Advertisement
Columns

What All the Abusers and Harassers Have in Common

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print
Advertisement

Recent charges of assault and harassment have destroyed powerful figures in every field of endeavor. These accusations have afflicted liberals and conservatives, straight and gay, black and white, with only one factor linking every one of the accused—they are all men. That’s not because women have no power to abuse: females occupy some commanding heights in politics, business and entertainment, yet no woman producer used a casting couch like Weinstein, and none of the 105 women in Congress ever groped constituents like Franken’s.

Females don’t feel the same impulse to force themselves on unwilling objects of desire, and any men subjected to such assaults are better equipped to resist. That’s not due to strength or size, but because of the profound difference in the way males and females engage in sex.

Current headlines should force the left to acknowledge an obvious point that they have long preferred to ignore: men and women are profoundly, unmistakably, undeniably different.

Share
Tweet
email Email
Print

Comments (45)

Leave a comment
  1. Truth hurts  •  Dec 12, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    Actually, the efite, feminine Michael Medved is rather womanly.

    • Jim Bird  •  Dec 12, 2017 at 10:44 pm

      You jackass moron—can this be scrubbed, as in bleachbit.

      • Truth hurts  •  Dec 13, 2017 at 12:04 am

        Oh my, it looks like Roy Moore got bleachbited

  2. Ty  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 1:11 am

    One of the reasons so many people on the left are skittish over acknowledging differences between the sexes is that they are worried that the existence of differences implies some sort of inferiority of one sex vs the other. It's born out of an insecurity and needs to be addressed to soften them up for a more realistic view of reality.

    • Rizzo  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 6:20 am

      Ty… You have just admitted that the left can NOT admit REALITY.
      You have just admitted that if facts, logic and reason don't fit their narrative, and further their agenda, they will deny its existence.
      Thank you for your honesty!

      • Ty  •  Dec 16, 2017 at 2:06 am

        Rizzo, I gave a clear example of this with abortion. Many on the left argue in favor of allowing abortions and a womans right to choose because, they say, a fetus is not "human life"

        This makes no sense. If a single cellular organism is alive, why not a fetus that is a bundle of many many cells? And why would a fetus not be human? It has human dna, will develop into a human being. A fetus is clearly human life. Not a human being in my view, and that has consequences to me in how we weight actions taken against it, but the reason so many people on the left cling to the conception of a fetus not being human life is I think based on fear and insecurity.

        If they concede that a fetus is both human and alive, then… does that mean they have to become pro life too? This is based on a failure of imagination and insecurity, something I see in conservatives all the time, but it affects us all. This is why it is useful to stress test your assumptions and ideas to find out where the limits, if any are.

        It's why when conservatives mouth off about how much they hate the government and redistribution, I stress test their ideas for them since they rarely have it done to them in those right wing echo chambers.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 16, 2017 at 9:48 am

        The left could not give a shit less about any of these issues involving abortion. They are not that thoughtful. All they care about is avoiding the logical consequences of their actions. Leftists can't let themselves believe a fetus is a human life because, because they either continue their support of abortion and admit to themselves that they are monsters or they become responsible pro-life humans.
        Abortion is a horrific abomination in this society, with only slavery surpassing it as being the next closest scar in US History. It's interesting how the Democrat party were/are big supporters of BOTH.

      • Truth hurts  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 1:14 am

        Have you ever tried to diaper a zygote?
        Sorry, fertilized ova aren’t babies. A baby is something you bring on an airplane.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 12:40 pm

        And TRUTH is something that has escaped you for your entire life.
        Does that hurt?

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 5:46 pm

        Liberals are THE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT "ME AND MINE".
        That is why EVERY TIME they have the chance to be charitable and actually GIVE, not government-mandated taxes, but GIVE…. they DON'T. At least not to the degree that conservatives do.

    • Ty needs counseling  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 11:15 pm

      Differences = different abilities = each will generally be better at some things than others. Yes, those on the left are right to be "skittish" because the differences do lead the conclusion that men are generally more suited to some things than women and vice versa. But just because you don't like the outcome of reality, that doesn't you should deny it.

      And on another note, I just don't know why the left is acting based on fear. Obama said that was wrong. Don't they listen to his Lordship? According to those on the left, conservatives act on fear, not leftists. But the truth is, almost every policy is based on a fear that the policy is trying to negate. Some fears are rational and some are not. And some rational fears are reacted to in such a exaggerated manner that they become irrational.

      Wow, look at that keyboard diarrhea. I feel like you Tyrone.

      • Ty  •  Dec 18, 2017 at 1:32 pm

        Different abilities and circumstances = wildly varying outcomes based on things outside your control. You control what YOU do, not what gifts you were born with, or how the macro economic and economic climate is operating.

        Take a read of this,

        http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/poor-millennials/

        This is an article that twists and winds down the road of environmental differences the millennial generation has to face. On talk radio, and from conservatives, the ONLY variable worth discussing is behavioral differences. Because to an IDIOT conservative, that is the ONLY variable that matters to any real degree. The one you can personally control. It's so obviously false that it's a wonder I even bother trying to talk to you fools.

        If women and men are different in ways that make one group less advantaged, on top of everything else, that bothers liberals MORE than conservatives (and as such is something they have greater fear of) because liberals don't WANT outcomes to be so heavily based on aspects beyond your control. The conservative solution to this real problem and REALITY is to pretend outcomes ARE based on what you and mostly you alone control. Liberals solutions is to try to file off the edges of the things they know are out of peoples control, and in some more intrinsic cases, like differences between groups, where they have no leverage or capacity to alter things for the better, to pretend no differences exist.

        Now I think the latter is folly, but I understand where the fear comes from. And more importantly, they have a shorter distance to go to get closer to the truth than conservatives who have this larger master of the universe narrative of reality and outcomes where the ideal system removes more and more of the societal mechanisms to raise the floor of outcomes because IF people wind up on the bottom, they DESERVE it, it was their own damn fault based on THEIR behavior or failures, and in the cases where even that narrative fails, invoke the charity fairy that DOES-NOT-SCALE to the need.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 18, 2017 at 2:13 pm

        Ty… Moron… It's time to wake up and face REALITY.

        POINT ME TO A SYSTEM THAT in WORLD HISTORY that has "raised the floor of outcomes" more or better than the US FREE-MARKET CAPITALIST SYSTEM. Where does this mythical UTOPIA EXIST? Narnia?
        The ONLY systems that leftists impose are the ones that make the rich and successful poorer, not the poorer richer. THAT'S A FACT!
        And you know what… Leftists love that. Society can cease its progress, just so long as the gap between success and failure is closed. Just make everyone EQUALLY MISERABLE, and you morons will declare SUCCESS. Everyone is miserable, well except for our GODLY ELECTED LEADERS. They will be immune to our government-mandated equality.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm

        You will NEVER raise the floor for anyone, by continuing to put greater restraints on the ceiling of everyone!

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm

        Ty…

        Let's put it another way. Why did America become the greatest, most prosperous country in world history… and continues to be today? Is it birth-right? Is it because we work harder and are smarter? Is it in our DNA? Is it because we call ourselves Americans? OF COURSE NOT… it is because of Free-Market Capitalism! It is because our FOUNDERS were smarter.

        America created a way of life that had not really existed before. It wasn't perfect… it still isn't. However, from top to bottom, NOWHERE have more people prospered than in America. In America, individuals have been allowed and encouraged to prosper. Through individual prosperity, our society in general, has PROSPERED. Our rich are richer than most and our poor live better than most "middle class" around the world.
        You have to work DAMN HARD to be poor and destitute in America.

      • Ty  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 12:27 am

        There is no ceiling rizzo.

        Let's assume a 40% marginal top tax rate where much of that money goes to redistributive efforts. I know, you want that lower. Not the point now.

        A person makes a million dollars a year, and with no deductions, takes home 600k. A lot less than a million dollars, but is that a ceiling? What if he decides to "work harder" and next year he makes 2 million dollars. His take home? 1.2 million dollars. Do you see a ceiling? Do you see a cap? Earn more, get more, no caps.

        That you do not like a particular tax rate is beside the point, nothing here implies any caps, and while conservatives are fond of saying that such high tax rates disincentive people from working harder plenty of people still do. Now maybe most conservatives would see such tax rates and be as vindictive and slothful as their talk radio rhetoric and just quit life and do nothing but sit on their rears all day and waste away. If that is how you would react, don't blame society, blame your own sorry ass for being so indolent just because you did not get to keep an extra 5-20% of your earnings.

        There is a reason we have a progressive tax rate (or try to, republicans want it flat and with the pass through maneuver they want plenty of wealthy people paying LESS than others that make much less than they do). At lower income levels, more of your earnings go to basic existence and living and survival, at higher levels, people are less constrained by survival and have more leeway. And at higher earning levels that effect is magnified.

        That is the ethical case for such a model and differential tax rate scheme. And for the record, well to do people take advantage of the same lower tax rates on lower earnings tiers, it's the higher tiers that are taxed at higher rates. As it should be. No caps are there. Jeff Bezos is worth more than a 100 BILLION dollars, does that look like he is bound by a god damn CAP you moron?

        Does this sound like I or any other liberal (… most of them) wants to do away with capitalism and the markets? We just don't want ALL of society based on that. How many effing times do I have to say this explicitly? Do I need to write it out in crayons and post an image? Will that make it easier to seep into that skull?

        You are more productive and talented and contribute more to society? Great, you get to earn more money, and invest more money. You want to keep ALL of that earning? No, some of that is taxed and redistributed. SOME.

        Let me say that again.

        S______________O______________M______________E

        Not all, you still receive GREATER rewards for that greater effort and talent, but in MY model, the people that are less gifted and lucky, and yes, some of the people that were slackers don't get told to eff off if they can't afford cancer treatment and chemo.

        Do you understand? This is pure morality and ethics, and where people draw the line. This is not about whether we have markets or not. This is about the legitimacy of some redistribution built into society.

        Capitalism creates winners and losers, that is a core function of the damn system, many of those losers will get back up on their feet, and plenty of people can and will help them. But not everyone can or will get back up so easily. This is a numbers game. And the conservative solution of, let the chips fall where they may, because my vaunted SUPERIOR caring about others falls off a god damn cliff when it comes to the "undeserving poor" is going to leave a lot of misery that need not persist to that degree.

        But then, as I've described before as it relates to conservative attitudes and ethics, increased misery is a feature not a bug to too many of you. The out groups are deemed deserving some increased misery as a consequence of their bad behavior, or their parents behavior bringing them over at 2 and not having the herculean resolve to self deport themselves, or of circumstance and chance by being unlucky and not having the conservative charity fairy have its fickle gaze shine upon some potentially deserving person.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 9:43 am

        MORON…

        You keep making up shit. SHOW ME…. where has someone been told to "eff off if they can't afford cancer treatment and chemo."? WHERE??????

        You m/f'ers create these alternate realities, then form your worldview around it.
        The only people who have been told to "Eff Off" are people like Charlie Gard, who the GOVERNMENT said "EFF OFF, YOU ARE NOT A LIFE WORTH SAVING"!

        And YOU BETTER BELIEVE, OPPRESSIVE TAXES, like the ones YOU ADVOCATE FOR are disincentives to working and earning more and are TANTAMOUNT TO CAPS!
        Just ask anyone, who has been near the earning cutoff, before entering the next higher tax-bracket. That is an INCENTIVE TO EARN LESS and be LESS PRODUCTIVE. America has become the greatest nation in world history, not by these leftists tactics! Now piss off.

