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

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: EXman
...
Too bad you think constitutional rights only apply to half of America. That is just plain sad.

Please reference where I said or implied that.

btw I'm not a Republican. I happen to be an American tho.

I never said you're a republican. I reserve that epithet for uptight, disgusting connies. You do, however, appear to be a limbaugh defender which is not an admirable quality.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: EXman
...
Too bad you think constitutional rights only apply to half of America. That is just plain sad.

Please reference where I said or implied that.

btw I'm not a Republican. I happen to be an American tho.

I never said you're a republican. I reserve that epithet for uptight, disgusting connies. You do, however, appear to be a limbaugh defender which is not an admirable quality.

look above you for both counts. Let it marinate...

 

[shira]

Related to the Rush controversy, Warren Ballentine, during a heated discussion with Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday evening, ended the exchange with, "You can go back to the porch, Juan." Which is "code" for, "Uncle Tom" or "house negro."

The Fox effect?

There's also a follow-up video of when Williams was co-host of The O'Reilly Factor Thursday Evening:

Hmmmmm

The point I want to make is that I think Ballentine was correct. Whenever I've heard Juan Williams on the Sunday talk shows and NPR, he's been a "reliable," somewhat left-of-center liberal. He's consistently been thoughtful and persuasive in his statements, but they've been consistently liberal statements.

Yet now, on Fox News, I see a totally different person - a left-bashing, right-wing commentator (especially in that second video). I hardly recognize the man. It's spooky. What could account for the transformation? Could it be that because he receives a nice paycheck from Fox, he doesn't want to say anything too "liberal" and mess up the deal? And if that's true, then "house negro" is EXACTLY the role Williams is playing on Fox.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: shira
Related to the Rush controversy, Warren Ballentine, during a heated discussion with Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday evening, ended the exchange with, "You can go back to the porch, Juan." Which is "code" for, "Uncle Tom" or "house negro."

The Fox effect?

There's also a follow-up video of when Williams was co-host of The O'Reilly Factor Thursday Evening:

Hmmmmm

The point I want to make is that I think Ballentine was correct. Whenever I've heard Juan Williams on the Sunday talk shows and NPR, he's been a "reliable," somewhat left-of-center liberal. He's consistently been thoughtful and persuasive in his statements, but they've been consistently liberal statements.

Yet now, on Fox News, I see a totally different personal - a left-bashing, right-wing commentator (especially in that second video). I hardly recognize the man. It's spooky. What could account for the transformation? Could it be that because he receives a nice paycheck from Fox, he doesn't want to say anything too "liberal" and mess up the deal? And if that's true, then "house negro" is EXACTLY the role Williams is playing on Fox.

He's doing it for the same reason Hannity, Ollie North, O'Reilly, Beck, Bill Cristol, Limbaugh, Savage and the rest of the scum are doing it: for a fat ass paycheck. These people have no character, ethics, or integrity. The are in the most literal sense prostitutes. Which to some people is an admirable thing in the Land of The Holy Dollar. The rest of us a just jealous.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: EXman
...
Too bad you think constitutional rights only apply to half of America. That is just plain sad.

Please reference where I said or implied that.

btw I'm not a Republican. I happen to be an American tho.

I never said you're a republican. I reserve that epithet for uptight, disgusting connies. You do, however, appear to be a limbaugh defender which is not an admirable quality.

look above you for both counts. Let it marinate...

It's not there. If you see it, maybe you're over-marinated.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: shira
Related to the Rush controversy, Warren Ballentine, during a heated discussion with Juan Williams on The O'Reilly Factor Wednesday evening, ended the exchange with, "You can go back to the porch, Juan." Which is "code" for, "Uncle Tom" or "house negro."

The Fox effect?

There's also a follow-up video of when Williams was co-host of The O'Reilly Factor Thursday Evening:

Hmmmmm

The point I want to make is that I think Ballentine was correct. Whenever I've heard Juan Williams on the Sunday talk shows and NPR, he's been a "reliable," somewhat left-of-center liberal. He's consistently been thoughtful and persuasive in his statements, but they've been consistently liberal statements.

Yet now, on Fox News, I see a totally different personal - a left-bashing, right-wing commentator (especially in that second video). I hardly recognize the man. It's spooky. What could account for the transformation? Could it be that because he receives a nice paycheck from Fox, he doesn't want to say anything too "liberal" and mess up the deal? And if that's true, then "house negro" is EXACTLY the role Williams is playing on Fox.

Why? money. Or maybe he had this planned the entire time. Look at dennis miller. He's become rabid.

On the other hand, there's joe scarborough - though, not as big a transformation.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: EXman
...
Too bad you think constitutional rights only apply to half of America. That is just plain sad.

Please reference where I said or implied that.

btw I'm not a Republican. I happen to be an American tho.

I never said you're a republican. I reserve that epithet for uptight, disgusting connies. You do, however, appear to be a limbaugh defender which is not an admirable quality.

look above you for both counts. Let it marinate...

It's not there. If you see it, maybe you're over-marinated.

it all in this:

No, what I think is that waving constitutional rights around as a defense for limbaugh is lame subterfuge

Limbaugh gets rights period. To imply that he is not defended by the constitution and to deny him the same rights as others because you do not agree with him is wrong. It is also wrong to say it is a deception (subterfuge) that he does not get be defended by the constitution any less than anyone else.

second half of that thought by you

- the only thing repuggies seem to excel at these days.

I was defending him, therefore lump me in with republicans.

If that is not what you mean you should choose your words more carefully. Or we can just chalk it up to another blind know it all liberal progressive?

Rush has the same rights that you and I should be afforded. Period. Anyone who states otherwise is putting partisan politics and progressive agendas ahead of the constitution. Which happens daily here by many members.

The Marination is done. How them hot coals feel?

 

[TruePaige]

So, where is the thread like this about the time Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
So, where is the thread like this about the time Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990?

:shocked:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I was reading a transcript of his show yesterday. He explained that when people go after him using his quotes, he has one of two choices, neither perfect. He can either ignore it, in which he runs the risks of his enemies will take his silence as confirmation of their accusations, or respond to it, in which he risks giving his enemies what they want: a angry reaction.

I guess this is what it is to be a public figure.

He said that in cases like racism, he moves to discredit those accusations, even if it delights his opponents, because they are simply too inflammatory. For the odd quote out of context, I think he ignores them, because they don't have much long term damage potential.

Don't mean to divert the thread but I hope all of the Obama critics remember the part I bolded.

The problem with your "hope" is the Obama quotes can be substantiated and backed up.
you can't hide his comment about his grandmother being racists, like typical white people. Which in itself is a racist comment.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
The problem with your "hope" is the Obama quotes can be substantiated and backed up.
you can't hide his comment about his grandmother being racists, like typical white people. Which in itself is a racist comment.

And the problem with you and your ilk is the inability to understand half of what Obama says, supplemented by your selective use of quotes. What was the sentence immediately preceding the "typical white person" comment that you cite above as Obama calling his grandmother a racist?

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn?t."

So Obama says "my grandma is not a racist" which you interpret as "my grandma is a racist".

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: EXman
...
Too bad you think constitutional rights only apply to half of America. That is just plain sad.

Please reference where I said or implied that.

btw I'm not a Republican. I happen to be an American tho.

I never said you're a republican. I reserve that epithet for uptight, disgusting connies. You do, however, appear to be a limbaugh defender which is not an admirable quality.

look above you for both counts. Let it marinate...

It's not there. If you see it, maybe you're over-marinated.

it all in this:

No, what I think is that waving constitutional rights around as a defense for limbaugh is lame subterfuge

Limbaugh gets rights period. To imply that he is not defended by the constitution and to deny him the same rights as others because you do not agree with him is wrong. It is also wrong to say it is a deception (subterfuge) that he does not get be defended by the constitution any less than anyone else.

second half of that thought by you

- the only thing repuggies seem to excel at these days.

I was defending him, therefore lump me in with republicans.

If that is not what you mean you should choose your words more carefully. Or we can just chalk it up to another blind know it all liberal progressive?

Rush has the same rights that you and I should be afforded. Period. Anyone who states otherwise is putting partisan politics and progressive agendas ahead of the constitution. Which happens daily here by many members.

The Marination is done. How them hot coals feel?

There is no constitutional protection for anybody (including limbaugh) to buy into a nfl franchise - a private entity. Being the apparent expert on the constitution, maybe you can point out the basis of your assertion. If you attempt this, please cite some case law instead of just flailing your arms around. It's curious that in limbaugh's own defense, he doesn't use the constitution ploy. He just goes on the offense about his detractors. Maybe you haven't gotten the updated playbook.

As far as whether I accused you of being a republican, I wouldn't have done that since I don't remember any of your posts and therefore your party affiliation, if any. Maybe you're new around here or have been on a lengthy vacation. Don't know and don't care. I learned a long time ago to not make assumptions about a person's affiliation despite what they spew. Ironically, you're acting more like a republican with each post whether you want to admit it or not. Being closeted must be confusing.

You seem to be sensitive about the possibility that some people might know more than you. I don't claim to know more than you since, as stated above, I don't know you. There is a saying though about remaining silent so that people have to guess about whether you're stupid or not.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: sandorski
This thread is still going?

Let me reiterate: I'm glad these quotes have been corrected, but it's akin to proving that Hitler didn't hate the French. AKA, a hollow victory.

LOL, the drug addict/sex pervert has a loyal following (as did Hitler???).

Not exactly. More like: Either way, you are still defending an Asshole.

Damn, I hate to admit it but Hitler was probably a bigger asshole then Rush

:laugh:

LOL, someone should make one of those "Hitler finds out..." videos - have him finding out that Rush didn't get to buy the Rams

 

[IGBT]

lies and slander are acceptable among liberals because it's the seriousness of the charge rather then evidence that's important to them. Falls in line with their "judge liberals by their intentions not results" paradigm.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: IGBT
lies and slander are acceptable among liberals because it's the seriousness of the charge rather then evidence that's important to them. Falls in line with their "judge liberals by their intentions not results" paradigm.

Dur da dur dur dur! What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Weak troll sauce. Making shit up off the top of your head again?

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: IGBT
lies and slander are acceptable among liberals because it's the seriousness of the charge rather then evidence that's important to them. Falls in line with their "judge liberals by their intentions not results" paradigm.

Dur da dur dur dur! What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Weak troll sauce. Making shit up off the top of your head again?

Ahh you can read a telepropmter too!!.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: IGBT
lies and slander are acceptable among liberals because it's the seriousness of the charge rather then evidence that's important to them. Falls in line with their "judge liberals by their intentions not results" paradigm.

Dur da dur dur dur! What's that supposed to mean, anyway? Weak troll sauce. Making shit up off the top of your head again?

What are you, like 11 years old?

What it means is that liberals have a narrative story in line with their world view. And even if a scandal turns out to be false, they claim that the perpetrator is guilty anyway. E.g. Duke Lacrosse players.

In the case of Rush, the media are dancing around saying "well maybe Rush didn't say that exact quote, but it's okay that we engaged in legal slander because we all know republicans are racist." They use their made up story in order to justify their own position in circular logic. Just like posting a lie on wikipedia, which gets quoted by some book, which then gets sourced back on wikipedia itself.