Limbaugh Signs Through 2016; $400 Million Deal Shatters Broadcast Records

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Annee

No lie.

Flag waivers are blind to emotional propaganda.

The other side is hardly immune to the same charge. Check out the ATS thread on how Obama's supporters cannot name any of his accomplishmnets or plans, they just love him because it seems the popular thing to do. Sounds pretty blind and emotional to me.

thread

I agree. Obama has a certain charm. In my opinion that is what many people are attracted to. "Emotions"

He says he's about change. What does that mean? I think to many it means "anything but Bush". "Emotions"

Unfortunately - I believe we have crossed the line - where visual candidates are nothing more then illusion to appease a voting public.

Who is it that is behind the scenes - who is it we don't see? "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

reply to post by sir_chancealot



Why should he be, he became addicted only after obtaining a legal script. When you become addicted to a substance, your mental and physical processes undergo an incredible change that most cannot control. I have great sympathy for those who have it happen as a byproduct of a genuine need rather than those looking to escape reality.

I'm thrilled he got as much as he did. All the haters are just mad that he has done more with his life than 99.9% of Americans ever will. At least he is more truthful and genuine than any liberal.

I can't think of a bigger fathead idiot than rush. I used to be a republican, but rush helped me to see what most of the repubs have become, self serving arrogant hypocritical blowhards that will do anything for their one true love...the almighty dollar.

Why ANYONE would put credence to ANYTHING a drug addict has to say is mind boggling. Just shows how stupid a significant proportion of US citizens are. Really, really sick and sad.

Well that's how you pay your biggest NWO propagandist. Limbaugh is a piece of trash, no more, no less.

He's like Oreilly. A scumbag moran who talk to his own kind.

Anyway, the fairness doctrine shouldn't be enforced anyway, but this guy shouldn't be working for the White House either.

I see the Democrat National Committee propagandists are still trying to work on this thread. Give it up guys, the political hacks here are obvious. So many people seemed to "convert" to being liberal from Rush, . Right, and I converted to being libertarian because of Obama.

Neoliberals...gotta love them.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I see the Democrat National Committee propagandists are still trying to work on this thread. Give it up guys, the political hacks here are obvious. So many people seemed to "convert" to being liberal from Rush,

. Right, and I converted to being libertarian because of Obama.

Neoliberals...gotta love them.

Do you realize you just sound like a repetitive talking point?

Is there something you can say to support your position?

reply to post by RRconservative


You like Rush because he runs around naked and urinates on redwood trees in Bohemian Grove.

Eats 60 meds/day until his eardrum falls asleep.

Snuff rituals is just Good Christian Fun?
au.youtube.com...

Rush made $400M? Even Dan Rather would blush.

Back in the 1980's there was a sort of bidding war on three major networks for talent at ABC, NBC, CBS.

Here's an interesting interview showing an idea of how much a major news anchors were making in the early to mid 1980's. It is Brian Lamb interviewing Fred Graham. Both newsmen. Source: book-notes.org...

I submit just the juicy bits concerning the salaries of network new anchors during the 1980's.

"GRAHAM: You know, I don't understand why some people are making, you know, really astronomical amounts of money for doing work that does not appear to be successful. There's been a lot of musical chairs with anchors at the networks, particularly with the women: Connie Chung, Diane Sawyer and on and on. There must be four or five of them, and they've all gotten million-dollar contracts when they jump ship to another network. "

"LAMB: I remember reading in Ed Joyce's book, the gentleman that we showed here earlier, who was head of CBS News, that Dan Rather signed a contract for 10 years for $36 million to be the anchorman. Why is that?"

"GRAHAM: That was part of what I mentioned earlier, the sort of Cecil B. De Mille approach to network news. Why they gave Dan an $800,000-a-year raise. Peter Jennings was making $800,000 a year at that time, so Dan went up by the amount that Peter Jennings was making and Dan went to $3.5 million a year. Peter Jennings is now on the top of the ratings; Dan is at the bottom. And a lot of people think that one reason for ABC's success is that the viewers feel more comfortable with Peter Jennings. But you have to ask yourself what was going through their minds when they were making commitments like that."

"GRAHAM: No. I think it will continue in some kind of very special circumstances. I have an idea that the network evening news programs -- "CBS Evening News," ABC, NBC -- may be the dinosaurs of the 1990s, and some or all of them may not survive into the 21st century because CNN's killing them. And if you can get national, international news on television when you want it, you just don't have to arrive there when they tell you to in the evening. So you can see now the network news operations trying to carve out new niches for themselves, and one of them is the kind of special treatment of the news. And you see it in the anchorpeople being sent to Moscow and being sent to Johannesburg and to other places when news seems to be stirring. And I think what they will do is I think they will still cover the big events -- the disasters, the wars, election night, that sort of thing -- and they ill do prime-time stuff -- "60 Minutes," "20/20," whatever else survives there. So they are going to still need the very well-known person to preside over that in a recognizable way, and I think they'll still pay them a lot of money."

Sheeple herdin' never paid so well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!