Limbaugh racist quotes on MLK assassin, slavery shown to be outright fabrication

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

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.

Thats fine, I can understand that point.

But I have to say that Ive never heard him saying anything that directly inflammatory in regards to race. Most of the time he is having to react to racist alligations. He definitely can say things that might go too far for some, but I havent heard him say anything like the quotes pushed around.

Thats the problem, those quotes directly influenced this situation, and I just think thats wrong. I bet you that if that story wasnt made, and Jackson, etc, didnt get involved, this would have been a non story.

 

[Vic]

Rush, the victim of a faux outrage smear campaign.... the ironing is simply delicious.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Druidx

You mean the macro where he list all those stupid Bush quotes? Proving how intellectually dishonest he is by completely ignoring the fact EVERYONE else was saying the same thing?
Is that the macro you're talking about? If so here are the missing quotes you'll never see in his macro.
Harvey's missing quotes

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.

That's quite the bowl of fail, even for you, since the first thirteen quotes were before Bush was President.

 

[Greenman]

It sure looks like Rush will be able to prove slander, and it's also pretty clear a major deal went down in flames because of it. Someone is going to write him a very large check because of this.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Greenman
It sure looks like Rush will be able to prove slander, and it's also pretty clear a major deal went down in flames because of it. Someone is going to write him a very large check because of this.

Yes. This proves once again that just because it's on the intarweb doesn't make it true.

I'm not defending rush, I work for a living so I never hear him. But it sounds like a good case of slander. If he can prove grievance via slander then it's open and shut.

 

[seemingly random]

It's quite simple. limbaugh is a trouble maker. The nfl owners want to make money not trouble. The current anti-limbaugh sentiment is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: spidey07
...
I'm not defending rush, I work for a living so I never hear him. But I agree with anything he says that can be construed as divisive, anti-democratic and anti-liberal during the time that republicans are not in office.

Accurate?

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
It's quite simple. limbaugh is a trouble maker. The nfl owners want to make money not trouble. The current anti-limbaugh sentiment is just the tip of the iceberg.

oh please, when you have nfl owners like Al Davis, Rush being a minor holder in a team wouldnt have caused any more trouble except from those that disagree with his political views. again, why is this even a story? because some decided to float a false quote and stir up the racial issues. It seems pretty obvious that was enough for the nfl to want to wash their hands of it. I dont blame the nfl, they cant afford to put up with it.


that is the point of all of this. you think he is a trouble maker, thats fine, but that is hardly the sentiment of everyone. your saying that becuase some dont like him, then its ok to bar him from something like this. we are talking about a private citizen here, not an elected official.

as far as this being the tip of the ice berg, none of this is new. rush's critics have been around in the public eye for many years. these same arguments have existed for years as well.

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: spidey07
...
I'm not defending rush, I work for a living so I never hear him. But I agree with anything he says that can be construed as divisive, anti-democratic and anti-liberal during the time that republicans are not in office.

Accurate?

depends on your point of view....

you can say anyone is divisive if they dont happen to agree with you. same thing with all of those points. i see people throw that term around as an excuse to stop any debate. when you have two politcial groups with differing views, the situation is automatically divisive.

if someone was looking at this from the outside, then they would see your point could be applied to anyone that is part of one group or another defending their positions. its all devisive becuase most people in either group are steadfast in thier ideology. Rush is just one of those guys that happens to be in one group instead of another.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: trooper11

Originally posted by: seemingly random
It's quite simple. limbaugh is a trouble maker. The nfl owners want to make money not trouble. The current anti-limbaugh sentiment is just the tip of the iceberg.

oh please, when you have nfl owners like Al Davis, Rush being a minor holder in a team wouldnt have caused any more trouble except from those that disagree with his political views. again, why is this even a story? because some decided to float a false quote and stir up the racial issues. It seems pretty obvious that was enough for the nfl to want to wash their hands of it. I dont blame the nfl, they cant afford to put up with it.


that is the point of all of this. you think he is a trouble maker, thats fine, but that is hardly the sentiment of everyone. your saying that becuase some dont like him, then its ok to bar him from something like this. we are talking about a private citizen here, not an elected official.

as far as this being the tip of the ice berg, none of this is new. rush's critics have been around in the public eye for many years. these same arguments have existed for years as well.

There's desirable attention from controversy and then the other kind. limbaugh is the other kind, no matter how hard one attempts to explain it away. I think the phrase "money talks, bullshit walks" is appropriate here.

 

[Atreus21]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...baugh-media-lynch-mob/

The irony is, of course, that the people reporting this as fact are the same types who are always denouncing bloggers and the internet as forces of evil intent on destroying proper journalism ? proper journalism being the kind that involves checking facts. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, however, it seems to be enough that the intention (i.e. to show the talk radio host is a racist) is considered pure.

Even those who have been primary movers in spreading these malicious falsehoods ? which would lead to payouts of hundreds of thousands in British libel courts if lawsuits were ever filed there ? are brazenly unapologetic.

Thus, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell pens this column containing the slavery quote and then follows up with another column with a kind-of-sort-of-well-not-really-at-all mea culpa in which he states that the quote seemed ?so in character with the many things that Limbaugh has said before that we didn?t verify it beyond the book?.

OK, so it sounded right and it was on the internet or in a book or something so it was fine to just go ahead and print it as stone-cold fact without any attribution? I wonder which journalism school teaches that?

And Burwell caps it off by implying ? nudge, nudge, wink, wink ? that Limbaugh?s really lying: ?Fine, let?s play along for the time being and take him at his word that he was inaccurately quoted in the Huberman book.? I?m no fan of British libel laws but, again, if that had been printed in the UK it would have led to a hefty payout for aggravated damages.

A very good blog by the telegraph on this. And a very astute comment:

The whole point of accusing people of ?racism? is that it immediately puts them on the defensive with a charge that is impossible to disprove.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Mani

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.

No where near the acts of the NAACP, Jackson, et al.

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.

Taking the bolded answer in your quoted in your post at face value, if Limbaugh is "a master at using racial images to stir his listeners into a fury," it defines that drug addled, hate mongering lard bucket as a racist piece of shit.

 

[Red Dawn]

How can Limbaugh be racist when one of his best pals is Clarence Thomas?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How can Limbaugh be racist when one of his best pals is Clarence Thomas?

I think Clarence Tomas is actually white and accidentally fell down a coal chute :laugh:

Checkout this nugget

http://rushisaracist.com/

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How can Limbaugh be racist when one of his best pals is Clarence Thomas?

I think Clarence Tomas is actually white and accidentally fell down a coal chute :laugh:

That's suppose to be funny and clever? And you call that fat sweaty piece of shit a Racist?

Checkout this nugget

http://rushisaracist.com/

Quotes taken out of context aren't so damning. What he does do is play off the racism of his listeners and followers.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How can Limbaugh be racist when one of his best pals is Clarence Thomas?

I think Clarence Tomas is actually white and accidentally fell down a coal chute :laugh:

Checkout this nugget

http://rushisaracist.com/

You realize, horrible Clarence Thomas comment aside, that the video on that website cites the discredited quote as truth?

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Checkout this nugget

http://rushisaracist.com/

Well... if its on the internet... it has to be true.

I was shocked when I saw ""this nugget" too.

 

[Ackmed]

A lot of his "quotes" are made up quotes. Nothing new.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How can Limbaugh be racist when one of his best pals is Clarence Thomas?

I think Clarence Tomas is actually white and accidentally fell down a coal chute :laugh:

That's suppose to be funny and clever? And you call that fat sweaty piece of shit a Racist?

Checkout this nugget

http://rushisaracist.com/

Quotes taken out of context aren't so damning. What he does do is play off the racism of his listeners and followers.

Wow I think you misunderstood my post. I was insinuating that Rush has a problem with black people and if he does like Clarence Thomas then he can't possibly be black.

sheesh kinda tense in here...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Rush also absolutely destroyed all this "racist" libel and slander that has been fabricated against him during his shows this week. He went back to the archives of his shows and proved how his quotes were either taken completely out of context or, in some cases, "quotes" that he supposedly made were completely imaginary and made up by the liberal media.

One of the big rallying cries from the left and the state-run media right now is a "racist" comment Rush supposedly made, when in fact, this so-called "quote" was actually lifted from an uncited Wikipedia entry! There is no citation, because...Rush never made the comment to begin with!

It's actually quite sad what some people will believe and what passes for "journalism" nowadays.

:laugh:

Rush Fatass "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: n yusef
WRT potential NFL ownership, Limbaugh's comments about Donavan McNabb are the most troubling.

What does the media wanting a black quarterback have to do with being racist?
Pure business. Nothing to do with race, rather the ability to market.

If he had said something like 'black people are too stupid to play quarterback' that would be racist.

I think we can all agree that the media was pulling for the first black president.

(I wonder how much Rush is going to sue CNN for?)

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: JKing106
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/

I had no idea the free market worked that way.

I find it truly confusing that Rush Limbaugh and other members of the Church of the Free Market and Free $pee¢h(TM) are upset about the victory for capitalism at its finest!

It would seem things occurred like this:

1) Rush and his partners offered a product up to the market. The product: a football team with a major partner who has made many divisive comments about race over the years. The market: the current ownership of the Rams, the NFL leadership, and the fan base of the NFL, AKA the "little people" who choose to buy the tickets and the merchandise (or not).

2) Market forces acted, among them: the spotlight cast upon someone who craves that spotlight more than anything else showed some ugly things; some of the NFL and team leadership undoubtedly realized that standing with a lightning rod could be potentially harmful; and many consumers ("fans") indicated their distaste, showing that demand for the product was low.

3) Based upon their analysis of these market forces, the valiant free marketeers who were putting up the offer realized that another product would be better positioned to do well in the current market, i.e. a different team without a racial lightning rod and spotlight-seeker.

4) As a result, they did what any good capitalist would do: they exercised the option offering better potential earnings!

And there you go! Capitalism succeeded in the best way imaginable, filtering out the less worthy, and offering the more worthy.

Many conservatives believe down to their very core that the most important aspect of the freedom to associate is the freedom to disassociate. Whether it's gays from Boy Scouts & the military, women from country clubs, or blowhard radio hosts from NFL franchises. Many conservatives would regard this as a huge victory.

Limbaugh has made millions being a race-baiter. That's his deal. Whether or not he personally is a racist is immaterial. He does that to gin up ratings among angry white males, his fan-boy base. His supporters have no reason to whine about this. Their boy is just reaping what he's been sowing for 20 years. As for "free speech". The people who protested the possibility of him owning a team practiced their free speech rights.

These 21st century Conservatives aren't the mainstream except when they are. They change their rhetorical tactics to suit the situation. When they're winning at something, or when things are otherwise going their way, it's vindication -"proof" that the "silent majority" of Americans agrees with them and that we are "a conservative nation." When the ill wind is blowing, though, they are a persecuted minority, marginalized by evil, left-wing monsters who want to control everything. Except when the roles are reversed. It's silly. We aren't living in "The Lord of the Rings."

So cry me a river, Rush Limbaugh. You just got handed your hat by one of the most conservative elements in American society - major league football. Politicize it all you want, but at the end of the day, you're just a divisive asshole - a role you have embraced with relish until now. I celebrate and defend your right to free speech, but you alone suffer the consequences of the things you say, and you have no choice but to own them. Be man and show some integrity and stop blaming others for not liking you.

 

[manowar821]

I had never heard this supposed quote of him, and I still know he's a sack of shit.

Why did you need to make a fucking thread about this?

 

[Patranus]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

So get this....The quotes that were drummed up were cited through Media Matters (a liberal group) and now Media Matter has come out and said we never said Limbaugh said these racist quotes.

The book that published these "quotes" = FAIL

 

[trooper11]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

I find it truly confusing that Rush Limbaugh and other members of the Church of the Free Market and Free $pee¢h(TM) are upset about the victory for capitalism at its finest!

It would seem things occurred like this:

1) Rush and his partners offered a product up to the market. The product: a football team with a major partner who has made many divisive comments about race over the years. The market: the current ownership of the Rams, the NFL leadership, and the fan base of the NFL, AKA the "little people" who choose to buy the tickets and the merchandise (or not).

2) Market forces acted, among them: the spotlight cast upon someone who craves that spotlight more than anything else showed some ugly things; some of the NFL and team leadership undoubtedly realized that standing with a lightning rod could be potentially harmful; and many consumers ("fans") indicated their distaste, showing that demand for the product was low.

3) Based upon their analysis of these market forces, the valiant free marketeers who were putting up the offer realized that another product would be better positioned to do well in the current market, i.e. a different team without a racial lightning rod and spotlight-seeker.

4) As a result, they did what any good capitalist would do: they exercised the option offering better potential earnings!

And there you go! Capitalism succeeded in the best way imaginable, filtering out the less worthy, and offering the more worthy.

