Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Harvey
Don't rush me. As of the first of the month, I'm just a kid of 68.
And I trust you to have my back, as well. :thumbsup:
Thanks, my friend. I've been telling them that and demanding they disprove anything in them since those "macros" were brand new words on the page. They take a lot of time to compile, write and format for the forums, and facts don't change. I edit them each time I post to use the parts that are relevant to a given posts, but there's no point in re-writing them completely every time I post the same answers when they keep bringing up the same tired old bullshit, time after time, after time. Either, they're too mouse challenged to find anything to refute the information in my "macros," or they don't want to know the truth, or they're too reading challenged to understand it when it's in front of their noses.
In this case, xchangx and Fear No Evil cited David Ehrenstein's piece in the Los Angeles as supposed "evidence" that Paul Shanklin's parody song and Limbaugh playing it were somehow equivalents. Sadly, they were too lazy read read the entire editorial and the actual lyrics as sung in the parody song or too stupid to understand them so they didn't have a clue that they were actually diametrically opposite in their intent and meaning.
I suspect their single digit IQ's will keep them from comprehending this post, as well.
Its people like you who prove that we should never ever elect black officials, never ever have black super athletes, never ever allow blacks to do anything.
You feel they aren't equal and need protection from criticism and parody.
Now, that's a crock of shit. :roll:
Paul Shanklin's parody song and his fake Afro accent mocking Al Sharpton were blatantly racist because they called up many stereotypes, including references to "the hood" and to high profile Afro American figures with negative and violent assicociations, including Snoop Dog and Louis Farrakhan. They continue by referring to Obama as a " white interloper's dream," and they go on to refer to stereotypical references to black church organizations:
No, I haven't called your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal "every name in the book," even a book small enough to fit your limited attension span. Names I HAVE called them include traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers, liars and general incompetents, all of which I've proven many times. Do I again have to post one of my "macros" with links to specific names, dates, actions, quotes, legal citations and competent legal authorities to remind you? LMK, and I'll be glad to oblige.
I NO made such references to all of those who share their ethnicities, their religions or any other group of people. I said that about the specific people, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. THEY are embodiments of every name I've called them because they committed every crime of which I've accused them and more.
Calling me "racist" for that proves that you don't have a clue about the meaning of the word, let alone why it applies to Limbaugh. The rest of your lame rant just shows you to be one more loser who was stupid enough to fall for the Bushwhackos' bullshit from the start and that you're still too stupid to understand their criminality, now.
The worst part is, you took the rest of our nation into the moral and financial sewer with you.
Ahahhaaaa! Slobber the Gut is going to be dropped from the bidding for the Rams. Free market for the win!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...be-dropp_n_321362.html
http://rushisaracist.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...be-dropp_n_321362.html
http://rushisaracist.com/
They were free to reject his bid. I guess he could call Cheney, and try to force a no-bid contract.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,532
- 606
- 126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: Harvey
Don't rush me. As of the first of the month, I'm just a kid of 68.
And I trust you to have my back, as well. :thumbsup:
Thanks, my friend. I've been telling them that and demanding they disprove anything in them since those "macros" were brand new words on the page. They take a lot of time to compile, write and format for the forums, and facts don't change. I edit them each time I post to use the parts that are relevant to a given posts, but there's no point in re-writing them completely every time I post the same answers when they keep bringing up the same tired old bullshit, time after time, after time. Either, they're too mouse challenged to find anything to refute the information in my "macros," or they don't want to know the truth, or they're too reading challenged to understand it when it's in front of their noses.
In this case, xchangx and Fear No Evil cited David Ehrenstein's piece in the Los Angeles as supposed "evidence" that Paul Shanklin's parody song and Limbaugh playing it were somehow equivalents. Sadly, they were too lazy read read the entire editorial and the actual lyrics as sung in the parody song or too stupid to understand them so they didn't have a clue that they were actually diametrically opposite in their intent and meaning.
I suspect their single digit IQ's will keep them from comprehending this post, as well.
Its people like you who prove that we should never ever elect black officials, never ever have black super athletes, never ever allow blacks to do anything.
You feel they aren't equal and need protection from criticism and parody.
Now, that's a crock of shit. :roll:
Paul Shanklin's parody song and his fake Afro accent mocking Al Sharpton were blatantly racist because they called up many stereotypes, including references to "the hood" and to high profile Afro American figures with negative and violent assicociations, including Snoop Dog and Louis Farrakhan. They continue by referring to Obama as a " white interloper's dream," and they go on to refer to stereotypical references to black church organizations:
No, I haven't called your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal "every name in the book," even a book small enough to fit your limited attension span. Names I HAVE called them include traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers, liars and general incompetents, all of which I've proven many times. Do I again have to post one of my "macros" with links to specific names, dates, actions, quotes, legal citations and competent legal authorities to remind you? LMK, and I'll be glad to oblige.
I NO made such references to all of those who share their ethnicities, their religions or any other group of people. I said that about the specific people, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. THEY are embodiments of every name I've called them because they committed every crime of which I've accused them and more.
Calling me "racist" for that proves that you don't have a clue about the meaning of the word, let alone why it applies to Limbaugh. The rest of your lame rant just shows you to be one more loser who was stupid enough to fall for the Bushwhackos' bullshit from the start and that you're still too stupid to understand their criminality, now.
The worst part is, you took the rest of our nation into the moral and financial sewer with you.
So what about you and your cohorts crimes as a raving liberal lunatic against non-white males...since you believe that everyone else is a "minority" who needs your protection?
That page has been posted several times, and all it proves how really wrong you are. There is only ONE President of the United States at a time. Unfortunately for our nation, at the time, it was George W. Bush. Every person listed at your link based their decisions and their statements on the lies your mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal.
- They received the intelligence.
- They chose to ignore the warnings they received from credible experts.
- They cooked the books and fed Congress lie after lie, after lie to get support for the crimes they then committed.
- They deceived every person quoted at your link.
1. Callous, Reckless or Wanton Disregard or Depraved Indifference
Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. For example, under New York State Law:
The deaths of every American in Iraq are direct, foreseeable consequences of the Bushwhackos' felonious LIES to Congress. In his published statement, George McGovern said:
All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the adminstration started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from thousands of cases of mere negligent homicide, another criminal offense, to murder? :shocked:
2. The Felony-Murder Rule
The Bushwhackos LIED TO CONGRESS to pimp their war, which is a felony even if it not done under oath. Starting any war is obviously dangerous, and as stated, death is a foreseeable consequence of war. The deaths of every American in Iraq were direct, foreseeable consequences of the administration's felonious lies to Congress.
As of October 7, 2009, 4,348 American troops have died and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in your Traitor In Chief's war of LIES in Iraq.
That's more than enough to support charging him and his entire criminal cabal with murder. :|
We prosecute those lying, murdering, torturing traitors for the crimes they committed is what. :thumbsdown: :|
And we install reasonable oversight to enforce our laws to make sure nothing like this never happens again. They cost us far too much.
BUAHAHAHahaha!!! I believe that's Rote Response #243 in the "White Supremacist's Handbook of Bullshit Cliches." :laugh:
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
Rush isn't racist, in the KKK sense, or even the Marge Schott sense. He is just a master at using racial images to stir his listeners into a fury. So while he may not be a racist himself, he's worse in that he's unabashedly creating and energizing racists daily.
Originally posted by: Perknose
Lol, I believe you have to have a good reputation to lose.
Fine. IANAL. Slander.
What are you afraid of, Whitey07? Your rich doctor mommy never let you play with black kids, did she? So frightened...
Have the NAACP, Jackson, et al burned any crosses, blown up any churches or lynched anyone, lately?
Have you? :shocked:
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
THANK YOU for the CAPITAL letters. They REALLY make your point CLEARER. It's GOOD you did that BECAUSE I have A HARD time READING things.
The point is that Rush is a fucking douche and he brought this shit storm on himself. Yeah, it isn't good that people are fucking up his quotes, but it also confirms what a catastrophic asshole he really is.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Have the NAACP, Jackson, et al burned any crosses, blown up any churches or lynched anyone, lately?
Have you? :shocked:
See bolded to answer your question.
Actually, it was those pushing the quotes and the stories that brought this on Rush (i.e. Jackson, etc). Since the quotes turned out to be false, then that certainly wasnt Rush's fault.
And how exactly does misquoting Rush confirm that he is an asshole? To me , that confirms how much of an asshole many in the media are.
Hate the man if you like, but the bigger issue is a false story directly influencing the oppurtunities of someone in a negative way.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Sorry, just a little annoyed.
Rush didn't deserve the misquotes. Mr original point was simply that he's said things in the past that make people not surprised to hear about these new things and, even when they're proven false, people still don't have a hard time believing them.
If they are guilty of slander or libel then let them be brought before a judge and grievances brought against them as guaranteed by The Constitution.
See that's where we differ. I will defend the rule of law no matter who it is, no matter what. I think you are seriously confused with the difference between criminal and civil law. I hope you slipped up on your verbage of Limbaugh/Beck will never be prosecuted and you understand the difference. Prosecution is normally gov vs. like state/county/fed vs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter