PrintSmith wrote: And the delicious irony to that Z is that it is a corporation engaging in political speech in a manner of which you approve this time around - which makes it all fine and good in your opinion. When they engage in political speech of which you disapprove, however, you want to enact a constitutional amendment to silence them. On the one hand you object to the exercise of corporate power to advocate for a candidate or party and on the other you celebrate the exercise of corporate power when advertising dollars are pulled or awarded based upon the message that the corporation wishes to be associated with. It's all corporate speech Z; and all of that speech is via the spending of money based upon the perceived best interests of the corporation.
I am glad that you are finding Rush's comments delicious, but you appear to be confusing (or intentionally trying to deflect) the recent decision regarding a corporation's right of political free speech under the 1st amendment with the corporations right of marketplace decisions. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Totally agree..... In one of my previous posts, I tried to draw that same conclusion - you've done it far better than I. Thank you.
Something the Dog Said wrote: So now Allstate, Sears, Kmart & Bonobus have pulled their ads from Rushbo. Also, it looks like radio stations are starting to drop his show as well.
So, that would bring the count up to 12....
And the radio stations are starting to drop him?.... I hope the last one out remembers to turn off the lights.... :thumbsup:
She isn't an employee...she was speaking of the student plan. But the article just emphasizes how in the Republicans zeal to make this a religious fight they lost sight of the actual people involved....women.
Yeah, the reason I mentioned the employees getting birth control is the university offers it for employees already.... which is not like what's being portrayed by the right -- that offering birth control is against the university's religious principles.
PrintSmith wrote: And the delicious irony to that Z is that it is a corporation engaging in political speech in a manner of which you approve this time around - which makes it all fine and good in your opinion. When they engage in political speech of which you disapprove, however, you want to enact a constitutional amendment to silence them. On the one hand you object to the exercise of corporate power to advocate for a candidate or party and on the other you celebrate the exercise of corporate power when advertising dollars are pulled or awarded based upon the message that the corporation wishes to be associated with. It's all corporate speech Z; and all of that speech is via the spending of money based upon the perceived best interests of the corporation.
I am glad that you are finding Rush's comments delicious, but you appear to be confusing (or intentionally trying to deflect) the recent decision regarding a corporation's right of political free speech under the 1st amendment with the corporations right of marketplace decisions. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Must you resort to intentional dishonesty in every post Dog? Show me where I indicated I found Rush's comments delicious. What I found delicious was an advocate for a constitutional amendment to chill political speech by corporations celebrating corporations engaging in political speech in pulling their advertisements from a political commentary show. We both know they didn't do this in defense of the Georgetown U activist who spoke at the "committee hearing" - they did it because they didn't want to lose customers over what a political commentator said on his radio program. They didn't want the left's anger at Rush directed instead at them and so for purely political reasons - because we know that the left is incapable of properly focusing their anger where it properly belongs. Harming advertisers isn't going to accomplish anything other than potentially silencing an opponent of the leftist agenda.
Any reasonable individual knows that none of the sponsors are responsible for the content of the show. Any reasonable individual knows that the advertisement is an attempt to recruit customers from the listening base of the program. Any reasonable person would thus not seek to harm the sponsors for what was said on the program - but the left is not reasonable, does not use reason and logic in forming their opinions nor determine their actions and so the corporations felt it was in their best interest, for political reasons alone, to stop advertising on that particular program. This is not the first time the left has targeted advertisers and attempted to do them harm in order to silence one that they disagree with - it is a regular and common tactic that they employ. The left is not interested in free speech, nor in civil discourse. What they are interested in is silencing those who hold a different opinion from their own and bullying them into submitting to their collectivist will - and they have absolutely no qualms about about harming anyone in that pursuit - the ends, in their opinion, justify every means.
Oh, it's more than just the left targeting the advertisers. It's women everywhere. Take Rush's "logic" and suddenly every woman who takes birth control is a slut and a whore and should post sex videos online. That means my mother, my daughter, my grandmother and my sister are all, according to Rush, sluts and whores.
If you think that Rush is not misogynistic, you are deluding yourself.
Kate wrote: Oh, it's more than just the left targeting the advertisers. It's women everywhere. Take Rush's "logic" and suddenly every woman who takes birth control is a slut and a whore and should post sex videos online. That means my mother, my daughter, my grandmother and my sister are all, according to Rush, sluts and whores.
If you think that Rush is not misogynistic, you are deluding yourself.
It also means his four wives and mother fall under his own definition, if they took birth control and didn't pay for it out of pocket.
PrintSmith wrote: And the delicious irony to that Z is that it is a corporation engaging in political speech in a manner of which you approve this time around - which makes it all fine and good in your opinion. When they engage in political speech of which you disapprove, however, you want to enact a constitutional amendment to silence them. On the one hand you object to the exercise of corporate power to advocate for a candidate or party and on the other you celebrate the exercise of corporate power when advertising dollars are pulled or awarded based upon the message that the corporation wishes to be associated with. It's all corporate speech Z; and all of that speech is via the spending of money based upon the perceived best interests of the corporation.
I am glad that you are finding Rush's comments delicious, but you appear to be confusing (or intentionally trying to deflect) the recent decision regarding a corporation's right of political free speech under the 1st amendment with the corporations right of marketplace decisions. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
Must you resort to intentional dishonesty in every post Dog? Show me where I indicated I found Rush's comments delicious. What I found delicious was an advocate for a constitutional amendment to chill political speech by corporations celebrating corporations engaging in political speech in pulling their advertisements from a political commentary show. We both know they didn't do this in defense of the Georgetown U activist who spoke at the "committee hearing" - they did it because they didn't want to lose customers over what a political commentator said on his radio program. They didn't want the left's anger at Rush directed instead at them and so for purely political reasons - because we know that the left is incapable of properly focusing their anger where it properly belongs. Harming advertisers isn't going to accomplish anything other than potentially silencing an opponent of the leftist agenda.
Any reasonable individual knows that none of the sponsors are responsible for the content of the show. Any reasonable individual knows that the advertisement is an attempt to recruit customers from the listening base of the program. Any reasonable person would thus not seek to harm the sponsors for what was said on the program - but the left is not reasonable, does not use reason and logic in forming their opinions nor determine their actions and so the corporations felt it was in their best interest, for political reasons alone, to stop advertising on that particular program. This is not the first time the left has targeted advertisers and attempted to do them harm in order to silence one that they disagree with - it is a regular and common tactic that they employ. The left is not interested in free speech, nor in civil discourse. What they are interested in is silencing those who hold a different opinion from their own and bullying them into submitting to their collectivist will - and they have absolutely no qualms about about harming anyone in that pursuit - the ends, in their opinion, justify every means.
No, PS - you continue to delude yourself. They didn't do it for political reasons. Rather, they did it for their own bottom line. No amount of obfuscating will change that fact. The letters/comments that have been issued by these advertisers lead one to believe they have the highest of intentions, but reality is they've faced such a backlash, not only from the left that you so despise, but also from the right on this one, they really have no choice but to withdraw their monetary support (bottom line, don't you know). You may be right about the sponsors not being responsible for the content of the show, but they, by virtue of their corporate sponsorship, condone it. And that is where they, apparently, are now willing to draw their individual corporate line(s) in the sand, so to speak. And, as an aside, your comparison regarding a constitutional amendment to suppress corporate "free speech" and advertising dollars is still invalid, in my opinion. Two totally different things.
In one of my previous posts, I tried to draw that same conclusion - you've done it far better than I. Thank you.