Many conservatives believe down to their very core that the most important aspect of the freedom to associate is the freedom to disassociate. Whether it's gays from Boy Scouts & the military, women from country clubs, or blowhard radio hosts from NFL franchises. Many conservatives would regard this as a huge victory.

Limbaugh has made millions being a race-baiter. That's his deal. Whether or not he personally is a racist is immaterial. He does that to gin up ratings among angry white males, his fan-boy base. His supporters have no reason to whine about this. Their boy is just reaping what he's been sowing for 20 years. As for "free speech". The people who protested the possibility of him owning a team practiced their free speech rights.

These 21st century Conservatives aren't the mainstream except when they are. They change their rhetorical tactics to suit the situation. When they're winning at something, or when things are otherwise going their way, it's vindication -"proof" that the "silent majority" of Americans agrees with them and that we are "a conservative nation." When the ill wind is blowing, though, they are a persecuted minority, marginalized by evil, left-wing monsters who want to control everything. Except when the roles are reversed. It's silly. We aren't living in "The Lord of the Rings."

So cry me a river, Rush Limbaugh. You just got handed your hat by one of the most conservative elements in American society - major league football. Politicize it all you want, but at the end of the day, you're just a divisive asshole - a role you have embraced with relish until now. I celebrate and defend your right to free speech, but you alone suffer the consequences of the things you say, and you have no choice but to own them. Be man and show some integrity and stop blaming others for not liking you.

1. Rush didnt go to this group and ask to be involved, they came to him and he decided to do it, so this wasnt some grand plan on his part.

2. How are false quotes used to drum up anger 'market forces'? you make it sound like the other side of this doesnt do their fair share of race bating...

3. I do agree that those forces did directly influence the NFL's position though.

4. I agree there as well, I dont blame the NFL on this one, even if it would have been nice to see someone resist it. they are a business and they wouldnt have been able to put up with these people that would continue to hound Rush rather it was true or not. But, if I was in Rush's place, I know I wouldnt be happy that people were able to derail this by using false statements. I dont think anyone here would be happy with that outcome, but of course, if you hate the man, then you wouldnt want to understand that anyway.


why do people that obviously want to mock capitilism wish to use it so often to make points? i mean i get that your trying to make fun of the other side, but why not take the oppurtunity to actually look at it as if it was a person you did agree with politically. thats about the only way i could see someone looking at it objectively.

and to be honest, I dont mind anyone protesting anything they want. what I thought was wrong was the media pushing false quotes that seemed to just be there to fan the flames. and like i said, the nfl has every right to do whatever they want within the law, but things like slander are laws too and i just think using false quotes to steer opinion about anything isnt the right thing to do.

how in the world can you sit there and claim that Rush polticized this? exactly who drummed up the stories around false quotes? exactly who started 'speaking out' agasint him in all manor of ways? he has to own false quotes? Rush didnt even say a word until others decided to attack him in the most idiotic ways. I mean really, why make it harder on themselves by using unsubstatiated quotes that would come back to bite them later? Of course after seeing the outcome, they got exactly what they wanted without needing to be truthful. All it took was a well timed alligation and it was over.

as far as being a race baiter, ect, I think thats a highly subjective opinion. its like everything in politics, people are going to hear what they want to hear more often then what they need to hear. something you might take as 'race baiting' could easily be somehting out of context or simply taken another way by someone else. all im saying is that none of that is at issue here. Everyone has their opinion of Rush and that is that. the only issue that i find is in using false quotes to stir the pot. I dont care who else has done that, it never excuses someone of doing it in the future.

and what the heck does this have to do with conservatism being a majority or minority in the country? i mean way to go waaaay off topic here. this could quickly spiral out of control lol. to briefly respond to that, I would say that most Americans dont label themselves liberal or conservative, but instead a base of core values that drive them towards one party or another not neccesarily becuase that party historically adopts certain values, but based on whatever the candidate is offering. of course their are vocal people on both sides, but that is the nature of democracy and the constant debate. of course people like Rush have strong opinions about how they think people feel based on those that give him feedback, etc. people like this exist on both sides and serve as a lightning rod for regular people to observe and better understand what they want in the process. you decide you want nothing to do with his ideals, others may decide to dig deeper into those ideas. sure, thats devisize, but only becuase we will never have universal agreement on all of these topics.