Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
Rush Limbaugh Calling For Riots At Democratic Nat Convention
thedenverchannel.com — DENVER -- Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer. He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.
lucidguru- 1668 diggs
- digg it
- philodygmn, on 04/25/2008, -51/+119Nationalism at its finest.
- bluezinc, on 04/25/2008, -13/+67Can't he see what everyone else can see?
I'm a progressive liberal, but even if we had a liberal commentator calling for violence on an opposing party I'd feel very, very uncomfortable. We all should.
These people don't understand what America's all about. America is about freedom, the expression of ideas, and keeping our politics relatively civil is a key facet of that. Once we start calling on vigilantes to settle ideological scores, we're acting against everything that our nation stands for.- aliengoods, on 04/25/2008, -14/+66You'd feel uncomfortable?! He's inciting a riot. It's a crime.
- toonworld, on 04/25/2008, -6/+10I agree, however FTA: "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."
Bastard covered his arse... probably one of the corporate lawyers that told him to say that.- 11oops, on 04/25/2008, -7/+22If riots were to occur, just one rioter said 'I did it because Rush said to, and then if Rush were to be tried I don't believe any prosecutor or jury would consider that statement as legally sufficient coverage of his fat ass.
- screamthenrun, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8then why don't you read the transcript: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308 ...
- bruce86, on 04/25/2008, -3/+8Rush said that hindsight after people accused him. Just saying JK! LOL! after everything doesn't make it disappear
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Regardless, I think it requires a pretty twisted, *****, self-absorbed personality to openly say they are "dreaming" of violence and possibly deaths in an American city for the "betterment of America."
What the hell is this fascist doing still on the air?
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -9/+11"I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."
If I robbed a bank, but just before I left the building I said "I am not robbing a bank. I am dreaming of robbing a bank," would that completely exhonorate me of the crime?- creole, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8While I don't agree with his actions, there's a difference. He's merely talking about others doing it, while you actually did it.
- antwan17, on 04/25/2008, -5/+8From a legal standpoint there isn't. If I tell you to commit a crime and you do it then I am also culpable for the crime in question.
- Daedalus81, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3No, because you actually did the crime. That doesn't make Rush any less of a douche bag though.
- nosecohn, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Although I am wholeheartedly opposed to what Rush said, your analogy doesn't stand up. Now, if you said, "I dream of robbing a bank" (and really, who hasn't?) that would be equivalent.
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5"He's merely talking about others doing it, while you actually did it."
But in this case the crime IS "merely" talking about it. Not all speech is protected, it's the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater principle. Basically he's saying "a riot is just what we need, it'll keep the Democrats out of the White House and help America...oh by the way, don't do it." That doesn't let him off the hook in my book.
- bradbaxter, on 04/25/2008, -10/+8He never asked anyone to incite a riot. Read the article. The author obviously is overly sensitive and trying to make a big deal out of nothing.
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1.
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1
Digg it down, cause the digg comment system broke for me today in this thread.
digg this down as well...
- toonworld, on 04/25/2008, -6/+10I agree, however FTA: "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver."
- colorblind79, on 04/25/2008, -11/+13if this is true, the man needs to be arrested. Calling on people to engage in violence is a crime, literally. This is akin to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. It is not protected by free speech.
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3But he will most certainly play the "free speech" card if that happens.
- stevetrojanman, on 04/25/2008, -22/+6What the ***** is a progressive liberal?
I love the need to butter it up with a friendly word like "progressive"...no, you're liberal...no adjective needed- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -21/+6a fascist
- hilikus34, on 04/25/2008, -12/+5correction-communist
- archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -5/+8Fascism = extreme right wing. Rush is much closer to being a fascist than any American leftist.
- rebrad, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4Fascism is a form of Socialism be it right or left wing. I don't think Rush is a socialist.
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4@archiesteel
Let's do this from Merriam-Webster and not from the "fair and balanced" Wiki, shall we...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism - archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3FatherVic: there is nothing in the Merriam-Webster definition that contradicts what I said. Fascism is right-wing - and I don't need Wikipedia to tell me that: Mussolini himself claimed to represent the Right, and explained quite clearly how Fascism was right-wing (as opposed to left-wing Socialism).
rebrad: Fascism is *not* a form of Socialism. In fact, it is fundamentally opposed to many central tenets of Socialism (Internationalism, Equality of Men and Women, Anti-Racism, Atheism, the list goes on...). Also, from a historical point of view Fascism has always been business-friendly, while Socialism...not so much.
There's a reason why Socialists were among the first victims of Fascists: the two philosophies are diametrically opposed. The only people who claim otherwise are right-wingers who confuse Fascism with Stalinism, and who can't accept the fact that Hitler and Mussolini were at the extreme right, and not leftists at all.
Do yourself a favor: read up on the Spanish Civil War. If you're really interested in actually knowing about these topics, you should also consider reading Political Science books. - FatherVic, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Thanks for the tip, will read.
In the mean time...
Fascism was vehemently supported by liberals to the point where elected democrats emulated the policies in legislation. The terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" are interchangeable depending on who you talk to. The fundamentals of fascism historically spoke of equality, anti-racism, etc. However, the means used to achieve these things came in the guise of eugenics. Capitalism came in the form of strict government regulation on businesses. These are NOT conservative ideals. To say that they are is as intellectually dishonest as labeling liberals as fascists. The true fascists were the "Third Way"ers or progressives.
Read up on Mussolini, Hitler, and their politics.
Under these (correctly defined) fascist regimes the public was pushed in a direction similar to that of today's left and progressive ideals. These are the socialization of medicine, the destruction of capitalism through legislation, the removal of religion from the public forum, public education, and other ideals.
Fascism cannot be described as left or right wing - it has to be described as "Third-Way" or progressive. The mistake that many people make is that they see a symptom of fascism and attach the label. Like a fever is a symptom of a cold, it is also a symptom of appendicitis; two completely different ailments.
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8"Progressive Liberal" is a conservative's way to say "jew" without being considered racist.
A fun game I like to play is take a conservative's tirade against the "secular progressives," change all the instances of that term to "Jew" and *poof* the conservative turns into a Neo-Nazi conspiracy whore.- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7You're getting dugg down but there is some truth to what you've said, if only because of the way they spit the term out of their mouths, treating an arbitrary area of the political spectrum as though they don't deserve to live.
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Yeah, we conservatives hate Jews so much, we argue for them in Israel.
Which is it man? "We are blind to the Zionist plot" or "We hate Jews"
I am getting really confused by the liberal diggers... - taquitohater, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3He's not saying that the republican hate-mongers who are the spokespeople for right-wingers hate Jews. He's saying that if you replaced the term "left-wingers" or "democrats" or many variations thereof with the word Jew in some of their conversations/speeches it would sound almost exactly like many of the Nazi anti-semitic hate speeches Hitler and his buddies made. He's right. They blame almost everything on a "left-wing conspiracy' or the "communist lefties" etc.
- archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Arguing for Israel isn't arguing for Jews - we all know that religious nutjobs in the US want Israel to return to its biblical borders because they think this will signal the End Times.
It is true that in the past, Conservatives were more openly anti-Jew (especially since many Jews, such as Rosa Luxemburg, were prominent socialists). Now they pay lip service to Israel, even though it's really because of their own self-interests. - FatherVic, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2You both just made my point.
Thanks
- bluezinc, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1A progressive liberal, such as myself, is a person who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -21/+6a fascist
- lepton, on 04/25/2008, -0/+16Check out the poll in the article. Most who answered say he did NOT cross a line when he hoped for riots!
- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -5/+9There's a reason they're called "dittoheads". He could tell them the sky is pink and they'd immediately start blaming liberals for making the sky blue while Rush wasn't looking.
- aliengoods, on 04/25/2008, -14/+66You'd feel uncomfortable?! He's inciting a riot. It's a crime.
- sjl127, on 04/25/2008, -58/+10Nationalism is the only thing that's going to save us. I second the call to riots. Include Florida and Michigan in the delegate seats.
- s14sh3r, on 04/25/2008, -7/+43Florida and Michigan knew their delegates wouldn't be allowed when they chose to go against DNC rules. Put the blame where it belongs, with the state party leaders.
- PorchSong, on 04/25/2008, -19/+9Spoken like a true liberal -- only count the votes when they think it is to their advantage. For a party who was so hell bent to make sure every vote was counted back in 2000, it is amazingly hypocritical--and expected--for you to now disenfranchise two of the largest states (population wise) because the votes would not go in favor of your beloved NObama. News flash--NObama was on the ballet in Florida--he got his but kicked. Furthermore, NObama has failed to win any large state--name one he could carry.
I personally think this is Karma in full swing--Democrats feeding on themselves, treating themselves as they have treated Republicans for decades now. We just have to sit back and watch. What is the saying, "Why try to kill someone who is trying to commit suicide?," or "If someone is making a fool of themselves, by all means step back and let them."
