No, the headline is not sarcastic. No, I do not particularly care for the guy. Yes, Rush has said all other various and sundry sorts of racially inflammatory things.
But there's pretty compelling evidence a couple of particularly inflammatory quotes that have been attributed to Limbaugh on CNN and at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are things he simply never said. There's no audio file, there's no YouTube, there's no transcript -- there's no sourcing of any kind to speak of, and given that Rush is one of the most listened-to and tape-recorded people in the history of the world, you'd certainly think that there would be. There's not even some kind of half-assed backstory -- "Oh, he said these things off the record at a fundraiser for Alexander Haig" -- or anything like that. The quotes appear, in other words, to have been completely made up.
Rush has handled the situation pretty well, not drawing undue attention to the quotes, but making the commonsensical argument that if he had said, for instance, words to the effect that James Earl Ray (Martin Luther King's assassin) was a hero, then surely there would have been a Don-Imus-to-the-nth-power-sized blowup long before now. I'm actually a little surprised that the conservative blogs haven't made a bigger deal of this -- some of them, I suppose, are so used to reflexively alleging irresponsible behavior by the media that they've sort of been led off the scent of a case where it actually seems to have occurred. And I'm disappointed that the "liberal" media and meta-media sites have in fact not lifted a finger to verify the veracity of the quotes, nor to call out those who repeated them without checking their facts first.
10.15.2009
In Defense of Rush Limbaugh
@ 10:22 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
466 comments
<-- Not at all surprised since anyone who has ever listened to him for more than 5 seconds knows he's not a racist.
Ironic. It's like when Glenn Beck did(not?) rape and murder that girl in 1990.
Speaking as a liberal whose heart bleeds black and gold, the one good result of the Rush Limbaugh Rams fiasco is that I never again have to hear that Rush Limbaugh is a Steelers "fan".
That is truly a shame. Not just because it excuses Limbaugh for his handful of genuine blatantly racist comments (McNabb, Barack the Magic Negro, etc), but because it will help excuse his other bilious and inflammatory remarks.
Of course it's wrong to make up comments and attribute them to this fatuous gasbag, but perhaps the bigger question is "Why wouldn't one just point out the bulls**t that the man actually said?"
I guess this falls into the Man bites Dog category, in that Limbaugh actually might NOT have said something utterly offensive, racist and reactionary, which is why Nate " I'm really fair and balanced, honest, conservatives" posted it.
It's just so believable, how could anyone question it?
I consider myself fairly "liberal" and am no fan of Rush, but even to me it seemed ridiculous the way CNN has been attacking him lately:
Interrupting Afghanistan Discussion for Breaking News about Rush Limbaugh
Of all the MSM I used to turn to CNN most often but lately I can't bear to watch/read them. Not so much because of the bias but because most of the stories and comments made by anchors and "experts" are just plain stupid (Of course this becoming more and more the norm for all of the MSM).
So you have no evidence he didn't say them, you just kinda sorta think he mustn't have since you never saw them and noone taped every minute of his shows for the last twenty years. Pretty weak.
What has Rush said?
Here he implies the black race is less than the Asian race: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiLVTzljOjA
Rush an Darfur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T5PAwWcRRw&feature=PlayList&p=38D72E79EF0C5A8A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=30
Rush calling Sotomayer a "cleaning lady" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emLjsF9a9A
Just go search "racist rush" at youtube.
Here is the quote you dont think he said, I think he did:
"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."
http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
Rush is at least a bigot, I think he is a racist, and you should be ashemed for derfending him Nate.
Totally off subject--(Best we can do with Limbaugh is ignore him)
Question: Sen Kyle recently objected to moving forward on HR3548 (Unemployment Extension). Which means that no further action will be taken on the bill unless he lifts his objection. Is there a way for the Senate to override his objection and take up the bill. If so how many votes would be needed. I checked in rules of the Senate but could not find the info. Thanks for any help.
Oh ya, gorgot that he played this gem regularly on his show. How can you defend this Nate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_FAJUFutyw
Nam Vet Joe,
I'm not sure but I believe that a hold can only be lifted by the majority leader or the Senator placing it, so don't hold your breath.
Still it poses an interesting question. What is more likely to happen: Reid growing a spine or Kyl growing a conscience?
Correct in your analysis, Nate. Practically every utterance of the man for the last 21 years has been recorded.
If he said it, the audio would be available. And, as he said, if he'd said it, it would have been a big deal WHEN he said it.
As for why conservatives aren't up in arms about it, we've gotten desensitized. We're used to behavior like this from the left, and we know from past experience that once the left has made up it's mind on something, no matter how wrong it is, it's impossible to change their mind.
Finally, why should I blog in defense of Rush? He's more than capable of defending himself and has a far wider audience than I ever will.
Potter Stewart once said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; But I know it when I see it."
I agree that news sources should be able to prove what they are saying is true. I say the FCC charges CNN and whoever else spread these quotes (if they are false) with libel or defamation, and then move on to Fox News.
I don't care if they who in the media they target first, but we need to enforce the law with media companies who don't report the truth. Thing have gotten out of hand and it doesn't have to be this way. Europeans seem to do just fine holding broadcast companies accountable for the things they say on the air.
Wasn't there some "confusion" about the creation of the Internet and Al Gore? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that everyone's favorite doctor-shopping, pill-popping sex tourist didn't rush to clarify that little matter. Talent on loan from God? More like ego on loan from Lucifer and conscience all his own.
The intellectuals at redstate are holding a purge in his honor: obviously the NFL owners are marxists if they voted against him. More drama than a middle school dance party.
On the point re: CNN, it seems like they're awfully desperate to recapture the "liberal" market since they realized that movement conservatives aren't going to like the mainstream media no matter how your slant the coverage.
The problem is, that ship has sailed long ago. The main complaint many have with the TV media is with its sheer fatuousness, not an ideological slant, per se.
Chris of the right-
WRONG! Rush played "Barack the Magic Negro" for months before anyone on the left heard it and made a big deal of it. Rush lies are unlistenable to normal people, thus he says MANY things that go unchallenged and to act otherwise is simply to lie, like a good right winger.
Wait a second, where are Shilo and Shrinkers? Especially Shrinkers, given the proclivity to falsehoods I'd think there's at least be an appearance for something that's purely factual...
Nate seems to be setting an interesting new standard for what "truth" is; anything recorded electronically. This overlooks two things: (a) anything recorded electronically can easily be manipulated, and (b) not every moment of Rush's life has been electronically recorded for posterity.
This seems to be another example of a liberal need to seem fair-minded about the most egregous aspects of life, ignoring in the process the very egregousness that makes them fodder for discussion in the first place. Looking at his "body" of work (and how appropiate it is that someone built like a Zeppelin produces so much gas), it's clear that Limbaugh isn't any more persecuted than he asks to be.
Joel-
CNN's main problem is that it is complete fluff, completely spruious statements of the both the right and the left go unchallenged as their hosts are hired because they are attractive, not because they are knowledgeable.
So, to theorize, some of Rush's friends begin spreading the rumor that he said some really really really awful things. Since it turns out he didn't, people are forced to back off on criticizing him for the merely insanely bloody awful things he really did say.
Where have I seen this tactic before? Oh yes, in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election, and the "forged" memo came out about his national guard service. Since the memo turned out to be false (supposedly) people dropped the whole topic, even though the substance of the memo was true. And we never did find out who had forged that memo.
Hmmmmm.
Thanks Jacob for the info.
As far as the question you pose, you have just created two oxymorons: Reid's spine and Kyl's conscience.
Come on Nate, post and tell us why you think the man who played "Barrack the Magic Negro" and defended it should own an NFL team and is not a bigot. Come on Nate.
You can take the erroneous media to task without coming to Limbaugh's "defense," Nate. The two are not mutually inclusive.
Limbaugh has legitimately and verifiably said a ton of inflammatory things, many of them about the NFL itself (the McNabb controversy and his "Crips vs. Bloods" comment are both verifiable - here's a Blog post about it from January, way before the Rams ownership issue came up).
While I disagree with almost everything Rush has to say, I believe he has a right to say it but his forum is not a right, it's a privilege he has since he makes the radio stations he is on money. But the same principle is at work with regard to the NFL: owning a team is a privilege. In a league where revenue is shared equally because it philosophically views the health of the league as being only as strong as the weakest link, the other owners have a vested interest in not having "bad" owners who can hurt their investments and Limbaugh is a risk that NFL owners would never take.
It's ironic that Rush is throwing out the straw man that this witch hunt is all about the liberal media out to destroy Conservatism - the NFL owners are mostly all Conservative (big "C") which is exactly why they would never vote for him to get ownership of a franchise. Rush likes to think he's a voice for Conservativism but he's just a shill for Neoconservatism and the difference between the two is vast, and getting more vast every week it seems...
It's pretty dumb to make up quotes by this slimeball considering all of the awful things he has actually said.
Nate, rather than come to defense of the race bait'er, check out this LIST OF RACIALLY CHARGED QUOTES.
The guy is a piece of crap and knows exactly what he's doing. He race baits because his white red neck audience enjoys it.
It's just that simple. He works in unison with Drudge Report and other conservative media outlets to keep the white population polarized against Barack Obama by highlighting racial uprising around the country and attributing them to him.
He's a race baiting piece of crap.
Here's just a few.
"We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
"I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy."
"[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
"Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
"Obama has disowned his white half ... he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro."
Limbaugh on Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."
Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."
"Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child."
"The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives."
"The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry."
Limbaugh: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
Limbaugh says "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."
Go look at the list at Media Matters for the rest. You can get the idea though.
He has a history of race baiting.
Brian K. O'Neil. I think you're right. Real conservatives don't want to "rock the boat." They just want to keep making their money. Rush Limbaugh is more of an instigator (because that's how he makes his money.)
Here is some research on the top ten Racist Rush quotes. Kinda looks like Nate needed to do his homework before slamming others for not doing theirs:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Nate, you got suckered in by someone you know to defend this piece of crap by being obfuscated upon.
Way to look uninformed.
Here is the well documented Media Matters page on Rush, the racist:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049
Poor Nate, just pull this post and say you were wrong.
Wow, some people are really missing the point here. Nate’s not saying that Rush isn’t a douche-bag; he’s saying that making up quotes to make Rush look bad is an equally douchey move. I tend to agree, especially considering how many awful things Rush really has said. There was no need to make things up and it points to decay of journalism and reporting in this country.
Again, Nate is not defending Rush’s actions, only his right to be represented fairly and accurately.
Hey, Bradford, did you somehow get the impression that Nate thinks Rush Limbaugh is not a racist? Please read the post again. He did not express an opinion on whether or not Limbaugh is a racist.
Nor should he. A man should be judged not by what he hypothetically thinks, but by what he does, or in the case of a talk show host, by what he says (since they don't actually do anything). And in the case of Rush, I think the best judgment is DNFTT.
@Bradford:
The snopes page clearly shows there is no evidence for the two quotes that Silver mentioned. There's no reason to take the post down, since its criticisms are valid.
However, there certainly should be an addendum with links to all the real racist statements made by Limbaugh over the years.
Also, kudos to the NFL for taking a stance against jackassery, despite the obvious upside to having Rush on board with the Rams. The Rams are one of the leagues worst franchises and having Rush as an owner would have given them a whole new, instant fan base. Can you imagine what millions of new fans could have done for the Rams (not to mention the millions in revenue from jerseys and other merchandise)? Yet the owners decided that Rush’s attitude was worse than the money he might bring in. I think considering the attitude of some execs in today’s economy, that somewhat principled stand is a bit refreshing.
Wrong! The Snopes page clearly shows there is only one instance of the quote being cited, that is much more than ",aking it up."
Second, for Nate to defend Rush based on two quotes, when Rush has a long series of quotes that say the same or similar things and Nate fails to mention those, well, Nate is playing the same game Rush is and deserves to called on it just as much.
Are you really implying that even the quotes without audio are perfectly consistent with the man who plays the race card on his show, daily?
Where is Nate defending Rush in his article? I don't see it. He is saying that there is no evidence that Rush said two quotes commonly reported as being said by him and that the media should do a better job.
Bradford and others, please highlight something actually in Nate' post that you disagree with.
And also, please don't cite Snopes.com as your evidence. That's like using a Yahoo! personality quiz as evidence that you're cool.
http://rushisaracist.com/
shock jock, yes
moron, yes
x-doper, yes
bigot, most likely
So, some guy goes to Nate, says, but, he didn't say these two quotes here therefore he was judged incorrectly.
Wrong.
He was judged correctly regardless of those two misstated quotes because there are at least 50 other racially charged quotes he made.
This is the same argument the bozo from the St. Louis dispatch tried to make on Anderson 360 last night. He pointed to the two wrong quotes and kept trying to say because of their incorrectness, he should have been allowed to stay in the purchase group.
It sounds like the same guy had a conversation with Nate or something.
John said...
Where is Nate defending Rush
Um.... The headline?
Fuck you John. The whole post defends Rush and implies that these are the only two racist quotes Rush ever made thus, why not give him an NFL team?
As for Snopes, they are a well researched source, there traffic depends on it. Of course, Nate's posts are generally thought to well regarded and his quotes not out of context...not today.
Bradford and liberal_defender_of_freedom:
Shouldn't you just be happy that Rush can't buy the Rams? Gotta go, Rush is on!
I think he should be allowed to invest. I also think players should be allowed to demand a premium to play for him. I think sponsors and fans can also decide if he represents a product they want to support and/or be associated with. Let's let the free market decide this one.
Again, how can anyone "defend" this?
http://www.monacome.com/2008/12/barack-magic-negro-lyrics-video.html
Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
Said he makes guilty whites feel good
They’ll vote for him, and not for me
‘Cause he’s not from the hood.
See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,
Or me, or Farrakhan
Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.
Not come in late and won!
Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.
Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.
Some say Barack’s “articulate”
And bright and new and “clean.”
The media sure loves this guy,
A white interloper’s dream!
But, when you vote for president,
Watch out, and don’t be fooled!
Don’t vote the Magic Negro in –
‘Cause —
’Cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.
It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,
And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.
There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.
Now, Barack going to come in here and ........
Yeeeesh, guys. Here's what Nate said:
Yes, Rush has said all other various and sundry sorts of racially inflammatory things.
But there's pretty compelling evidence a couple of particularly inflammatory quotes that have been attributed to Limbaugh on CNN and at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are things he simply never said.
How you reconcile this with yelling at him and providing lists of the various and sundry things that Rush said, I don't know.
I certainly had an immediate "bullshit" reaction myself when I saw the James Earl Ray "quote". That's just hardcore Klan-style racism - I dislike Rush as much as anyone but I seriously doubt he said James Earl Ray deserved a Medal of Honor. Heck, even if we assume he's a Klan-style racist, I think his military audience would find it offensive - the Medal of Honor is a very serious thing.
I mean, looking at the comments that you guys have put up, sure, there's all kinds of baldly offensive things in there, but, in my mind at least, none of them rise to the level of "James Earl Ray deserves a Medal of Honor" or "There were some good things about slavery".
Charles-
Enjoy the show! Will he make fun of negros. feminists, asians or hispanics today - I bet you can't wait!
Ya gotta admit. Nate knows how to put up an attention-getting headline. Still, it seems like an odd one to jump in on, akin to "in Defense of Hitler" because the media fabriacted two anti-semitic comments he never made. As many have observed, there is an overwhelming number of well-documented racist comments by Limbaugh and I had not realized that Nate is now Media Matters for pollsters. Nate's main point is spurred by a breathlessly eager need to seem fair and balanced to the MSM, rather than getting Olbermannized or Michael Mooreized. As a career tactic, it is pretty smart and it has the added benefi of getting us all worked up.
Fact-checking? What's that? Something akin to the dodo and the passenger pigeon, I believe.
Persuter,
I'm in no way defending those that used false quotes to get him out of the purchase group. But that collection of quotes I posted alone would be enough to offend most African Americans I know and decent whites also.
He carries on the southern strategy to this day.
And, he should be held accountable for them.
Nate, by leaving out the other 50 quotes the guy has said over the years, made it seem as though there was no justification. If you're gonna tell a story tell the whole thing.
Persuter-
There is evidence that Rush DID say those things about slavery being a good thing. There is eveidence he DID say those things about James Earl Ray. Additionally, there is eveidence those are both things well within the range of his bigoted history of comments. I guess we are just believeing Rush becuase he says there is no evidence he can find that shows he says them. Rush himself doesn't even completely deny either statement - read his non-denial!
Bradford:
It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH (see, e.g. First Amendment). That's how I defend it. And, I will enjoy it, thanks.
Charles-
Noone is saying Rush does not have freedom of speech, but what you say should have consequences. Enjoy the show!
P.S. there is also "evidence" that Barack Obama was born in Kenya (see, e.g. alleged Kenya birth certificate, paternal grandmother's statement and fight over release of Hawaii original vital records). Is that "racist" to point out?
Bradford:
You asked "how can anyone 'defend' this?" I simply answered your question. I am not saying that your position is "Rush does not have freedom of speech". Thanks for playing, really gotta go now.
Chalres-
No, anyone can point out anything, that does not make you racist but it does make you an idiot as the city Obama was supposedly born in was not even in a country called Kenya when he was born (but the fake vbirth certificate shows the country of "Kenya"), and there were two birth announcements in HA paers showing he was born there, plus the State of Ha SAYS he was born there.
Also, didn't you see this showing the Kenyan birth certificate was based on a faked Australian birth certificate?
http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-fake-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
@ Bradford. Interesting. Do you have sources for the quotes and non-denial available?
@Charles,
WTF? I think it wouldn't be "racist" if their was real evidence. Hawaii vital records have been viewed and partly released.
This attack is based on the premise that every possible piece of evidence that could accurately place Obama's birth has not been personally released to Orly Taitz. There has been no evidence presented that Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, of course.
I don't know who created that fake Kenyan birth certificate either. I do know that it A) pertains to be issued by Kenya when such was not a country and B) lists the town of birth as a place that was then in the British colony of Tanzania.
Some very sloppy work by the birther conspiracy.
Charles said...
It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH (see, e.g. First Amendment). That's how I defend it. And, I will enjoy it, thanks.
So are the people who are saying Rush is a scumbag. So what's your point?
liberal:
I'm in no way defending those that used false quotes to get him out of the purchase group. But that collection of quotes I posted alone would be enough to offend most African Americans I know and decent whites also.