        And while you BASH the rich, you ought to be thanking them. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).

      • kmeechan  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 7:10 pm

        Regarding Rizzo's point about that "dreaded" Capitalism, there are basic common concepts and denominators that you usually find in successful societies and countries, we can argue all day about graphs and stats but this is my observation:
        Free market capitalism (profit motive): not perfect but the BEST system
        Private Property rights
        Rule of Law (and contract enforcement)
        Individual liberty (which also applies to business and commerce)
        freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. (1st amendment)
        equal opportunity for success, wealth, education, etc. ("all men created equal", no monarchy, laws apply to the ruling class as well): this does not mean equal outcome, progressives, that is a pipe dream and antithetical to human nature and abilities
        Limited government and regulation (not "unlimited" free for all as Ty has suggested)

        The more we stray from these principles the worse off we will be…and not coincidentally they are generally all under constant assault from the progressive left

      • Ty  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm

        The roaring 20s had a lot of what you listed, it did not shield the nation from a devastating economic crash. So did the gilded age.

        And most of what the left wants (not the tail end of genuine communists/socialists) is less of a free for all. You say you do not want that, but that is the direct consequence of conservative priorities.

        You wanted to privatize social security, which at its core has plenty of redistributive effects from more productive people to less productive people. Same with medicare, Michael, Paul Ryan, others always talk about the need to cut it.

        Reform = cut in conservative parlance, you would rather lower your own and corporate taxes and then cut those programs to close the massive increased deficits you've created. Ryan already let it slip that next year entitlement reform would be on the chopping block. At least he wants it to be, whether he'll be able to get there or not.

        That is a move to more of a free for all. Period. Own it. I wish you conservatives would stop being such deceivers and come out and say explicitly what you wanted and what you are willing to let die.

        I am. I'm not hiding my views. But conservatives?

        dadt:

        conservatives – We need to pay attention to unit cohesion, no time to use the military as a social experiment

        translation – We don't like gay people, think they are filthy and vile, and IF we find out one is serving with us openly, THEY need to leave so that our own personal FAILURES as men can be protected.

        Liberals slapped that guttural policy to the furnace, and I delighted in seeing that putrid attitude turn to ash.

        Privatize Social security:

        Conservative – Great idea so people can get higher returns for retirement and use their own money to invest wisely

        translation – I am SICK of having some of MY earnings go to subsidize the earnings of others who made less than I did in retirement, I don't give a DAMN whether they can survive under their earnings over a lifetime, that is not my god damn problem. My money, for ME, not anyone else. Let people put their own money in a retirement account.

        Liberals – That effectively makes people who did not earn as much or did not want to or have the surplus cash to invest to the same degree as the well off have much lower and more volatile retirement income floors without social security.

        Conservative – And? Why is that my problem?

        Liberal – It's not if you are a sadist.

        Conservative – please, we give more to charity !! if people fall through the cracks charity will pick up the slack !

        Liberal – Yes, if the targets are visible to you (most are not) or jump through the proper hoops to receive the fickle distributions that vary greatly depending on the personal finances of the donation givers. This does not scale, and you will increase human misery to more people by not having a more neutral baseline redistribution scheme that a policy like social security provides

        Conservative – Even if some people are worse off, that is their own damn fault, I worked for my money, and/or I was born to the right parents who left me a larger than average inheritance of millions of dollars that I paid zero taxes on. It's not my problem some people can't get their sh*t together. And even IF social security was good policy, we can't afford it, it's going bankrupt.

        Liberal – It is a problem, for non sadists, that want to do good that scales, that want more people better off by mechanisms that are not purely tied to an individuals productivity. And the constant desire to strip out policies that provide some universal baseline inches is closer and closer to the old world of a free for all, every man and tribe for himself. You better stay in the good graces of authority (I'm sure conservatives would LOVE that) to receive the blessings of a church or community group, or you are on your own entirely.