Let the votes be counted. Do you really wand NObama to weasel his way in with 48 states? Do you think that would piss Florida and Michigan voters off to the point where they vote against in retribution?
NOBama can not win the general election, no matter how badly the media gushes over him. As a Republican, NObama is a gift for us. Furthermore, I do not see why you Libs are so pissed off. Hell, we already have a perfect Democrat for you to vote for -- McCain.- EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -3/+14I feel bad for the people in Michigan and Florida. Their states had two chances to have their votes counted: By not moving up the convention in the first place, and then they had an opportunity to hold a new primary. You can't certify the existing results--that would be even less fair (particularly in Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) because it's impossible to say the results actually reflected the will of the people in the state.
As for it being hypocritical I remind you that primaries are not an election. It's a private organization holding a poll to decide who they will support for President. Nothing more, nothing less. The decision had nothing to do with Obama--it was decided long before it was known he would be a major factor. Also don't forget the Republicans sanctioned Florida and Michigan too, although they only removed half their delegates.
"Furthermore, NObama has failed to win any large state--name one he could carry."
Obama would easily carry California, Illinois, and New York. McCain leads both candidates in Texas and Ohio. Florida and Pennsylvania are the only large states where Hillary currently holds a significant advantage and has a chance to win. Obviously those states are significant, but the elections are still over six months away.
"NOBama can not win the general election, no matter how badly the media gushes over him. As a Republican, NObama is a gift for us."
We'll see. Forgive me if I trust my own gut and current poll results over somebody who can't seem to progress past third grade caliber name calling. - MrTulip, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2why are the large states more important than the small ones? serious question.
- EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5"why are the large states more important than the small ones?"
Due to the winner take all nature of the electoral college. You could win Nevada, Arkansas, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Vermont by a landslide; lose by one vote in Texas and the other guy has more electoral college votes. - archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8"As a Republican, NObama is a gift for us."
Rush disagrees with you. The whole point of Operation Chaos is to make sure Hillary wins the nomination, because Republicans are certain they can win against her.
The rest of your post is too inane to even take the time to respond. - chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3"why are the large states more important than the small ones? serious question."
Because obviously Obama is so ELITIST he has a much better take from smaller states.
- EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -3/+14I feel bad for the people in Michigan and Florida. Their states had two chances to have their votes counted: By not moving up the convention in the first place, and then they had an opportunity to hold a new primary. You can't certify the existing results--that would be even less fair (particularly in Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) because it's impossible to say the results actually reflected the will of the people in the state.
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5A little background on the Michigan fiasco. Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic governor, is a strong Clinton supporter. Right after she endorsed Clinton, the primary schedule was released. The date was against the party rules, so Obama backed out of the race. Clinton didn't, leaving her to run unopposed in the state. Obama wasn't even on the ballot.
This stinks really bad, almost as if Granholm did it on purpose, knowing that Hillary would be the only viable candidate running. I'm from Michigan, and I don't want my vote to count because I believe it was a rigged election.
- PorchSong, on 04/25/2008, -19/+9Spoken like a true liberal -- only count the votes when they think it is to their advantage. For a party who was so hell bent to make sure every vote was counted back in 2000, it is amazingly hypocritical--and expected--for you to now disenfranchise two of the largest states (population wise) because the votes would not go in favor of your beloved NObama. News flash--NObama was on the ballet in Florida--he got his but kicked. Furthermore, NObama has failed to win any large state--name one he could carry.
- CryRightardCry, on 04/30/2008, -3/+2Nationalism is an expression of ignorance and arrogance.
- DreadPirate, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2And you certainly know all about ignorance, CRC - being mired in it on nearly all topics, after all.
- s14sh3r, on 04/25/2008, -7/+43Florida and Michigan knew their delegates wouldn't be allowed when they chose to go against DNC rules. Put the blame where it belongs, with the state party leaders.
- SpinningHead, on 04/25/2008, -9/+37I fear most Americans don't know the difference between nationalism and patriotism. This explains the huge number of people with flag stickers or lapel pins and the small number of informed voters.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -8/+13It's easy to teach them.
Patriotism: I love my country. I respect that you love your country.
Nationalism: I love my country. If you think yours is better I will bomb you.- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -3/+13Patriotism: I love my country, and I think sometimes things need to change in order to make it better.
Nationalism: I love my country. My government is ALWAYS right and anyone that disagrees should be executed or deported!
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -3/+13Patriotism: I love my country, and I think sometimes things need to change in order to make it better.
- nosecohn, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The thing is, neither patriotism or nationalism is about fomenting divisions in one's country, inciting conflict among different groups of citizens, or encouraging awful stereotypes about one's compatriots. If you read Rush's quotes from the article, that's exactly what he's doing. To me, that is un-American. Patriotism should be about bringing people together to solve problems and move forward, not about dividing and excluding them.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Nationalism actually is about inciting conflict among different groups of citizens in one's country. It often includes racism and classism.
Patriotism is about National pride for ALL citizens. Patriotism is passive. Nationalism is agressive.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Nationalism actually is about inciting conflict among different groups of citizens in one's country. It often includes racism and classism.
- cdahlkvist, on 04/25/2008, -8/+13It's easy to teach them.
- Pstall, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7pa·tri·ot·ism Audio Help /ˈpeɪtriəˌtɪzəm or, especially Brit., ˈpæ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pey-tree-uh-tiz-uhm or, especially Brit., pa-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.
na·tion·al·ism Audio Help /ˈnæʃənlˌɪzəm, ˈnæʃnəˌlɪz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. national spirit or aspirations.
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. - MoClippa, on 04/25/2008, -0/+17Well he does have a point. If Hilary picks up the nomination due to super/pledged delegates switching sides, and if Obama clearly won the popular vote (as is mathematically the case now), then that could spell the end for the Democratic party as we know it in its current incarnation. Dem's across the board would riot, protest and refuse to vote. This happened in '68 when all the delegates (it was a different system then), refused the clear popular front runner, McGovern, and gave the party nomination to Humphry, a man who did not win a single primary. The party caved then, and had to restructure its voting scheme to the one we had today, and if something similar to that happens in this race, the party will either collapse or have to restructure... and in that case, the Republicans will get another 8 years.
- nosecohn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Good point. I think this is especially true now that Nader is in the race. IMO, Nader will be more likely to pull votes from Hillary than Obama in the general election. If you also factor in that a decent number of Republicans would consider voting for Obama, while just about none of them would vote for Hillary, then I think you're right... the Republicans would win the general election against Hillary and it would completely decimate the Democratic party. I mean, if they can't field the one candidate to generate the kind of interest in the party not seen in a generation, to run against a guy from the party of the least popular President in history, how is anyone going to support the Democrats in the next election. I don't think all this will come to pass, but I can't rule it out. It does amaze me how the Democrats never fail to blow a good opportunity.
- sonstone, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2This is right on, and you can put me in the box that will vote for Nader over Hillary in the general election.
- JaronDiggGuy, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1It is truly foolish for any self-described Democrat to put their vote behind the Republican candidate instead of the Democrat candidate they didn't favor in the primaries.
If you describe yourself as an independent, of course, then I guess all is ok if that's what you choose...sort of.
- nosecohn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Good point. I think this is especially true now that Nader is in the race. IMO, Nader will be more likely to pull votes from Hillary than Obama in the general election. If you also factor in that a decent number of Republicans would consider voting for Obama, while just about none of them would vote for Hillary, then I think you're right... the Republicans would win the general election against Hillary and it would completely decimate the Democratic party. I mean, if they can't field the one candidate to generate the kind of interest in the party not seen in a generation, to run against a guy from the party of the least popular President in history, how is anyone going to support the Democrats in the next election. I don't think all this will come to pass, but I can't rule it out. It does amaze me how the Democrats never fail to blow a good opportunity.
- obliviousfool, on 04/25/2008, -7/+6Sounds more like terrorism to me. Didn't we have legislation recently aimed at fighting homegrown terrorists?
- bradbaxter, on 04/25/2008, -9/+19Rush is not calling for a riot. First of all, he said if a riot takes place, it will be among the left (not his listeners). When does the left take its marching orders from Rush Limbaugh? "Oh, Rush wants us to riot... c'mon everybody... let's go do it!" That's not going to happen. He never called for a riot. He never asked his listeners to get involved in a riot. If a riot DOES occur, it won't be because of Rush Limbaugh... it will be because of a bunch of pouty liberals who have no respect for social order. I say, if they want to beat the ***** out of each other, let them. It would be good for our country if the "bad element" eventually destroyed itself.
- wjbp, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7I'm "dreaming" of Rush getting stampeded to death at the republican riots in Minneapolis.
- Disfnord, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1St. Paul, actually.
- eviltandem, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4"bad element" = people interested in politics enough to make a stand?
What makes one "good element"? Accepting whatever the ones in charge tell them? - LOPposse, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Shame on you taking away diggers fun and sense of moral superiority. They shouldn't need to actually listen to the exact words he said. Sure I listened to the comments live on the radio and he never called for a riot he just commented on the potential for a riot at the convention, but the article has every right to misquote him and get the masses to pile against him.
/sarcasm/ - archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5I guess you missed this part of TFA: "He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens."
- RonBurgundy76, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2One man's bad element is another man's patriot.
- wjbp, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7I'm "dreaming" of Rush getting stampeded to death at the republican riots in Minneapolis.
- Lleu, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2Anyone reading this needs to send an email to the FCC:
Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
General information, inquiries & complaints: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Send one to each address listed above. The FCC has to take action on this. What Rush started during Super Tuesday was borderline voter fraud. this is full on inciting violence on public airwaves. NBC canned Imus for calling some girls "nappy headed hoes", Randi Rhodes was suspended for calling Hillary a ***** Whore.... Rush is CALLING FOR RIOTS IN DENVER! Tell me diggers, which is the worst of those three offenses?- KennMac, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2The last thing we need to do is find another job for the FCC. They find plenty of work all by themselves.
- Lleu, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Wow.... so asking the FCC to enforce the laws that our taxes fund them to enforce is asking to much of them
[insert obligatory when they came for me there was no one left to speak rant here]
- Lleu, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Wow.... so asking the FCC to enforce the laws that our taxes fund them to enforce is asking to much of them
- RepubOperative, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3How did the radio announcer get into trouble for calling nappy headed hoes "nappy headed hoes"? Because he was white.
- KennMac, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2The last thing we need to do is find another job for the FCC. They find plenty of work all by themselves.
- bcmorrison3, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3He said he "dreams" of riots (at the DNC), not incites them. Can you blame him? He is absolutely right, open violence among the delegates at the DNC would be disaterous for the Dems.
- bluezinc, on 04/25/2008, -13/+67Can't he see what everyone else can see?
- Kizilbash, on 04/25/2008, -58/+197Fascist bully boy strikes again
- sjl127, on 04/25/2008, -55/+5Nationalism is the only thing that's going to save us. I second the call to riots. Include Florida and Michigan in the delegate seats.
- cigawoot, on 04/25/2008, -5/+18should I copy what the previous person to respond to your idiotic comment above said? Florida and Michigan are ***** out of luck.
- thcobbs, on 04/25/2008, -3/+16***** moron. Rioting during the DNC is just ***** stupid. It's also a sad indicator of the level of civility in American Politics. We have been a strong Democratic Republic over the last few hundred years SPECIFICALLY due to the civl and orderly transfer of power between elected officials. Doing ANYTHING to upset that is a horrible, horrible show of ignorance and disrespect to the nation.
- skrowl, on 04/25/2008, -27/+10Misuse of the word fascism on digg strikes again. Look it up and see if you think it applies most closely to liberal ideas or conservative ideas.
- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -11/+28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism:
"Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
Perhaps you should have looked it up yourself before posting. That's Rush in a nutshell (emphasis on "nut").- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5digg won't let me post my reply to you. One line is enough for digg apparrently. All day. More than that and i am screwed. Thanks, Digg. Lets try this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
"(E)xalts nation and often race above the individual" - or in other words, the needs of the many are superior to the needs of the one. Sounds like socialism to me.
If you look at policy makers in washington, you will find that Liberals lean toward policies that subvert the will of the individual for the greater good. To me, this falls in line after fascism quicker than it does under Conservativism. Historically, fascist governments operate just like Communist governments by expelling religion from the public forum, holding up Unions, Welfare programs, High taxation, etc. Look at the definition again "severe economic and social regimentation". Does that sound like any of the following: - FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Continued... (Thanks again, Digg)
Conservatism:"a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)"
Socialism" a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"
The definition from the Wiki has little credence and it does not address the roots and history (which is the reality) of fascism. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3@FatherVic: Okay, you posted a bunch of definitions (well, really they are half definitions since you only chose the parts that make you sound sort of right, which you're not). Regardless, copying definitions is not an argument. The fact of the matter is that fascism revolves around evoking patriotism/nationalism (have you seen how man flags are on the screen 24/7 over at FoxNews? The focus on Obama and lapel pins?) and the bashing of liberalism in the name of that patriotism. That is the core of fascism. You misunderstand the definition you posted when you think there is a parallel with socialism. Putting nation and race above the individual in fascism is about progressing the nation/race and NOTHING else. Socialism is built around the concept that everyone is equal and should be treated as such. Fascism does not waste time with concepts like equality. It's very simple. "Do what we say! For your great country it is imperative that you do so!" Clearly you're grasp of these concepts is twisted and generally lacking if you think that socialism and fascism are even remotely compatible ideologies.
The truth is, the American neo-conservative movement is effectively the American fascist movement with a catchy new name. It has consistently behaved in ways that closely parallel fascist concepts and ideals. I mean, just look at the definition of conservatism you posted. Modern American "conservatives" and especially neo-conservatives haven't held those values for a very long time. Fascists are already here in America. They are on our radio and our TV and some might even argue they are in our Whitehouse. As they always have in recorded history they will continue to evoke the ideals of patriotism, nationalism, fear, and "us verses them" mentality to push their own selfish agendas. The truth is right in front of your face if you have the courage to accept it.- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2I'm sorry... What?
Patriotism is a vehicle USED by fascism to unite the people under a common cause. You really need to do some history research. Fascism has historically sought to unite the people under a "Crisis" or national cause in order to prop up the advancements of the government. (look at the fascism symbol on the wiki page - it is a bundle of sticks around an axe handle) If you study the roots of fascism, regimes like Mussolini and Hitler set record precedence in the fields of social programs, welfare and the promotion of unions (to unite the workers). Unite the people and then make them dependent on you. Definitions (you are right) mean nothing because they do not explore the historical background of fascism. The use of capitalism was done under the guise of regulation. businesses love regulation because it removes competition. So... fine, I get your point, but fascism historically always falls in line with modern liberal views of the regulation of capitalism, promotion of unions, and the installment of social welfare programs. - FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Let me just add a little more...
You are right when you say that conservatism unites the people under a common goal for the upholding of the state. I do not deny that. It is a tactic used by all politicians regardless of political beliefs. However,
Historically, fascism, by definition does more than just unite the people under common causes. Look at the presidency of FDR for example. We still maintained our democratic-republic government, however, we were united under a common goal to uphold the greater good. What we got out of it was a broken taxation system, runaway welfare, socialized medicine, eugenics, and debt. These were progressive ideals plain and simple. They continue today. The only thing that Bush unites us for is his war and the interest of capital growth. Bush cuts taxes - sure he spends like a jackass - but he is steadily undoing all of the progressive ideals of the last century (not fast enough in my opinion)
Democrats through history and currently are uniting us under Global Warming, Hatred of Bush, Poverty, etc in order to raise taxes, implement more social programs, and regulate business in the name of the state - all in line with the progressive movement and Italian (German) Fascism
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2I'm sorry... What?
- FatherVic, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5digg won't let me post my reply to you. One line is enough for digg apparrently. All day. More than that and i am screwed. Thanks, Digg. Lets try this:
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2I believe the correct work here is "fanatacism."
- Gerz1219, on 04/25/2008, -7/+20You know, most people who supported Franco and Mussolini were not vampires baptized in the blood of orphans. They were the same frustrated political extremists that exist in every society, and they were given an outlet. Rush Limbaugh is eternally frustrated because post-WWII American society does not provide him with a suitable outlet for his aggressions. He still possesses the same authoritarian personality type, he just has to support candidates forced into more moderate positions by the vagaries of liberal democracy. Don't think for a second that he and his dittoheads wouldn't revel in a fascist revolution every bit as severe as the ones experienced in Spain and Italy, if such an opportunity presented itself. They just wouldn't call it "fascism."
- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -11/+28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism:
- FeedtheTroll, on 04/25/2008, -15/+3I say we use Rush's mouth for a good purpose: AS A ***** DICK WARMER!!!
- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9You want to put your dick in Rush Limbaugh's mouth?!?
- HanFastolfe, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4Darling Fascist Bully Boy-
Give me some more money, you bastard.
Boomshanka
Neil- merlinklein, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2May the seed of your loin be fruitful in the belly of your woman
- zombies187, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Neil! Are these lentils South African? Thats just brilliant. Why don't you just become a policeman and start beating up black people?
- Vic333, on 04/25/2008, -5/+11Isn't inciting a riot a crime?
- screamthenrun, on 04/25/2008, -4/+13yeah... but that's not what he did
transcript: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308 ...- SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2That didn't contain his original comments, but it was an astounding example of Rush, his twisted ideas, and his ignorance.
The insinuation that the Democratic Party is led by the far left is just wrong. The Democratic Party has become a mess because the left has let the right scare them away from real leftist values. No, the Democratic Party is run by a bunch of moderates who try to keep the left complacent. Not to mention his whole insinuation that we should do whatever the hell we want with complete disregard for world opinions is downright scary, and his nationalist fanaticism shines through when he admits to believing the U.S. to be the only nation with a respectable military complex. In reality, Europe has weapons just as advanced as ours, and if America decided to fight the world for whatever reason we would be soundly put down. Let's hope it never comes to that, but it's a pretty stupid thing to say when every day you hear about how our military is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan, places that offered no substantial traditional military resistance.
I'm not scared. I'm a liberal, and I say ***** RUSH! ***** him and his ignorance. For that matter, ***** ANYONE who would even "dream" or hope for something as terrible as a riot to take place just so that it would further their own agendas and ideology.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2That didn't contain his original comments, but it was an astounding example of Rush, his twisted ideas, and his ignorance.
- screamthenrun, on 04/25/2008, -4/+13yeah... but that's not what he did
- UltraMegaFilms, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2***** put this guy back on Oxy. And get the man a whore too. *****!
- sjl127, on 04/25/2008, -55/+5Nationalism is the only thing that's going to save us. I second the call to riots. Include Florida and Michigan in the delegate seats.
- iainc, on 04/25/2008, -69/+121Sometimes I think it would be nice if someone poisoned that crazy *****.
- cg4et, on 04/25/2008, -14/+56Don't poison him. Just offer him some Oxycontin.
- joeomar, on 04/25/2008, -14/+6I wouldn't waste a baby asprin on the poor old nasty pig, he is what he is, a prayer may help, God knows he needs help, How about Shock Treatment weekly for this pathetic soul.
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3I see you didn't get the joke.
- Dumbledorito, on 04/25/2008, -5/+8Mix it with a nice, refreshing Snapple!
- joeomar, on 04/25/2008, -14/+6I wouldn't waste a baby asprin on the poor old nasty pig, he is what he is, a prayer may help, God knows he needs help, How about Shock Treatment weekly for this pathetic soul.
- Spuy767, on 04/25/2008, -23/+18yes! This is exactly what we should do, wish violence on the man. That makes us all no better than him. . .
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -6/+43No no, see, we're not inspiring or inciting violence on the man, we're DREAMING of violence on the man.
- BeefBaron, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7I've seen that argument flung around a lot recently. But honestly, some people just *should* die and stooping to their level is fully worth it.
- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5He was 'dreaming' of violence against the innocent people in Denver; I am 'dreaming' of violence against Limbaugh. In case you didn't know he is about as innocent as OJ. It may not make me a good person but I certainly wouldn't say I've dropped to Limbaugh's level
- Navicerts, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1but you have :(
- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Uh no. Wishing a city destroyed, countless people injured, and the failure of our political system is a bit worse than wishing someone would hit one Bigot with a Bus (or a tire iron for that matter). At least in my book.
- RonBurgundy76, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I'm dreaming of a golf club.
- Navicerts, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1but you have :(
- obliviousfool, on 04/25/2008, -4/+6Nearly every human alive is better than Rush Limbaugh.
- logosx1, on 04/25/2008, -9/+14And I thought China had cornered the market on silencing unwanted speech . . . .
- flaknugget, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8Sometimes I think it would be nice if people don't accept political opinions from polarizing fascists.
What are his audience ratings like anyway? I noticed his last pick for president has a 69% disapproval rating today.- floorman56, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4And the Democratic congress you picked has a higher disapproval rating. What does that prove?
- Dumbledorito, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Okay, reality check, here. Of COURSE people don't like Congress because, beyond their 2 senators and handful of representatives, the body is not elected by you. For example, individual senators have quite high ratings, and even the bottom of the barrel has higher approval than Bush:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Net100USSenat ... - sonstone, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2It proves that the masses don't know ***** about how the government works if they really believe that it's the democrat's fault that nothing is changing given the fact that there isn't enough numbers to override the president that they voted in (twice... sigh...)
- Dumbledorito, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Okay, reality check, here. Of COURSE people don't like Congress because, beyond their 2 senators and handful of representatives, the body is not elected by you. For example, individual senators have quite high ratings, and even the bottom of the barrel has higher approval than Bush:
- CajunDigg, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2He is more mainstream than the "popular view" on Digg, THAT's for sure.
- floorman56, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4And the Democratic congress you picked has a higher disapproval rating. What does that prove?
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2I bet you think you are tolerant of other's opinions.
And that is aside from the fact that this is just a plain BS article. - elint6, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4He tried to poison himself and we stopped him. Sigh.
- Cultist, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4The same way Limbaugh dreams of riots and the destruction of progress minded people, we're just dreaming of someone shooting him in the back of the ***** head. We're not encouraging violence. It's just a personal opinion that if someone found his address, learned his habits, and murdered him in the cold, dead of night with a serrated blade, it would be just fine. What? I'm just exercising free speech. Why does everyone keep saying that I'm an evil, hateful, intolerant human being?
- cg4et, on 04/25/2008, -14/+56Don't poison him. Just offer him some Oxycontin.
- WebWizard, on 04/25/2008, -51/+344I guess inciting civil disobedience is legal?
Let me make sure I've got the republican agenda straight:
- Stuff ballot boxes (don't call it vote fraud)
- Riot at the convention (no, not inciting a riot, course not)
- Deliberately spread disinformation. Just cry and scream until the 'out of context' quotes gain traction. (no,not lies)
- Main thing: stay away from the issues! We sure don't want anybody looking at our record for the past 8 years! Somebody might notice that we have virtually bankrupted the country, trashed our international standing, taken a dump on the constitution/international law/civil rights, used a trumped up war to distract everyone from all the important domestic items that we've been neglecting, subverted the media (heh, they let us do it!), and dozens of other failures.
That way, we can keep the 'moral high ground' and line our pockets a little more. Keep it going! Who thought we'd get away with it for this long!- WhiskeyWrites, on 04/25/2008, -34/+19Just want ot point out that rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for Republican/Conservatives, unfortunately he does speak to too many of them.
- apothekari, on 04/25/2008, -14/+40Then why don't you people say something.
TO HIM. and then tune out his stupid ass. somebody's listening to the ***** and it sure as hell ain't me!
I live in NC and there is a non stop ad by the local GOP that brings up the Rev again against Obama.
Mccain decries it yet it still runs!
That way he can claim to take the high road and then still benefit from the sleaze.
If you are truly upset by these evil shenanigans do something about it.
I turned my back on Billary's stupid hateful asses.
Now it's your turn and maybe we can somehow crawl out of the way of this ***** freight-train of ***** thats headed for this country that Bush and Co drove like the Ol' 97 the last eight years.http://www.tarheelpress.com/Ol97.html- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -26/+3"Then why don't you people say something.
TO HIM"
Have you ever tried to call that show? Jesus Christ it was easier to get a Wii on release night than it is to get through to his show.
"and then tune out his stupid ass."
Reason I don't tune him out is the same as the reason I don't tune out Bill Maher; despite being idiots, when they're right they're right and when they're wrong it's usually funny. And at the very least it beats the hell out of NPR. - thcobbs, on 04/25/2008, -7/+11I quit listening to him over 10 years ago. He's arrogant, pig-headed, and just annoying to listen to. I also think many of his ideas are pretty damn dumb. But what does it matter. On Digg, I'm seen as conservative fascist, and I'm lumped in with the likes of Limburger.
Of course, it would probably shock most of the people on here to know that I boycott Wal-Mart, shop with the re-usable bags whereever I go, am looking to put together either a PHEV or a strait conversion of my truck to all-electric.
The point of this is to show that not all conservatives are heartless earth rapers that digg purports them to be and that we don't listen to numbnuts like Limburger.- eviltandem, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2A republican that boycotts open market forces (wal-mart)? Why are you republican if you don't think free and open markets are the way to go?
Isn't that a bit like claiming you're a pacifist that only drinks the blood of fresh babies you kill? - evil-doer, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4you do know the democrats have been more fiscally conservative for decades now right?
- CryRightardCry, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2I don't think you are conservative.
You DO support pretty much every "facist" act taken by the Bush administration.
You support spying on your own countrymen and warmongering.
You support lies and deception.
Do you REALLY think pretending to whine about Rush changes anything?
- eviltandem, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2A republican that boycotts open market forces (wal-mart)? Why are you republican if you don't think free and open markets are the way to go?
- floorman56, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Mccain decries it yet it still runs!
First amendment remember?- apothekari, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Yeah well.
I love how you Republicans stand under the first amendment when it protects your right to say evil hate speech such as hmmmm... Inciting a RIOT.
But when it comes to my right to speak out against the total STUPIDITY of this Iraq war I am being unpatriotic and should just shut up or be locked up in quantanamo.
What I was trying to say is that I have no love for the Democrats but things are SERIOUSLY ***** up in this country and instead of blindly shoving an Ideology which has all but destroyed {and I'm not saying that to be dramatic look the ***** around} this country, IT is Sooooooooooo much more important to get back to a civility of dialogue about these VERY serious challenges we face now.
But I'm evil right, probably a dirty ***** jew- hating- muslim or commie- pinko- LIBERAL or GOD- HATING- ATHIEST or QUEER or *****.
Don't you see what buttons they are pushing on you?
Rush Limbaugh is a bigoted evil man, and even I think he has a right to be on the radio BUT when he starts calling for this kind of ***** he NEEDS to pay a PRICE for it, and the only thing that he cares about is his wallet so thats how you get to him!
- apothekari, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Yeah well.
- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -26/+3"Then why don't you people say something.
- apothekari, on 04/25/2008, -14/+40Then why don't you people say something.
- Suricou, on 04/25/2008, -14/+22Rush, and a lot of other republicans, view the democrats as enemies of America. And of course enemies of America must be destroyed by any means.
- Malacandra95, on 04/25/2008, -7/+30If Republicans view half the country as un-American, I think they have some kind of twisted fantasy about what America is.
- Calcularius, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Most of the world sees Republicans as enemies of most of the world.
- OriginalLucid1, on 04/25/2008, -36/+8Sounds like page one of the democrat election manual. Why get pissed when the republicans use it?
- elipabst, on 04/25/2008, -4/+10I could care less if he was just asking people to demonstrate, but to incite people to riot and use violence to silence the free speech of other Americans is reprehensible and is an unAmerican act, no matter who is doing it.
- licnyc, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5That is just an outright lie.
- TheLoneHoot, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3In agreement with 'elipabst' above, as shown in the ***full transcript*** he later tries to equate his comments with those of Al Shapton who had said he (Sharpton) would be among those demonstrating if Obama were denied the nomination despite a majority of delegates. The key there is Sharpton said he'd DEMONSTRATE, but Limbaugh equates that with his dream of RIOTS. They're not the same thing by a long shot.
- IslandDog, on 04/25/2008, -23/+101. Make sure people vote multiple times, just because ID isn't required
2. Storm Republican campaign offices and assault workers
3. Deliberately spread disinformation.
4. Don't talk about the issues...just keep repeating "change".
Democrats should look at themselves.....- chalkboy, on 04/25/2008, -13/+6Oh but they are the tolerant ones.
- licnyc, on 04/25/2008, -7/+8Typical republican response. Rather then defend your position with substance- immediately draw attention to someone else's blame. Its like dealing with children. Who does win the "I know you are but what I am I" argument. I call romper room. You will probably be happier on nick.com then digg.
- chalkboy, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4I did not state my position so I have nothing to defend. I was just making fun of a common stereotype. I happen to be perfectly happy on digg. You need to calm down.
- tillerman00, on 04/25/2008, -7/+28I wouldn't call it civil disobedience. That's Thoreau not paying taxes because of war to make a statement. This is a fat disgrace inciting violence and hatred.
- dk911, on 04/25/2008, -13/+19You're all missing the point... It's not a comment saying that Republicans should go and riot. It's a comment about what *could* happen if Obama doesn't get the nod. He's basically saying that if Obama, a black man, doesn't get the nomination that black people will riot. It's like when LA broke out in riots because of Rodney King. That's what he's alluding to... not calling for riots. But he's right -- if riots were to break out because the uneducated blacks decided to riot over Obama not getting the nomination it would wreak havoc on the Democrat's appeal in this election.
And I'm not trying to be racist here. It's just that poor, uneducated blacks who felt that what happened to Rodney King was personally an attack against them rose up and rioted in LA. It's like when poor, uneducated white people (usually in the south) rise up against blacks (race riots) for what they feel is an injustice against whites. Educated people who aren't feeling the pinch of economic decline don't feel the need to riot and prefer more civil means to get things done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riot ...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- ...- ell0bo, on 04/25/2008, -7/+6No, you're missing the point. He's saying someone needs to help him out and slap him upside the head every time he opens his mouth. If he's getting back on the racial issue, I guess he's probably back on those pain killers like last time when he said ***** about McNabb.
- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6You need to get a clue mate. A riot after the convention (if the superdelegates nominate Hillary) would NOT be race based, at least not primarily. If there were to be a riot, it would not be 'the uneducated blacks' (this term REALLY makes you look racist BTW) rioting alone, you ever been to Denver?
If the superdelegates ignore the peoples votes and choose who they want, even if there is NO riot, the republicans win. People will lose faith in the system. The democratic party will be in ruins.- dk911, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3I used the term 'uneducated whites'... does that mean I'm racist against whites too? Or is it only racist to point out the lack of education in some blacks? I mean, c'mon... In the LA riots there were more than just blacks, yes, but the majority were black. Mainly because the population is mostly black and the issue was white on black.
I was just pointing out, that like the LA riots, when people feel they don't get what they want (if they are uneducated) they riot. So maybe I was wrong to point to blacks alone. I figured that his comment was in regard to Obama being black, and what Sharpton said. Sharpton is a very vocal anti-white supremacist. He calls upon "his people" to rise up quite often -- and when he says "his people" I'm pretty sure he's not referring to everyone.
Typically people, who don't feel they have an opinion that is valued or honored, will rise up in anger and riot. Hell, the Boston Tea Party was a riot against the British for lack of representation. Maybe it IS time for a rebellion so that voices ARE heard again. After watching "John Adams" on HBO, I feel that we're approaching that crossroads again.- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1You missed my point completely. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. (no matter how much the media wants it to be)
You seem to have based your entire argument on Sharpton and Limbaugh. Neither of them are as influencial as they wish they were. Most people I have spoken to consider them jokes.
Why did you bring up race riots? When was the last one? The ***** 60's? And no I'm not counting the RKR. Its a much different world than it was 50 years ago.
Also if you re-read that, I never called you a racist. I just meant that you need to work on your wording. When you find yourself saying "I'm not trying to be racist..." you should really find another way of saying it. Actually, now that I really look at it, your entire argument is retarded. Turn your TV off and pick up a book.
- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1You missed my point completely. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RACE. (no matter how much the media wants it to be)
- boombye, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2The issue in LA wasn't white vs black, for white people, that's what the issue was. For Latinos, Asians, Blacks, everyone else, it was about being fed up with Police Brutality that everyone has had to deal with in that area, no matter the race, the LAPD was full of racist pricks, and most movies from the early to mid 90s are pretty obvious about that. Of course, those riots got out of control, and yes it did spawn from the Rodney King incident, but most non-white people living in LA can tell you the cops are dicks to them, or at least were back then.
- boombye, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Also you made a stupid statement right here: "Sharpton is a very vocal anti-white supremacist. He calls upon "his people" to rise up quite often -- and when he says "his people" I'm pretty sure he's not referring to everyone."
So if I called up my own people to "rise up", that's also racist? What's wrong with asking your own people to rise up and better themselves and not subject themselves to BS behavior and stereotypes. Is it really so racist to ask of my people, and not your people, to rise up? So he's not allowed to address issues that matter to the black community, because that's racist according to you?
- dk911, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3I used the term 'uneducated whites'... does that mean I'm racist against whites too? Or is it only racist to point out the lack of education in some blacks? I mean, c'mon... In the LA riots there were more than just blacks, yes, but the majority were black. Mainly because the population is mostly black and the issue was white on black.
- ell0bo, on 04/25/2008, -5/+6I'm back, because I needed to find a line paragraph from that article:
"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."
Are you seriously going to defend someone that says that? I mean, I know you're the the family values party, but I might as well just say all republicans like to fondle interns, steal money, and hook up with other guys in bathroom stalls. *****, and that's just been in the last 12 months or so. Hell, your hero here was addicted to pain killers. I am rather sure I've known some republicans that have burned down their houses, for insurance fraud, can't say I've known too many Dems that have. Hell, one of the more prominent republicans in this area just got busted for video taping gay sex at his house with like 50 guys, should I surmise all you republicans do to? That white house must really be kinky with Bush and Cheney these last few years.- Malacandra95, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4Historically, the American right has a much more significant history of violence than the American left. Including recent history. Can you say "Oklahoma City"? Abortion clinic bombings?
- floorman56, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3one of the more prominent republicans in this area just got busted for video taping gay sex at his house with like 50 guys
So? never heard of the log cabin republicans ? I thought you Dem's always thought what was done in the bedroom was a person business? Was this prominent republican breaking a law? why are you focusing on gay sex ? are you homophobic?- mxmj, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Are you Rush Limbaugh?
- gobbleplex, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6What's done in a person's bedroom *is* their own business, but when that person belongs to a political party that persecutes against them and people like them for their own personal gain, the person deserves to be called out, ridiculed, and castigated.
- dk911, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Did I say I was defending him? I was pointing out that people are interpreting his quote at face value. Rush usually speaks with innuendo and hyperbole. He doesn't say what he's saying -- he implies it. There's a difference between "calling for riots" and "hoping for riots". He wants it to happen... but he's not saying "Republicans, listen to me... go out and RIOT!!"
- Kyan, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1But he is using a radio show to voice that hope? Whoosh.
- gobbleplex, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"uneducated blacks?" And Hillary has been courting the "educated white" vote with all her crowing about how Obama can't carry "lunch bucket" democrats while downing shots of whiskey?
- thecatcantalk, on 04/25/2008, -8/+14Rioting is not "civil disobedience". Civil disobedience is, by definition, non-violent: chaining oneself to a bulldozer, for instance. What Rush did is called "Incitement to Riot", and it's a serious crime, punishable by a long prison term. Not that he'll ever be punished, since he's a Republican, and fat, and white...he'll probably get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for telling people they ought to murder their fellow citizens.
What a scumbag. ***** belongs in a cell.- skipdog172, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4*****. There is no "inciting" of a riot anywhere. In fact, he essentially said that it would be a good thing for the Republican party and that is a true statement, so how does that incite Democrats to riot? It makes no sense.
- digitalhair, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1I think it's pretty clear that he and his viewers want a riot at the DNC. He's encouraging, on his nationally syndicated show, that republicans everywhere undermine democracy and cross party lines to vote for Clinton in the primaries as a means to create the appearance that there's a split in the democratic party, even if there isn't one. If he wants a riot, I think we should bring it to his doorstep, at his home or the place he records his ego-porn for all the misguided hawks who listen to his show. Limbaugh doesn't know it, but the anger he's causing between the democrats will be a powerful force to reckon with when they decide to abandon the high road and find a common enemy to vent their frustration upon. It's time for democrats to get MAD and stop worrying about what assholes like Limbaugh and his supporters think.
- skipdog172, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4*****. There is no "inciting" of a riot anywhere. In fact, he essentially said that it would be a good thing for the Republican party and that is a true statement, so how does that incite Democrats to riot? It makes no sense.
- ThermiteTerrace, on 04/25/2008, -7/+10The Republican Agenda also includes "pop 700 Percocets in under a month".
- stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2***** then what I have been doing supporting the Democratic Party?!
- PhineasPoe, on 04/25/2008, -6/+6It's funny to me how closely the "Republican agenda" and the "Hillary agenda" mirror each other.
- Calcularius, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3not really
- jch0075, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Totally blown out of proportion. He simply stated what would happen if there WERE riots. Check out Recreate 68's website. http://www.recreate68.org/ they are an organization who are ALREADY PLANNING resistance at the event. But what do you know. No mention on Digg..
- TheLoneHoot, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Big difference - Limbaugh is "dreaming of riots". Recreate '68 is openly planning for ***DEMONSTRATIONS*** and has gone to great lengths (even BEFORE Denver officially had the "go" for the convention) to work with local police and Secret Service officials to ensure safety and security for the demonstrators. Complete with no "free speech zones" ala the RNC in '04.
- bcmorrison3, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2He said he "dreams" of riots (at the DNC), not incites them. Can you blame him? He is absolutely right, open violence among the delegates at the DNC would be disaterous for the Dems.
- WhiskeyWrites, on 04/25/2008, -34/+19Just want ot point out that rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for Republican/Conservatives, unfortunately he does speak to too many of them.
- SoyJames, on 04/25/2008, -33/+80FTA: "There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention.
heh heh heh... Don't be so sure Rushy...- exgop, on 04/25/2008, -17/+3It wont be republican rioting it will be American hating anarchist
- HangerBaby, on 04/25/2008, -5/+10Well, I'll be there
- skribble, on 04/25/2008, -3/+10Well if American hating anarchist are rioting at the republican convention, then the American hating Fascists would be the ones at the Democratic convention. (Unless of course Hillary manages to go against the will of the people and get her self the nomination... then of course any democratic american loving person would certainly riot against that).
- SoyJames, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Ummm... no. It will be neoconned Bush lapdogs who are programmed to vote for McCain who will be "rioting". Of course probably nothing will happen and the convention will go on and McWarmonger will be nominated, but one can "dream" can't they?
- zombies187, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1They smell the same to me.
- poiuytrewq44, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5Crash the RNC!!!
- Findress, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1St. Paul Minnesota welcomes you.
- EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Sorry, you're only allowed to protest the RNC in designated protest zones, 342 miles away from the convention center. If you wish to get any closer you must sign a loyalty oath.
- ronaldinho, on 04/25/2008, -8/+5You know, if there WILL BE a riot at the DNC, most people who are informed enough will know that Rush came up with the idea, and so won't it hurt the chances of whoever Rush supports instead? It can be indirectly seen as "McCain started and called for it, with Limbaugh as the spokesperson"
- Faubio, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Rush didn't come up with the idea of riots, Al Sharpton did, again, read the transcript. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308 ...
- Takfam, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2You give people too much credit when you say "informed people." Many people still think Obama is a radical Muslim.
- johnpaul191, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4I'm sure it will be like the 2004 conventions where anyone wishing to express concern to full on protestors will be corralled by riot police in "free speech zones" far away from the action.
- joebaloney, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Free speech zones? You wish.
http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/ - edrift101, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Why they chose Minneapolis/St. Paul for the RNC is beyond me... We're a left leaning bunch up here.
- boombye, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Not to mention they lock you up in places besides free speech zones, like this Pier 57 place:
http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/media.html
- joebaloney, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Free speech zones? You wish.
- stonewaljacksn, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4riots can easily be started at the RNC by preventing the pastry delivery truck from providing free donuts
- BuddyDoQ, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2When will you democrats get it. Donuts paid for with tax money aren't "free."
But they are crazy delicious!
- BuddyDoQ, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2When will you democrats get it. Donuts paid for with tax money aren't "free."
- ZenMojo, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5There were riots at the RNC 2 years ago and riots at the RNC 4 years ago. What the ***** is he smoking?
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2All caused by the left.
- zombies187, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1True. No republican ever questions the party line.
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2All caused by the left.
- exgop, on 04/25/2008, -17/+3It wont be republican rioting it will be American hating anarchist
- lazerus9, on 04/25/2008, -40/+28Limbaugh is a CFR shill and his opinions are meaningless!
- crichton101, on 04/25/2008, -3/+13But he has a show listened to by many people, and some of them are very stupid and just as insane as that drug addict.
- dullly, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Shut up you godless uninformed pansy.
- yodaj007, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1What part of his comment was uninformed, exactly?
- dullly, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Shut up you godless uninformed pansy.
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9Yes, yes, we know, everyone's with CFR... There are better reasons to ignore him than that.
- CajunDigg, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4...then why do liberal news media (CNN, CBS, etc) keep discussing his opinions????
- bruce86, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2When you far right, everything around you seems liberal even when they aren't
- crichton101, on 04/25/2008, -3/+13But he has a show listened to by many people, and some of them are very stupid and just as insane as that drug addict.
- lazerus9, on 04/25/2008, -30/+4http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/ki ...
- mikesbaker, on 04/25/2008, -23/+2you've been on digg a year and have no friends? you are a complete failure at life.
- toddcat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8How would you know?
- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5You just type this in (replace the username with whoever you want to look at):
http://digg.com/users/lazerus9/friends/befriended
Actually, he has 29 fans. Which is frankly a little frightening given his spammy comment history.- lazerus9, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1You seem to frighten quite easily. Why do you hide half of your face?
- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I'm horribly scarred like the Phantom of the Opera.
Nah, just kidding. Where's your pic, buddy?
- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5You just type this in (replace the username with whoever you want to look at):
- lazerus9, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Don't worry little boy there will be openings soon for you at "SOYLENT GREEN" !
- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -2/+12Some of us just don't like the social networking aspect of this site. This May will make 3 years, and I don't even know HOW to add friends.
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -2/+13Digg friends = strangers who agree to digg up each other's submissions.
- toddcat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8How would you know?
- brycelb, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4WTF was that all about.
- rz8472, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2lazerus9 is one of those Lyndon Larouche people. Pay no attention.
- lazerus9, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2..And you are another adolescent ill informed voice on digg seeking attention!
- mikesbaker, on 04/25/2008, -23/+2you've been on digg a year and have no friends? you are a complete failure at life.
- tehjarvis, on 04/25/2008, -44/+127"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.
Jesus Christ. This man deserves to be punched squarely in his smug bloated face. Of course Limbaugh tells his viewers that violence at a major political gathering would help the country and the MSM lets it slide...Don Imus calls some basketball players hoes and it's all over the TV and Radio for weeks. He should be investigated for trying to instigate a riot.- siszam, on 04/25/2008, -11/+52Food Not Bombs is on the terrorist watch list but Limbaugh isn't. I think that pretty much sums up the Republican party.
- way2muchsense, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4That's because Rush talking ***** isn't newsworthy. We already know he's full of it.
- antipoet, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2I think you hit the nail on the head. He's an old windbag. Let's let him fade out instead of giving his words any more attention.
