RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself.

RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 11:09:38 AM)
quote: Rush Limbaugh on the other hand (regardless of what you or I may think of his views) has likewise thrived for a very simple reason – people tune in. Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free.

philosophy -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 11:22:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: babygirl005 quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Masternslave07 I guess it is okay to suggest it is a good thing if Vice President Cheney had been blown up by a terrorist bomb on his recent visit to Afghanistan as Bill Marr recently suggested. I didn't hear any oppositon to that comment. And you obviously didn't get the obvious linking of her statement to his. She obviously didn't speak slowly enough. The left does there share of this shit as well....But I believe he lost his job. Doh!!!! So no opposition?....Perhaps you should concentrate more on master less on forum. I have a suggestion for you. If you want to insult someone, make sure you spell all your words correctly. It kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? ...and from your original post, wouldn't that be opposition? Two 'i's....

MrrPete -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 12:50:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia ANYONE BUT BUSH! Wish granted. He's not running. [:)] Oh! yah! he can't

brightspot -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 1:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Popeye1250 said: quote: think Fargle has a crush on Ann Coulter. C'mon Fargle, you want to "DO HER" don't you? I’d do Ann Coulter – but only if I can put some duct tape over her mouth first. Being a lesbian and out for many years, I have cherished, adored and lusted after many women. As far as Ann Coulter is concerned I wouldn't "do her" with a 20 foot strap-on dildo, unless I could ram it far enough up to disable her voice box[sm=biggrin.gif]. Missy.

Level -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 3:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne i have heard ann coulters name for a long time, and until now i dont recall ever seeing her. they just showed parts of the phone call on good morning america....... she seemed to be a dingbat blonde to me, making light of something at a most inappropriate time..........and she is supposedly some political genius to some folks? ugh She's not a dingbat [:D], but she isn't quite as smart as she probably thinks she is, either. touche' hell....[sm=dance.gif] are any of us as smart as we think we are? Probably not [X(], but I do come close...... [sm=idea.gif]

Level -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 3:31:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Rush Limbaugh on the other hand (regardless of what you or I may think of his views) has likewise thrived for a very simple reason – people tune in. Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free. So, you feel El Rushbo is a philanthropist?

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 4:17:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Level touche' hell....[sm=dance.gif] are any of us as smart as we think we are? Probably not [X(], but I do come close...... [sm=idea.gif] heck i know im as smart as i think i am. of course, if you read my posts, you probably have figured out i aint gotta lot to live up to[sm=shake.gif]

farglebargle -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 4:27:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Rush Limbaugh on the other hand (regardless of what you or I may think of his views) has likewise thrived for a very simple reason – people tune in. Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free. So, you feel El Rushbo is a philanthropist? I think after his previous failures in the broadcasting business, he was savvy enough to realize that if he didn't GIVE IT AWAY, no-one would be buying it. After all, it's not hard to imitate Howard Stern, badly.

TheHeretic -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 6:37:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free. Yeah. Tiny stations which quickly become #1 in their markets. And somehow I doubt he's giving away the commercials for sleep-number beds. How will "The Movement" ever succeed without stopping these damn innovative business practices?

farglebargle -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 7:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free. Yeah. Tiny stations which quickly become #1 in their markets. And somehow I doubt he's giving away the commercials for sleep-number beds. How will "The Movement" ever succeed without stopping these damn innovative business practices? Considering what ClearChannel's done to the market? Big fucking deal. What's that line about coming in first in the Special Olympics? I don't know what percentage of the show is syndicated commercial time Limbaugh is selling and profiting from, myself, vs. what the local stations are selling. Seems to me, if he was really innovative, he would have followed Howard Stern, cashed out for MILLIONS AND POINTS and gone to satellite. But then he couldn't just give the show away. He'd have to get paying subscribers, and bring them to the satellite network. I don't see anyone making the offer, however.

Marc2b -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 9:03:22 PM)
quote: Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free. Sounds like a savy business practice to me. The real money is in advertising, not franchise fees. The point remains, if Rush couldn't bring in the listeners, he wouldn't bring in the advertisers. Air America couldn't bring in the advertisers because they couldn't bring in the listeners - and so down they went. If Rush looses his listeners, he'll go down.

farglebargle -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/28/2007 9:57:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Well, that and he gives the show away to tiny, inconsequential broadcasters ( many on AM ) for free. Sounds like a savy business practice to me. The real money is in advertising, not franchise fees. The point remains, if Rush couldn't bring in the listeners, he wouldn't bring in the advertisers. Air America couldn't bring in the advertisers because they couldn't bring in the listeners - and so down they went. If Rush looses his listeners, he'll go down. It does pay for the fake doctors, prescription drug habit, and lawyers to keep him out of prison when he's caught. Hey, he's a LOT like Paris Hilton in that regard, with the way REGULAR LAWS don't apply. Junkie. Never forget, he's just a high-class Junkie. I don't even know why we wasted a minute discussing him like he was a fucking human being. Never trust a Junkie. All they care about is more Junk.

Marc2b -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 7:16:05 AM)
quote: I don't even know why we wasted a minute discussing him like he was a fucking human being. Because the discussion really wasn't about Limbaugh, and whatever moral failings he may have. I brought up Rush (and Air America) merely as an example to counter your contention that the free market doesn't apply to broadcasting. The free market applies to everything because, when you boil it down, the free market is individuals making choices based upon their own desires and self interests. The only question is how much freedom do we allow in that endeavor? Almost every argument can be reduced to - "where do we draw the lines?" Certainly some restrictions are needed - there is a reason murder is against the law. However, the more we want to restrict other people's choices because we are morally, philosophically, or ideologically opposed to their choices, the more unintended consequences we will have. The so called Fairness Doctrine would say to broadcasters, "you cannot do A unless you also do B." Well, if B is a money loser (because the majority of the public - i.e. people making choices - doesn’t want to listen to boring old B), then broadcasters won’t bother with A or B. Hence, something ostensibly designed to give people more choices ("you’ll now have A and B!") will in fact restrict the number of choices available and take away from the public something they want (A). I see no fairness in that.

imthatacheyouhav -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 7:20:29 AM)
Rush has listeners because he says stuff worth listening to.....

mnottertail -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 7:22:30 AM)
This ain't free market shit here, nor is it in any way tangentental to freedom of the press. You get a license from the government to run the airwaves and they have restrictions like drivers licenses, their rules is there rules jeremiah, but they are still savages at heart, and if you don't accept this gift they will gut you with a dull deer antler. Here is the issue at its core then. Don't like it mr radio broadcaster owner guy? Take a fuckin' hike. That is how it is.

Marc2b -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 7:43:59 AM)
quote: Rush has listeners because he says stuff worth listening to..... Personally, I disagree with that statement... but that is not the point. Enough people do agree with that statement to keep Rush on the air and make him a very wealthy man in the process. As a believer in freedom I am content not to listen to Rush and let others make up their own minds as to whether or not to listen to him. Some people, however, are too pissed off that other people are listening to what they consider the wrong viewpoints. Rather than tolerate the rights of others to make their own choices (toleration is the heart of freedom), they seek to place restrictions on them. This is usually done under the guise of "it’s for the greater good." The real reason (often sub-conscious, I will grant) is to enjoy the thrill of triumphing over ones enemies. You can’t enjoy the thrill of victory unless you defeat someone. There is a streak of sadism (the real kind, not the fun BDSM kind) that runs through politics. This is why, in politics, so many gleefully point out the scandals, moral failings, etc., of the other side while completely ignoring the faults on their own side. It’s not really about right or wrong, and it is most certainly not about freedom. It is about defeating the other side for the sheer thrill of it. Another coffee fueled exposition brought to you by Marc2b.

Marc2b -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 8:06:02 AM)
quote: Here is the issue at its core then. Don't like it mr radio broadcaster owner guy? Take a fuckin' hike. That is how it is. That is precisely the point. They will take a hike because they will lose money being forced to air crap that people won’t listen to. How is depriving people something they do want to listen to fair, just because you and others don’t like it?

mnottertail -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 8:24:09 AM)
You would have to listen to your government on that issue, it is like drivers licenses and property taxes and taxes in general. Fair ain't part of the constitution. Tthe government makes some 20,000 laws or more a year, and they ain't designed to give nobody more freedoms, but to take them away from some segment of society. How is it fair to outlaw the freedom of speech and the lynching of the black man by the KKK? There are some pretty conservative sort. I mean, the regulations of the government often bankrupt businesses and disenfranchise large populations. The concept is ludicrous, to save the Limbaugh (first of all, there ain't one damn bit of legislation forwarded here, it is bullshit talk, just like universal healthcare). Hell, this comes under homeland security really, if they can sniff up your very ass to insure you aren't terrorists by investigating your moral habit, seems to me only fair that you shouldn't have these illuminati running their fuckin' yaps and giving away the conservative plan to the enemies of the state. It is a fuckin' yawner.

farglebargle -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 9:29:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Here is the issue at its core then. Don't like it mr radio broadcaster owner guy? Take a fuckin' hike. That is how it is. That is precisely the point. They will take a hike because they will lose money being forced to air crap that people won’t listen to. How is depriving people something they do want to listen to fair, just because you and others don’t like it? Fuck them. LET THEM WALK AWAY. It's not like there aren't PLENTY of people who will step up and take that broadcast license, and use it in accordance with The People's regulation. How did people make money in Radio BEFORE the Fairness Doctrine? Yup. Hand over Fist.

Sinergy -> RE: Ann Coulter continues to embarass herself. (6/29/2007 11:24:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrrPete quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia ANYONE BUT BUSH! Wish granted. He's not running. [:)] Oh! yah! he can't A recent act pushed through Congress had a rider attached to it granting the President the legal power to declare a state of emergency and assume complete control in the event of another terrorist attack. Assuming another state of emergency happens before he leaves office, he now has Congressional authorization to maintain his presidency permenantly. So your comment that "he can't" may not be entirely correct. Sinergy p.s. If this happens, feel free to email me on the other side for some nice crow recipes.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875