Hence why I said there were baldly offensive things in the list. You keep arguing with no one.
Nate, by leaving out the other 50 quotes the guy has said over the years, made it seem as though there was no justification.
I totally disagree with your interpretation of his article.
If you're gonna tell a story tell the whole thing.
Absolutely! But don't make things up! You're only feeling it necessary to post these things in the first place because these quotes are questionable. We should be equally demanding of true information from any media source. If you don't like the birther conspiracy, don't participate in this conspiracy.
bradford:
There is evidence that Rush DID say those things about slavery being a good thing. There is eveidence he DID say those things about James Earl Ray.
Where? Anything besides Huberman's book, or things citing his book?
I guess we are just believeing Rush becuase he says there is no evidence he can find that shows he says them.
IS there evidence? I generally find that when people breezily talk about how there is evidence, but neglect to take the five seconds to actually cite their evidence, that it is usually questionable at best. The only 'evidence' I can find for those two quotes is Huberman's book.
This is the first I've heard of these rumored statements that may or may not exist and I follow real news pretty closely. There are plenty of sufficiently offensive statements that he's made on the record, some of which were direct comments on the NFL. This defense of him was probably more widely read than the original "quotes" and completely unnecessary.
@Elliot Tarabour
That's the thing the free market did decide. There was no government intervention here. Consumers and workers see him as a bigot and race baiter, and the owners see him as more of a business killer than money maker.
Free markets in motion.
I don't know if this has been officially confirmed by anyone yet, but Limbaugh claimed in his opening today that George Soros is a part of Dave Checketts' group attempting to buy the team. If this is true, what a firestorm there's going to be.
It's sad to see the NFL is now going to be consumed in the political culture wars inflaming the country.
Media Matters now has an article up on the PR push by Rush and conservatives to say he was the victim of mis-information.
He was a victim of his southern strategy radio show.
He should just grow up and learn to deal with the fact he's a race baiting piece of garbage.
This isn't a fight against conservatism as conservatives are now trying to argue. This is just a fight against the conservatism Rush is trying to serve, which is race baiting conservatism.
OK. Done for now. Just wanted to make it very clear Rush is the victim of his own bile.
"So you have no evidence he didn't say them, you just kinda sorta think he mustn't have since you never saw them and noone taped every minute of his shows for the last twenty years. Pretty weak."
Bradford, come on man, you're smarter than that aren't you? It's literally impossible to prove that Rush didn't say something. There is no possible way to have "evidence" that he didn't say it. That's just basic logic. How could you prove he didn't say something?
Nate did in fact bring up a very compelling reason to believe he didn't. There's no context, no speech, no background for when or where he allegedly said these remarks. There's no recording even though his show has been recorded and archived for the last twenty years or so, however long he's been on. People constantly play clips from his show write articles, criticisms and pieces of outrage about things he said on his show.
The man supposedly called James Earl Ray a hero and no one wrote about that? BS. The size of that controversy would have been unreal. No way would that have slipped below the radar.
The fact of the matter is that no one can prove he didn't say it. That's why the defacto burden of proof is on the one claiming he did say it. No one has produced any evidence that he said these remarks. It's just a bald assertion not based on anything verifiable. So I'd say Nate's conclusion that it was probably made up is right.
And shame on Nate? Shame on you for being a political fundamentalist. I don't like Rush at all. I do not agree with any of his beliefs and I feel very strongly that he is an a-hole. What he said about Michael J. Fox alone was deplorable and indefensible. But I would defend anyone, even a disgusting louse like him, from someone who would make up such awful statements and falsely claim that he said them.
The reason I can't stand Rush is he just automatically hates something because it doesn't represent what he believes. He's not willing to listen to the views of other people or consider the value in arguments that opose his own. He automatically dishes hate on someone who has views with which he doesn't agree. He assumes the worst and most heinous things about people with whom he doesn't agree (e.g. Michael J. Fox). But that's exactly what you are doing by assuming he said those comments simply because you don't like him. I'm sorry Bradford, but you are being no better than Rush Limbaugh. So shame on you.
So you have no evidence he didn't say them, you just kinda sorta think he mustn't have since you never saw them and noone taped every minute of his shows for the last twenty years. Pretty weak.
Whenever anyone asserts something to exist - whether it be God, Big Foot, specific quotations by Rush Limbaugh, or Rush Limbaugh's racism in general - the burden of proof is always on the person who asserts, not on the person who denies or is otherwise skeptical. This is because it's nigh impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, whereas proving that something does exist is relatively easy.
For instance: you assert that Rush is a racist, and you provide links defending that assertion. You naturally take the burden of proof upon yourself. You don't wait for us to prove that he isn't. This is all Nate is doing: he's waiting for the people who bear the burden of proof, the people who claim these specific quotes exist, to provide them. That's a completely reasonable position.
See the below for his non-denial denial of the slavery remark:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Also see Snopes for their sourcing of the quotes, which DO have sources, but you may choose, or not, to believe those sources.
Seth-
I have shown you sopurces, that Nate says do not exist. Get over yourself and read the WHOLE FUCKING STRING!
Rush's radio programs are available at his website for the cost of a membership fee. If they wanted to be accurate, the Dem media could easily verify anything Rush said by simply listening. However, the vast majority of media reports attributing statements to Rush are made by people who have never actually heard the statement and are instead fabricating the claimed statement or passing along someone else's malicious fabrication.
These misrepresentations have become so prevalent that Limbaugh has made ridiculing and rebutting them part of his schtick. He will often run a clip of some ignorant reporter attributing something to him and then run the actual recorded segment of the show. Limbaugh plays it for laughs, although I would love to see him bring suit a couple times to stop this partisan nonsense.
These comments make me far sadder than anything Rush may or may not have said.
Guys calm down.
This website exists so you can get factually correct information about political issues, mostly polls.
This post is a logical extension of that policy. There is no direct evidence that Rush said anything about James Earl Ray deserving any medal, much less the Medal. There are masses of direct evidence that people who don't like Rush say he said that, but there's no evidence Rush himself actually did.
It's just dumb tactics for us on the left to make inflammatory quotes up, and attribute them to Conservative demagogues. The debate instantly changes from "does this jackass deserve to own the Rams," to "what did he say and when did he say it?"
Just wanted to say thank you for this post. I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but he took a beating just in wanting to buy the team that made me think hard about what bigotry is. Rush says a lot of dumb things and should be held accountable for some of his race-baiting, but to incite hate by accusing other people of being hateful falsely is a dangerous game that all of us should be better than.
I just hope Rush stays the bigger man and doesn't go off on dumb rants about "Obama's America" and hatred of white people. And I hope he works to calm his base down. If he does those things, he'll never get a bit of credit, but he can genuinely make America better.
Bradford,
Dude, I read the whole string. I'm not defending Rush, I'm defending Nate. Nate certainly hadn't read the whole string when he posted his comments, and the mainstream media outlets who have been quoting Rush have done so without audio recordings (when they seem readily available for every other Rush quote) or so much as a date-and-time citation.
My only point is this: it's a sad state of affairs in contemporary political rhetoric when the burden of proof is continually pushed on those who make the denial and not those who make the assertions. I'm not contesting that Rush made those statements, I'm simply contesting your assertion that Nate should be responsible for proving their existence. But I guess I shouldn't expect the most basic principles of dialectic exchange to be honored by someone whose retort to a blog comment includes the phrase "get over yourself."
Why waste good space to defend the indefencible - Rush is a racist goon, pure and simple. Let his supporters defend him.
ThisIsForTheCool-
Because as someone who doesn't side with Rush, I prefer to imagine that my side of the debate can hold itself to a higher standard and admit when something seems dubious or fabricated.
"See the below for his non-denial denial of the slavery remark:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp"
Did you think that no one would check your link? They clearly say that there is no source for that remark. He himself outright denied that he made it. They went through the tapes and couldn't find anything close. Where's the "non-denial" in that? Again I despise Rush, but again I despise hom for the very same behavior that you yourself are doing now.
I am honestly wondering if you, like Rush, are incapable of perceiving things correctly and maybe you just automatically see things through a distorted lense. When you read his remarkes quoted on Snopes do you see a "non-denial?" Despite the fact that the remark concludes with "because it was never said?" You don't see that as a denial? If you don't then you have some serious issues.
When you use lies in a debate or allow others who are on the same side of the debate as you to use lies, you (at least for the time being) cede the moral high ground to your opponent.
Your opponent can just point to your lies and say "see, why even bother listening to their argument when they're willing to lie?"
Anyone who says that Rush Limbaugh is not a racist is treading very close to being a racist themself.
You may be in denial.
At this point, though, Limbaugh has gone way, way, way past anything that can be reasonably defended. He is clearly a racist and an exploiter of racism for personal gain.
Bradford, would you please re-read that Snopes page you keep linking to? The whole point they are making about the two quotations that Nate objects to is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Rush ever said them. Snopes and Nate are in total agreement.
They say that they both appear for the first time collected in a book that gives no source or citation for the quotations. This is why they rate the list of inflammatory things Rush is supposed to have said as a "mixture" rather than as "true." It is a mix of things he actually said and things that he did not say.
Nate's entire point is that it's wrong to accuse him of saying something he never said. He is not saying that Rush has never said anything racist (in fact he explicitly says that Rush has often said "racially inflammatory" things). He's simply saying that if you want to make a case about Rush's misbehavior, stick to things that he actually said and did.
And yet Rush issued a non-denial denial of the quotes. Interesting.
Harold writes:
Anyone who says that Rush Limbaugh is not a racist is treading very close to being a racist themself.
Anyone who says that Nate claims that Rush is not a racist in this post is treading very close to proving that they are illiterate.
Maybe Nate should turn this sentence:
Yes, Rush has said all other various and sundry sorts of racially inflammatory things.
Into a hyper-link to this article:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049
But, this is his blog and I guess he can decide what's important enough to link to and what isn't.
There's a quote out there that I first saw it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week that I somehow, some time ago, defended slavery and started cracking jokes about it. And, you know, you say a lot of things in the course of 15 hours a week, over the course of 21 years. We've gone back, we have looked at everything we have. There is not even an inkling that any words in this quote are accurate. It's outrageous, but it's totally predictable.
How is this a non-denial denial?
yoink -
Which part of my post accuses Nate of saying any such thing? However, the first comment in this thread denies that Limbaugh is a racist.
Reading comprehension is an important skill. Especially if you want to accuse others of "illiteracy". Contact your local United Way for remedial reading courses in your area.
And yet Rush issued a non-denial denial of the quotes. Interesting.
To quote John Stewart: "I'm not saying your mother is a whore. I'm just saying, isn't it interesting that she has money."
Even a cursory glance at Rush's website reveals something more than a "non-denial denial." He has denied that he ever made the statements being quoted. And once again, when something is denied, the burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. That's just good sense.
harold -
Which part of my post accuses you of saying any such thing? However, many posts in this thread accuse Nate of claiming that Limbaugh is not a racist.
Reading comprehension is an important skill. Especially if you want to accuse others of misreading. Contact your local United Way for remedial reading courses in your area.
yoink-
your post is funny.
so limbaugh had to look up whether he said those awful things or not? i guess rush isnt even sure how many racists comments he made.
rush has made so many racists comments he should have been accountable to them way before now.
rush made this bed now he has to lie in it.
nate shouldn't have come to defend rush-he is indefensible. and for those who say but he didnt make that particular comment, i could care less if he did.
is there some way to be racist but not just a bad racist?
maybe he doesnt want to lynch someone but he has made it clear he wants them beneath him and he wants to discriminate against them.
@mob
You chose your username well.
Yoink -
First of all, I was too grouchy. Let me clarify.
I have no problem with Nate's message. I strongly agree that we should not lie about Limbaugh.
I was responding to the claims that Limbaugh is not racist.
Which part of my post accuses you of saying any such thing?
Technically, none of it, although it is understandable that I got that impression.
However, many posts in this thread accuse Nate of claiming that Limbaugh is not a racist.
That is correct, and I should have been more clear about what I was saying.
Final comment -
1) I have no problem with Nate's post here - when Limbaugh or anyone else is falsely accused of a specific action, it makes sense to "defend" them, if by "defend" you mean "point out that they are not guilty of that very specific action". Which is what Nate meant and did.
2) Limbaugh is a fairly obvious racist, though, based on comments that he can easily be documented to have made.
harold:
1) I agree.
2) I dispute that assertion.
Harold,
I think your second point is exactly why Nate made this post and why it’s important to defend him. Because Rush is an irresponsible windbag who spews his hate-filled, racist invective over the airwaves everyday… and when we make shit up about him, it makes him look good.
Those journalist could have sourced one or two of the many, many absurd and hateful things that Limbaugh has said and still made their point. Instead, either because they were biased or because they were lazy, they printed made up things about Rush and now he can use that to demonstrate that people always make up stuff about him. From a purely pragmatic stand point, you shouldn’t make up stuff about Rush because it gives him ammo to defend himself against other valid claims of bigotry and racism.
That said, Rush should be treated fairly because that’s how we expect to be treated. If we only think that people who are our friends and agree with us should be treated fairly, we’re no different than Rush or the other neocons.
I think maybe many of you are missing the whole point of 538.com. Its about objectivity and empiricism. Yes, perhaps Nate is a far left liberal. But even if he did, it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the stuff he writes about, which is, for the most part, how do we apply objective analysis to make inferences about the political world. It seems that in this post his purpose was to say simply, it is not verifiable that Limbaugh made these two statements and therefore journalists should not report them as having been made. Seems pretty innocuous and entirely true to form.
Pan said...
When you use lies in a debate or allow others who are on the same side of the debate as you to use lies, you (at least for the time being) cede the moral high ground to your opponent.
Absolutely!
And I think that was Nate's point. We don't have to use unverifiable quotes from Rush when there are plenty of verifiable bile that he has spewed. With actual audio for full impact of his blatant bigotry.
David:
What do you consider his MOST hate-filled "racist" statement? I would be happy to defend it.
I gotta say, despite every awful bigoted thing Rush has said, that denial seemed pretty clear to me. He said that he never said it, but went over the records just to make sure. Let's focus on all the bulls**t he actually has said, huh? Why bother tagging him for things he didn't say (even if he probably thought them, it's meaningless).
And maybe Nate could have issued a stronger condemnation of Rush, but that wasn't really the point of the post. Nate is part of the pragmatism-oriented center-left and won't jump at the chance to slam a neocon on false evidence; this site isn't about inflaming rhetoric, it's about making a case based on all available evidence.
mclever:
Same question.
Matt-
LOL! Nate is your average pundit now and this site has little to do with empeircism or even stats anymore.
NS... Dude try this:
1. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a week (don't switch off, don't jake it)
2. Come back and rewrite this sop.
Cheers
You can agree that Rush is a loathsome bigot while still condemning a media outlet for lazy, even false reporting. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible that there's more than one person in the world with bad intentions, poor judgment or both.
Yoink-
Snopes does not that say that at all, it says the only quote they can find of it is "101 people really screwing America". It is up to you to believe that source or not, but it most certainly not, not a a source. It is a book, you can read, right?
Nate…
This post was a waste of oxygen.
So what if Limbaugh was misquoted? Fairness does not require giving equal time to nonsense or bullshit, either of which words would pretty much characterize Limbaugh’s whole career. Neither does it mean rushing to the defense of the indefensible. You are not, in any way shape or form, responsible for seeing that no untruths or half-truths are being spread about anyone, even the most vile among us, because to be truly fair you would also need to go after every last one of Limbaugh’s lies and distortions, and nobody wants to hear that crap twice. To jump into something so frankly silly gives you a whiff of the Messiah.
Leave it be, for crap’s sake.
Rush never says he did not say it, what Rush says is that he cant find anything similar to it - that is a non-denial. Why can't he outright deny he said it? BECAUSE HE SAYS CRAP LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME!
Bradford and Alan Glenn:
If you don't want to debate any particular statement Rush actually said, then please explain how someone like Marge Schott gets to own a major league team, but Rush Limbaugh doesn't?
I don't know if Rush is a racist or not in his heart of hearts. I do know that he is a crass opportunist who has utilized some racist attitudes of his core audience to forward his own self-aggrandizement and wealth expansion. Frankly, if he's not a racist, that's worse, given his record.
All that said, I appreciate Nate calling the left (and the media who are decidedly not the left) to task for not verifying the truth. In the internet age, the truth matters more than ever. The high road ought to be the only path available.
Jonathan
PS There's nothing I hate more than the people on "my side" picking on someone for being fat or ugly. Rush deserves so much legitimate criticism for his vitriol, lies, and destructive effect on our society, why detract from that by sinking to 5th-grade-level name-calling?
Snopes.com didn't post the entire quote:
Dawn said to me during the break here, "You didn't deny what they're saying you said about slavery!" I'm not going to dignify it by denying it. Deny it? It's an outrageous slander, which I did say. People saying I made jokes about the good points, whatever, the finer points of slavery. So to set the record... No, not to set it straight. To confirm the record, I don't know how many times on this program I have gotten into arguments over the last 21 years with people when I have asserted that the Civil War primarily was about slavery. People have called me, "No, it wasn't! It was about states' rights. It was about this," and I said, "Don't be silly. Abraham Lincoln knew what the union could not survive in one man was allowed to own another. I have uttered those words, quoting Lincoln favorably, too many times to count.
Slavery -- indentured servitude, whatever you want to call it -- is abominable, particularly in a free country. I've had people call this program and say, "Well, the Founding Fathers, I mean they were slave owners! Three-fifths of a person for blacks." Yeah, it's a sad shame. It's an absolute sad shame but I've given people the history. At the time there were 13 colonies. Getting them to all agree to rebel against the king and to declare independence, there were compromises necessary for that unity. Then when the Founders wrote the Constitution, they put the prescription in the Constitution for ending slavery, in the amendments -- and in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." How many times I've quoted that, I can't remember.
If I had said what they say I said, I would be gone. There would be nobody around. Snerdley would have resigned on the spot, even if I was trying to be funny. I've endeavored to go a little deeper into it, though, and explain how slavery has led us into some of the acrimony that we still have today in that there are some people who won't forget it, who are still trying to capitalize on it and portray this country as though it is still in many ways no different than it was, and I have argued with those people vehemently.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101209/content/01125115.guest.html
Calling it "an outrageous slander" is the same as denying it is an accurate quote.
Bradford -
This is what Snopes says of the first quote:
The only source we've turned up so far that putatively documents this quote is the 2006 book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America, which attributes it to Rush Limbaugh but itself cites no source.
About the James Earl Ray quote they say this:
Likewise, this statement is attributed (without sourcing) to Limbaugh in 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. Although it is often cited as something he said on his radio program on 23 April 1998, we haven't turned up any references to this quote from earlier than 2005.
Let me try to explain what that means to you in words of one syllable:
There is a book that says Rush said these things. The book gives no proof that he did in fact say these things. Snopes can find no proof that he did in fact say these things. Thus there is no proof, at all, that he did in fact say these things.
Yes, all one-syllable words. Perhaps, at last, you will be able to comprehend the point?
jonathan:
Is calling Rush "a crass opportunist who has utilized some racist attitudes of his core audience to forward his own self-aggrandizement and wealth expansion" OK because it is college-level name calling?
This is just another example of character assassination by the malicious left. As if ideological arguments and differences can be trumped by calling someone a racist. It is a simple tool to avoid having to argue based upon substance.
This is a corollary to Godwin's Law; the Limbaugh Corollary. Just as calling someone a Nazi is a lame substitute for civil engagement and exchange of ideological principles, so is calling someone a racist.
People who are out looking to be offended will always find something about which to be offfended, justified or not. In Limbaugh's case, the repeaters of the various smear quotes did so without conscience, and as a substitute for subtantive rationale as to why Limbaugh should not be a team owner. Being accused of being a racist is apparently enough.
A very sad state, indeed.
We should highlight this thread for the next time Mule or someone else accuses bloggers of letting jackasses from the left roam free while harping on jackasses from the right.
And Bradford is right that there is "evidence" that Rush said all those things, just as Charles is right that there is "evidence" that Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate. Only thing is, both sources of evidence are fabricated.
Maybe we should say "no credible evidence" to make Bradford happy.
@John
Where do you get the idea that Snopes is unreliable? Everything they write is well researched and cites sources. I wouldn't cite Snopes in testimony before Congress, but like Wikipedia, it's certainly a valid reference for a blogger argument.
Pragmatus writes:
So what if Limbaugh was misquoted? Fairness does not require giving equal time to nonsense or bullshit, either of which words would pretty much characterize Limbaugh’s whole career
I disagree. It's important precisely if you oppose Rush and what he stands for that you stand up against this kind of egregious slander. Every time someone uses a patently false quotation like this to attack Rush, they do him an enormous favor. His defenders can say "look, the people attacking Rush don't even care if what they say is true or not--they'll say anything at all so long as it hurts him." You let every Rush defender off the hook whenever you retail a lie about him because you give them a reason to ignore your entire argument.
Oh, we are talking CREDIBLE evidence now? Well, make up your mind and stick to one or the other.
Charles,
What does that even mean? I said that we shouldn't let BS, unsourced statements in a book be used as evidence because it isn't credible. You think we should consider it as good evidence?
Sorry for the confusion, Zack. No, I was simply making fun of Bradford again (since I was, in fact, using Obama's Kenya birth certificate as the same type of "evidence" he was using against Rush).
Hmmm, Rush target of false attributions of statements or actions?
Personally I find it an act of poetic justice since I myself was highly insulted by his claims that I was a traitor to my country because I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq or that I opposed the policies of King George.
Live by sword, die by the sword. has anyone compiled a list of false attributions he has made against others words or actions?
Hmmm- maybe this was a little too soon?
Rush: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4562338
"And he says he believes what happened to him was an illustration of "'Obama's America on full display.'"
grandpa john:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yoink-
So have chosen not to believe the book, and you, nor I have ever read the book. Do as you wish, but you have chosen not to beeieve something based on Snopes, and I have chosen to believe something based on the same book in the context of Rush' prior and current statements.
Have a great life...
What I don't understand is why reporters used these quotes. Who cares? This is the NFL. Use the freakin' McNabb quote that got his ass thrown out by ESPN. That's actually on-topic, and alone, it would have made him a non-starter as an owner.
Why do you have to get to this level of a potentially (probably) made up quote by an attack-book, and verification and all that stuff, when you could have made a straight-forward attack? I think some reporters and some bloggers are lazy, and/or have an instinctual reaction to the name Limbaugh.
Neither of these quotes were on topic or well sourced. Why were they used? Why not use on topic, well sourced, and controversial quotes? Doesn't that get more views/hits/sales? Why come out and look like such doofuses?
Here is the slavery quoate, from the Huberman book, in context:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-huberman/rush-limbaugh-is-still-sc_b_24724.html
I believe the guy.
It doesn't matter anymore even if we found Obama's real birth certificate from a different country. The Democrats in Congress won't impeach him. Keep in mind, though, that there is other evidence (e.g. the statement by his paternal grandmother is "direct" evidence and his protracted fight to prevent the release of Hawaii vital records is, at the very least, "circumstantial" evidence that he is hiding something). Whether it is credible or "good" evidence is up to the trier of fact.
NP Charles. I let the antagonistic flavor of the thread influence my reading of your comment. Sorry about that
I think this thread is a pretty good indicator of who can look at a evidence with some sense of objectivity, and who's so far up their own ass that evidence means "stuff that matches what I believe." At least for those on the left. I don't think anybody should be surprised that there's some in latter group on both sides of the political spectrum.
Bradford:
So you have chosen not to believe the Kenya birth certificate ...
There are two quotes that disqualify him for the job:
The McNabb quote
and what he said on Feb. 5, 2007 that the media had jumped all over Rex Grossman because "they wanted a white quarterback to fail."
Now here is the issue: If you are a black quarterback and you are competing with a white quarterback for a contract with the Rams (say as a free agent) then will you honestly be evaluated on your merits and the contract parameters or will you be stiffed because a member of the ownership team who has to speak and vote on this in a closed meeeting believe that you may be 'overrated.'
It's just that simple. Even if he said the King quote, he has a Constitutional right to say it. But since he made the quotes about race and quarterbacks, a position he may be called upon to help fill, it does become an employment issue.
Damn this all makes a sad statement about racism in America.
Very rarely to American bigots make overtly racist statements these days; not because no one is racist anymore but because it no longer sells their argument. So they say things like that (black) candidate is really an African Muslim, or that he is "uppity." Just because no one is shouting "N***er" at the top of their lungs does not mean their is no racism.
Rush is one of the few who will overtly display his racial prejudice and even then he's careful enough to only use loaded terms and not say things like "Let's honor James Earl Ray" or "slavery was good." he says things like "Obama is all reparations" or plays Barack the Magic Negro as a thin veil for his racism (or perhaps racist pandering, as Jonathan noted).
The people who made up that quote are just playing into what the far right wants. They lend credence to the idea that racism must be overt to be a problem when they make up overtly racist quotes rather than referencing slightly-more-subtle racist statements. Then the right will predictably launch on them for accusing their beloved Limbaugh (or Joe Wilson or anyone else) of racism.
Don't they realize that no matter what they say, the dittoheads won't care? Don't people here realize that regardless of whether claims are true or false, the Rudys of the world will trot out this bogus charge of "playing the race card?"
Making up quotes to smear an opponent is not only infantile, it's destructive, too. Instead we should call out this "race card" farce for the bulls**t talking point that it is.
@John
The book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America is a blatantly partisan book. (Yes, I did read it.) It is NOT a commonly accepted methodology to state that someone said something by quoting a blatantly partisan book.
To recap what snope.com said:
"The only source we've turned up so far that putatively documents this quote is the 2006 book 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America," -- reference to a secondary source
"which attributes it to Rush Limbaugh but itself cites no source." -- reference to the fact that no primary source can be found
Again, I don't understand, given the murky provenance of the quote, why people are not bashing Limbaugh on more verifiable and just as controversial quotes. He's not a good owner for the NFL, but don't sink down to his level.
his protracted fight to prevent the release of Hawaii vital records
What fight? Not only was it released but it was held and examined last year by several reporters.
But like most conspiracy theorists, facts don't matter to you guys, if one gets inconveniently in the way then you ignore it or make up some more hooey to explain it away.
Go tell your story to Elvis Presley.
Eli Blake:
I am not a "conspiracy theorist", and I am fully aware that Obama's Certification of Live Birth was released. Are you aware that his original HOSPITAL birth certificate has not been?
Charles, Yes but it certainly does encompass the idea of poetic justice which was the term I used.
Maybe you should inform Rush of that bit of information also since he tends to justify many of his actions based on the concept that they do.
Just as soon as he posts here about doing the wrong thing ...
Jeff Wang,
I agree that the McNabb comment indicates, if nothing else, that he's a terrible judge of football talent. McNabb is a good to great QB (one of the best TD to INT ratios in the game).
Why single out McNabb when other black QBs at the time were much much worse (Kordell Stewart anyone?). Probably because Stewart didn't get the accolades McNabb did (because, unlike McNabb, he didn't deserve them).
Charles, please ignore my reply to you. Had I known you were a birther I would never have bothered to respond to someone who is to uniformed to understand that there is only ONE certificate that is released for everyone and there is no original on file somewhere
Zack:
That comment was more about the media than McNabb.
itt certain people I'm ashamed to call fellow liberals acting like a bunch of neocons with the OCD desire to blame everything on a certain somebody
grandpa john:
I am not the "uninformed" one on that issue at least.
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health ..."
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/dr-fukino-statements-1-2-pdf-copies/
Someone has seen (claimed at least) the original on file somewhere.
A quick defense of Nate. Nate didn't say Limbaugh was pure as driven snow. He simply said that many of the quotes recently attributed to him (and some very nasty quotes) have no attribution. There's a likelihood he never said them.
Yes, Limbaugh is a racist and said some nasty stuff, so I have no idea why people had to make up stuff.
Personally, I would have loved Limbaugh to buy the team. One of the jobs of the team owner is to give an occasional pep talk to the team.
And, what's a better place than for Limbaugh to be in a locker room filled with large, black team members who are use to playing a rather rough and violent game. And, who still haven't forgotten the remarks he made at ESPN.
Now, that's something worth paying $70 per ticket for!
Schadenfreude
Charles writes:
e.g. the statement by his paternal grandmother is "direct" evidence,
You mean the statement by his grandmother that he was born in Hawaii? That statement? You are referring to the interview in which his grandmother is momentarily confused as to whether her interlocutor is referring to "Barack Obama" Sr or Jr and repeatedly corrects the mistaken impression--right? The interview that loony birthers never post in full because they know that true believers are too lazy and stupid to bother Googling to find the full transcript? The interview in which the grandmother says this:
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.?
That interview?
How, exactly, does that interview offer proof that Obama was born in Kenya?
And for Round Two of this nonsense:
and his protracted fight to prevent the release of Hawaii vital records is, at the very least, "circumstantial" evidence that he is hiding something
Please provide one single, solitary scrap of evidence that Obama has lifted so much as his little finger to prevent "the release of Hawaii vital records." That is simply a lie, and a rather stupid lie at that. He has released the only legal form attesting to his birth that the Hawaii Dept. of health releases. The only thing he has not done is to try to force the Hawaii Dept. of Health to take extraordinary measures (measures they do not take and would not take for any other citizen) to release some sort of notarized photocopy of their original records. Please tell us why this President should be the first and only President in the history of the republic to be forced to take such an extraordinary measure, Charles. It wouldn't be anything to do with his race, would it?
Surprising to see an article like this on 538. But I suppose if anyone ever accuses Nate of being disingenuous he can always say, 'Hey, I've even defended Rush Limbaugh before'.
yoink:
Yes, that's the statement (whether she was "confused" or not is an issue for the trier of fact), and no, it is not about his race. The DNC and DOJ have fought tooth and nail to dismiss every suit, but if you want to believe they are doing that against Obama's will, so be it.
Yoink;
Thanks for the info, so it would appear that Charles just made 2 false attributions, one of a quotation and one of an action something that he was condemning in others.
Hmmm can I say this, 2 wrongs don't make a right
Oh, Come on. Did you guys really let yourselves get dragged off into a birther argument? That is so six months ago.
As for the McNabb statement, wouldn't be the first time a white critic waded into those waters. Remember Howard Cosell's "look at that little monkey go!"? And didn't somebody make an off colour comment about black men not being good coaches?
Finally, here's my theory: Nazi is the new nigger.
Yeah I spelled it out. It's a word that I think needs to be dis-empowered. None of those sign carrying conservatives actually thought Obama was a fascist (hell, I bet most of them could even tell you the principle behind fascism). All they needed was an offensive but not politically damning terminology that imbued their hatred for the black man in charge.
I feel the air being sucked out of the room by all the conservatrolls who are about to post a bunch of empty rhetoric. < /rant>
Personally, I think it is important to not spread false or unprovable rumors about someone like Rush. As has been pointed out, this just makes him look good when the truth comes out, and it gives a hammer for the lunatic right to bash on those who make legitimate complaints.
This may mean that things that are merely plausible, but unproven, will also have to be set aside. There is nothing inherently unbelievable about the quotes in question, since Rush has made so many other offensive comments. But precisely because he has said so many other offensive things, there's no reason to rely on ones that have no clear proof.
So, to be clear, I will not spread the rumor that Rush frequently sleeps with animals. In fact, I maintain that this is not only improbable, but unproven. I won't even go as far as Fox News usually does in covering an offensive rumor, and present it as possibility with a question mark - Does Rush Sleep With Animals? - because even that is too close to endorsing the idea as perhaps true. Instead, I'll just say, as firmly and conclusively as I can - there is no evidence whatever to confirm that Rush sleeps with animals.
Nate,
I read 538 pretty often, but don't comment. Just wanted to thank you for this. It's tough to make an argument like this, I've done it a time or two. Unfortunately, what you're saying appears to be true (I say "appears", because you're trying to prove a negative). Those quotes attributed to Limbaugh are worse than the ones he's actually said. To me, they show Limbaugh as a clear racist, rather than merely a bigot, or someone who appeals to such people.
This matters, because it's what's true. If Limbaugh didn't say these things, saying that he did is an error. It needs to be corrected. Understanding what's true about an adversary is important. Creating myths about them only makes it harder to confront them successfully.
It's clear from some of the comments here that some folks don't get that. That's sad, but I always thought the term "reality-based community" was overused on our side of the political fence, and episodes like this demonstrate why.
Cujo359:
Thank you!
Rush stated his opinion that McNabb was overrated, then made a comment about the media. There was absolutely nothing racist about these statements. All he did was state the opinion that the media is biased. That's it.
We're living in this world remininscent of the Orwellian "thought police". Rush is not allowed to have conservative thoughts or he will be destroyed by the liberal media, period. Same reason they are trying to destroy Sarah Palin. Liberals have a very difficult time selling their ideas based on substance, therefore they are forced to attempt to destroy any oppostion.
Cujo359-
Thanks for your opinion. I find it incredibly sad when people get distracted by the truth or untruth of a certain comment and ignore or tacutly forgive a lifetime of race-baiting, sexism and hatred. Truly sad to see my fellow liberals get caught up up by the sideshow and miss the point...but boy are we good at it.
GROG's statement is an excellent example of why it's important to not misquote a bigot like Rush. Thanks for the demonstration, GROG.
Direct from Rush's show:
"When race is brought into it, that you can’t let stand. I mean, if you, if people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life, and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and, like that.
Now we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions, with the force of legal action, against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray.
I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don’t know the identity, but we know where they came from – a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page and Wikiquotes, unsourced.
Wikipedia says, ‘Well, this is in dispute.’ It’s not in dispute. They were never uttered. I never said them. And I’ve even told reporters I never said them."
As Mark Steyn points out, in this instance, why is it Limbaugh's burden to prove the negative –- an impossible task for this issue -- Dan Calebrese asks why, if Limbaugh really is a racist, then it takes bogus quotes to “prove” that he is?
shrinkers:
You don't think that the liberal media is trying to destroy Sarah Palin?
@Charles
shrinkers:
You don't think that the liberal media is trying to destroy Sarah Palin?
I think Ms. Palin is doing okay with that on her own, and doesn't need any help. Besides, I don't know any "liberal media", with the possible exception of The Nation magazine.
Dan Rather running CBS News was pretty darned liberal, if you ask me. Katie Couric is just a ditz wanna be, but she did her best to ask questions she would NEVER ask a Democrat.
Yeah, what Democrat could possibly name a newspaper they've read? Or a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade?
My heart bleeds for Rush Limbaugh. The trouble for Rush: whether or not he actually said James Earl Ray was a hero, the fact is that attributing such a quote to him is totally believable. If Rush doesn't want people to think he's a racist, he should stop acting like one.
Todd Purdum at Vanity Fair doesn't qualify as "liberal media" either?
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/sarah-palin200908
Charles writes:
Yes, that's the statement (whether she was "confused" or not is an issue for the trier of fact),
Here's the part of the transcript I left out:
MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?
OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America. (etc. as above)
So you're imagining some sort of "trial" where a fleeting misunderstanding that is repeatedly, emphatically, and immediately corrected three times in a row would decide that the "Obama" in the first statement must be Barack Obama Jr rather than Sr.
Man, I wish I could have some of what the Birthers are smoking.
Oh, and you continue to drivel on thus:
and no, it is not about his race. The DNC and DOJ have fought tooth and nail to dismiss every suit, but if you want to believe they are doing that against Obama's will, so be it.
You're not much of a one for evidence are you? Can you show me evidence of any involvement by the DNC in any of the loony lawsuits that have been laughed out of courts in almost every state in the union? The DOJ has played a role, yes. But they have not specifically fought against the disclosure of the original records held by the Hawaii Dept. of Health. They have simply fought (as they should and as they would do for any President) to keep the President clear of a pointless and absurd distraction. Every single judge who has looked at any one of these birther suits has arrived at the same conclusion: that they are frivolous nonsense and that their sole purpose is as part of a political smear campaign. Or do you think that the President of the United States should be required to show up in court every single time any wackadoo in the land wants him to prove that he's not a martian, or that he didn't obtain his driver's license fraudulently, or that he filed full and complete tax returns in 1990, or 1991, or 1992, or.... The President could be kept in court every single day of his entire term if frivolous cases like this were not contested. So far his lawyers have needed to do little more than show up in court and say "can you believe this crap?" to the judge, so I doubt this has cost either Obama or the country very much. Grand dollar totals are occasionally quoted, but it turns out that they are always referring to the salaries that these lawyers would be receiving regardless of whether or not they were fighting these particular cases.
Finally: imagine for just one second that you had the photocopy of the original documents before you. What do you imagine that they could contain that would materially differ from what we can read on the Certification of Live Birth? Why should you or anyone else care which particular hospital in Honolulu he was delivered at? Why should you or anyone else care which particular obstetrician presided over the birth? The COLB contains all the relevant legal information. The Hawaiian Government has confirmed that the information on the COLB is correct and is the same as the information on the original documentation. What more do we need, or have any right, to know?
Interesting how upset conservatives are getting over one miss-attribution towards a conservative leader. Where was all this outrage over the last year and a half when Obama was being hit left and right with false accusations during the campaign and now his presidency. The hypocrisy is so grand as to warrant a lack of concern over how these false quotes have affected Mr. Limbaugh if at all.
No, Sean, it's only "believable" to those who think that Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house."
Charles--
Palin wishes she'd said anything so coherent as "I can see Russia from my house." Here is the driveling nonsense that she did, in fact, say:
As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state
Many on the left are so used to being able to deflect any disagreeemnt with liberal tenets by shouting "racist" or other defamatory namecalling, that they are incapable of arguing a fundamental case for their stands without using such a crutch. That is certainly on full display in this thread. Most astounding.
yoink:
It's just one brick in the wall. As for the DNC filing motions to dismiss those lawsuits, I'll get you a link.
Cess Pool:
Conservatives are upset over TWO mis-quotes, not just one, being used to deny his purchase. If someone did this to you, you would sue for Intentional Intereference with Contractual Relations.
@Charles
Todd Purdum at Vanity Fair doesn't qualify as "liberal media" either?
I have no opinion of Todd Purdum. Never read him. But one (1) commentator does not a "media" make.
So, okay, there are a handful of liberal commentators. Your point is....? You think there should be none?
That's not "nonsense". Here's just ONE of the DNC's many Motion(s) to Dismiss:
http://www.flds.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/obama-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
"No, Sean, it's only "believable" to those who think that Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house.""
Palin did say that you could see Russia from Alaska in response to a question about her foreign policy experience, clearly implying that that gave her foreign policy experience. So you pointing out that she didn't say "I can see Russia from my house" is meaningless. What does that have to do with anything we're discussing here anyway?
The point Sean was making was that Rush has said racist things before, which he has, so that it is easier to believe he may have said other more extreme things he did not.
shrinkers:
I expect network news anchors to NOT be liberal (or conservative) commentators, that's right. If they can't meet that requirement, the FCC should take them off the air.
@Charles
I expect network news anchors to NOT be liberal (or conservative) commentators, that's right. If they can't meet that requirement, the FCC should take them off the air.
Then you feel that the entire on-air "news" staff at Fox News should be fired. I'll write that down.
Charles writes:
It's just one brick in the wall.
I assume you mean something like "Obama's grandmother's interview is one brick in the wall of evidence that proves he was born in Kenya"--right?
Well, I've shown that that "brick" is useless. You thought you had an interview in which she claimed that he was born in Kenya, but you actually have an interview in which she repeatedly states that he was born in Hawaii.
O.K., great. One brick down. What's left in your "wall"? The phony birth certificates? How many have there been so far: three? Which particular phony birth certificate do you subscribe to? You do realize, don't you, that they've all been proven to be fakes?
So, brick no. 2 crumbles away. Any other "bricks"?
How about these for some bricks:
1/ Obama has presented his birth certificate. That birth certificate states that he was born in Honolulu.
2/ Various government officials in Hawaii have verified the accuracy of the details on the COLB that Obama has presented.
3/ Obama's birth was recorded in TWO Hawaiian newspapers at the time of his birth. The section of the paper in which those announcements appeared was not one that carried paid announcements, rather it was one that collected all the official data submitted by local hospitals to the Hawaiian Dept. of Health and reprinted it. (In other words, in order to be a birther you have to believe that not one but TWO Hawaiian newspapers back in the early 1960's decided to participate in a conspiracy to make a random black child eligible to be President when he grew up).
You know what? I like my bricks a whole lot better than yours.
The party of No! having to defend Limbo and trying to make a flat our racist who just signed a $400 million dollar contract appear to be a victim.
Priceless!
As long as Limbo is associated w/Reps and conservatives it's a win/win for the Dems.
It's all good, the more press Limbo gets, the more the party of No!'s kowtowing leadership looks pathetic!
He helped Claire McCaskill win her senate seat w/his Michael J. Fox moronic/juvenile exhibition.
As I said it's all good as talk radio totally dominated by wingers works in the Dems favor.
Again, how did the Dems get soooo damn lucky ...
Limbo, Beck et al = Manna from Heaven for progressives. :)))
take care
p.s. and yes Virginia, self-loathing, narcissistic Limbo loves the attention as he appeared on NBC for an interview after lambasting the liberal MSM media 24/7 the past (20) years for it's incompetence and bias.
Oh the irony/hypocrisy lol.
"Many on the left are so used to being able to deflect any disagreeemnt with liberal tenets by shouting "racist" or other defamatory namecalling, that they are incapable of arguing a fundamental case for their stands without using such a crutch. That is certainly on full display in this thread. Most astounding."
What stands would these be? You haven't shown that you stand for anything, or actually tried to refute anything that liberals have said here, so where do you get off being astounded?
Charles writes:
That's not "nonsense". Here's just ONE of the DNC's many Motion(s) to Dismiss:
http://www.flds.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/obama-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Charles, you utter dolt, the DNC were not acting as agents for Obama in that case, they were DEFENDANTS! Berg had brought a suit against them, therefore their lawyers were party to a motion to dismiss. They were not spending money to defend Obama, they were spending money to defend themselves.
yoink:
YOU asked "You're not much of a one for evidence are you? Can you show me evidence of any involvement by the DNC in any of the loony lawsuits?" If you are ready to concede those points, I would be happy to move on to your bricks.
I guess not.
OK, let's start with the fact that John P. Lavelle, Jr. was the attorney for the DNC and Barack Obama in that case. Once you actually read the Motion to Dismiss that YOU asked for, let me know.
"YOU asked "You're not much of a one for evidence are you? Can you show me evidence of any involvement by the DNC in any of the loony lawsuits?" If you are ready to concede those points, I would be happy to move on to your bricks."
please explain how someone like Marge Schott gets to own a major league team, but Rush Limbaugh doesn't?
:facepalm: Are you referring to the same Marge Schott who was fined thousands of dollars and banned from her own team's clubhouse due to her statements? Who was sued over an unwritten policy not to hire black players? The same Marge Schott who eventually sold the team in the face of a third suspension?
Honestly, if you had dug through biographies for a year, I don't think you could have come up with a more spot-on example why Rush Limbaugh was not allowed into the NFL.
As for defending his comments, how about the "Crips and Bloods" comment? Fair warning - Rush himself said "Bloods and Crips makes it look racial, the way I chose to describe it. I could have perhaps chosen a different term."
Of course, he didn't apologize for putting it in those terms, despite acknowledging himself that it "makes it look racial". No, because Rush Limbaugh isn't racist, so naturally he doesn't see any need to apologize to people who are offended by his statements.
In case people missed it, Charles just demonstrated why it's important to call out people making up stuff about Rush.
"Conservatives are upset over TWO mis-quotes, not just one, being used to deny his purchase. If someone did this to you, you would sue for Intentional Intereference with Contractual Relations."
Instead of facing the reality that Rush was a liability to the group trying to buy the Rams and that made them drop him, folks like charles are able to use those two mis-quotes to create an alternate-reality where Limbaugh was dropped from the business deal because of those two quotes.
Charles writes:
yoink:
YOU asked "You're not much of a one for evidence are you? Can you show me evidence of any involvement by the DNC in any of the loony lawsuits?" If you are ready to concede those points, I would be happy to move on to your bricks.
Clearly I was not talking about "loony lawsuits" in general, but "loony lawsuits against Obama. You claimed that we should read something suspicious into the "fact" that the "DNC and the DOJ" were "fighting tooth and nail" to "dismiss every suit" that sought to get Obama to reveal the Hawaii Dept. of Health birth records. I said that the DNC is not involved in any suits against Obama. That they would be involved in suits against themselves is pretty effing obvious, isn't it?
But I guess someone who thinks that an interview in which Obama's grandmother repeats over and over again that Obama was born in Hawaii is somehow damning evidence that he was born in Kenya is going to have a pretty hard time telling what is "obvious," isn't he?
Persuter:
The difference, in my opinion, is that Schott was a racist and Limbaugh is not a racist. The "Bloods and Crips" comment was right on -- the way some of these players act on the field (regardless of race) is similar to how they act in the 'hood, just with no guns. Limbaugh was DEFENDING the concept of civility and sportsmanship.
I expect network news anchors to NOT be liberal (or conservative) commentators
Well I guess that rules FOX out as a legitimate news network.
Dan Rather makes one report that he can't substantiate regarding Bush's MIA years in the Nat'l Guard and he's out on his ass. Does that ever happen in Murdochland? Nope.
David:
Those were the two most egregious quotes being used (I also just defended him as to an actual quote). Do you have someone on the record saying "No, we didn't use those two quotes at all"?
"No, because Rush Limbaugh isn't racist, so naturally he doesn't see any need to apologize to people who are offended by his statements."
I'm offended by your insults toward people who don't agree with you. Do you owe me an apology?