- BrewBeau, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Christopher Hitchens' quote on Jerry Falwell could easily be applied to Rush when he dies, "If they gave him an enema, then you could bury him in a matchbox."
- AncientNewborn, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1then y is he frontpage digg? if he's not news worthy
- skipdog172, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3So...did the violence we had during the civil rights movement help the country? Nobody likes violence, but I believe it did. He is not telling anybody to riot, he is SIMPLY saying that if Hillary gets the nomination from the will of the people, there will very likely be some rioting, and that is a good thing for the Republican party. Can you disagree with that statement???
- MeanYogurt, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Its not that they disagree, they just hate him so much they will pounce upon any perceived slight and use it to call for his removal from the airwaves.
- dullly, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2You shoul be investigated for being dangerously stupid. Please do not post any more comments here or I will have to ban you from these forums.
- boombye, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/media.html
- barackoblogger, on 04/25/2008, -27/+205Imagine if a (black) Obama supporter said this. The media would explode the story from now until the convention.
- Tikisam, on 04/25/2008, -42/+23A black Obama supporter is who started all of this!
Al Sharpton said riots would be likely if Hillary got the nomination.
You're an idiot- barackoblogger, on 04/25/2008, -9/+24he did not say riots would start. you're projecting. he said there would be trouble. that does not mean riots. that might mean that people don't show up to vote for her at the polls.
idiot- keymanjim2, on 04/25/2008, -19/+5Like the "trouble" they had in L.A.?
- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -14/+6But he did say there would be trouble. Riots are trouble. Rush Limbaugh is ENTERTAINMENT. It's not like the gospel otherwise EVERY Republican in Penn. would have registered democrat and voted Hillary, then she WOULD have gotten the landslide. I listen to Rush for ENTERTAINMENT.
If he just said exactly what Sharpton said, it ceases to be ENTERTAINMENT and becomes JOURNALISM. That's what NPR and the newspapers are for. - a2fan, on 04/25/2008, -5/+0keymanjim2, no... more like Lo Pan in Big Trouble in Little China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo-Pan- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Proving that what this country truly needs is Kurt Russell in the White House.
- keymanjim2, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Go watch Tango and Cash and rethink your position.
- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3But he didn't say that the riots would help America
- boombye, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Tikisam is a frakking racist douche bag... So because some black guy says there will be trouble in a political sense, you assume it means violence right away. What the hell is wrong with you Republicans, losing grip on reality and *****.
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Or we just look at every riot caused in America in the last few decades....all caused by Democrats (all the political riots anyway).
- boombye, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Name some of them, or tell me which ones you're talking about. How does a political party conduct riots, or control the actions of people who choose to riot, whether they're registered voters or people who never voted in their lives... ??
I'm just asking him why he has to assume that because some black guy says there'll be trouble, that he automatically assumes violence, why do most of my white friends do that?
"oh it's because if you look at the last few riots.." go ahead, start out with these words again, be more vague if you want.
- barackoblogger, on 04/25/2008, -9/+24he did not say riots would start. you're projecting. he said there would be trouble. that does not mean riots. that might mean that people don't show up to vote for her at the polls.
- TheInformer, on 04/25/2008, -31/+14Imagine a white preacher saying as many overtly racist statements as Jeremiah Wright did. He'd be rightly crucified. Where's the national media condemnation of Wright's comments? Largely absent. Why?
- wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -8/+19Because the national media was aware that Wright's comments weren't remotely racist when you hear more of his speech than the soundbites making the news. There's no story there.
- skrowl, on 04/25/2008, -17/+5"God bless America? No! God damn America!"
Yep, no story there.... as long as you hate America I guess.- MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9And how exactly is that "overtly racist", which is what we're talking about? I don't see anything about race in your little quote.
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -4/+9Funny thing - Clinton's pastor has issued a statement in full support of Wright. I guess Clinton must hate America too. Well, that still leaves McCrazy, right?
- wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -3/+11See? You took a soundbite out of context.
If you listen to the rest of that speech, it's clear that he's making a statement about the history of governmental power. He explicitly says that he loves America but hates our current government, and damns them for being hypocrites. - pojut, on 04/25/2008, -2/+12For your own sake (and everyone elses here, in case they didn't see it) here is the full context of that quote. I gotta say, as an American that loves my country but hates how it was founded, I fully agree with him.
The British government failed, the Russian government failed, the Japanese government failed, the German government failed, and the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese decent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. The government put them in chains. She put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in sub-standard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America…no, no, no.
Not God bless America, God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this, think about this.
For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you've got 5 million blacks who out of work. For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you've got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condoskeeza Rice, you've got 1 million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his cap, blazin' hips playing on a course that discriminates against women. God has his way of bringing you up short when you get to big for your cap, blazin britches. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.
Taken from http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4719157&pag ... - pojut, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8Also, here is the full context of his "chickens coming home to roost" speech. I lopped off the beginning to save space...you can read the whole thing at link at the bottom:
We took this country by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arowak, the Comanche, the Arapahoe, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Granada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hardworking fathers. We bombed Qaddafi's home and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock.
We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hardworking people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children from school, civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.
Taken from http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4719157&pag ... - boombye, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Wright is a Marine and has more of a right to say what he wants than most of these coward Republicans, not to mention his people were enslaved by your people for how many years, and I think they have a right to be bitter about this country or seem angry about it, and still love at the same time. See something that's not exactly a black and white situation, something that is a little bit more grey, is hard for dumb ass people to understand. Yes he can be pissed off about his own country and love it too, he's earned that right in more than one way.
Your ass has been privileged with not knowing how that would work or what that feels like, because you don't have a similar experience. And hopefully you won't have to be put through some civil rights era of your own, so that you too can feel that way.
- stevetrojanman, on 04/25/2008, -11/+4Well then what Limbaugh said about the black quarterback Donovan McNabb a couple years ago shouldn't have been a big deal either...I mean...it was just soundbites after all...
Don Imus' situation was a sound bite...
Saying it once is excusable, saying it twice is worthy of noting, saying it more than that creates your character...sorry Jeremiah Wright...you're a racist- wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11You still haven't said why Wright is a racist. He's clearly not. Throwing around the term "racist" doesn't make it any more true by repeating it.
- stevetrojanman, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3Oh, right, so I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that he's preaching to his congregation that there is a problem with me because I'm white...I'm oppressing his congregation, right?
Put the shoes on the other foot...Imagine that Wright is white and the congregation is white and he's preaching that America is coddling to black people and he's calling it the United States of the Black Panther of America. He also says that the government created AIDS as a way to eliminate the white population and that the chickens are coming to roost for this bigoted America...
Nope nothing wrong with that commentary...I'm sure the media would be fine with it - stayhale, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4poor white you. poor poor whitey whiterson. Can you read? He isn't saying white people are the problem, he's saying that throughout history we have a government that has done some really awful ***** to people here and outside who have had the grave misfortune of being not white. When he says "God damn America", he's saying, as a man of God, that we need to be mindful of the sins committed in our names by our elected leaders with our permission and our money and our blood, and (if you're a believer - hi believer!) we need to expect to answer for some outrageous crimes - don't fool yourself that that the US is somehow smiled upon by the Almighty, wake up and wonder how God really feels about an America that commits such horror upon His babies and has done so from its inception.
I'm not going to bother imagining the shoe on the other foot because anyone who said America is coddling black people who have to do some 'splainin' regarding the Klan, slavery, crack, lynching, etc. Just because you don't want to think America has done some awful things and always has doesn't mean it didn't and doesn't happen. I think I love my country more than you because I choose not to be blind about the reality - can't fix something until you acknowledge it's broke. I'm not afraid of black people who are quite clear about who put them where they are and maybe pissed about it - I can relate to that. It's ignorant whiteys that scare me.
- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -7/+5The "God damn America" thing isn't even the one that touches me off so bad.
Calling America destructive: "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive."
The HIV thing: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
Plus, the fact that all of these quotes are out there, yet in over twenty years of regular attendance Obama claims to have never heard these sermons, astounds me. What happened, did the Reverend walk into the church, then say, "Oh boy, Obama's not here, let's get out the good stuff!"- wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Can you prove that the government didn't develop HIV to infect black people?
It's not a "racist" statement.. it's a provocative statement, one that makes you think. That's a good thing. - stevetrojanman, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4@Wacom...
Can you prove that the government did develop HIV to infect black people? He's inciting riotous behavior just as much as Rush is. - neognostic, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6I really don't know why I bother to try and educate people like you, but I press on. Quoting you. The "God damn America" thing isn't even the one that touches me off so bad.
Calling America destructive: "America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive."
* http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-ame ...
The HIV thing: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
* http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586
Plus, the fact that all of these quotes are out there, yet in over twenty years of regular attendance Obama claims to have never heard these sermons, astounds me. What happened, did the Reverend walk into the church, then say, "Oh boy, Obama's not here, let's get out the good stuff!"
