Rush Limbaugh Calling For Riots In Denver

[ViolaLee]

This guy is a dangerous, lunatic psychopath. What kind of idiots listen to this jerk?


Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.


"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."


He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.


"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html

[PostmodernProphet]

This guy is a dangerous, lunatic psychopath. What kind of idiots listen to this jerk?

well, obviously you don't listen to him.....nor does your source....."Operation Chaos" isn't riots in Denver, it's voting in Pennsylvania.......

I heard that particular show and he wasn't "calling for riots in Denver", he was commenting on a news report that said liberals were planning for riots in Denver......the same report that resulted in a thread on this board.....and making the very accurate observation that when liberals go over the top, it's good for Republicans......

being fond of ellipticals myself, I can't fault you for using them......however, when I use them, I don't delete about three minutes of monologue...and I WILL fault you for that.....

[preservanation]

Rush was actually referencing Al Sharpton who promised demonstrations in Denver if the Supers took the nomination away from Obama.
We all know how the 'demonstrations' turned out in Chicago.
Good times, goooood times.:rolleyes:

[Trish]

Hey, it's Rush Limbaugh! He's fair game. He doesn't do enough on his own to sound like a jerk, he needs all the half-truths, distortions, and out-right misrepresentations possible to seal the deal!

Speaking of ellipsis, rather important ones appear to be missing in the OP - along with the entire first half of the article.

"DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama.

Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver.""

[4Reaganomics]

He isn't calling for riots, he simply believes the riots that the hard left are threatening at their convention would be good for the Grand Old Party.

[BoogyMan]

This guy is a dangerous, lunatic psychopath. What kind of idiots listen to this jerk?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html

Viola, after reading this, (which I doubt that you have because you wouldn't have posted this otherwise) Limbaugh is NOT calling for riots, he is pointing to the fact that there have been threats to riot and saying that people who see such a thing at the DNC convention would certainly have their attitude toward that party affected by it.

[preservanation]

If the Dems do riot again and the Dem Mayor tear gasses and attacks the protesters with dogs (like Daley in Chicago, 1968)..it will surely be all Limbaugh's fault.

[Truth_and_Power]

Wait, so now it's bad to take words out of context? Someone call Rev. Wright.

[Pookie]

You missed this part?
Read again:

DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

It says RIGHT THERE, read again, this:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Next?

Pookie

[preservanation]

However he never called for riots, ie; "Dems, go riot"
That I have never heard. If that quote or something like that can be produced I'll accept the headline..."Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer."

If not that HL is inaccurate, leading and dishonest.

[Truth_and_Power]

Hasn't john mccain met rush limbaugh? Therefore everything rush has said reflects on mccain's character, therefore mccain is calling for riots, therefore mccain is a terrorist, right? That's the prevailing logic on obama.

[4Reaganomics]

No, if McCain sat in his church for 20 years or was personally friendly with him it would be a different story

and Rush didn't kill innocent Americans like Ayers, nor did he spill out anti-American comments like Obama's close personal friend and minister of 20 years

[PostmodernProphet]

It says RIGHT THERE, read again, this:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Next?

Pookie

It's an intentional misrepresentation on the part of the author, Pook.....that's what we are arguing about.....

[preservanation]

Hasn't john mccain met rush limbaugh? Therefore everything rush has said reflects on mccain's character, therefore mccain is calling for riots, therefore mccain is a terrorist, right? That's the prevailing logic on obama.Can you site the quote where Rush said something like; "Hey, all you Dems, go out and riot in Denver?"
Of course not.
If there are riots between the Dems in Denver, will it hurt the Dem party?
Probably.
Is hurting the Dem party a good thing?
IMO, yes.

But I'm not "calling for riots" any more than Rush is.

[4Reaganomics]

Rush is really cracking me up with this whole Operation Chaos. Numerous channels have discussed its possible effect on MT, a state where people can cross party lines to vote in either primary.

[preservanation]

Rush is really cracking me up with this whole Operation Chaos. Numerous channels have discussed its possible effect on MT, a state where people can cross party lines to vote in either primary.Cracking me up is too soft a term...I'm dyin!!!
This man will have to be written into every text book concerning this primary. That alone is going to spin the libs' heads off!
They're trying to ignore him now, but he made a suggestion to Obama to combat his drumming in PA...Blame it on USOC!
Claim Hillary's votes were illegitimate, and all those crossovers have absolutely no intention of voting for her in NOV.
Heee, Heee, *snort..*

[apdst]

Wow! The Libs really got their feelings hurt over the Rev Wright hoopla.

[Truth_and_Power]

No, if McCain sat in his church for 20 years or was personally friendly with him it would be a different story

and Rush didn't kill innocent Americans like Ayers, nor did he spill out anti-American comments like Obama's close personal friend and minister of 20 years

Rush has made plenty of outrageous comments. I won't bother to make a list for you.

Obama was close personal friends with Ayers?

[4Reaganomics]

They had a friendly relationship according to his campaign, served on a board together, gave speeched together, their kids go to school together, and Ayers formerly had a campaign event for Obama at his personal home.

So it is more than "he just met the guy". So the whole "what are we going to criticize him for every person he's ever met" leftist defense won't work here in this situation.

[AlanC]

Think Chicago. It wasn't conservatives that rioted there. It was the anti-war left aomnog others.

Think this year. It isn't conservatives that would be rioting in Denver. It will be the anti-war left, the political left and any other far left group that has been protesting at every gathering of any one important for the last 20 years.

The fact that the author of the article is trying to spin this into Limbaugh calling ro riots is incredible. If you want to object to what Limbaugh said, fine. But don't base your objection on what the author said. They are two different people.

So when Al Sharpton is banging the drum in the street over Hillary's nomination, you all are going to say Limbaugh put him up to it? This should be interesting.

[preservanation]

Think Chicago. It wasn't conservatives that rioted there. It was the anti-war left aomnog others.And it wasn't a Republican Mayor who turned his thugs on them and beat them down either. It was Daley, probably the most famous and powerful Democrat family in Chicago, if not the state.

[Trish]

So when Al Sharpton is banging the drum in the street over Hillary's nomination, you all are going to say Limbaugh put him up to it? This should be interesting.

Now that has a nice ring to it! Not the Al Sharpton beating a drum part, but the Hillary's nomination part!!! I do like the sound of that!

[4Reaganomics]

I concur, because it would be the worst thing to happen to the left in quite a number of years

[suedanim]

And it wasn't a Republican Mayor who turned his thugs on them and beat them down either. It was Daley, probably the most famous and powerful Democrat family in Chicago, if not the state.

Oh good grief! Reach back 40 years when the Democratic party was a bit different. But, you people wouldn't know that.

This was the year he decided not to run for the Presidency again and was blamed bigtime by my generation for some 57,000 American boys being drafted to DIE in Vietnam. The riots were all about the DRAFT, Vietnam and MLK and Bobby Kennedy had been recently assassinated. The had a LOT to be angry about.

Daleys handling of it didn't help, police brutality was unchecked and kids now in their late 50's and 60's didn't go for it, they fought back. If only the present generation was as proactive as ours was. We actually accomplished a lot of good YOUR kids benefit from today. At least they don't presently have to fear being drafted directly into Iraq yet.

As hard as you partisan ... hard right... faithful would try to spin it, the riots had nothing to do with being liberal or the Democratic party of today. Back then, Democrats dominated and cosigned to the Vietnam war and whatever Johnson ordered. That and the draft caused the riots.

Back then, until tricky dick developed the Southern Strategy, Republicans were like a lost tribe, no direction, little purpose. With Nixon, Republicans found their new forte... RACISM works and dirty tricks to win by any means necessary is the new name of the game!! Hence, the GOP became the party for whites who choose not to cope with a changing world and can't deal with the reality that they won't always rule.

Limbaugh...? Why he's just a disgusting, drug addicted, pill popping, inflammatory rhetoric worm some of you hard right, anal retentive sicophants need to fill your heads with wishful thinking, mindless drivel and a feast of bad intentions. Quit following the leader!

Sharpton's comments? How did his saying there may be demonstrations become a call for riots or violence? You people are dreaming in a partisan brainfart.

:peace:

[AlanC]

Whatever Sue. Bottom line? It is the Democratic convention, in a city with a Democratic administration, and they will Democrats taking part to whatever extent in the streets outside.

The author of the article seems to think that Limbaugh can some how cause this. Not a very flattering image of the faithful, now is it?

[DamnYankee]

Rush Limbaugh Calling For Riots In Denver

You can damn well bet the liberals will riot. If Obama has this election stolen by the Clinton's, forget it. The city will burn.

[Wndrtch]

Viola, after reading this, (which I doubt that you have because you wouldn't have posted this otherwise) Limbaugh is NOT calling for riots, he is pointing to the fact that there have been threats to riot and saying that people who see such a thing at the DNC convention would certainly have their attitude toward that party affected by it.

...plus a little pesky thing called "history" to point to!

He had a retired cop on, that said he was one of the officers at the 68 riots. Man, trhe crap (litterally) those cops had to deal with was amazing. "People" were dumping all sorts of garbage on them, and they couldn't do a thing about it until the third day. Embarrisingly imature of the rioters. But hey, that's what hard-core activism does to you.

[Elrathin]

To much disappointment to many conservatives there will not be any riots. I know many are hoping and praying that there will be and that many on the left will be injured or killed, but alas, many conservatives will be disappointed when it doesn't happen.

[DamnYankee]

To much disappointment to many conservatives there will not be any riots. I know many are hoping and praying that there will be and that many on the left will be injured or killed, but alas, many conservatives will be disappointed when it doesn't happen.

Nah, we're not like the leftists. We don't want anyone hurt or anything destroyed. The left can't be trusted to keep a level head.

[Elrathin]

Nah, we're not like the leftists. We don't want anyone hurt or anything destroyed.

Sure, that's why many on the right are hoping for riots. What usually happens at a riot? People get injured or killed. You can sell that BS to someone else that will buy it.

[suedanim]

hmmmmmmm.... apologies.

I have to correct myself. I can't even find ANY reference that Sharpton made any comment about riots or even "trouble" AT the Democratic convention.

I haven't found where Sharpton uttered the word "trouble"... at the convention. But, even if he did... trouble can mean a lot of things... and riot is not necessarily even a remote possibility. All I'm finding is that LIMBAUGH, that purveyor of truth... said Sharpton said it. :rolleyes:

So, apparently, Limbaugh is a big, fat liar ... once again.

Here is what I was able to find.



February 14, 2008 -- The Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday said the Democratic Party would commit a "grave injustice" if it seated delegates from Florida and Michigan at the party's national convention - and he threatened a march on the party's Washington headquarters.
Sharpton's call - detailed in a letter to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean - came a day after the NAACP leader Julian Bond urged party officials to seat delegates from the two states, saying that not to do so would risk "disenfranchising" minorities.



A MARCH??? Well, I guess a march IS a demonstration, but it definitely isn't a riot and it definitely wasn't said to be at the convention, but at Democratic party headquarters in DC!!


Sharpton told The Post, "I think the DNC is playing a dangerous game . . . [and could] open the door here for everything from litigation to demonstration."

LINK (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02142008/news/nationalnews/al__wed_picket_dem_hq_97565.htm)

Could... NOT would. Get that?

Notice the headline of this article uses the word.. picket.. though its no where to be found in Sharptons remarks. This is simply inflammatory hype by the media and Limbaugh embellished even further.


Limbaugh will of course get a pass because he's conservative and he's white. He can incite violence and use emotional or shock rhetoric to make his point and the country either gives him a pass or pats him on the back and asks him onto the Sunday news shows to expand on his "ideas."



LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnee-hamilton/limbaugh-riot-in-denver_b_98607.html)

Not only is this a Limbaugh lie, but smacks of overt racism promulgated by the right following Limbaughs lead. Just how far will they continue to go to thwart the candidacy of a black candidate? My guess is there is no limit.

[apdst]

and riot is not necessarily even a remote possibility

The Libbos are hoping that a riot is a remote possibility.

[Elrathin]

The Libbos are hoping that a riot is a remote possibility.

That's funny when a riot would only hurt the left. Sorry it is some on the right that are hoping for riots.

[Wndrtch]

To much disappointment to many conservatives there will not be any riots. I know many are hoping and praying that there will be and that many on the left will be injured or killed, but alas, many conservatives will be disappointed when it doesn't happen.

I will agree with you that if Obama wins the nom, then there will be no riots. Hillary's "tea & crumpet", colledge-professor elitist supporters will not want to get their hands dirty, they'll just vote for McCain if anything at all.

However, IF Obama loses in the end, then yes, the opportunity for riots will be large, because the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Luis Farrakhan types have already threaten to protest, and there is a lot of passion in those groups. It will be a tense day to say the least. It will only take the samllest infraction by some jerk, and the whole thing could go nuke in a moment.

[Elrathin]

However, IF Obama loses in the end, then yes, the opportunity for riots will be large, because the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Luis Farrakhan types have already threaten to protest, and there is a lot of passion in those groups. It will be a tense day to say the least. It will only take the samllest infraction by some jerk, and the whole thing could go nuke in a moment.

Protesting is not the same as rioting. I will agree there will be protests, but riots? Nope, don't see that happening at all.

[suedanim]

Whatever Sue. Bottom line? It is the Democratic convention, in a city with a Democratic administration, and they will Democrats taking part to whatever extent in the streets outside.

The author of the article seems to think that Limbaugh can some how cause this. Not a very flattering image of the faithful, now is it?

Of course not! Its not flattering to the rightwinger at all. Glad we agree.

Whether Democrats will start duking it out on the streets is again... a rightwing dream. Just as you armchair warriors love to ... watch... war... you'd love blood on the streets when the Dems convene to nominate. I predict that will never happen, mainly because Democrats today do not have the fire in the belly they had in the 60's.

Frankly, given Limbaugh, Coulters and other pundits and the evangelical rights reaction to McCains win to the Republican nomination, I'd be more inclined to see fighting among people at the Republican convention. But, nah... ya'll are obedient sheep.

What you don't understand about Democrats is that we may fight like cats and dogs with each other but come togethor at the end of the day behind compromise and candidates.

[apdst]

That's funny when a riot would only hurt the left.

That was my point.

[piratemonkey]

"Riots.... are the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think" - Rush


As usual, conservatives nit-pick the details while missing the fact that the statement is disgusting and UnAmerican.

[Wndrtch]

Protesting is not the same as rioting. I will agree there will be protests, but riots? Nope, don't see that happening at all.

I think it will depend on who the protestors are, and how thick the tension is. It would only take one drunk-ass spiting in the face of a cop, who then responds with a foreful arrest, and BAM...teargas!

[Wndrtch]

Frankly, given Limbaugh, Coulters and other pundits and the evangelical rights reaction to McCains win to the Republican nomination, I'd be more inclined to see fighting among people at the Republican convention. But, nah... ya'll are obedient sheep.

Wouldn't be "fighting", would be "shot'n".

We evangelical right Christians all pack heat too. Remember, it's God & guns! :fight:

[Buck Laser]

Yeah, that Rush guy is a real patriot, ain't he? I think it's funny that the Chaos Corps here nearly piss themselves when Rev. Wright's name comes up, but they run around in circles denying that Rush said anything inflammatory. :sick: :sick:

I think I'm gonna have to go take a bath to wash the slimy shit off of me. :shame:

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh good grief! Reach back 40 years when the Democratic party was a bit different. But, you people wouldn't know that.

Sue, the scenario is identical......liberal element of the party demonstrating because the rest of the party has not acted the way they wish regarding the war......you couldn't dream up a closer parallel if you were scripting the Twilight Zone......

[PostmodernProphet]

but they run around in circles denying that Rush said anything inflammatory.

Buck, it amazes me how often your responses do not reflect that posts you think you are responding to......I don't think you will find anyone here who will not admit that Rush says inflammatory things.....and you will find many who will admit that they enjoy it when Rush says inflammatory things.....but the truth of the matter is, he did not say the inflammatory thing that this OP accused him of......

[Trish]

Whether Democrats will start duking it out on the streets is again... a rightwing dream.

I think that was Limbaugh's whole point. He stated as much - he's not calling for violence or riots - just dreaming that the protests, marches, demonstrations, etc. cause riots.

[piratemonkey]

'...We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does." - Rush

Someone, here, please justify the above statement that Rush made at the same time as the riot statements.

Please.

yeah, PP, that's not inflammatory. [/snark]

[AlanC]

'...We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does." - Rush

Someone, here, please justify the above statement that Rush made at the same time as the riot statements.

Please.


Ahhh.. why? Why should anyone here justify the statements of someone else?

[PostmodernProphet]

'...We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does." - Rush

Someone, here, please justify the above statement that Rush made at the same time as the riot statements.

Please.

yeah, PP, that's not inflammatory. [/snark]

lol, you think I need to justify it...I have posted the same comment myself on this board a half dozen times.....I think I should accuse him of plagiarism....

[BoogyMan]

'...We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does." - Rush

Someone, here, please justify the above statement that Rush made at the same time as the riot statements.

Please.

yeah, PP, that's not inflammatory. [/snark]

Rush made the statement Pirate, not anyone here, and it isn't any worse than the silly blanket statements made against the right.

Are we supposed to justify his words? I think not.

[potter]

Rush says all sorts of inflamatory things...his audience loves that kind of no brain stuff. That any thinking person would even pay attention to it...much less start a thread about it, is somewhat pathetic...IMO

:unreal:

[Buck Laser]

Buck, it amazes me how often your responses do not reflect that posts you think you are responding to......I don't think you will find anyone here who will not admit that Rush says inflammatory things.....and you will find many who will admit that they enjoy it when Rush says inflammatory things.....but the truth of the matter is, he did not say the inflammatory thing that this OP accused him of......

And here you've been doing exactly what I accuse right wingers of doing--running around in circles denying he said any such thing. How is that not reflecting the posts I "think I am responding to?" Truly, you guys live in an Alice in Wonderland kind of world.

[Buck Laser]

The Libbos are hoping that a riot is a remote possibility.

When apdst uses the term "libbo" you can be sure he's fixin' to lie. :dork: This statement is a complete and total fabrication. But he thinks he got off a bon mot. I think I'm gonna send him a sympathy card.

[PostmodernProphet]

And here you've been doing exactly what I accuse right wingers of doing--running around in circles denying he said any such thing. How is that not reflecting the posts I "think I am responding to?" Truly, you guys live in an Alice in Wonderland kind of world.

your post "they run around in circles denying that Rush said anything inflammatory".....

the truth.....no one on this thread has ever said that Rush has never said anything inflammatory....they have said he did not say THIS inflammatory thing....

the truth....he did not say THIS inflammatory thing and the OP is an outright lie....

now you can call bringing attention to the truth an "Alice in Wonderland" existence or you can call it telling the truth....since liberals aren't really attracted to "truth" I expect you will stick with Alice......

[potter]

I hereby call a liberals to riot at the Republican convention....

Now, we're even....

[Buck Laser]

your post "they run around in circles denying that Rush said anything inflammatory".....

the truth.....no one on this thread has ever said that Rush has never said anything inflammatory....they have said he did not say THIS inflammatory thing....

the truth....he did not say THIS inflammatory thing and the OP is an outright lie....

now you can call bringing attention to the truth an "Alice in Wonderland" existence or you can call it telling the truth....since liberals aren't really attracted to "truth" I expect you will stick with Alice......
Lemme see if I have this straight: everyone admits that Rush says inflammatory things, maybe all the time. But he didn't say this particular thing? In the words of your favorite Supreme Court justice, whoop-de-fuckin'-doo! You guys are nothing if not entertaining. :madlaugh:

I just looked back at your post is your own testimony that you didn't hear him say that. Another right winger, Preserv, says he was calling the vote in PA a "riot." Others have offered other interpretations. So why the fuck am I to believe you're the one who has it right?

[Wndrtch]

Lemme see if I have this straight: everyone admits that Rush says inflammatory things, maybe all the time. But he didn't say this particular thing? In the words of your favorite Supreme Court justice, whoop-de-fuckin'-doo! You guys are nothing if not entertaining. :madlaugh:

Is it inflammatory to point out that Al Sharpton has threatened protests? Is it inflammatory to point to the 68 riots, where immature Lefties threw crap and lime on cops for three days at their convention? Is it inflammatory to point out that IF riots happen, that it will show the country, how immature Democrats truly are? And lastly, is it inflammatory to say that if all that happens, and the Nation sees it unfold in all it's ugliness, that that will help Republicans?

[Buck Laser]

Is it inflammatory to point out that Al Sharpton has threatened protests? Is it inflammatory to point to the 68 riots, where immature Lefties threw crap and lime on cops for three days at their convention? Is it inflammatory to point out that IF riots happen, that it will show the country, how immature Democrats truly are? And lastly, is it inflammatory to say that if all that happens, and the Nation sees it unfold in all it's ugliness, that that will help Republicans?

I don't know that Al Sharpton said the things you say he said. For all I know, you pulled that out of your ass.

Since you prolly weren't around in 1968, you don't know that the official commission that investigated the riot called it a police riot. How 'bout them apples?

[Wndrtch]

I don't know that Al Sharpton said the things you say he said. For all I know, you pulled that out of your ass.

Since you prolly weren't around in 1968, you don't know that the official commission that investigated the riot called it a police riot. How 'bout them apples?

Them apples are rotten and worm-ridden.

Leave it to the DNC Mayor Daily to throw his finest under the bus to protect Abby Hoffman and all the other monkey-shit throwers. Typicall coward Democrat Politician.

Who was on that "official commision"? Was it like the 911 Commision, where it was packed with politicians that had an ax to grind, or an ax to hide, like Jamie Garelick?

Sorry, I don't put much stock in politically motivated commisions.

[Trish]

Lemme see if I have this straight: everyone admits that Rush says inflammatory things, maybe all the time. But he didn't say this particular thing? In the words of your favorite Supreme Court justice, whoop-de-fuckin'-doo! You guys are nothing if not entertaining. :madlaugh:

I just looked back at your post is your own testimony that you didn't hear him say that. Another right winger, Preserv, says he was calling the vote in PA a "riot." Others have offered other interpretations. So why the fuck am I to believe you're the one who has it right?


Well you could start by accurately summarizing what the people on this thread said. Then you "might" want to consider that a person who actually heard the radio show in question would know what was and wasn't said, and in what context, better than the folks that are relying on second and third-hand interpretations.

[Buck Laser]

Them apples are rotten and worm-ridden.

Leave it to the DNC Mayor Daily to throw his finest under the bus to protect Abby Hoffman and all the other monkey-shit throwers. Typicall coward Democrat Politician.

Who was on that "official commision"? Was it like the 911 Commision, where it was packed with politicians that had an ax to grind, or an ax to hide, like Jamie Garelick?

Sorry, I don't put much stock in politically motivated commisions.
I kinda figured you didn't know much about it. For starters, the commission was appointed by President Nixon. Remember him? Second, it was a national commission. Third, it didn't absolve the rioters of some provocation, but the heaviest onus of blame went to the Chicago police. Fourth, Mayor Daley was royally pissed about the whole thing and made some very intemperate statements about the report because it blamed "his" police.

Just to give you a little flavor of the actual report, here's a link to an excerpt from the report: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1553/ricsumm.html

Read it and see if you can understand it, son. Maybe you shouldn't go to issues where you don't actually know what happened.

[suedanim]

"Riots.... are the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think" - Rush


As usual, conservatives nit-pick the details while missing the fact that the statement is disgusting and UnAmerican.


Exactly.

But they also keep missing the fact that this whole discussion was caused by Rush Limbaughs fabrication.

Get it through your heads!!! :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy::dizzy: Al Sharpton 1) never used the words, trouble or riot and 2) listen closely people.... he said there could be a MARCH to the Democratic National Headquarters.. which... listen closely people... is in Washington, DC.

All the riot, trouble CRAP came from Limbaugh.. not Sharpton. Just because Limbaugh says Sharpton said a thing, doesn't make it so.

Find me a DIRECT quote with a link to Al Sharpton saying, if Obama is not the nominee at the Dem convention IN Detroit, MI there will be trouble, possibly riots.... and I'll admit I am wrong.

btw... Limbaugh was condemning McCains candidacy just a few months ago. Now, he seeks to insure he wins. Whose paying that fuckup and why?

This whole thing is ALL LIMBAUGH and some of you people fell for it. He's a racist attempting to distract and mislead.

[Wndrtch]

I kinda figured you didn't know much about it. For starters, the commission was appointed by President Nixon. Remember him? Second, it was a national commission. Third, it didn't absolve the rioters of some provocation, but the heaviest onus of blame went to the Chicago police. Fourth, Mayor Daley was royally pissed about the whole thing and made some very intemperate statements about the report because it blamed "his" police.

Just to give you a little flavor of the actual report, here's a link to an excerpt from the report: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1553/ricsumm.html

Read it and see if you can understand it, son. Maybe you shouldn't go to issues where you don't actually know what happened.

LOL!

Ok, ok ok, you got me. I'll admit that I was speaking from ignorance, dad. I'll read the link and get back to you.

However, I will not change my mind that the cops were only trying to do their job under difficult conditions. Had the "protestors" acted with a little maturity, the cops would not have had to do anything.

[AlanC]

Find me a DIRECT quote with a link to Al Sharpton saying, if Obama is not the nominee at the Dem convention IN Detroit, MI there will be trouble, possibly riots.... and I'll admit I am wrong.


Pssst. Sue. The Democratic convention is in Denver, CO.

[Wndrtch]

Pssst. Sue. The Democratic convention is in Denver, CO.

Shhh! don't tell her!

[Buck Laser]

Trish, maybe you'd better pay attention to who says what. Here's what PMP claimed about Limbaugh:

well, obviously you don't listen to him.....nor does your source....."Operation Chaos" isn't riots in Denver, it's voting in Pennsylvania.......

I heard that particular show and he wasn't "calling for riots in Denver", he was commenting on a news report that said liberals were planning for riots in Denver......the same report that resulted in a thread on this board.....and making the very accurate observation that when liberals go over the top, it's good for Republicans......

being fond of ellipticals myself, I can't fault you for using them......however, when I use them, I don't delete about three minutes of monologue...and I WILL fault you for that.....
Useless aside: Apparently PMP doesn't know the difference between an ellipse and an elliptical.

But then, Preserv said it was something else entirely, to wit: Rush was actually referencing Al Sharpton who promised demonstrations in Denver if the Supers took the nomination away from Obama.
We all know how the 'demonstrations' turned out in Chicago.
Good times, goooood times.

So who had it right, PMP or Preserv? Or maybe it was Wndrtch with HIS claim that it was Al Sharpton who was planning to riot? Inquiring minds want to know what blue dog democrats think. IMO, all three of them are dissimulating containers of excrement. And you, a democrat, are siding with them.:shame:

[Trish]

Exactly.

But they also keep missing the fact that this whole discussion was caused by Rush Limbaughs fabrication.

Get it through your heads!!! :dizzy::dizzy::dizzy::dizzy: Al Sharpton 1) never used the words, trouble or riot and 2) listen closely people.... he said there could be a MARCH to the Democratic National Headquarters.. which... listen closely people... is in Washington, DC.

All the riot, trouble CRAP came from Limbaugh.. not Sharpton. Just because Limbaugh says Sharpton said a thing, doesn't make it so.

Find me a DIRECT quote with a link to Al Sharpton saying, if Obama is not the nominee at the Dem convention IN Detroit, MI there will be trouble, possibly riots.... and I'll admit I am wrong.

btw... Limbaugh was condemning McCains candidacy just a few months ago. Now, he seeks to insure he wins. Whose paying that fuckup and why?

This whole thing is ALL LIMBAUGH and some of you people fell for it. He's a racist attempting to distract and mislead.


"If Mr. Obama is denied the nomination because of "back-room deals" made by superdelegates, he [Sharpton] said, "you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket." http://www2.nysun.com/article/72572?page_no=3

Notice that the quote doesn't indicate where the demonstration would occur, just that it would. It would appear that's where Limbaugh's "dream" resides - that if such a demonstration occurs, riots will result ensuring a GOP win in the GE.

[4Reaganomics]

John McCain truly is one hell of a lucky guy this year.

[suedanim]

Is it inflammatory to point out that Al Sharpton has threatened protests? Is it inflammatory to point to the 68 riots, where immature Lefties threw crap and lime on cops for three days at their convention? Is it inflammatory to point out that IF riots happen, that it will show the country, how immature Democrats truly are? And lastly, is it inflammatory to say that if all that happens, and the Nation sees it unfold in all it's ugliness, that that will help Republicans?

YES! :thumbsup:

Protest to the DNC IN Washington, DC!! geez... don't you people read?

btw... those lefties just didn't want to die in Vietnam. Nothing wrong with that. The police back then were a whole different breed. Plus, I suspect most of you have no idea how horrible the draft lottery was or what it was like going to the funerals or friends and relative never coming back. It was extremely depressing and many of those immature lefties you ridicule, 1) weren't necessarily lefties and many are probably righties today in their late 50's and 60's ... and were good people who just didn't want to die or to see any more of their friends die. We had great fear and anger and as I said earlier... both MLK and Robert Kennedy had been assassinated that year. It was a horrible year. The Tet offensive didn't help at all.

Imagine... if you can... in 1968 ALONE... an American soldier death toll of 16,869. We had a RIGHT to be angry!! And DO NOT slur my generation for being pissed off in THAT horrible year. We payed a price. What have YOU done for your country?

I suppose you'll never understand. But, maybe you'll get your chance when we go to Iran.

:grrrr:

[Trish]

Trish, maybe you'd better pay attention to who says what. Here's what PMP claimed about Limbaugh:

Useless aside: Apparently PMP doesn't know the difference between an ellipse and an elliptical.

But then, Preserv said it was something else entirely, to wit:

So who had it right, PMP or Preserv? Or maybe it was Wndrtch with HIS claim that it was Al Sharpton who was planning to riot? Inquiring minds want to know what blue dog democrats think. IMO, all three of them are dissimulating containers of excrement. And you, a democrat, are siding with them.:shame:


They're talking about the same thing. PMP, Preserva, and Wndrtch all say that Limbaugh was referencing Sharpton's comments about "demonstrating" if Clinton gets the nomination because of the superdelegates. Limbaugh took that statement of "demonstrating" and ran with it.

You're getting all bogged down in terminology and scrambling the whole thing of who said what.

Look, I know you don't have any use for Limbaugh. Frankly, I don't either. The man says enough and does enough on his own merit that no misrepresentation or distortion of what he says should be necessary.

[Buck Laser]

Well, Preserv has been announcing for months that he's doing whatever he can to spread chaos among the democrats. So far, all I've seen is that he and the other guys in his "Chaos Corps" can't get their stories straight. But when they're all lying, and can't get together on their stories, it's really just good cheap entertainment. I DO love it when certain mods get into pontificating about "definitions," too!

[Trish]

Well, Preserv has been announcing for months that he's doing whatever he can to spread chaos among the democrats. So far, all I've seen is that he and the other guys in his "Chaos Corps" can't get their stories straight. But when they're all lying, and can't get together on their stories, it's really just good cheap entertainment. I DO love it when certain mods get into pontificating about "definitions," too!

Buck - A sincere request. Would you PLEASE stop throwing around the words lying and liar like they have no meaning? You're better than that.

[suedanim]

"If Mr. Obama is denied the nomination because of "back-room deals" made by superdelegates, he [Sharpton] said, "you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket." http://www2.nysun.com/article/72572?page_no=3

Notice that the quote doesn't indicate where the demonstration would occur, just that it would. It would appear that's where Limbaugh's "dream" resides - that if such a demonstration occurs, riots will result ensuring a GOP win in the GE.

From the NY Post... I posted this info on page 4 of this thread. Guess you missed it.

Here... http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=12431&page=4


hmmmmmmm.... apologies.

I have to correct myself. I can't even find ANY reference that Sharpton made any comment about riots or even "trouble" AT the Democratic convention.

I haven't found where Sharpton uttered the word "trouble"... at the convention. But, even if he did... trouble can mean a lot of things... and riot is not necessarily even a remote possibility. All I'm finding is that LIMBAUGH, that purveyor of truth... said Sharpton said it. :rolleyes:

So, apparently, Limbaugh is a big, fat liar ... once again.

Here is what I was able to find.



Quote:
February 14, 2008 -- The Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday said the Democratic Party would commit a "grave injustice" if it seated delegates from Florida and Michigan at the party's national convention - and he threatened a march on the party's Washington headquarters.
Sharpton's call - detailed in a letter to Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean - came a day after the NAACP leader Julian Bond urged party officials to seat delegates from the two states, saying that not to do so would risk "disenfranchising" minorities.

A MARCH??? Well, I guess a march IS a demonstration, but it definitely isn't a riot and it definitely wasn't said to be at the convention, but at Democratic party headquarters in DC!!



Quote:
Sharpton told The Post, "I think the DNC is playing a dangerous game . . . [and could] open the door here for everything from litigation to demonstration."
LINK (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02142008/news/nationalnews/al__wed_picket_dem_hq_97565.htm)

Could... NOT would. Get that?

Notice the headline of this article uses the word.. picket.. though its no where to be found in Sharptons remarks. This is simply inflammatory hype by the media and Limbaugh embellished even further.


Quote:
Limbaugh will of course get a pass because he's conservative and he's white. He can incite violence and use emotional or shock rhetoric to make his point and the country either gives him a pass or pats him on the back and asks him onto the Sunday news shows to expand on his "ideas."

LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnee-hamilton/limbaugh-riot-in-denver_b_98607.html)

Not only is this a Limbaugh lie, but smacks of overt racism promulgated by the right following Limbaughs lead. Just how far will they continue to go to thwart the candidacy of a black candidate? My guess is there is no limit.

[Buck Laser]

Buck - A sincere request. Would you PLEASE stop throwing around the words lying and liar like they have no meaning? You're better than that.
When people are self-evidently lying, Trish, I have a moral obligation to point it out. If you go through my posts, you'll find that I use the term very judiciously--just about as judiciously as you praise a democratic policy. :evil: Further, I don't recall ever calling you a liar. The worst I ever did was call you a pseudo-democrat, and you straightened me out on that.

I'm sorry it offends you, but I am sick and damned tired of the lies and prevarications of the republicans, particularly in the 28 years since Reagan got elected. I never was, never will be, and can't possibly imagine being a "Reagan democrat." To me that's a bit like claiming to be an "atheist Christian."

[Trish]

When people are self-evidently lying, Trish, I have a moral obligation to point it out. If you go through my posts, you'll find that I use the term very judiciously--just about as judiciously as you praise a democratic policy. :evil: Further, I don't recall ever calling you a liar. The worst I ever did was call you a pseudo-democrat, and you straightened me out on that.

I'm sorry it offends you, but I am sick and damned tired of the lies and prevarications of the republicans, particularly in the 28 years since Reagan got elected. I never was, never will be, and can't possibly imagine being a "Reagan democrat." To me that's a bit like claiming to be an "atheist Christian."


I didn't say you called me a liar - I asked you to stop using those words against anyone on the forums. Yes, it does offend me and offends me greatly when those words are used so casually against anyone. REpublican or Democrat the people on these forums deserve better. Differing opinions, differing interpretations don't constitute lying. You and I disagree often, and I would never call you a liar because of it - wrong, maybe - but not a liar.

[Trish]

From the NY Post... I posted this info on page 4 of this thread. Guess you missed it.

Here... http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=12431&page=4

Jeez....look Sue. What Limbaugh said was stupid. He often says very stupid, thoughtless and downright nasty things. That's not the point. The point is that this is being misrepresented. What he said is bad enough all by itself without any embellishment. WHERE these supposed demonstrations are going to happen is immaterial. Limbaugh is "dreaming" they happen so that there will be fallout that will benefit the GOP. It's an asinine thing to dream of or hope for. I can't imagine anyone dreaming of riots anywhere for any reason. But misrepresenting or distorting what he said makes us no better than he is. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want to ever be compared to him in ANY way!

[Buck Laser]

I didn't say you called me a liar - I asked you to stop using those words against anyone on the forums. Yes, it does offend me and offends me greatly when those words are used so casually against anyone. REpublican or Democrat the people on these forums deserve better. Differing opinions, differing interpretations don't constitute lying. You and I disagree often, and I would never call you a liar because of it - wrong, maybe - but not a liar.
Nowhere did I infer that you were a liar. But I do believe that several of the far right wingers on DF are intentional liars. You know who they are as well as anyone else here. I think their motives for lying may range from carelessness to stupidity to malice and intoxication. But there's no getting around the facts in this thread. Several of them are claiming diametrically opposite things. I'm sure that some of them actually believe their lies. I think it was Hitler's propaganda chief who observed that if one repeats a lie long enough and loud enough, people begin to believe it.

I'd say the "prime lie" from the right wingers are trying to push on DF is that Obama is some kind of "crypto-muslim." Now you may believe there's something to that--but if you do, I'd say your critical thinking facilities were lacking. I certainly wouldn't call you a liar, though I would think less of youi for falling for such a patently absurd piece of propaganda.

This isn't a game for me, Trish. I believe the future of America hinges on this election, and I'll not willingly tolerate people who use lies and innuendo to try to achieve a different result than the one I'm working for.

[suedanim]

Pssst. Sue. The Democratic convention is in Denver, CO.

:madlaugh: alrighty then... so even I screw up now and then...


Don't know why I have Detroit on lock.

[suedanim]

Jeez....look Sue. What Limbaugh said was stupid. He often says very stupid, thoughtless and downright nasty things. That's not the point. The point is that this is being misrepresented. What he said is bad enough all by itself without any embellishment. WHERE these supposed demonstrations are going to happen is immaterial. Limbaugh is "dreaming" they happen so that there will be fallout that will benefit the GOP. It's an asinine thing to dream of or hope for. I can't imagine anyone dreaming of riots anywhere for any reason. But misrepresenting or distorting what he said makes us no better than he is. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want to ever be compared to him in ANY way!

But, the whole point of this discussion is that the rightwingers on this forum have been jerking each other off in hopes that a riot would happen, on cue, because Rush Limbaugh declared Al Sharpton said there would be trouble AT THE CONVENTION.

I don't know why you can't imagine people dreaming of riots when thats what so many on this forum either predict or hope will happen.

Limbaugh lied and they blow up the internet with bullshit talk about it going down like 1968. They know nothing about 1968.

[PostmodernProphet]

So why the fuck am I to believe you're the one who has it right?

as usual, you have read the posts incorrectly again....it is happening so frequently I wonder if you should have your bi-focals checked......as far as I am aware, all of us agree that Bush has not called for riots in Denver.....so, I expect you should think that I am the one who has it right because I agree with all the other people who have it right.....

[PostmodernProphet]

But they also keep missing the fact that this whole discussion was caused by Rush Limbaughs fabrication.

no it wasn't....it was caused by the fabrication of the OP.....

[Elrathin]

as usual, you have read the posts incorrectly again....it is happening so frequently I wonder if you should have your bi-focals checked......as far as I am aware, all of us agree that Bush has not called for riots in Denver.....so, I expect you should think that I am the one who has it right because I agree with all the other people who have it right.....

You're right Rush has just said that Riots would be the way for a Republican to be elected. That in no way says that Republicans should cause riots for Dems.

I mean if a radical Muslim said the way for America to be destroyed was to kill their president, we should in no way think the Radical Muslims should be held responsible if the president should be killed now should we?

[PostmodernProphet]

So who had it right, PMP or Preserv?

both of us....since we both said Rush didn't call for riots.....not that essentials such as that would matter to a liberal......

[Trish]

But, the whole point of this discussion is that the rightwingers on this forum have been jerking each other off in hopes that a riot would happen, on cue, because Rush Limbaugh declared Al Sharpton said there would be trouble AT THE CONVENTION.

I don't know why you can't imagine people dreaming of riots when thats what so many on this forum either predict or hope will happen.

Limbaugh lied and they blow up the internet with bullshit talk about it going down like 1968. They know nothing about 1968.


I haven't seen too many people hoping or predicting that it would happen - just saying that IF it did happen it would benefit the GOP. That's probably true. IF there was a demonstration, and IF rioting resulted from the demonstration, the GOP probably would benefit. But that's a long way from hoping it would happen.

[Elrathin]

Trish like I said before if a Muslim said that the best way to destroy America was to kill the President, and it happened. Would you blame the person that said it?

You may not, but I can guarantee others would.

[PostmodernProphet]

When people are self-evidently lying

sorry to disappoint you, Buck, but yet again you have called me a liar without cause to do so....it is a bit annoying to be called a liar by someone who has absolutely no basis upon which to make the claim....makes you appear to be one of those feeble minded liberals who isn't able to come with anything substantive, so has to resort to personal comments....l

when I heard Rush talking about riots in Denver he was discussing the reports of liberals who were planning to intentionally recreate the '68 riots....it may well be that he made similar comments regarding some statements of Sharpton....those I did not hear.....it wouldn't be the first time that Rush has made similar points on more than one occasion.....liberals are so repetitively dimwitted that their errors often come up on successive shows.....

If you go through my posts, you'll find that I use the term very judiciously-

odd then that I have proven you wrong every time you have claimed it......

[Trish]

I don't know that I would "blame" that person unless he/she were the one that did the actual killing. Would I condemn the person for saying it? Yeah. I'm not exactly thrilled with what Limbaugh said. It was at the very least stupid. Like I said earlier though, he does and says things on his own merit to justify being called a jerk and an asshole without anyone having to misrepresent or distort what he did say. His comments are nasty all on their own!

[Elrathin]

Would I condemn the person for saying it? Yeah. I'm not exactly thrilled with what Limbaugh said. It was at the very least stupid. Like I said earlier though, he does and says things on his own merit to justify being called a jerk and an asshole without anyone having to misrepresent or distort what he did say. His comments are nasty all on their own!

The problem is Trish a little legal term called inciting a riot. If someone says that the best way to do something is to riot, then that person is held accountable for that action should it happen.

That is what is known as inciting a riot. So should a riot happen and Rush saying the best way for them to win is to do it, then he should be held accountable.

[Trish]

The problem is Trish a little legal term called inciting a riot. If someone says that the best way to do something is to riot, then that person is held accountable for that action should it happen.

That is what is known as inciting a riot. So should a riot happen and Rush saying the best way for them to win is to do it, then he should be held accountable.

If Limbaugh had said that there SHOULD be a riot if there was a demonstration, then I'd agree. But just "dreaming" of the possibility falls a little short of the inciting description, although I do think he's out of his mind to dream of such a thing to begin with.

[Elrathin]

If Limbaugh had said that there SHOULD be a riot if there was a demonstration, then I'd agree. But just "dreaming" of the possibility falls a little short of the inciting description, although I do think he's out of his mind to dream of such a thing to begin with.

So let me ask you a question if a Muslim says the best way to disrupt the American process it to kill an American President, would you consider that free speech or inciting a riot? What say you?

[Trish]

Well heck, El - I've read and heard people say pretty much that very thing! Didn't Bill Maher say something to that effect about Cheney? Something along the lines of the country being better off if Cheney had been killed? I realize that's not the president - but it's still the same critter. Would it have been Maher's fault if Cheney had been killed? No, I don't think so. Was it stupid and irresponsible for Maher to say that? Yeah, it was - just as it was stupid and irresponsible for Limbaugh to say what he did.

[Elrathin]

Well heck, El - I've read and heard people say pretty much that very thing! Didn't Bill Maher say something to that effect about Cheney? Something along the lines of the country being better off if Cheney had been killed? I realize that's not the president - but it's still the same critter. Would it have been Maher's fault if Cheney had been killed? No, I don't think so. Was it stupid and irresponsible for Maher to say that? Yeah, it was - just as it was stupid and irresponsible for Limbaugh to say what he did.


The difference of course is all those people you mentioned were American non-Muslims. I've said what if a Muslim said that and it happened. There would be a decent upon Muslims you couldn't believe.

[PostmodernProphet]

You're right Rush has just said that Riots would be the way for a Republican to be elected. That in no way says that Republicans should cause riots for Dems.

I mean if a radical Muslim said the way for America to be destroyed was to kill their president, we should in no way think the Radical Muslims should be held responsible if the president should be killed now should we?

correction....for it to be a proper parallel, the radical Muslim would have to say that America would be destroyed if Americans killed their president......

[Trish]

The difference of course is all those people you mentioned were American non-Muslims. I've said what if a Muslim said that and it happened. There would be a decent upon Muslims you couldn't believe.

So where does the Muslim part come in, El? We can draft all kinds of suppositions here, but that doesn't change the issue here.

[PostmodernProphet]

The problem is Trish a little legal term called inciting a riot. If someone says that the best way to do something is to riot, then that person is held accountable for that action should it happen.

That is what is known as inciting a riot. So should a riot happen and Rush saying the best way for them to win is to do it, then he should be held accountable.

since when is pointing out that liberals intending to start riots (which they have publicized on completely separate channels than Rush's show) would be an idiotic thing for liberals to do, an inciting of a riot.....

[Elrathin]

So where does the Muslim part come in, El? We can draft all kinds of suppositions here, but that doesn't change the issue here.

Are you saying a conservative wouldn't treat a Muslim saying that rioting would benefit them differently than Rush LImbaugh saying rioting would benefit them?

Let's be honest at least shall we?

[Elrathin]

since when is pointing out that liberals intending to start riots (which they have publicized on completely separate channels than Rush's show) would be an idiotic thing for liberals to do, an inciting of a riot.....

The difference is Rush is calling on Republicans to help START the riots.

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you saying a conservative wouldn't treat a Muslim saying that rioting would benefit them differently than Rush LImbaugh saying rioting would benefit them?

Let's be honest at least shall we?

why start now?....this thread has been dishonest from the OP.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The difference is Rush is calling on Republicans to help START the riots.

if he had done that, I would agree with you.....however, he didn't do that.....

[Trish]

The difference is Rush is calling on Republicans to help START the riots.

No, I think Rush was putting it all on Democrats - not Republicans. It wouldn't benefit Republicans to start the riots - it would only benefit them if Democrats rioted.

[Trish]

Are you saying a conservative wouldn't treat a Muslim saying that rioting would benefit them differently than Rush LImbaugh saying rioting would benefit them?

Let's be honest at least shall we?

I don't know, El. The people I know, both conservative and liberal aren't especially anti-Muslim. Like I said, we could make any suppositions we wish, but that's just not addressing the issue here which is what Limbaugh did and did not say.

[Elrathin]

NIt wouldn't benefit Republicans to start the riots

How do you figure, if riots happened, Republicans would pin Dems as savages unworthy of the presidency.

[Elrathin]

I don't know, El. The people I know, both conservative and liberal aren't especially anti-Muslim.

Then why the need for many conservatives to try and pin Obama as a Muslim then?

[Trish]

Only if the Dems started the riots. If the Reps started the riots the shoe would be on the other foot. In order for Limbaugh's "dream" to work, all the "blame" would have to rest solely on the Dems.

[Elrathin]

Only if the Dems started the riots. If the Reps started the riots the shoe would be on the other foot. In order for Limbaugh's "dream" to work, all the "blame" would have to rest solely on the Dems.

That's the point, all those Reps that changed to Dem status starting the riots.

[Trish]

Then why the need for many conservatives to try and pin Obama as a Muslim then?

I suppose it makes sense to them. I can't answer for them.

[Trish]

That's the point, all those Reps that changed to Dem status starting the riots.

Oh please. In this day and age of instant information about just about everyone and everything? If that happened, someone somewhere would find out in pretty short order and the whole thing would in very short order be broadcast around the world and the whole thing would backfire on the Reps.

[Elrathin]

Oh please. In this day and age of instant information about just about everyone and everything? If that happened, someone somewhere would find out in pretty short order and the whole thing would in very short order be broadcast around the world and the whole thing would backfire on the Reps.

And how would it backfire? They registered Dems. How would it backfire, they are the extremist Dems now? IT wouldn't backfire.

[PostmodernProphet]

That's the point, all those Reps that changed to Dem status starting the riots.

????......lol....you mean THESE "Republicans"?.......

http://www.watchuonline.com/video/WjGxpETbhbw/Recreate-68-protest-DNC-in-Denver.html

[Elrathin]

????......lol....you mean THESE "Republicans"?.......

No like the Rush followers that only wish for the Dems to lose even if that means Reps that turned Dems start the riots.

Rush Limbaugh is a god to some conservatives.

[PostmodernProphet]

I am sorry, El.....but that is the silliest thing you have ever posted on these boards.....the liberals are already on record that they intend to recreate 68 and you want to pretend it is a Republican plot.....

[Elrathin]

I am sorry, El.....but that is the silliest thing you have ever posted on these boards.....the liberals are already on record that they intend to recreate 68 and you want to pretend it is a Republican plot.....

Yeah and conservatives would never do anything crazy like what I said, nor would they bomb abortion clinics, none of that has ever been done before right?

[PostmodernProphet]

Yeah and conservatives would never do anything crazy like what I said, nor would they bomb abortion clinics, none of that has ever been done before right?

yeah, there were abortion clinics bombed....if I recall, there were about eighteen bombings.....one guy did twelve of those, if I recall and he was caught, convicted and put in jail....

so that's what you have?.....one crazy conservative?......

and for that you justify all the liberal lies that have been spread.....

[Elrathin]

yeah, there were abortion clinics bombed....if I recall, there were about eighteen bombings.....one guy did twelve of those, if I recall and he was caught, convicted and put in jail....

so that's what you have?.....one crazy conservative?......

and for that you justify all the liberal lies that have been spread.....

One crazy conservative is all it takes to start a riot.

[lily]

But, the whole point of this discussion is that the rightwingers on this forum have been jerking each other off in hopes that a riot would happen, on cue, because Rush Limbaugh declared Al Sharpton said there would be trouble AT THE CONVENTION.

I don't know why you can't imagine people dreaming of riots when thats what so many on this forum either predict or hope will happen.

Limbaugh lied and they blow up the internet with bullshit talk about it going down like 1968. They know nothing about 1968.

I'm going to comment on this post, before I finish reading the entire thread, if my point was already made, I apoligize.....but I want to get it in before I forget.

Limbaugh has told his listeners to vote in the primaries for Clinton, he also has to somehow get on the McCain bandwagon.....he's no fool, he's petrified that Obama may win......he's a stronger candidate than Clinton and well, I'm going to come out and say it........he won't be able to stand a black man in office.

Limbaugh is also no dummy......if he even thinks that some Republicans listened to him and did vote for Hillary (which I have no doubts they did).......it's a sure thing that some of his fans would also go to the convention and start the riots he was dreaming about. Not only would it make his dream come true.......he could say I told you so.......and he'd do anything for that!

[AlanC]

One crazy conservative is all it takes to start a riot.


So you are saying that even at such a mundane activity, conservatives are more efficient and effective than liberals? Thank you for recognizing that. :lmao:

[lily]

No, I think Rush was putting it all on Democrats - not Republicans. It wouldn't benefit Republicans to start the riots - it would only benefit them if Democrats rioted.

Why are they somehow going to wear signs so we can tell them apart? LIke I said Limbaugh is no fool....he knows what he's doing.

[AlanC]

Why are they somehow going to wear signs so we can tell them apart? LIke I said Limbaugh is no fool....he knows what he's doing.

I don't think that will be the problem. Telling them apart that is. :madlaugh:

According to what several on this board have posted lately, they will either be wearing grey suits and trying to lift your wallet or the they will be hill billys with a lost look on their faces wearing their Walmart gimme caps. You should be able to see them from a mile away. :thumbsup:

[Pookie]

Good try, but look:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

Got it now?

Pookie

[Trish]

Why are they somehow going to wear signs so we can tell them apart? LIke I said Limbaugh is no fool....he knows what he's doing.

No, I would imagine that they would be videotaped on any number of news cameras, cell phones, etc. and then identified, their background checked and double checked. If they had EVER been Republican the whole thing would blow up in the Republican's face.

[AlanC]

Good try, but look:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

Got it now?

Pookie

Pookie, you said this "his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens."

That wording, idea or concept is not in what you quoted as being his words. Where does he say it is the responsibility of his listeners to cause the riot?

[PostmodernProphet]

Good try, but look:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

Got it now?

Pookie

we have it, that it isn't true....got it now?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

here is the transcript of the comments I heard....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042508/content/01125109.guest.html

[suedanim]

I gotta tell ya. I've been scouring sources off and on all day. Its plain to see... at least to me.. that Limbaugh knowing his powerful influence was in fact... not just lying about Sharptons insinuation that if Obama is not the nominee, that there may be a lawsuit and/or a march to the DNC in DC, but was and continues to incite riot aka civil unrest.

If it only takes one serial, rightwing womens clinic bomber aka terrorist to kill, maim and destroy buildings, how does one not be able to wrap their mind around the idea that a rightwing group or groups, acting on Limbaughs urging won't go to Denver (see I'm a fast learner) and create as much violence as possible??

Limbaugh must take responsibility for his Operation Chaos... both in deliberate undermining of democracy and in inciting riot, which can and probably will lead to loss of property, lives and many injuries.

Anyone consider his rhetoric could lead to Obamas assassination? Or will you celebrate such an event? Are you really so desperate?

I am appalled at Limbaugh and some posters around the net for defending and denying the reality of his comments. He DID NOT merely say he was "dreaming" of a riot. No... he said more than that and it all adds up to promoting ... terrorism.

Perhaps the Viagra and hydros have warped his mind, but I swear this is the same outrageous, but influential radio personality he's always been, just more desperate.

Below are his comments. He has told so many lies in this piece, taken from his own site, its just NUTS. Al Sharpton said no such things... The Democratic Party did NOT RIOT in 1968...and so on.

And it really upsets me to see people here and around the net repeat Limbaughs GARBAGE as truth... or try to explain him off the hook by claiming his use of the word ... dreaming... didn't mean LITERALLY.

As you will read below... he admits he intended it LITERALLY.

Now.. explain this away.

Screw the World! Riot in Denver! (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308/content/01125112.guest.html)April 23, 2008
Listen To It! http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/rush4/images/LISTENicon6.gif WMP (http://stream.rushlimbaugh.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/08/04/042308_8_riots.wma&site=rushlimb) | RealPlayer (http://stream.rushlimbaugh.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/08/04/042308_8_riots.rm&site=rushlimb)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/rush4/images/24_7ICON.gifAudio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/Rush247.guest.html)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPThttp://www.rushlimbaugh.com/spc.gifRUSH: Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania. This is Brian. Great to have you here, sir.

CALLER: Yes, thank you. I was calling to comment on -- on -- on first of all the gentleman that had called in earlier about your ego. I am a Republican, and I'm a very conservative Republican. However, I have to agree a little bit, Rush, that -- from a comment that you made a little while ago, that -- I do believe your ego is run away with you slightly.

RUSH: Well, first off, it was an e-mail. The guy didn't call actually, I read an e-mail from him that my ego was out of control.

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 --

RUSH: To who? To who would it make all Americans look bad?

CALLER: To the world.

RUSH: Oh, screw it! Screw the world! You know, I can't --

CALLER: I think there's that ego again. (laughing)

RUSH: It will make...? Do you really think we ought to govern ourselves ??? on the basis of what the world thinks of us?

CALLER: I believe that we need -- that our whole premise on working hard for our side is to bring all Americans together, Democrats, Republicans, and independents even, under one common goal that our forefathers designed for us.

RUSH: That's what we're trying to do. You don't bring them together. We don't bring people together. That's not how this country works. We defeat our political adversaries so that they're in the minority.

CALLER: I believe that, with -- with passion. But then also, I mean our -- our whole premise was our Constitution for our safety, you know, for our children's safety. And what would that show by riots and burning cars no matter what side did that? I just think, Rush, that that comment was a little out of line and maybe just not properly thought through. Because I don't believe that way, and I don't believe that most of us want that. Because people get hurt in those situations -- and we believe that our side as Republicans, we can do it better than the rest.

RUSH: As we would be demonstrating because there won't be riots at our convention.

CALLER: Actually they would be demonstrating as Americans --

RUSH: We don't riot.http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/spc.gifCALLER: -- that they're more out of control.

RUSH: We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. ??? We don't do half the things the American left does. We need the American left -- and this is another great thing about Operation Chaos; nothing to do with my ego. We need as many ignorant Americans to wake up and find out exactly who the modern-day Democrat Party is as dominated by the far left in this country. We need that to be seen. 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 the world thinks of us? There was an analogy just this week about somebody in the world. I'm drawing a mental blank about this. But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, "There will be riots," or something to that effect. Al Sharpton.

He was throwing down the gauntlet to the superdelegates: "You take this election away from Barack Obama, and there's gonna be trouble. There's going to be trouble in Denver." As for the rest of the world and what they think of us, you know, there's nothing that frustrates me more than to hear that. What part of the world do we care about? What part of the world do we want approval from? Do we want approval from the Europeans who have gone so damn wussy that they cannot -- they could not if they had to -- mount a military defense of themselves if they were attacked? Not even with NATO,

[AlanC]

He was throwing down the gauntlet to the superdelegates: "You take this election away from Barack Obama, and there's gonna be trouble. There's going to be trouble in Denver."

So doesn't that help Obama by warning the super delegates away from voting for Hillary? How is that inciting anyone to riot?

[PostmodernProphet]

he said more than that and it all adds up to promoting ... terrorism.

pure bullshit.....

[Trish]

I gotta tell ya. I've been scouring sources off and on all day. Its plain to see... at least to me.. that Limbaugh knowing his powerful influence was in fact... not just lying about Sharptons insinuation that if Obama is not the nominee, that there may be a lawsuit and/or a march to the DNC in DC, but was and continues to incite riot aka civil unrest.

If it only takes one serial, rightwing womens clinic bomber aka terrorist to kill, maim and destroy buildings, how does one not be able to wrap their mind around the idea that a rightwing group or groups, acting on Limbaughs urging won't go to Denver (see I'm a fast learner) and create as much violence as possible??

Limbaugh must take responsibility for his Operation Chaos... both in deliberate undermining of democracy and in inciting riot, which can and probably will lead to loss of property, lives and many injuries.

Anyone consider his rhetoric could lead to Obamas assassination? Or will you celebrate such an event? Are you really so desperate?

I am appalled at Limbaugh and some posters around the net for defending and denying the reality of his comments. He DID NOT merely say he was "dreaming" of a riot. No... he said more than that and it all adds up to promoting ... terrorism.

Perhaps the Viagra and hydros have warped his mind, but I swear this is the same outrageous, but influential radio personality he's always been, just more desperate.

Below are his comments. He has told so many lies in this piece, taken from his own site, its just NUTS. Al Sharpton said no such things... The Democratic Party did NOT RIOT in 1968...and so on.

And it really upsets me to see people here and around the net repeat Limbaughs GARBAGE as truth... or try to explain him off the hook by claiming his use of the word ... dreaming... didn't mean LITERALLY.

As you will read below... he admits he intended it LITERALLY.

Now.. explain this away.

Screw the World! Riot in Denver! (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308/content/01125112.guest.html)April 23, 2008
Listen To It! http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/rush4/images/LISTENicon6.gif WMP (http://stream.rushlimbaugh.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/08/04/042308_8_riots.wma&site=rushlimb) | RealPlayer (http://stream.rushlimbaugh.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/08/04/042308_8_riots.rm&site=rushlimb)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/rush4/images/24_7ICON.gifAudio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now! (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/Rush247.guest.html)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPThttp://www.rushlimbaugh.com/spc.gifRUSH: Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania. This is Brian. Great to have you here, sir.

CALLER: Yes, thank you. I was calling to comment on -- on -- on first of all the gentleman that had called in earlier about your ego. I am a Republican, and I'm a very conservative Republican. However, I have to agree a little bit, Rush, that -- from a comment that you made a little while ago, that -- I do believe your ego is run away with you slightly.

RUSH: Well, first off, it was an e-mail. The guy didn't call actually, I read an e-mail from him that my ego was out of control.

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 --

RUSH: To who? To who would it make all Americans look bad?

CALLER: To the world.

RUSH: Oh, screw it! Screw the world! You know, I can't --

CALLER: I think there's that ego again. (laughing)

RUSH: It will make...? Do you really think we ought to govern ourselves ??? on the basis of what the world thinks of us?

CALLER: I believe that we need -- that our whole premise on working hard for our side is to bring all Americans together, Democrats, Republicans, and independents even, under one common goal that our forefathers designed for us.

RUSH: That's what we're trying to do. You don't bring them together. We don't bring people together. That's not how this country works. We defeat our political adversaries so that they're in the minority.

CALLER: I believe that, with -- with passion. But then also, I mean our -- our whole premise was our Constitution for our safety, you know, for our children's safety. And what would that show by riots and burning cars no matter what side did that? I just think, Rush, that that comment was a little out of line and maybe just not properly thought through. Because I don't believe that way, and I don't believe that most of us want that. Because people get hurt in those situations -- and we believe that our side as Republicans, we can do it better than the rest.

RUSH: As we would be demonstrating because there won't be riots at our convention.

CALLER: Actually they would be demonstrating as Americans --

RUSH: We don't riot.http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/spc.gifCALLER: -- that they're more out of control.

RUSH: We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. ??? We don't do half the things the American left does. We need the American left -- and this is another great thing about Operation Chaos; nothing to do with my ego. We need as many ignorant Americans to wake up and find out exactly who the modern-day Democrat Party is as dominated by the far left in this country. We need that to be seen. 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 the world thinks of us? There was an analogy just this week about somebody in the world. I'm drawing a mental blank about this. But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, "There will be riots," or something to that effect. Al Sharpton.

He was throwing down the gauntlet to the superdelegates: "You take this election away from Barack Obama, and there's gonna be trouble. There's going to be trouble in Denver." As for the rest of the world and what they think of us, you know, there's nothing that frustrates me more than to hear that. What part of the world do we care about? What part of the world do we want approval from? Do we want approval from the Europeans who have gone so damn wussy that they cannot -- they could not if they had to -- mount a military defense of themselves if they were attacked? Not even with NATO,


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

[lily]

No, I would imagine that they would be videotaped on any number of news cameras, cell phones, etc. and then identified, their background checked and double checked. If they had EVER been Republican the whole thing would blow up in the Republican's face.

Sorry.......but Alan's response makes more sense. First off, I don't think for rioting they will do that thourough of research......and I admit, I've never been arrested for anything, but I doubt if they check your political background, and as already was mentioned, if they did listen to him the first time and vote for Clinton....won't they be registered Democrats?

I think you're grasping at any kind of straw you can here.

[Trish]

I don't think so, but then I don't think Limbaugh was trying to actually convince anyone to start a riot - I think he was just being his usual blowhard self.

[preservanation]

The Libbos are hoping that a riot is a remote possibility.I think that some Dems are even gearing up for it.
Some want to relive their "glory days" in the 60's, and the younger ones are looking for relevance in their life and "want to make a difference".
To them an uprising would fit the bill perfectly.
I think it's a fait accomplis...The only question is; will it be the diseffected old hippies and the angst ridden youth or the blue-collar union members and blue haired ladies with their knitting-needles who will be leading the charge.

[Pookie]

No, there will be no riots in Denver or anywhere else. Watch and see.
Rush is quite mistaken here.
Purrs,
Pookie

[PostmodernProphet]

look at it this way, Sue....it would be uncharacteristic for someone who believes in the conservative philosophy to spend money to travel to Denver to start a riot when they can sit at home in their living room and watch "recreate 68" do it for free........

[preservanation]

look at it this way, Sue....it would be uncharacteristic for someone who believes in the conservative philosophy to spend money to travel to Denver to start a riot when they can sit at home in their living room and watch "recreate 68" do it for free........It'll be interesting how Mayor John Hickenlooper will handle this.
As Apdst pointed out, Daley ordered his cops to stand down for three or four days while the rabble tossed every type of horribleness at them. They actually set up base of operations in surrounding hotels and in Grant Park. You have to give the police a lot of credit for taking it for so long, but it should have been nipped in the bud sooner by Daley.

I wonder if Hickenlooper will show similar restraint or quell it before the forces grow and get more bold.
My guess is the former.
As time goes on and word gets out, their ranks will rise and the threat will advance.

[suedanim]

So doesn't that help Obama by warning the super delegates away from voting for Hillary? How is that inciting anyone to riot?

First... ALANC... be honest! Second... the only person said that was Rush fuckn Limbaugh.

Al Sharpton NEVER said that and NO...

By Al Sharpton saying if Clinton was handed the nomination in the back rooms, there COULD be a lawsuit or march on the DNC IN DC.... is not inciting to riot.

[suedanim]

pure bullshit.....

:madlaugh: The way you people define terrorism... Rush Limbaugh is inciting terrorism therefore he is a terrorist.

[suedanim]

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24318982#24318982


Quit already with the intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't become you.

:unreal:

[BoogyMan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24318982#24318982


Quit already with the intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't become you.

:unreal:

Oh please Sue, Olbermann? The guy hasn't had an honest view or appraisal of anything a conservative has said since he started playing liberal attack dog for MSNBC.

Olbermann is still trying to propagate the lie that Limbaugh called all those in the military who disagree with the war "phoney soldiers," a moronic allegation that has been handily disproved over and over again.

Trish is correct, the transcript only shows the extent to which some will go to twist words to make a claim.

[suedanim]

I don't think so, but then I don't think Limbaugh was trying to actually convince anyone to start a riot - I think he was just being his usual blowhard self.

Oh he's a blowhard alright, but DO please stop making excuses for him like every other Republican on the internet.

He should take responsibility for his words, cause there are PLENTY of rightwing, tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs out there who WILL take his words and proporal seriously and start the party without us.

Democrats will not riot. This is just rightwing fantasy, dreams.... because you rightwingers cannot imagine letting go of power..and you KNOW the only way to even hope to accomplish a win for that sorry excuse of a candidate, John McCain, is to actually campaign by advocating violence... in hopes of making Dems look bad.

[AlanC]

Democrats will not riot. This is just rightwing fantasy, dreams.... because you rightwingers cannot imagine letting go of power..and you KNOW the only way to even hope to accomplish a win for that sorry excuse of a candidate, John McCain, is to actually campaign by advocating violence... in hopes of making Dems look bad.


I see. And the last time conservatives marched, demonstrated, rioted, destroyed property was when? Please, enlighten us, because I'm not aware of one.

Then when you post your list, I will post mine. I think I can find a Democrat riot or two if I need to.

[suedanim]

look at it this way, Sue....it would be uncharacteristic for someone who believes in the conservative philosophy to spend money to travel to Denver to start a riot when they can sit at home in their living room and watch "recreate 68" do it for free........

Yeah... maybe for the majority. The whole world understands that some of ya'll are glued to TVs in order to watch American created horror for others.

But, ya'll got some kooks, nuts and flakes out there that like to blow up a Federal building in OK, murder doctors, blow up clinics, set off bombs with nails in Atlanta, shoot Jewish children at school, beat to death a gay man and assorted other acts of violence aka terrorism. You DO have a fringe element that mostly inhabit militias, go to gun shows, march in KKK an Aryan Nation costumes and drag a black man to death in TX. Don't even try to tell me these idiots vote Democrat!

So when the question arises where does domestic terrorism come from in the last 30 years, you can look right... hard right, to the fringe groups that worship Rush Limbaugh and listen to him faithfully on their battery operated radios.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24318982#24318982

Listen to Limbaugh...

[suedanim]

I see. And the last time conservatives marched, demonstrated, rioted, destroyed property was when? Please, enlighten us, because I'm not aware of one.

Then when you post your list, I will post mine. I think I can find a Democrat riot or two if I need to.

Oh... I'm sure you can find where people who vote Democrat have rioted and destroyed property. But please don't cite riots... in which the peoples revolts had nothing to do with party idealogy. Those riots are related to social injustice, police brutality, oppression, ect.

Conservatives DO march even today in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, delberately intimidate and harass young women and girls. But, its your fringe nutjobs America needs to worry about when it comes to domestic terrorism.

[suedanim]

Oh please Sue, Olbermann? The guy hasn't had an honest view or appraisal of anything a conservative has said since he started playing liberal attack dog for MSNBC.

Olbermann is still trying to propagate the lie that Limbaugh called all those in the military who disagree with the war "phoney soldiers," a moronic allegation that has been handily disproved over and over again.

Trish is correct, the transcript only shows the extent to which some will go to twist words to make a claim.

Trish couldn't be more wrong.

btw..boogey.. the link wasn't for listening to Olbermans pov... but to listen the tape of Limbaugh.

[AlanC]

Oh... I'm sure you can find where people who vote Democrat have rioted and destroyed property. But please don't cite riots... in which the peoples revolts had nothing to do with party idealogy. Those riots are related to social injustice, police brutality, oppression, ect.

Conservatives DO march even today in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, delberately intimidate and harass young women and girls. But, its your fringe nutjobs America needs to worry about when it comes to domestic terrorism.

Oh I agree. It's also why I think the Democratic convention is perfectly safe from any Rush Limbaugh crazed conservatives turning it into a riot. Which of course makes this whole thread a bit pointless.

[Elrathin]

I see. And the last time conservatives marched, demonstrated, rioted, destroyed property was when? Please, enlighten us, because I'm not aware of one.

I don't remember the left doing it either. There are certain elements of the left that may have but all in all the left does not support those actions either yet the entire left gets blamed for them.

[Buck Laser]

as usual, you have read the posts incorrectly again....it is happening so frequently I wonder if you should have your bi-focals checked......as far as I am aware, all of us agree that Bush has not called for riots in Denver.....so, I expect you should think that I am the one who has it right because I agree with all the other people who have it right.....

PMP, You wrote "BUSH has not called for riots in Denver..." I wonder whose bifocals really need checking? :evil:

[PostmodernProphet]

First... ALANC... be honest! Second... the only person said that was Rush fuckn Limbaugh.



unless you count Recreate 68......

[TheStripey1]

Viola, after reading this, (which I doubt that you have because you wouldn't have posted this otherwise) Limbaugh is NOT calling for riots, he is pointing to the fact that there have been threats to riot and saying that people who see such a thing at the DNC convention would certainly have their attitude toward that party affected by it.

au contraire... it is his DREAM and his OBJECTIVE... but it's typical of the right winger psyche... win at all costs... honor be damned...

so if McCain wins and he invades or attacks Iran, will YOU and the rest of the right wingers here, rush down to enlist or will you just sit on your asses typing your support... as usual... just as fatass limbaugh did during the viet nam war...

for such a chicken then, he sure is a hawk now... ahhh, he fits the definition of chickenhawk to the tee...

[TheStripey1]

You missed this part?
Read again:

DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

It says RIGHT THERE, read again, this:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Next?

Pookie

cmon, poookie, you know as well as I righties don't believe negative things written about what their heroes say...

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24318982#24318982


Quit already with the intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't become you.

:unreal:
lol, it amazes me you dare combine "intellectual dishonesty" and a link to MSNBC in the same post......the liberals will demonstrate in Denver.....it is inevitable, it is planned.....are the Dems their own worst enemies?.....of course.....should Republicans be pleased about that?.....of course.....do we need to participate?.....why, all we need to do is observe and enjoy.......

[TheStripey1]

However he never called for riots, ie; "Dems, go riot"
That I have never heard. If that quote or something like that can be produced I'll accept the headline..."Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer."

If not that HL is inaccurate, leading and dishonest.

no he is asking for HIS LISTENERS to do it... you know, people like the rabid right winger partisans that populate many of the political forums across cyberspace... know any of them?

I sure do...

[PostmodernProphet]

ya'll got some kooks, nuts and flakes out there

we aren't talking liberals here, Sue.....the kooks, nuts and flakes are few and far between on the right side of reality......

[PostmodernProphet]

Don't even try to tell me these idiots vote Democrat!

and don't tell me they vote Republican.....

[TheStripey1]

Hasn't john mccain met rush limbaugh? Therefore everything rush has said reflects on mccain's character, therefore mccain is calling for riots, therefore mccain is a terrorist, right? That's the prevailing logic on obama.

not sure where you're going with this, TaP... what does McCain have to do with limbaugh's radio program other than they are both right wingers that love bush's failed policies and want them continued despite the negative impact it will have on our country and the world.

[PostmodernProphet]

PMP, You wrote "BUSH has not called for riots in Denver..." I wonder whose bifocals really need checking? :evil:

no, but my typing could use some work....spell checker doesn't pay attention to that type of error......

[TheStripey1]

No, if McCain sat in his church for 20 years or was personally friendly with him it would be a different story

and Rush didn't kill innocent Americans like Ayers, nor did he spill out anti-American comments like Obama's close personal friend and minister of 20 years

Rev Jerimiah Wright served his country by enlisting in the