        As for social security not being affordable, that is a LIE. Every time Michael says it, he is LYING. He does not get the excuse of being too dumb to know better, he's not Sean Hannity (though he'd definitely lie too).

        At current trends, Social security is solvent until 2033, and after that point, it will still pay out over 70% of benefits to people. And ALL we would need to do to make it solvent out to the horizon? Lift the cap on payroll taxes beyond the what? 118k level? If we lifted that cap, we could fund it indefinitely. Michael NEVER mentions that, he KNOWS this is not some intractable problem, but it goes back to what you value and prioritize.

        At the end of the day, when conservative to choose, they break towards MORE of a free for all, not less of one. Raising the cap on payroll taxes would hit Michael and other higher earners. Would they be tossed onto the streets? No, a few higher percentage points of their yearly income, a tiny bit less money invested, maybe 50-100k less money left to heirs on the millions left to heirs already (oh the horror, just a few steps away from the gulag archipelago – you pathetic drama queen conservatives).

        It's a perfectly solvable budget problem, but conservatives don't care, they want more of their own money going to them, they almost ALWAYS break towards themselves and an individualistic argument over a redistributive one, and that impulse at its core takes you further and further away from an actual civilization the more extreme you get.

        And to all the conservative mouth breathers talking about how superior your models are, your policies, your state, spare me. I've posted this countless times by now, but I'll do it again to drive home the point.

        https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/o-cities-web3.jpg&w=1484

        Most of the WEALTH and productivity and ingenuity and creativity of this nation is produces in those LIBERAL cities and counties and metro areas that are dominated by LIBERAL people. PLENTY of liberals work just as hard as conservatives, pay taxes just as high, the difference is that they are not as flooded with of a bunch of nativists and tribalists that are so focused on ME and MINE that they get ultra bent out of shape that SOME of their tax dollars go to help out others that are doing less well than them.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 5:32 pm

        Yes Ty, we "receive GREATER rewards for that greater effort".
        That sounds like a foundation for a great society.
        How about the others. The perfectly, noble, by NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, "Poor" in America… on what basis should they receive "greater rewards"?
        Should they receive greater rewards for voting for leftists, who are very comfortable with stealing a far greater percentage of working people's hard-earned money?

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 5:42 pm

        Ty… There you go, just as I stated…. EVERY thing you have suggested yet another lowering of the ceiling for achievement and does absolutely NOTHING to raise the floor.
        NOTHING…. EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY has raised the floor and ceiling of outcomes better than free-market capitalism.
        Still waiting for your FICTIONAL CANCER PATIENT story again… That was great! Thanks for the laughs. Now… how about Charlie Gard? How did that socialized medicine benefit him and his family?
        But don't worry… Our tax dollars will help fund the killing of many babies in 2018 and beyond, so sleep well, you soulless leftist.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 5:49 pm

        Ty… fantasyland is calling, and they want you, their favorite resident back home.
        Liberals are THE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT "ME AND MINE".
        That is why EVERY TIME they have the chance to be charitable and actually GIVE, not government-mandated taxes, but GIVE…. they DON'T. At least not to the degree that conservatives do.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 6:44 pm

        "redistributive argument" – Floor raises for NONE. Ceilings are LOWERED FOR ALL. Result = Small and shrinking pie being cut into smaller and smaller pieces. FAILURE!

        "individualistic argument" – Floor raised higher for more people than any other economic model in world history. The sky's the limit for ALL! Result = Large Pie that continues to grow and create more wealth for all who are willing and able to cook it. SUCCESS!

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 8:59 pm

        How does capitalism "create" winners and losers?

  3. Nani Tavares  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 4:07 am

    What I find amazing is the lack of demand for due process…and it seems ok with everyone. If I hear one more person say we must believe these women, I’m going to scream! So a woman has never accused a man and was proven later to have lied? And if this is not prosecutable because of time, why is it ok in the court of opinion? This makes women seem helpless, whatever happened to women equality? If this is all true these many decades, the Left has failed miserably to empower women and should admit their inability to champion them.

  4. Truth hurts  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Republicans are stoopid
    Since 1992, the share of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters with at least a college degree has increased sharply, to 37%. Among Republicans, 31% have at least a college degree, in 1992. As a consequence, a greater proportion of Democrats than Republicans have a college degree and significantly more had a post graduate degree.

    But then, as we know, Trump likes the uneducated and will do everything in his power to keep them that way.

    • Rizzo  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 5:04 pm

      Yep… Libs are a bunch of over-educated, know-nothings.
      Educated fools they are.

    • Ty needs counseling  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 11:24 pm

      You see what you did there? You said democrat and democrat-leaning registered voters with at least a college degree has increased to 37%. Then you said, among republicans, at least 31% have a college degree. Your comparison is flawed because you are comparing democrat and democrat leaning to republicans. A proper comparison would be democrat and democrat leaning versus republican and republican leaning. That wasn't difficult to figure out. Why couldn't you do it?

      Younger people are far more likely to have a college degree than older. And younger people are far more likely to be democrat. Democrats are more likely to have a college degree because they are generally younger. It is a generational thing.

      And having a degree today doesn't mean much anyway. Neither of my parents have a college degree and both of them are more literate than the typical person with a college degree today. Education has been watered down to the extent that you have half-literate people with a four-year degree.

    • kmeechan  •  Dec 17, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      who is this moron? At least Ty occasionally makes some valid points, or at least writes something worth responding to…

  5. Truth hurts  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    Another thing molesters have in common? Often they are jewish. Dustin Hoffman now. Raping an underage girl, too Ishtar soundtrack no less. Cruel

    • Ty needs counseling  •  Dec 14, 2017 at 11:26 pm

      While you are on that topic, would you like to compare the percentage of Jewish Americans with a college degree to the percentage of your people, whomever that may be? I'd guess that the Jewish Americans are far more likely to have a college degree than your group. Does that make your group "stoopid"?

      I love turning stupid arguments back on people…

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 15, 2017 at 9:36 am

        Truth hurts is a TROLL to the Nth. Degree.

      • Truth hurts  •  Dec 15, 2017 at 1:37 pm

        Jewish people very educated intelligent and more likely to molester. Matt Lauer, Harvey. But not the gentiles Roy Moore and Trump don’t molest or sexually assault as we have been reminded by the GOP.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm

        "More likely" than what or who?
        What does it mean to be "Jewish"? It's a religion, correct?
        I can see no evidence that Matt Lauer is Jewish?
        WTF are we even talking about?
        Oh yeah…. You are anti-Semitic. Got it!

  6. jimmy bonham  •  Dec 17, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    What these abusers have in common is being homely nerds. They couldn't get dates to the prom in high school and are now getting revenge. Misogyny.

  7. Truth hurts  •  Dec 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Blake Leibel, Jewish budding director scalps girlfriend.

    • Rizzo  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      Blake Leibel, is a Canadian.

      • Truth hurts  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 2:57 pm

        And Jewish

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm

        And he's a guy. And, he currently lives in California… not sure about his eye-color.

  8. Truth hurts  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Met Opera Suspends Conductor James Levine (Jewish) Over Allegations of Sex Abuse

  9. Truth hurts  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    And they are only 5% of the population.

    • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 3:17 pm

      And what % do they have "allegations" against them?

      And How do you know what religion these people are?

      And… Your point is what exactly?

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm

        Oh, I remember… You want to remind us that you are anti-Semitic.

  10. Rizzo  •  Dec 26, 2017 at 5:27 pm

    Here you go Ty, and all you soulless leftists. Have fun living with yourselves!
    Exclusive: Federal agents found fetuses in body broker's warehouse (Warning: Graphic images)
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-federal-agents-found-fetuses-body-brokers-warehouse-131757219–finance.html

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.

Medhead

Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Advertisement
Advertisement
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn