Originally Posted By Beaumandy OK, to be totally honest, my FIRST thought was why doesn't Rush just give all military members subscriptions to his website so they can listen to the show at their leisure. OK!! FINE!! But it's not like Rush isn't constantly supporting the troops and doing things for them. He gets calls from military members all the time and they love the guy. He was in Afghanistan a few months back hanging with the troops. I don't see how he can possibly be attacked by people on the left who make it a point to undermine the troops every day they say BUSH LIED! In the end, if people across America are more than willing to sign up and make a donation for a soldier by buying them a membership, why shouldn't he take the money? Part of the promotion is having Americans spend some of their money on the troops... people like that stuff.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>In the end, if people across America are more than willing to sign up and make a donation for a soldier by buying them a membership, why shouldn't he take the money?<< It would be nicer if he took the money, sent the subscription, and forwarded that money on to the USO or a veteran's hospital or something. Win/win.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But it's not like Rush isn't constantly supporting the troops and doing things for them. He gets calls from military members all the time and they love the guy.<< Hold him accountable to that. Hell, call the show and suggest what I said. It'd be one less things critics could bash him with, right? And in the process, he could be more than a mouth.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Part of the promotion is having Americans spend some of their money on the troops...<< But that's about putting money in HIS pocket, and you know that. You like Rush too much to accept it, I'm afraid. It's yet another contradiction between what he says annd what he does.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy I don't have a problem with Rush making money. He got flak for making money off his " Club Gitmo " shirts that made fun of Gitmo being a resort for Muslims. His answer was that he was a capitalist and making money is not a bad thing. BUT... I bet anything people are making your exact same suggestion K2man. It's a good idea.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm not against making money. But Club Gitmo is making money in bad taste, IMHO. (By the way, so are some offensive anti-Bush shirts I've seen.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As the article pointed out the goal for this year was about 30% lower than it was last year.> All last year, we saw stories about how the military weren't making their goals. Of course, those stories never mentioned that the goals had been raised from the year before. This year, the military is meeting it's goals, so the stories have to mention that the goals were lowered. As a commentator recently remarked, "In other words, if the Army exceeds its goals, it's important to note that it has lowered them. But if the Army falls short of its goals, it's not important to note that those goals have increased significantly."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The goals went up because we were at war, Douglas. The goals went down because they knew they couldn't get the actual number of people they needed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Beau, even you must see that Rush would be making so much profit from folks here at home willing to pay for what he offers that he could quite easily offer content he's already creating at no cost in the name of patriotism.> How could he do it at no cost? Even if he didn't include the newsletter, which has to be printed and shipped, additional subscribers means the website has to increase to allow for the additional hits and downloads. That's not free.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan As a commentator recently remarked, "In other words, if the Army exceeds its goals, it's important to note that it has lowered them. But if the Army falls short of its goals, it's not important to note that those goals have increased significantly."<< Try that line at work. "I didn't meet my sales goals because they were set too high." So the boss lowers the sales goals, and you meet them. Don't expect to get a bonus.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Why does the left like to point out when recruiting is low?? What does that do for anyone??
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The goals went up because we were at war, Douglas.> The point is that most reports did not include the fact that the goals went up. I remember arguing that point on these boards. <The goals went down because they knew they couldn't get the actual number of people they needed.> Or is it because they don't need as many people in the future because they have enough now?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>How could he do it at no cost?<< I would assume the newsletter is designed to make a profit. By taking a hit on his profit and redirecting a portion of it to cover whatever costs he has in shipping it to a soldier (which costs no more than shipping it to Joe in Denver), he would merely be forgoing his own profit. At this point, it seems he'd rather make money on those donations. He could offer subscriptions at a "not for profit" rate for soldiers. He's a creative guy.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why does the left like to point out when recruiting is low??<< I was just pointing out how Limbaugh wasn't being honest about what the numbers were showing.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Or is it because they don't need as many people in the future because they have enough now?<< No, that's not it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<I was just pointing out how Limbaugh wasn't being honest about what the numbers were showing.>> Tom, there is no way Rush put something on his site that is a blatant lie. Why would he when information is so easy to verify these days. I need to look at what you are talking about. Case in point... all the democrats who said Saddam had WMD's.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Tom, there is no way Rush put something on his site that is a blatant lie.<< Blatant? No. Spun beyond all recognition? You bet.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, that's not it.> How do you know? It's not like the news media has a record of giving us all the facts.
