Rush Limbaugh Calling For Riots In Denver

[preservanation]

Do you mean like in 2000, when the Karl Rove Krew put out the rumor in South Carolina about McCain having a black kid? That was real classy, wasn't it?
no... it wasn't... but as we have seen, lying is a major part of the republican presidential campaign play book...Ive got to nip this in the bud now.
It's amazing what people will believe when misled.
In 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladeshhttp://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

[Trish]

Why on earth, as a democrat, would you care if limbaugh is correctly quoted or not?

Because it's the principle of the thing. Misrepresenting what Limbaugh said is no better than Limbaugh using what Sharpton said as an excuse for his rant.

[TheStripey1]

??...was there a '68 in '68?........

all year long... were you there?

[TheStripey1]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/18/2008-02-18_schumer_convention_battle_between_hillar.html

Remember...these are Dems saying this, not Rush.

Got something from a credible source?

[Trish]

Why on Earth do you have to be for someone to care if they are being misquoted? Trish feels Limbaugh was misquoted and she has carried a consistency to make sure people aren't being misquoted, no matter what side of the isle they are from.

Thank you.

[TheStripey1]

Dean's declaration and reality may not be in cinque. I really hope that Obama just wins Indiana and North Carolina, then slowly pulls away so by the end he's only 40 or 50 delegates away and he is the only obvious choice for the Supers. BUT it is possible that Clinton could keep it close and cause a party rift. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions for her to actually beat him bad enough in the remaining Primaries to be on top at the end. Not counting the Supers, she'd have to win EVERY Primary by a 67% to 33% margin, just to catch up. Not going to happen.

I understand more and more where the mathmatical realities will come crashing down on her. I think by the middle of May we'll see her soften her tone towards Obama. By Kentucky and Oregan, 20 May, I think it will be obvious to her that it's over.

At least that's what I'm hoping for. I do not want riots either.

no self respecting american wants to see a riot in denver... only the UNamericans want that...

[TheStripey1]

If Obama supporters continue to target, harass, and threaten black superdelegates who are supporting Clinton, there could very well be a backlash against Obama.


got a link?

[TheStripey1]

Somehow, I think you might be a bit biased in favor of a Democratic candidate your party finds easier to DEFEAT!


BINGO!

[TheStripey1]

that's supposed to read republican but it was changed by some moderator to read republican... the Republican PERVERT thread ran on the old site and it had article after article after article of elected republicans being busted for crimes against children.

And as soon as I find the time, I WILL be bringing it back in all it's disgusting detail. The party of family values... what a joke.

[BoogyMan]

If Obama supporters continue to target, harass, and threaten black superdelegates who are supporting Clinton, there could very well be a backlash against Obama.
got a link?

Take a look HERE (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=12479) stripey.

[preservanation]

Got something from a credible source?

Yes, unless you think Biden and Wilder were magically congered up by Meet the press and Face the nation, and everyone who saw it were under a Vulcan mind meld so as to hear things that weren't said."I don't think either candidate wants or can even get away with forcing their will down the throat of the other," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Schumer said Democratic Chairman Howard Dean should get both candidates to accept a plan to pick a winner before the party convenes in Denver in August.

"Each candidate will have to buy into that strategy to determine who wins, because if the loser and their supporters stalk away, then we will lose the general election," said Schumer.

One of Obama's top backers, former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, seconded Schumer, saying that if party insiders pick the nominee, the convention will face more "chaos" than in 1968, when pro- and anti-Vietnam War forces clashed violently.

"If you think 1968 was bad, you watch; in 2008, it will be worse," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." I'll tell you what...call Schumer and Wilder and tell them about them being falsely used like this.
They must not be aware of it yet.
Hooooooo Boy!

[TheStripey1]

LOL.
You're taking partisanship out of the equation.
Bad mistake.

Is there a way to take the partisanship out of republicans? Oh I know one... Let's reinstate the draft...

[TheStripey1]

Ive got to nip this in the bud now.
It's amazing what people will believe when misled.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm


how very nice of you, but it wasn't democrats that passed that rumor off as fact... it was Rove et al... and he wasn't implying it was an adoption...

[TheStripey1]

Thank you.

again, why didn't you defend what sharpton actually said? You had a chance but passed right over it in your "rush" to defend limbaugh.

[preservanation]

how very nice of you, but it wasn't democrats that passed that rumor off as fact... it was Rove et al... and he wasn't implying it was an adoption...Links please.
You're going to have to start backing up your claims with proof.
Accepting your statements in good faith is no longer an option.

