private forum, and the rules are pretty well established. There are other sites such as Free Republic or Conservative Underground where one can move to.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. And my private shopping list is equally moderated.

And if Limbaugh wants to spew racist crap, there are other forums he can do so, like under the bridge downton with the other oxycontin addicts.

You're still upset over Imus, aren't you?

[bryant69]

33. No actually I think they made the right call there, although

I think a suspension rather than firing him might have been the better call.

I presume you are trying to imply that I must be a racist if I am insufficiently incensed by the "Barak the Magic Negro" song?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Do I think you're a racist because of that?

No. Maybe an apologist, not a racist.

[bryant69]

40. Ones as good as the other

Here's a question why is that song any more offensive than Rush saying to a black caller "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." If memory serves he did that back in the 90s.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. I agree, actually. But you asked.

"Here's a question why is that song any more offensive than Rush saying to a black caller "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." If memory serves he did that back in the 90s."

Why would you think the song's more offensive? I've known Limbaugh was a racist for years.

[bryant69]

43. I'm just curious as to why the attempt to drive him off the air

has come up now? Why didn't you and the other free-lance censors go after him in the 1990s? Could it be that in the wake of the Imus firing you think you have a chance at pulling it off that you didn't have before?

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. I've never thought he should be on the air.

Why do you think he should be on the air? Obviously, there must be some reason, and it's obviously not a first amendment issue.

[bryant69]

47. Damn it - your perceptive mind drug it out of me

I'd been so good at hiding it too, but your questioning just broke me. Obviously I'm a secret Rush Loving Freeper. I've kept it hidden for so long, but my passion for defending Rush has foiled me.

Joking aside I don't think Limbaugh should be on the air (although there are a few people ahead of him on my list, like Coulter and D'Souza), but once you create the mechanism to knock him off the air, that mechanism isn't going away.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. So then what are you arguing about?

You want Limbaugh off the air. I want Limbaugh off the air.

You don't really think it's a first amendment issue. I don't think it's a first amendment issue.

So what's the deal? :shrug:

Is there some particular advertiser here that you're fond of?

[bryant69]

52. I do think it is first amendment issue

The spirit of the first amendment rather then the letter of it.

For example the constitution doesn't protect anybody outside the United States. Legally nobody who's not a citizen of the United States has the protection of the First Amendment And yet I believe everybody who draws breath should have the right to free speech, freedom of worship (or not to) and so on and so forth.

If you create the mechanism to silence speech you don't like, such a mechanism offends the principle of free speech, even if it is outside the reach of the first amendment.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. No, you don't.

I debunked that with the whole DU thing.

[bryant69]

55. Ah.

Well I guess I was unclear before, and I apologize.

Obviously if someone is driven out of DU for being a conservative there are dozens of other message boards he might participate in. If you drive Rush Limbaugh off the air and taint him so that he can't get sponsors or gigs, well where else is he going to go?

If DU was one of only a few websites that existed on the web, I'd have a different opinion about DUs position as well.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. well where else is he going to go?

Who cares?

[bryant69]

57. it matters because if you are effectively silencing him

than the issue of Freedom of Speech arises.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. No, it'd be an issue of free speech...

if I prevented him from saying it. Usually through legal means.

He's perfectly able to say anything he wants.

[bryant69]

60. You know what I'm tired of this. I've made my position clear

You disagree - fine. I don't expect I'll be changing my position and I don't expect you'll be changing yours.

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. No, you haven't.

You've claimed it's a free speech issue. But you've been totally unable to substantiate that position, and you've resorted to strawmen, and weird excuses that don't make any sense.

And that's why I don't think that you think it's a first amendment issue.

[bryant69]

63. One clarification - something can be a free speech isssue

without being a first amendment issue. I

For example Barnes and Noble might decide to not order any of Michael Moore's books or to hide them in the humor section. That would be, in my opinion, a free speech issue, while not being a first amendment. Barnes and Noble is a private bookseller; they aren't regulated by the Government per se. But choosing to not carry Michael Moore's book is questionable in terms of free speech.

In this case you are apparently trying to organizing a boycott of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors in an effort to drive him off the air. Such an attempt is entirely legal, and for that matter constitutional. It doesn't violate the First Amendment. But it is an attempt to eliminate Rush Limbaugh's ability to speak. In that sense it is a violation of his free speech. You have every right to do it, but I find such attempts worth fighting against.