"Limbaugh was DEFENDING the concept of civility and sportsmanship."
If you really believe that that's all he was doing, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
And now that your point about DNC involvement in the lawsuits has been addressed, why don't you do like you said you would and address yoink's "bricks".
So you don't think the conservative blogs have made a big deal out of this? Go to Red State Blog, and the number 1 recommended diary is entitled "Tonight We are all Rush Limbaugh" which derail liberals as being the enemy of freedom, the enemy of this country, and an enemy of Rush Limbaugh. All this because "Rush Limbaugh was denied his right to own a NFL club."
The NFL is a partnership. In any partnership, the partners have the right to choose who is going to be their partners. Furthermore, NFL owners are pretty much all conservatives. There is no need to defend Rush Limbaugh. Nate, if you decided to make your business a partnership, you'd want control of who could be your partner, too.
y2roby writes:
And now that your point about DNC involvement in the lawsuits has been addressed, why don't you do like you said you would and address yoink's "bricks".
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Rudy said:
"I'm offended by your insults toward people who don't agree with you. Do you owe me an apology?"
What insults?? Please, I wish you would contribute something other than these hit and runs.
Davy:
I don't think of Fox as NETWORK news (they are a very real reaction to what has happened with liberal media though).
y2roby:
Because yoink still doesn't believe that DNC lawyers were directed by and/or defended Barack Obama in court. Be patient. One "brick" at a time ...
esong_98-
Nate makes no comment one way or the other about the NFL decision.
@David
In case people missed it, Charles just demonstrated why it's important to call out people making up stuff about Rush.
Absolutely, David. That's why one has to be careful in dealing with the wingnuts. They're good at making cr@p up (birther nonsense, "death panels", the Swiftboaters, etc., etc.), but they are equally skilled at taking advantage of any false statement about one of their own.
OK, let's start with the fact that John P. Lavelle, Jr. was the attorney for the DNC and Barack Obama in that case. Once you actually read the Motion to Dismiss that YOU asked for, let me know.
:facepalm:
That is simply, again, because Phil Berg sued both at the same time. Read all the way to the next page, where it describes the other attorneys working on the case.
Of Counsel:
Joseph E. Sandler
SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC
300 M Street, S.E. Suite 1102
Washington, D.C. 20003
Telephone: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
sandler@sandlerreiff.com
Robert F. Bauer
General Counsel, Obama for America
PERKINS COIE
607 Fourteenth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-2003
Telephone: 202.628.6600
Facsimile: 202.434.1690
RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Senator Barack Obama and the
Democratic National Committee
Robert Bauer has been Barack Obama's personal attorney for years, and Joseph Sandler was at the time DNC's in-house attorney. Lavelle is simply serving as the attorney handling the case.
It is totally unclear why or how the DNC would have not spent money when Phil Berg sued them.
Charles writes:
Because yoink still doesn't believe that DNC lawyers were directed by and/or defended Barack Obama in court. Be patient. One "brick" at a time ...
You know what Chuck, I'm calling your bluff, because I want to see you embarrass yourself even further over the birther issue:
Great. I was wrong, you were right. When loony people name the DNC and Obama as codefendents, then the lawyers paid for by the DNC have, in making motions to dismiss the entire case, indirectly performed work which benefited Obama as well.
Happy? Now, on to the bricks!
Big picture people!
"We" have to keep this bloated, self-loathing, high stress, narcissist who can't stay married family values bigot/hypocrite alive for another 10/20 years, eh. ;)
But, but, but when Obama is re-elected in 2012 the stress may take its toll and hopefully Limbo has a good health care plan to pull him through ...
take care
Perfect, let's move on to the bricks ("You utter dolt.")
@yoink
When loony people name the DNC and Obama as codefendents, then the lawyers paid for by the DNC have, in making motions to dismiss the entire case, indirectly performed work which benefited Obama as well.
Maybe Chuck's point is that when loonies sue the DNC, then the DNC should simply roll and do what the loons want. The fact that the DNC defended itself means that it had something to defend, which is proof that it is trying to hide something. (See how a loony mind works?)
The difference, in my opinion, is that Schott was a racist and Limbaugh is not a racist.
You drew the comparison between Limbaugh and Schott, asking why she got to keep her team. You find out she didn't get to keep her team and all of a sudden they're not comparable any more, huh? Got it.
The "Bloods and Crips" comment was right on -- the way some of these players act on the field (regardless of race)...
Ah good, "regardless of race", OK, thank you for clearly making it not about race- oh I'm sorry, you weren't done?
... is similar to how they act in the 'hood
:facepalm:
Charles said...
"I expect network news anchors to NOT be liberal (or conservative) commentators, that's right. If they can't meet that requirement, the FCC should take them off the air."
Finally! A conservative makes a case for the Fairness Doctrine!
Damn I can't believe the birthers are really back! Too funny.
In 2008, we had the first major party nominee not born in America and so of course the far right attacks the eligibility of his opponent.
You just can't make this shit up. Oh wait, somebody did.
This takes me back. It's been 15 or so years since all the RUSH IS A BIG FAT SLOB topics on the Prodigy political boards. Does the description still apply? The NFL apparently thinks so.
What's the ugliest part of your body?
yoink:
1) Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" could have been obtained fraudulently by his mother based on an out-of-State birth, per the law in effect at the time. Such a document would note "Honolulu" as the place said registration took place.
2) Various government officials in Hawaii have verified the details on the COLB that Obama has presented, so it shouldn't be a big deal to produce those and confirm those hearsay statements.
3) Obama's birth was recorded in TWO Hawaiian newspapers at the time of his birth, each giving conflicting hospital names. So, someone got at least that wrong. We know that record-keeping on the islands in the early 60's was not the best, so it could have simply be negligent, not any intentional conspiracy theory.
As for the "phony" birth certificates, that's not even part of my case in chief. I've already said they are as legitimate as these made up quotes attributed to Rush. Even if the REAL foreign birth certificate is discovered, the Democrats in Congress aren't going to do anything. This is really now just an academic exercise for future historians.
Any more questions?
Persuter:
Marge Schott owned a minority interest in the Reds until the day she died. Although the Crips are primarily an African-American gang, there are Hispanic and even WHITE members:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips
Jacob:
I am NOT for the Fairness Doctrine (please read my comment about Fox not being a real "network"). As for McCain being born in Panama, he is a natural born citizen because BOTH of his parents were U.S. citizens.
Rudy said...
Many on the left are so used to being able to deflect any disagreeemnt with liberal tenets by shouting "racist" or other defamatory namecalling, that they are incapable of arguing a fundamental case for their stands without using such a crutch. That is certainly on full display in this thread. Most astounding.
Well Rudy, you've resurfaced! Have you been busy tracking down leads in that massive cover-up of how Obama won the Peace Prize because he's black?
Or did you actually manage to feel foolish enough to STFU and hide?
.... and Rush sends another 538 thread to 200 posts, with a bullet! :)
Yes Charles,
A person born to American parents is a natural born citizen under US Code. Therefore McCain (and past candidates like Goldwater and George Romney) qualify to be President.
As is a person born in the United States, like Obama and every other President since John Tyler.
It's just funny that this conspiracy surfaces at the same time a foreign-born (though admittedly legally eligible) candidate wins the GOP nomination.
But of course the Birthers could NEVER be motivated by race. Oh no, such an accusation would be "playing the race card."
yoink…
Your (almost) endless arguments here on the subject of whether or not Obama was born in the United States offer a perfect endorsement of what my last post was all about.
When you rebut silliness or nonsense you give it a life. Yesterday, Fifi the Mule offered another perfect example of why such stupidity should be left alone. He asked (of whom he didn’t make clear) to deny that what this person really wanted was a Holocaust of conservatives.
Since this idiocy was not responded to, it was soon trampled out of sight in the poodle shit.
Nobody ever brings reason to a discussion about Rush Limbaugh. If he makes a stupid accusation his fans all go wild while his detractors get inflamed. Nobody listens to those commentators who try to discover the truth of anything Rush says by patiently separate the lies and exaggeration built up around perhaps a tiny grain of fact. By then, he is making another silly claim, and no one ever hears the explanations.
I will repeat—rebuttals of nonsense, regardless of the nonsense’s source, serve only to perpetuate the nonsense. There is nothing noble in trying to dispel it, because it simply has no effect.
Famous Rush quotes.
"We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black."
"I do believe" Obama is an "angry black guy."
"[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."
"Obama's entire economic program is reparations."
"Obama has disowned his white half ... he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
Sotomayor "a reverse racist" appointed by Obama, "the greatest living example of a reverse racist."
Latching onto LA Times op-ed, Limbaugh sings "Barack, The Magic Negro."
Limbaugh on Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."
Limbaugh suggests Obama would not have acted on Somali pirates if he'd known they were "actually young, black Muslim teenagers."
"Limbaugh suggests Democrats, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child."
"The government's been taking care of [young blacks] their whole lives."
"The days of [minorities] not having any power are over, and they are angry."
Limbaugh: "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
Limbaugh says "NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips."
Go look at the list at Media Matters for the rest. You can get the idea though.
He has a history of race baiting.
Pragmatus:
Please point to even one "wild" post of mine.
Jacob:
If Barack H. Obama, Jr. was born in the U.S., then he is legitimately President.
Post a Comment