[lily]

I know Wiki probably ins't good enough.........but I'm lazy tonight.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_campaign#Use_in_politics)

[preservanation]

During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, Senator John McCain was the target of a whisper campaign implying that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (McCain's adopted daughter is a naturally dark-skinned child from Bangladesh). Voters in South Carolina were reportedly asked, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?". McCain would later lose the South Carolina primary, and the nomination, to George W. Bush.

In addition, on the week of the nomination vote, dozens of radio stations were called on the same day asking talk show hosts what they thought of McCain's having fathered a black child out of wedlock.

I remember, but is there3 any evidence that it came from Rove?
I know people say it did and might be reasonable to assume so but is there any proof?

[suedanim]

Why on Earth do you have to be for someone to care if they are being misquoted? Trish feels Limbaugh was misquoted and she has carried a consistency to make sure people aren't being misquoted, no matter what side of the isle they are from.

Elrathin... I can agree people should care...and very much.. whether one is misquoted.

But, I have to disagree that Trish has been consistent in making sure people aren't being misquoted. In this thread, she has consistently insisted Limbaugh be quoted accurately including his statements in which he pretends to quote Sharpton.

Upon providing direct Sharpton quotes with links that prove Limbaugh a liar, who has deliberately misquoted, twisted and misrepresented Sharptons words, Trish merely continues to insist Limbaugh be quoted accurately, cuts short an article that is evidence of Limbaughs distortion and further goes on to claim she just wants accuracy in quoting.

This is the very height in dishonesty and is point blank evidence that she, in fact, misrepresents herself as a Democrat and does favor the right side of the aisle.

I said in post #122, which was taken directly from Limbaughs own site and a link provided... no twists, no turns, no funny words:

CALLER: Understood. Well, I believe in ego. I believe it's a necessary for your occupation. I believe it's the engine that, you know, that needs to be fed to make you good at what you do. I'm in sales, and I believe that for myself. But your comment about wanting your Operation Chaos to go all the way, like back to 1968 with riots in the streets, turned over burning cars, and I believe you even said "literally."

RUSH: I did say literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!

CALLER: But you said, "That's what we want." That's not good for anybody, and hopefully you really don't want that, and most of us don't. I believe in your Operation Chaos. It showed great ingenuity, and it was and is a fantastic idea. However, riots and burning cars would make all Americans look bad. I believe our whole premise --


Then, INCREDIBLY Trish says in post #125... quoting my post:

I'm sorry, Sue. Everything you posted here proves that you are wrong in this instance.

What Trish HAS been consistent about in this thread is defending and minimizing Rush Limbaughs insanity, while not acknowledging what he actually said, as well as what Al Sharpton ACTUALLY said (not what Rush said he said)

This is intellectual dishonesty.... point blank. She is no more interested in quoting people accurately than Rush Limbaugh does.

JMO! :ponder:

[apdst]

This is what Sharpton actually said on The O'Reilly Factor:

"Well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket."


We all know how easily a colored demonstration can turn into a riot.

[AlanC]

I know Wiki probably ins't good enough.........but I'm lazy tonight.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_campaign#Use_in_politics)

The key phrase in this article is this


Voters in South Carolina were reportedly asked


The word "reportedly" means that no one even found any proof that the question was asked. Senator McCain alluded to it in a speech, alleging that it was being asked using the robotic call mechanism.

Trouble is, no one could ever find anyone who had actually recieved such a call. There is, therefore, no evidence that such calls were ever made, any where to anyone.

The Bush campaign released the texts of all their robot calls to the press, which was an unprecedented move that has never been repeated by any other candidate that I know of.

So to assert that the calls were definitely made is not accurate. To further attribute them to Karl Rove is a complete fabrication.

One that has reached the status of urban legend with a great many on the left.

[Trish]

Elrathin... I can agree people should care...and very much.. whether one is misquoted.

But, I have to disagree that Trish has been consistent in making sure people aren't being misquoted. In this thread, she has consistently insisted Limbaugh be quoted accurately including his statements in which he pretends to quote Sharpton.

Upon providing direct Sharpton quotes with links that prove Limbaugh a liar, who has deliberately misquoted, twisted and misrepresented Sharptons words, Trish merely continues to insist Limbaugh be quoted accurately, cuts short an article that is evidence of Limbaughs distortion and further goes on to claim she just wants accuracy in quoting.

