« Ledbetter | Main | Africa News »

April 25, 2008

Comments

Well, the only people who are apt to riot in Denver are disgruntled Democrats – and Democrats (disgruntled or otherwise) generally don’t listen to Limbaugh – so his reveries are unlikely to incite anyone who will be there… unless he intends to bring in his own listeners by the busload (wearing DITTO-HEAD T-shirts) and if that happened it would unite Democrats, not further divide them...

Wow that is bad. Can he be charged with inciting violence?

I guess the difference between making sure X happens and inciting X is the same as the difference between discussing the effectiveness of rightwing smears and spreading rightwing smears so that they can be effective.

Intellectual and moral dishonesty everywhere.

I can barely stand exposure to theh news any more. Chris mathews was on at tmy client's house yesterday adn I literally felt sick to my stomach. I don't think we can maintain a democracy with that sort of crap substituting for news commentary.

And HRC spreading rightwing smears while pretending she isn't.

Rush is horrible but he is also onthe margins and his fanatsies of riots are not going to happen. i do't feel anywhere near as concerned about him as i do the corruptijn of the so-called mainstream media and the corresponding corruption of our Democratic primary with what used to be rightwing (but now rightwing and Clintonesques) dishonesty.

Orwell predicted all this. he understaood how the abuse of language is the necesary prerequisite for the abuse of power.

It's not like there's a history of Republicans staging riots to influence election ([cough]Florida[cough]2000)

I've incited (in dreamland, where I reside) all sorts of things aimed at Limbaugh, but nothing ever happens.

I've pulled asteroids from their orbits and aimed them at that single blinking, overpaid braincell he uses to full capacity, and nothing .... nada.

All of those "shut-ups" beamed to his nightmares from my nightmares, and not one single lousy Jungian effect, despite Limbaugh's affectations.

By the way, we know roughly what he is paid for what he does, and there are no lawsuits for parity.

Just shows to go that he is the best horse's arse the world has to offer, the cheap little withholding world.

"Rush is horrible but he is also onthe margins...."

Eh? He's got the most listened-to radio show in America: 14+ million weekly listeners.

How many people do you think read any newspaper columnist, or contemporary political writer, at all, in comparison?

If Limbaugh is "on the margins," then which American political writers/commentators are actually influential?

(Here are some cable tv numbers, by way of comparison; or see here.)

Well, Rush has Bill and Hillary in his corner. He must be doing something worthwhile.

Aw geez. This is why it's best to stay away from partisan politics. For instance, by stating that one doesn't like the policies of the Democrats, you are implying that you are in cahoots with clowns like Rush Limbaugh!

The difference is whether it happens. Like saying "I wish someone would just shoot the bastard," and no one listening versus someone actually going out to get a gun and do it.

So, if a riot does happen, we can blame Limbaugh and maybe arrest him. Otherwise he is just being a blowhard and the world would be better off ignoring it.

I notice that the bit about his listeners having a responsiblity to ensure the riots was a paraphrase, while his saying that they would ensure a Republican victory was a direct quote. Gee, I wonder why the inflamatory part wasn't an actual quote? Maybe he actually said something less inflamatory?

Hard to say, but this does demonstrate one of my pet peeves: The media's habit of paraphrasing, (And often inaccurately!) when they could just let you know what somebody actually said.

There are people planning riots at the Democratic convention, but do try to keep in mind that they're Democrats, and probably not even Democrats who listen to Rush. It might be a bit tasteless, but there's a difference between gloating about Democrats planning to riot at a Democratic convention, and inciting it.

"There are people planning riots at the Democratic convention, but do try to keep in mind that they're Democrats, and probably not even Democrats who listen to Rush."

And you know this how, exactly?

Brett: I tried to find the actual quote, but I would have had to actually pay, and I wasn't in the mood to support Rush.

"And you know this how, exactly?"

What, this bunch strike you as being Republicans?

http://www.recreate68.org/

I think not...

I'd love to see a bunch of Limbots try to riot in Denver.

A few well-placed baton rounds and some judiciously-administered beatings with riot batons would sort that trash out fast.

It looks to me like they're planning protests. If they were planning riots, they'd have a URL like http://www.recreate68.chicagopolice.gov .

The Rude Pundit did a transcript: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-rush-limbaugh-ought-to-be-force-fed.html

"What, this bunch strike you as being Republicans?"

Their site: "Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained."

Here is a list of supporters.

Brett, can you please give any cites that demonstrate that a majority, or some significant minority, of these folks are Democrats?

Thanks.

By the time Obama's second term is over, I expect Rush will be a broken, dispirited, drug-addict, ignored by everyone. He'll blame it all on "the liberals," of course, but by then no one will be listening. I guess the only real question is whether at that point he turns his gun on himself or on the President.

Ok, granted, they're probably "Greens", or some such, at least as distingishable from Democrats as Libertarians are from Republicans, but the notion that they're Dittoheads is hilarious.

The Reverend is dreaming of a black Christmas…

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.”

Just like the Christmas that he knows…

"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

Where the tree tops glisten…

"Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not."

And children listen…

"No No No, God damn America."

To hear sleigh bells in the snow.

The same forces that cannot shut Reverend Wright up will take their toll on Denver if Hillary is successful.

I’m beginning to believe that the reason liberals get upset about conservative talk radio, while they tolerate people like Reverend Wright, is that they don’t take black intellectuals seriously.

That's funny, BOB, because I think the reason why conservative get so wound up over Wright and not over the "pro-life" activists who've already damned America, is because conservatives don't take "pro-life" activists seriously.

Well, the DNC should clearly understand that the nominee is Obama.

Clinton's 9.2% margin of victory in PA is invalid. Here's why. 10% of the voters for Clinton are Limbaugh Operation Chaos voters, a number backed by the exit polls. Remove this 10% from the aggregate votes case in PA. This gives 45.4% to Obama vs. 44.6% to Clinton and 10% to Limbaugh. This is an effective 0.8% (actually slightly higher when scaled) victory to Obama.

So, not only did Hillary Clinton not make the 10 point target she needed to make, since even with the Limbaugh voters her margin of victory was 9.2%, when properly adjusted for these votes, she loses! That in a state she was expected to carry easily.

What idiocy on the part of the DNC. There is no need to talk to the Clinton campaign. All the Clintonites want to do right now is work for John McCain, FOX news and Rush Limbaugh. The Democratic Party is the least of their concerns.

Some other observations to back up my previous claim:

(1) As per exit polls, 6 percent of PA Dem primary voters confessed that they had no intention to vote for Clinton in the general.

(2) This is probably on the low end, since most people don't confess to such duplicity. Further evidence that this is on the low end can be derived from the fact that the exist polls oversampled Obama voters. Thus the Limbaugh vote is at very least 6%.

(3) Rush Limbuagh himself claims the number is at least 10% based on his sources and calculations.

(4) There is a big difference between Independent or Republican voters for Obama, who will be voting for Obama in the general vs. Limbaugh-Clinton voters who are doing this purely for the purposes of destroying the Democrats.

"(1) As per exit polls, 6 percent of PA Dem primary voters confessed that they had no intention to vote for Clinton in the general."

To paraphrase g. farber: Oh yeah, where's the link to the data?

I am just curious as to why Rush Limbaugh believes (I originally put Rush Limbaugh thinks, but realized that that's an oxymoron) that inducing his listeners to "riot" at the Democratic Convention in Denver would "see to it that we don't elect Democrats"? Huh? Does Rush imagine that the televised spectacle of a bunch of dittoheads trashing a park (or looting liquor stores on Colfax Ave.) is going to somehow cause a groundswell of revulsion at the Democrats? Or is the buffoon going to suggest that Rush-inspired "rioters" disguise themselves by wearing nose-rings and dressing all in black to try to deflect the "blame" onto loony-leftist "radicals"?
The mind boggles....

The whole thing could be even more perfidious. What about Limbaugh(c)rats(TM*) at the conventions making trouble? Then it could be painted as purely inner-party war.

*GOPsters that registered "D" on Rush's behest.

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again

Is that guy still around? Isn't he supposed to be a in a halfway house somewhere?

Somebody should call his parole officer.

Thanks -

I am just curious as to why Rush Limbaugh believes (I originally put Rush Limbaugh thinks, but realized that that's an oxymoron) that inducing his listeners to "riot" at the Democratic Convention in Denver would "see to it that we don't elect Democrats"?

There is some sort of left-wing group that wants to "Recreate '68" at the Democratic convention. Right-wingers are eagerly panting and drooling, hoping it will go berserk rioting and smashing things and inspire animosity against Democrats just the way the 1968 rioters in Chicago did. Now, whether this will stay at the panting and drooling phase or whether Limbaugh dittoheads will infiltrate the group in an effort to encourage it is a different matter.

I've got ideas for riots, though they're not as pleasant as Limbaugh's.

I think there are two scenarios under which you get rioting at the convention. One is the "Recreate '68" folks insisting that it's not an authentic recreation without riots, the other is Obama not getting the nomination under dubious circumstances, leading to a race riot.

I don't rank either terribly likely, but they're both worlds away more likely than a riot of dittoheads.

In the Recreate '68 case, I doubt that it would hurt Democratic prospects, because it would be too obviously the work of outside agitators, and the Democratic party would be seen as the victim, not the perpetrator.

In the race riot case, I doubt the riots themselves would hurt the Democratic party, they'd be more of a warning flag that Democrats had royally pissed off a major constituency.

In neither case are you going to be able to blame Rush.

Rush is just being what he's always been, an irresponsible blowhard.

A historical note for those who weren't around back then -- I was 22, but was watching, not present, btw:

The protests during the 68 convention were zany, provocative, frequently in bad taste, and sometimes pretty damn stupid, but they were also totally non-violent. The violence came from the police physically attacking the protestors, and the 'riot' was a police riot. (To be fair, some of the organizers had hopes of spurring a violent response, but then, the same can be said -- in fact, both of my points are true -- about the civil rights demonstrations of the previous years.)

There were riots in 1968, but they were after the assassination of Martin Luther King -- which -- along with George Wallace's candidacy for the Presidency -- for many blacks seemed to signal the beginning of a 'backlash' that could cost them the gains they had acquired in the past 15 years.

wishing for my own white christmas tree (:

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad