#2 2013-06-22 23:12:54
Not that I'm a Rush fan - far from it, as I believe he and his ilk have absolutely ruined the Republican Party - but if Rush is doing so badly and they're losing so many sponsors and bleeding so much cash, then why doesn't Clear Channel just fire him and replace him with someone more popular? Seems an easy business decision, and Clear Channel isn't running a charity here.
And check the links in the article, and indeed the article itself... none of them actually mention a single identifiable sponsor who pulled out or even threatened to. For all we know the quotes in the article may be wholly fabricated.
Methinks this article represents mostly wishful thinking and an attempt to generate anti-Rush sentiment rather a true reporting of actual facts.
Last edited by whosasailorthen (2013-06-22 23:25:59)
Offline
#3 2013-06-22 23:39:07
While there's no doubt that he's rich enough to be an ultra-conservative, I seriously doubt if he believes half the shit he spouts out on the radio. He just appeases the party line and his non-thinking sycophants.
Offline
#4 2013-06-22 23:39:21
Deal with it, DMT; Rush ain't goin' away.
Offline
#5 2013-06-23 11:46:46
The halfwit shills, ye always have with you. Snake Oil salesmen like Huey Long (Hooey the XIV), Father Coughlin and my own personal favorite, Billy Sunday clogged the airwaves in the 30s. Their demon spawn will always have their credulous halfwit disciples.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#6 2013-06-23 15:28:44
Of those 3, I find "Dr." Phil the most offensive...
Offline
#7 2013-06-25 13:07:41
I find that most of Rush's critics don't actually listen to him long enough to "get it". Now Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is a combination radio preacher and space cadet. He constantly promises to deliver some earth shattering news, which never seems to materialize. I've never listened to Dr. Phil for more than a minute of two, so I can't weigh in on him.
Offline