This is the very height in dishonesty and is point blank evidence that she, in fact, misrepresents herself as a Democrat and does favor the right side of the aisle.

I said in post #122, which was taken directly from Limbaughs own site and a link provided... no twists, no turns, no funny words:




Then, INCREDIBLY Trish says in post #125... quoting my post:



What Trish HAS been consistent about in this thread is defending and minimizing Rush Limbaughs insanity, while not acknowledging what he actually said, as well as what Al Sharpton ACTUALLY said (not what Rush said he said)

This is intellectual dishonesty.... point blank. She is no more interested in quoting people accurately than Rush Limbaugh does.

JMO! :ponder:

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, sue. I submit however that I never said Limbaugh was misquoted - I said what he had said was misrepresented. I stand by that. I also said this, in post #252

"Because it's the principle of the thing. Misrepresenting what Limbaugh said is no better than Limbaugh using what Sharpton said as an excuse for his rant."

[apdst]

I said what he had said was misrepresented

Misrepresentation of the facts is rule #8 in The Official Liberal Playbook.

[suedanim]

This is what Sharpton actually said on The O'Reilly Factor:

"Well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket."


We all know how easily a colored demonstration can turn into a riot.


Colored? :confused:

btw.. many demontrations have been held for black causes with no violence of any kind. But, don't let that fact get in your way.

[suedanim]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, sue. I submit however that I never said Limbaugh was misquoted - I said what he had said was misrepresented. I stand by that. I also said this, in post #252

"Because it's the principle of the thing. Misrepresenting what Limbaugh said is no better than Limbaugh using what Sharpton said as an excuse for his rant."


Oh my God. I really cannot believe this. :shame:

How has poor Rush Limbaughs words been misrepresented?? PLEASE do tell.

We have his direct words from his own site. We have the audio and video. So.... how do you justify making the claim his words, his intention of his words, are misrepresented?

[apdst]

many demontrations have been held for black causes with no violence of any kind

How many colored demonstrations HAVE led to violence of all kinds? "We're going to shut the city down", ring a bell??

[Trish]

Oh my God. I really cannot believe this. :shame:

How has poor Rush Limbaughs words been misrepresented?? PLEASE do tell.

We have his direct words from his own site. We have the audio and video. So.... how do you justify making the claim his words, his intention of his words, are misrepresented?

Yes, Sue. I read the transcript and listened to the video. Here's what I gleaned from the 2:

1. Operation Chaos is not about rioting but about keeping the turmoil between the Obama and Clinton campaigns going right up until August and the Dem convention. Limbaugh wants Clinton to win in the remaining primaries so that the distance in superdelegates between she and Obama closes. At the convention then the superdelegates will vote and it is Limbaugh's hope that Clinton will win the nomination based on the superdelegate vote. That's the "objective" of Operation Chaos to which Limbaugh refers - not rioting.

2. Rev. Sharpton commented that if Clinton wins the nomination because of the superdelegate votes there might be trouble - the trouble being demonstration in protest.

3. Limbaugh runs with the trouble/demonstration comment and projects it further by saying that's exactly what is wanted because it will cause riots like those in Chicago - he is "dreaming" of it.

4. He then says that IF that happens it would be good for the Reps because it would ensure a McCain victory.

He's not "calling" for a riot. He's using Sharpton's comments about a possible demonstration and then projecting his own "vision" as a "dream" outcome.

Was he irresponsible in his comments? Yes.
Should he be condemned for this disgusting "dream"? Yes
Was he wrong to use Sharpton's comments to bolster his own agenda? Yes
Is he an asshole? Yes
Was he "calling" for a riot? No

He was projecting his own distorted and very disturbing wishes into the future and trying to legitimize them by referring to Sharpton's comments as the foundation for this "dream" of his. He WANTS there to be demonstrations by Democrats because he DREAMS the demonstrations will spark rioting like the Chicago riots which he HOPES will ensure a McCain election win. It's not a "call" for anything - just a warped explanation for his equally warped wishes.

[suedanim]

Yes, Sue. I read the transcript and listened to the video. Here's what I gleaned from the 2:

1. Operation Chaos is not about rioting but about keeping the turmoil between the Obama and Clinton campaigns going right up until August and the Dem convention. Limbaugh wants Clinton to win in the remaining primaries so that the distance in superdelegates between she and Obama closes. At the convention then the superdelegates will vote and it is Limbaugh's hope that Clinton will win the nomination based on the superdelegate vote. That's the "objective" of Operation Chaos to which Limbaugh refers - not rioting.

2. Rev. Sharpton commented that if Clinton wins the nomination because of the superdelegate votes there might be trouble - the trouble being demonstration in protest.

3. Limbaugh runs with the trouble/demonstration comment and projects it further by saying that's exactly what is wanted because it will cause riots like those in Chicago - he is "dreaming" of it.

4. He then says that IF that happens it would be good for the Reps because it would ensure a McCain victory.

He's not "calling" for a riot. He's using Sharpton's comments about a possible demonstration and then projecting his own "vision" as a "dream" outcome.

Was he irresponsible in his comments? Yes.
Should he be condemned for this disgusting "dream"? Yes
Was he wrong to use Sharpton's comments to bolster his own agenda? Yes
Is he an asshole? Yes
Was he "calling" for a riot? No

He was projecting his own distorted and very disturbing wishes into the future and trying to legitimize them by referring to Sharpton's comments as the foundation for this "dream" of his. He WANTS there to be demonstrations by Democrats because he DREAMS the demonstrations will spark rioting like the Chicago riots which he HOPES will ensure a McCain election win. It's not a "call" for anything - just a warped explanation for his equally warped wishes.

Bizaare. Totally bizaare. Unbelievably bizaare.

You have direct quotes right in front of you and you came away with THAT?

Dishonest does not quite describe it.

Trish... if you seriously stand behind what you just wrote... find me a DIRECT quote... with a link to it, where Sharpton said there would be trouble ... I mean used the word.. trouble...if superdelegates gave Clinton the nomination.

NOT Limbaughs quotes. Limbaugh said Sharpton said it, but he didn't.

Everything you just wrote is what you WANT it to be... not what actually was said by Limbaugh or Sharpton. Its a rightwing spin.

What part of this do you not understand? I'm willing to help.

Quote:
CALLER: Understood. Well, I believe in ego. I believe it's a necessary for your occupation. I believe it's the engine that, you know, that needs to be fed to make you good at what you do. I'm in sales, and I believe that for myself. But your comment about wanting your Operation Chaos to go all the way, like back to 1968 with riots in the streets, turned over burning cars, and I believe you even said "literally."

RUSH: I did say literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!

CALLER: But you said, "That's what we want." That's not good for anybody, and hopefully you really don't want that, and most of us don't. I believe in your Operation Chaos. It showed great ingenuity, and it was and is a fantastic idea. However, riots and burning cars would make all Americans look bad. I believe our whole premise --

Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILIY with some of you. If you're not even willing to discuss events honestly, your party is lost.

[apdst]

I posted a direct quote for yuu already. How are you coming away with what you're coming away with?

[preservanation]

Some here actually get it, congrats.
The MSM has gotten this Operation Chaos so wrong over the months that it doesn't surprise me that some are confused though.
I even heard a knucklehead head on ABC say that Rush was encouraging his operatives to vote for Hillary because she would be easier to beat...WRONG!

The purpose of USOC is the have a protracted battle between the two so as to weaken whoever gets the nomination, and it is working beautifully. Do you think all of this stuff on Omama would be coming out if Hillary had dropped out after Ohio?
Also to get half of the Dem electorate not support the other half...absolutely brilliant.
McCain sure wouldn't be doing it, he's too busy chastising his own party for trying to win state races, micromanaging the GOP. If that guy had half the disdain for the Dems that he has for his own party and stood up to them, he would have a lot more support.

Anyway, Rush wanted the exact circumstance which we now see unfolding, and by now everyone knows that this neck and neck shit is very damaging to the DNC and it's candidates. Obama supporters dislike Hillary and Hillary supporters don't like Obama.
Rush never called for riots.
And if he did, do you really think the Dems would automatically don their Birkenstocks and take to the streets on his say-so?
How about you criticize the organizing group Re-create 68 who are actually calling for people to take the streets in Denver?

[PostmodernProphet]

You have direct quotes right in front of you and you came away with THAT?

sorry, Sue...but YOU are the one coming to the illogical conclusion......

[preservanation]

sorry, Sue...but YOU are the one coming to the illogical conclusion......Could it be that some are confusing Rush with the Caller?
That's the only thing I can think of.

[Trish]

Bizaare. Totally bizaare. Unbelievably bizaare.

You have direct quotes right in front of you and you came away with THAT?

Dishonest does not quite describe it.

Trish... if you seriously stand behind what you just wrote... find me a DIRECT quote... with a link to it, where Sharpton said there would be trouble ... I mean used the word.. trouble...if superdelegates gave Clinton the nomination.

NOT Limbaughs quotes. Limbaugh said Sharpton said it, but he didn't.

Everything you just wrote is what you WANT it to be... not what actually was said by Limbaugh or Sharpton. Its a rightwing spin.

What part of this do you not understand? I'm willing to help.

Quote:
CALLER: Understood. Well, I believe in ego. I believe it's a necessary for your occupation. I believe it's the engine that, you know, that needs to be fed to make you good at what you do. I'm in sales, and I believe that for myself. But your comment about wanting your Operation Chaos to go all the way, like back to 1968 with riots in the streets, turned over burning cars, and I believe you even said "literally."

RUSH: I did say literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!

CALLER: But you said, "That's what we want." That's not good for anybody, and hopefully you really don't want that, and most of us don't. I believe in your Operation Chaos. It showed great ingenuity, and it was and is a fantastic idea. However, riots and burning cars would make all Americans look bad. I believe our whole premise --

Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILIY with some of you. If you're not even willing to discuss events honestly, your party is lost.

Yes, Sue. I had the transcript in front of me. I listened to the video. Heck I listened to the video from SEVERAL different sources. I took freaking notes during the video to make sure I kept on track about what was being said. There's nothing dishonest about anything I posted.

The "trouble" being spoken about is the hypothetical demonstration. That "what if" comment Sharpton made to O'Reilly about what he might do IF Clinton gets the nomination over Obama by "back-room deals" of the superdelegates. I watched that video as well - just to make sure I got the straight of what WAS said and what had not been said.

This is all a freaking word game. Limbaugh played it with Sharpton's comments and you are playing it with Limbaugh's comments. But it's the same blasted game!

In a nutshell - Sharpton did NOT call for demonstrations (trouble) - he was answering a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer. Limbaugh did NOT call for riots in Denver - he was trying to shift the focus off himself for his riot "dream" by implying Sharpton said more than he actually said.

[piratemonkey]

And to state that conservatives don't "kill their own children," like liberals do...

That's an OK thing to say?

[AlanC]

And to state that conservatives don't "kill their own children," like liberals do...

That's an OK thing to say?

Probably a reference to abortion. A higher percentage of abortions are sought by democrats than republicans at least according to the surveys I have seen.

[piratemonkey]

So, even in it's ridiculousness, it's not even accurate. Conservatives also "kill their children."

[AlanC]

Some do, yes. Do they do it the same as Democrats? Not if you consider the percentage as indicative of the group as a whole.

So the comment is what it is. Take from it what you want. But consider this. Since Roe v Wade, there have been over 40 million abortions performed in this country.

When you consider the political identification of the mothers of those abortions and then extrapolate how many of those children would have grown to adopt the same political affiliation and vote in the same percentages, it is clear that George W. Bush, would have never been elected President.

Call it the unintended consequences of Roe v Wade.

Just some fun with statistics.

[Elrathin]

When you consider the political identification of the mothers of those abortions and then extrapolate how many of those children would have grown to adopt the same political affiliation and vote in the same percentages, it is clear that George W. Bush, would have never been elected President.

I wasn't aware that when a woman goes in for an abortion they ask for her political affiliation.

Or are you saying conservatives NEVER have abortions?

[AlanC]

No, I am saying that in surveys, of women who have had abortions, more women identify themselves as democrats than republicans. And by a fairly significant percentage at that.

[potter]

No, I am saying that in surveys, of women who have had abortions, more women identify themselves as democrats than republicans.


Wonder what other inane questions they asked....

[AlanC]

Wonder what other inane questions they asked....


I have no idea. Its just a number that is what it is. No more, no less.

[Elrathin]

No, I am saying that in surveys, of women who have had abortions, more women identify themselves as democrats than republicans. And by a fairly significant percentage at that.

I'd like to know if they were anonymous surveys or surveys where a poller is sitting in front of the person or on the phone with them asking the question.

Some republicans are embarrassed to say they either support or have had an abortion so if it is personal or by phone they may have lied to keep from looking hypocritical.

[PostmodernProphet]

I wasn't aware that when a woman goes in for an abortion they ask for her political affiliation.