I cut my teeth on this issue back when I was on the Ann Coulter message board (and they hated me more than people around here hate me) debating Jon Alveraz the founder of PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti American Hollywood (spoofed on the Daily Show)). I argued that his attempt to set up a freelance Conservative blacklist against such anti Americans as Cuba Gooding Jr. or Johnny Depp was un-American (I used stronger language over there for obvious reasons). This attempt is a bit less organized, but I disagree with it just as strongly.

Let me clarify something else; I don't do this out of support for Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh and I've attacked him at my website regularly over the years (A few examples --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/Best%20Posts%202002%20to%202004%20Rush.htm )

I also want to refer again to the most important question - what if you succeed? What if you knock Rush out? What would happen to the mechanism you have created to knock Rush out?

Bryant

[Hobarticus]

31. But, using your logic, he just denied someone's right to free speech. eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. It's OK if it's on the interweb.

Also, if it's about taxes. Apparently.

[Hobarticus]

39. Fire up the Free Speech Denying Internet Tubes...

Bornaginhooligan's got work to do!

[July]

21. I don't oppose Republicans' use of market forces.

Nor do I oppose our use of market forces. Perhaps, if Rush's speech is so wonderful, he will get counteracting attention, as the Dixie Chicks did.

I oppose reactionaries and hate-filled commentary. My money does not go to those who support either or both. That's not suppression, that's control of my own cash. People who disagree with me can support Rush's sponsors or support Rush directly. If Rush survives our refusal to support his sponsors, the magical market forces have worked in his favor (i.e., he has enough of an audience that a boycott doesn't have a significant impact). If not, that's life. Rush has a right to speak, but there is no "right" to consumer-supported sponsorship. The consumer has the last word, no?

Rush can spew his bile for free if he loses sponsors. I'm sure Bush and Cheney would happily find him a forum, not to mention right-wing think tanks (who would probably pay him). He's also free to write books (that I am free to refuse to buy), in hopes of cashing in on his hate.

[maxrandb]

26. The problem is that our airways are now in the hands of a small minority

of extremely wealthy corporations. Corporations who happen to benefit from Republican policies.

I would have no problem with Rush broadcasting his hate fest 24 hours a day, if the radio stations were not ignoring 51% on the population.

This country is split directly down the middle, in fact, it probably leans a little more to the Democratic side of the aisle now, but all you get on AM radio is wing-nut Republican propaganda.

Rush is on the radio for one reason and one reason only...to get Republicans elected and Democrats defeated. That's not the proper use of our PUBLIC AIRWAYS.

Bottom line is that the corporations probably don't give a shit how many advertisers pull out of Rush' show. They probably get more benefit from the Republican policies than they would ever get from advertising.

[Hobarticus]

23. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean "freedom from losing sponsors"

If a sponsor decides to take their support away from Limbaugh or Imus or anyone, they're not "silencing their freedom of speech"....they're making a business decision. I think you're way misguided as to what freedom of speech means.

Limbaugh and you and I have every right to walk down to the street corner and run his piehole, for free.

Buisnesses have a right to decide if they care to sponsor his radio show. If they get enough negative feedback from enough people, they can pull their sponsorship. That's their right.

His sponsors aren't required to support his show, in order to protect his freedom of speech. That's a ridiculous assessment of one of our basic principles: I have freedom of speech, as long as someone else foots the bill for me to be on the radio? Ohhh-kay.

[bryant69]

24. His sponsers have the right to do whatever they want

As to the stations that run his show. I suspect in both cases they will happily ignore any boycott attempts here.

That's actually one of the regular defenses of this sort of boycott - "Well it won't work, so there's no real threat to free speech."

But what happens if you succeed - what if DU could get Limbaugh off the air; would the Mechanisms created to accomplish this goal cease to exist, or would those mechanisms be used on the next name on the list. O'Rielly or Hannity maybe.

Bryant

[Hobarticus]

28. Actually I've never heard that defense, at all...

It's a false allegory to free speech. Using your logic, Rush could sue a sponsor for denying his civil rights if they pull their sponsorship, or sue his employer for taking him off the air on the basis that they've denied his civil rights.

He has freedom of speech; there's nothing that says "freedom of speech on the radio", however.

Again, it's free speech for free; no one said you have the right to have someone pay your way on the air. No business has to keep writing that check to support someone on the air, to protect Rush's freedom of speech.

If it worked, and it was attempted elsewhere....so what? I don't have to like it, but that's how it is. If the market speaks, business reacts. It goes the same, both ways, as you mentioned with the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore. Funny, even after those artists had market forces arranged against them, they STILL are successful.

[bryant69]

32. And I suspect this boycott won't hurt Rush either but I am still going to speak against it

Because if it works than it certainly will go on and on.

Read up on the mechanisms developed during the 1950s Red Scare to oppress people who thought like you and me; many of them were outside the Government and thus not subject to the First Amendment. Or the letter of the First Amendment anyway.

Bryant

[Hobarticus]

37. I rarely say this, but...

You're just flat-out wrong.

"Many of them were outside the Government and thus not subject to the First Amendment. Or the letter of the First Amendment anyway."

This is a ridiculous statement.

I enjoy watching you side-step every hole I punch in your argument, without pausing for breath. And you run a blog elsewhere, you say? Hoo-boy.

[bryant69]

41. How so? Unpack it for me

Were those elements of the Red Scare that were not under Governmental control and used "market forces" the sort of things you would be fine with?

Bryant

[Hobarticus]

Standard operating procedure...

Float a ridiculous false allegory, watch it get shot full of holes, pretend it never happened, change the subject quickly...

Yawn.

[bryant69]

46. OK I guess I missed something

Or are you just declaring yourself the winner and moving on?

But I will tighten the analogy for you.

In 1947, the Screen Actors Guild (led by Ronald Reagan), required it's members to sign a loyalty pledge promising they weren't communists. The Screen Actors Guild is a non-governmental body. It and other organizations such as the American Legion, kept a close eye on those who expressed what they considered to be Communist opinions. Howard Hughes bought RKO and shut it down while he reviewed whether or not any members were commies. The net effect was to ensure that those guilty of being communists were black listed and kept out of the entertainment business (Yes I did use Wikipedia, I'm at work and so don't have access to my library).

Let's imagine you are successful. You and other DUers get Rush Limbaugh off the air by threat of economic consequences if they don't put him out to pasture. All well and good, but what will happen after that? What is the next step? Who do you knock out off the air next? Or will the mechanism you and others have created to knock Rush off the air just dissolve? Call me cynical, but there's a long list of rotten conservatoids out there. I have to assume you'd move to the next person on the list. Coulter maybe or Hannity.

Bryant

[bullwinkle428]

48. I don't think there's anyone in this thread that's looking

to suppress Rush's right to stroll down the street in Harlem, Compton, or anywhere else, carrying a battery-powered bullhorn and singing "Barack the Magic Negro". In fact, I'm guessing there would plenty here willing to pay beaucoup bucks to witness the entire spectacle on pay-per-view! :evilgrin:

No one has a divine right to an electronic pulpit with an audience of millions...it's certainly not a free speech issue.

[Jim Warren]

12. At least two of these

also sponsor AAR in my area, Randy and Thom H.

Lumber Liquidators---Quicken Loans

[Raven]

13. Just finished emailing all of them. And to "bryant" I would say that

if I am offended by hate speech, I have the right to let the company know and not buy their product. I don't have to put up with shit on the airwaves.

[bryant69]

14. why did you put my name in quotations? It's actually my name

My name really is Bryant.

Anyway, you have a right as an individual to do whatever you like, up to an including trying to create a boycott to silence speech you don't like. And I have the right to criticize an attempt to silence speech you don't like.

Bryant

[Raven]

19. I put your name in quotes because I couldn't remember the 69.

You have a perfect right to support Rush Limbaugh's right to spew hate speech. I have a perfect right to object to it. That's America!

[bryant69]

29. Allow me to share my favorite Mencken quote

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H.L. Mencken

Bryant

[Raven]

34. Soooo, the point? You're defending the scoundrel. I may have stepped

in in the middle (or at the end?) of the oppression but, better late that never, someone once said.

[kestrel91316]

49. We're not talking about any "oppressive laws" here, silly. We're just

talking about letting the FREE MARKET do its thing.

Funny how people who are all for the free market system whine and fuss when it gets used against them.

......got you all figured out......

[bryant69]

53. Most people here do.

[LanternWaste]

58. That speech won't be silenced though, will it

That speech won't be silenced though, will it? RL can still talk on and on (and on and on) with or without a radio show licensed through the public airwaves, right?

[Initech]

38. Barnes & Noble? NOOOOO!!!!

[TBUSA]

45. I just called GM

The exasperated lady told me to call Rindy Carry in advertising at [phone]. She had little idea about the druggie. I asked if GM supports this association. She said they do. I expect we will see cars for people with 'make believe' handicaps and the new commercials will have snappy magic negro like jingles.How about commercial vehicles for this druggies needs?

[wicket]

51. Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[peaches2003]

64. National Sponsors?

Are these all national ads or are some of them running only locally in some areas during the breaks in his program?

Snapple was one his first sponsors years ago and he put them on the map, so to speak. The FL Orange Growers also sponsored him at one time and it was a disaster for them