Or are you saying conservatives NEVER have abortions?

there would appear to be some logic involved....most women who believe that abortion is not an option would tend to be conservatives.....a significant percentage of conservatives believe that abortion is wrong.....therefore, it would seem logical that the percentage of conservatives that have had an abortion would be significantly different than the percentage of liberals that have had an abortion.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Some republicans are embarrassed to say they either support or have had an abortion so if it is personal or by phone they may have lied to keep from looking hypocritical.

so like crossover voting, you figure we have crossover baby killing?........

[suedanim]

I have no idea. Its just a number that is what it is. No more, no less.

No, I am saying that in surveys, of women who have had abortions, more women identify themselves as democrats than republicans. And by a fairly significant percentage at that.

You'll be happy to provide proof with a link or links for those surveys, I'm sure. Looking forward to seeing that actually.

[lily]

I remember, but is there3 any evidence that it came from Rove?
I know people say it did and might be reasonable to assume so but is there any proof?

Well, let's look back.......McCain was leading in NC.......Rove was head of Bush's campaign.......then all of a sudden the push poll starts and woah.....in one of the more rascist states, where an illegitimate black baby would make someone not vote for him.......and what do you know? Bush wins NC! Amazing.

Link (http://www.dadmag.com/archive/060400jmccain.php)

Dadmag: During your campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination
Bridget became something of an issue in South Carolina didn't she?

McCain: Yeah. There were some pretty vile and hurtful things said during the
South Carolina primary. It's a really nasty side of politics. We tried to
ignore it and I think we shielded her from it. It's just unfortunate that
that sort of thing still exists As you know she's Bengali, and very dark
skinned. A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very
ashamed about her, about the color of her skin. Thousands and thousands of
calls from people to voters saying "You know the McCains have a black baby"
I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.

[preservanation]

That's fine, lily.
I understand the suspicion, and it may be justified.
However, some have been citing that these suspicions are fact.
I have yet to see the smoking gun.

I may believe that it happened how you and others say, but to use this as a fact in defence of other factual bad behavior on the left is not legitiment.
I maintain that this issue is ultimately innuendo and used as a diversionary tactic.
Sorry, that's just the way I see it.

[Elrathin]

so like crossover voting, you figure we have crossover baby killing?........

Unless you are claiming NO conservative has had abortions or supports them.

[Elrathin]

there would appear to be some logic involved....most women who believe that abortion is not an option would tend to be conservatives.....a significant percentage of conservatives believe that abortion is wrong.....therefore, it would seem logical that the percentage of conservatives that have had an abortion would be significantly different than the percentage of liberals that have had an abortion.....

Problem is not everyone is conservative on the same things. There are some people that you might not think conservative, but they think they are.

[4Reaganomics]

Going back to the abortion issue

"Black women are 4.8 times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion"

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#7

Given that blacks vote at around 90% for democrats in general elections, wouldn't these two figures have an effect on how many abortions are performed by minorities?

I'd like to go out on a little limb and say probably


not that it matters to me really, but I think that the assertion that was made earlier that more democrats have abortions than republicans has some ground

When you consider income brackets in abortions and how those income brackets traditionally vote you also see that the claim of more democrat abortions than republicans isn't unfounded.

[preservanation]

Excellent points El.
Both statements are right on.

[PostmodernProphet]

Unless you are claiming NO conservative has had abortions or supports them.

actually, I am claiming what I stated in the next post you quoted....that "there would appear to be some logic involved....most women who believe that abortion is not an option would tend to be conservatives.....a significant percentage of conservatives believe that abortion is wrong.....therefore, it would seem logical that the percentage of conservatives that have had an abortion would be significantly different than the percentage of liberals that have had an abortion....."

Problem is not everyone is conservative on the same things.

the whole debate becomes a bit irrelevant if we don't define "conservative" to include those people who stand opposed to abortion, not?.....

[Elrathin]

the whole debate becomes a bit irrelevant if we don't define "conservative" to include those people who stand opposed to abortion, not?.....

like I said, there are liberals that are against abortion as well, so does that mean they are conservative because of it? Gimme a break.

Just because you are for or against abortion does not mean you are a conservative or not.

[Phyxius]

Misrepresentation of the facts is rule #8 in The Official Liberal Playbook.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." George "WTF" Bush -- January 28, 2003


Yep - those Libbo's sure have the market cornered in that area... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/beatinoff.gif

[PostmodernProphet]

like I said, there are liberals that are against abortion as well, so does that mean they are conservative because of it? Gimme a break.

Just because you are for or against abortion does not mean you are a conservative or not.
give me a break......isn't it a bit disingenuous to argue that abortion isn't a significant dividing line between liberals and conservatives?.......we are talking politics here, not science where a single bit of contradictory evidence can eliminate an hypothesis......we don't need to be universal here, where finding a half dozen or even a half dozen percent of liberals who don't believe abortion should be freely available, or ten thousand conservatives who believe it should be is going to make a statement invalid.....

since the implication of this debate is that conservatives are hypocritical because conservatives have abortions, too, it seems logical that we only include within "conservatives" those who are opposed to abortion.....otherwise one can hardly complain they are hypocrites, no?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." George "WTF" Bush -- January 28, 2003


Yep - those Libbo's sure have the market cornered in that area... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/beatinoff.gif

given the fact that in January of 2003 the information available was that he had in fact done that, it would seem that Bush's comment is less of a misrepresentation than your post......

[preservanation]

Remember Rush?
Riots in Denver?
Please stay on topic.
~p

[Elrathin]

give me a break......isn't it a bit disingenuous to argue that abortion isn't a significant dividing line between liberals and conservatives?

Ok so you are saying a liberal who is a liberal on everything, except abortion is a conservative and a conservative that agrees with or supports a person having an abortion is a liberal even though everything else they believe is conservative? I think that is being disingenuous there with that line of thought.


since the implication of this debate is that conservatives are hypocritical because conservatives have abortions, too, it seems logical that we only include within "conservatives" those who are opposed to abortion.....otherwise one can hardly complain they are hypocrites, no?.....

Ahh now I see it, because some conservatives are not completely conservative in everything when it comes to some things, you change the definition of what a conservative is to your liking to avoid it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[PostmodernProphet]

Please stay on topic.

???....misrepresentation IS the topic......

[PostmodernProphet]

Ok so you are saying a liberal who is a liberal on everything, except abortion is a conservative and a conservative that agrees with or supports a person having an abortion is a liberal even though everything else they believe is conservative? I think that is being disingenuous there with that line of thought.

no, I am saying when discussing a statement about conservatives and liberals re: abortion it doesn't make sense to render the entire debate irrelevant by arguing that not all liberals take the stand about abortion.....it tends to render moot any reason to discuss the issue.....


however, to satisfy your mysterious urge we can change the issue to most conservatives don't kill their children like most liberals do.....

[suedanim]

???....misrepresentation IS the topic......


Sure is. But whose?

I can quote that sonofabitch moron (Limbaugh :madlaugh:) all damn day or till the cows come home to roost.... and ya'll rightwingers can reinterpret, interpret, define, parse, 'SPLAIN.... examine, analyze and paralyze with longwinded, inane, ridiculous, laughable excuses trying to play cover... Yep... we can go round and round..

I'm ready. You?


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3706/beatdeadhorsekx8.gif

[PostmodernProphet]

Sure is. But whose?

I can quote that sonofabitch moron (Limbaugh :madlaugh:) all damn day or till the cows come home to roost.... and ya'll rightwingers can reinterpret, interpret, define, parse, 'SPLAIN.... examine, analyze and paralyze with longwinded, inane, ridiculous, laughable excuses trying to play cover... Yep... we can go round and round..


you should expect that when you lie about his statements to begin with......

[preservanation]

Here's a letter from Frances Berry and Roger Wilkins to Howard Dean.

We are not suggesting any particular way of deciding the issues. We are suggesting that the decision be made before the convention in an effort to avoid a floor fight. Public floor fights have served the party badly in the past. They left deep-seated ill will and preceded Democratic Party defeats in '68 and '72, for example. Resolution of this issue is a matter of fairness, justice and practicality. It should receive the urgent attention of the Democratic National Committee. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_berryletter.html

Some are getting worried!
Rightly so.

[preservanation]

Roseanne vs. Rush

by L. Brent Bozell III
May 6, 2008


Air America Radio may have tried and failed to use washed-up comedians like Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken to make liberal talk radio work, but their rule seems to be that if first you don't succeed, flop, flop again. When wacky radical Randi Rhodes resigned over a nasty and profane denunciation of Hillary Clinton, Air America replaced her in afternoon drive time with... Roseanne Barr.


And in no time flat Roseanne behaved like Roseanne. On April 28 she suggested leftists should ignite riots at the Democratic convention in Denver. "We should, a bunch of us, go there and repeat the Democratic Convention from Chicago. Like, let's just cause a bunch of trouble!" There's even a leftist group called "Recreate 68" building up the rioting nostalgia.


"Recreate 68" is no joke. It is trying to draw a raucous crowd: "Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained." These troublemakers live to get arrested.


Is it newsworthy that Recreate 68 is talking about real violence at a national political convention? The Fox News Channel thinks so. The local media in Denver have covered this as well. But CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC? Not a peep. Nothing in Time, Newsweek, US News, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today. The New York Times


had a mention, at the bottom of an article. "Recreate '68" is a concept they just don't want to acknowledge. None of these outlets noticed Roseanne’s comments, either.


But what happens when a conservative talk show host talks about -- comments on -- this same subject, and does so not seriously, but humorously? On April 23 Rush Limbaugh declared that protesters making a scene in Denver would wake up America to see how the Democrats are dominated by the far left. He said, "Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. (singing to the tune of 'White Christmas') 'I'm dreaming of riots in Denver.' Remember 1968? And which party did that? It was the radicals in that party, the anti-war radicals, the same bunch of clowns that are running around defining the Democrat Party today."


What happens is that in some quarters, all hell breaks loose. The local media in Denver quickly declared that Rush Limbaugh was rooting for violence, although some outlets like the Denver Post put the whole statement in its proper context, that Rush clearly said he wasn't inciting riots. Local TV stations took polls to underline the outrage. Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado sent an angry letter to Clear Channel radio (which airs the Limbaugh show in Denver) asking for them to "reprimand" Limbaugh for talking up violence.


Are these people serious? Conservatives in Limbaugh's huge audience surely laughed at the giddy singing over the thought of Democratic self-immolation at the polls. Would any of them seriously make plans to spend a week of vacation in Denver throwing bricks through storefront windows or breathing tear gas deeply? Voting for Hillary in the primaries through Operation Chaos is about as naughty as they are willing to be.


Are some leftists so hopelessly naive as to believe Limbaugh's listeners are being prepared to burn down buildings and trade blows with the cops? Believe it or not, the answer is in the affirmative.


On MSNBC, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann predictably piled on Rush. Olbermann asked: "Could Limbaugh be prosecuted for incitement to riot?" Always the amateur historian, he wondered if Limbaugh was a descendant of the anarchists who encouraged the Haymarket bombing in Chicago in 1886, who were hanged as murderers by proxy. We've "come a long way" legally since then, Olbermann declared, perhaps with a bit of mourning, but still, "do you think that Limbaugh has any idea that were he to repeat what he said on the air, say the day before the convention, or during it, he might actually be morally or legally responsible for incitement to riot?"


What phonies these "outraged" media partisans are. Olbermann & Co. utterly ignore Roseanne Barr earnestly calling for a radical rerun of "trouble" on Air America Radio, whose audience naturally matches the radicalism of the "Recreate '68" goon squads. But Rush's dittoheads? Run for your lives!


Maybe Rush should be prosecuted after all. Is any American entitled to have this much fun at liberals' expense during a campaign season? Surely there’s something in McCain-Feingold, or maybe in the Americans With Disabilities Act to address this abuse.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080506.asp

All this outrage over Rush's statements but nothing about the one's who are actually encouraging trouble in Denver by the left???
Jeeeeze...Get it right, for once!

[Trish]

Well, preserva, a lot of the non-reaction may well stem from the fact that Roseanne Barr is pretty much a joke all the way round. Can you think of anyone that takes her seriously about anything? There's a lot of difference in a broken-down, has-been comic trying desperately to somehow be relevant again and a political pundit who makes his living stirring up the political controversy brew pot.

[preservanation]

Well, preserva, a lot of the non-reaction may well stem from the fact that Roseanne Barr is pretty much a joke all the way round. Can you think of anyone that takes her seriously about anything? There's a lot of difference in a broken-down, has-been comic trying desperately to somehow be relevant again and a political pundit who makes his living stirring up the political controversy brew pot.Present company included, Trish?
I never knew I had so much in common with Barr!

~p

[Trish]

Present company included, Trish?
I never knew I had so much in common with Barr!

~p

Huh? I must need more coffee - because I totally do not understand this!

[preservanation]

Barr is pretty much a joke all the way round. Can you think of anyone that takes her seriously about anything? There's a lot of difference in a broken-down, has-been comic trying desperately to somehow be relevant again and a political pundit who makes his living stirring up the political controversy brew pot.I guess I should have said..."I never knew I had so much in common with Barr and Limbaugh!
Sorry, it's always to early, coffee or not, for lame comments on my part.