* Watch the sermons in full or watch Bill Moyers interview with Rev. Wright on PBS tonight. - Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2I'm not denying that the Native Americans were pretty much wiped out.
Saying that the nation is destructive because of what happened then is a ***** attrocious statement, and basically means that every country in North and South America is destructive.
Syphilis is not HIV. HIV is believed to have started in Africa, in primates, when the simian equivalent SIV leapt to humans. Are we going to declare the government responsible for Bird Flu if it makes the leap to humans as well? - pojut, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5"Saying that the nation is destructive because of what happened then is a ***** attrocious statement, and basically means that every country in North and South America is destructive. "
Well...when you consider how much we spend every year on weapons and weapon research, yet have so many poor in our streets, a horribly low-ranked education system, using FOOD for gas, and that we average a major war every 20 years or so...yeah, I would say the US is destructive. - Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2We've got one of the lowest homeless rates in the world and those who are below the poverty line in this country do better than those who make average income in most.
WE burn food, or WORLDWIDE countires have begun using ethanol? At, might I add, the request of a ton of greenies who only NOW decide that it's a bad thing?
Throwing more money at the education system hasn't helped anything so I don't know how weapons research is affecting that.
With the exception of Vietnam and Iraq I can't find too many wars we've been involved in that the masses have opposed... I mean, are you mad about WW I and II? - CourtesyFlush, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4wacomwacoff:
Look up negative proof. It's a logical fallacy.
You might as well ask if anyone can prove little green men didn't sneak into your bedroom last night and take turns diddling you soundly as you slept. - archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"With the exception of Vietnam and Iraq I can't find too many wars we've been involved in that the masses have opposed... I mean, are you mad about WW I and II?"
What about funding death squads in Central America? What about orchestrating a coup against the democratically-elected government of Iran? What about Grenada? The list goes on...
Some of Wright's ideas are a bit kooky, but the man is not a racist. Those who accuse him of being one, however...
- wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Can you prove that the government didn't develop HIV to infect black people?
- skrowl, on 04/25/2008, -17/+5"God bless America? No! God damn America!"
- StrangeFamous, on 04/25/2008, -5/+15Are you kidding? Wright's comments were turned into a major issue by the media. Pundits used it to try to establish connections between Obama and the black separatist movement, even after Obama publicly denounced those comments!
- johnhummel, on 04/25/2008, -7/+27Yeah - like those racist comments on how "rich white people rule America" - dang, that was so racist I nearly puked. Everyone can see looking at our Congress, Courts, Presidents, 99% of the mayors that white people don't rule America.
Oh, wait - that's right, he was actually speaking the truth there?
OK, how about "AIDS was created to kill black people" - I can't imagine why he'd think that. It's not like Native Americans hadn't been given smallpox infected blankets/clothing to kill them off. Or that experiments were done with black men and syphilis just to see what would happen - I mean, why would any black person at seeing the African American population allowed to suffer under the Reagen administration think that there was a shot the disease was being used to remove undesirables? Like it had never happened in history before - how dare he?
No, wait - it was the "God damn America" bit that was racist after complaining that black people composed the majority of prisoners, that the American government policy of treating the poor and the sick was against the word of God so America would be damned for it. Hey - there has *never* been a preacher who said that the US would be damned for, say, allowing gay people to exist. Or that a majority African American city would be damned by a hurricane because a parade was going to be held there - surely if some white person said that it would be considered racist and pretty ***** evil, right?
Oh, sorry, I forgot - Wright got blasted because he decided to complain about policy, complain how black people were treated, and point out where that came from. Sorry - I forgot that mentioning we have race and class problems is itself racist.- brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -4/+12Quiet you! Racism is over! It doesn't exist! It disappeared overnight with the repeal of Jim Crow laws. Any black person that complains of racism is just overly-sensitive and not following the teachings of Martin Luther King! --Rich Whiteman
- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Those blankets given to the Natives were given by Christopher Columbus, working for the Spanish government. Please feel free to send your protest letters to their embassy. Besides I thought you guys all thought AIDs was invented to kill homosexuals?
As for the prisoners thing, I'm sorry that black people are found guilty of committing more crimes statistically than white people. God DAMN statistics.- johnhummel, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Yeah - God damn it when being caught with $10 crack gets you a 5 year jail sentence, while getting caught with $1000 of coke gets you probation.
God damn it when the ABA shows the majority of sentences between death penalty and imprisonment, imprisonment and probation all come down to one factor: race. White person commits the same crime as a black person, and the black person is far more likely to be convicted and get a harsher punishment.
And evidently, God damn anyone who dares to point this out and say "Hey, this is pretty ***** wrong." Because pointing out a problem evidently makes me a God damn racist. - BrewBeau, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Yeah, the same statistics will tell you that the poverty level has more to do with crime than race does.
- Dragular, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Screwed up drug policies do not equal racism. Crack was an epidemic when coke was a, "problem." Maybe we should make the sentences the same regardless of whether it's meth, coke, crack, marijuana, or too much ex-lax. I don't know what the solution is, but the problem is not racism.
"White person commits the same crime as a black person, and the black person is far more likely to be convicted..." if you're not convicted, you committed no crime. Harsher punishment? Look at the statistics then get back to me when you know the circumstances in each crime. Maybe we just need mandatory sentences instead of mandatory minimum/maximums.
And God Damn attempting to justify racism by pointing out other racism. Two wrongs shouldn't make a Wright. - archiesteel, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"Those blankets given to the Natives were given by Christopher Columbus, working for the Spanish government."
Wrong. The incident involves Jeffery Amherst and the English fighting the Pontiac Rebellion. - smotpoker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"Yeah, the same statistics will tell you that the poverty level has more to do with crime than race does."
And they will tell you that race has to do with education and poverty level. Legal system keeps people poor, poverty keeps people uneducated and fuels criminal motives
- johnhummel, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Yeah - God damn it when being caught with $10 crack gets you a 5 year jail sentence, while getting caught with $1000 of coke gets you probation.
- MommaKatz, on 04/25/2008, -5/+8Uh, the clips played from Rev Wright WERE said by a respected white man!! U.S. diplomat and former Ambassador to Iraq (77-80) Edward Peck said them, just days after the 9/11 attacks. Wright heard Peck say the following on a Fox news interview while grounded at JFK airport due to the attacks, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye...and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Peck is a well respected U.S. Foreign Diplomat and absolute foreign policy expert who's served every President since Carter in some capacity or other. He called this correctly, because he had the insight, and ability to honestly look at our nation's global standing and the repercussions of our government's foreign policy in the middle east. MANY who heard Peck's words agreed, not just Rev. Wright. (Peck also spoke out against invasion of Iraq, accurately describing the problems we'd face if we took out Saddam.)
Get your facts straight! - skipdog172, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Ahh, another person who has only seen the media's take on his comments. Read the full context of his sermon!
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I did. It was worse than the soundbites.
Tell me, anyone: How can you put "AIDS was created by the government against black people" into context?
- Dibou, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I did. It was worse than the soundbites.
- wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -8/+19Because the national media was aware that Wright's comments weren't remotely racist when you hear more of his speech than the soundbites making the news. There's no story there.
- Buckeye70, on 04/25/2008, -13/+6Imagine if a white supporter of McCain had a website that was linked on digg all the time and he was convicted of raising money for terrorists.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gG ...
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.asp ...- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5"This page cannot be found". Hmm. This is extremely persuasive evidence. Your views intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- Buckeye70, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Link was too long.Prove that it is wrong. Google "Hatem Elhady" See what you find. Great guy to have as a supporter
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js4058.htm
- Buckeye70, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Link was too long.Prove that it is wrong. Google "Hatem Elhady" See what you find. Great guy to have as a supporter
- Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5"This page cannot be found". Hmm. This is extremely persuasive evidence. Your views intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- johnpaul191, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3The media would explode if any candidate said it.... as opposed to a pseudo-member of the media.
- tmessing, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5are you kidding Democrats call for protests all the time. That's all they do.
- oscenester, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4protests != riots
google is your friend (eg. define: protest)
- oscenester, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4protests != riots
- skipdog172, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I don't understand. What would be wrong with an Obama supporter stating that if the popular vote was overturned, and riots occurred, it would be a good thing for the Republican party and hurt the Democratic party. This seems like a very reasonable observation, what the hell are you guys smoking??? All I see is ignorant comments from people who never read the full transcript, only the headline.
- oscenester, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2You obviously didnt read it. ha. He blatantly states that its what needs to happen. So they win...I'm all over this one though. Time to organize riots at every GOP event till november.
- brad3378, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Obama has supporters who are black?
- Tikisam, on 04/25/2008, -42/+23A black Obama supporter is who started all of this!
- nmeadata, on 04/25/2008, -56/+19Rush is entertainment radio, He is having fun watching the world blow in his wind
- dswinscoe, on 04/25/2008, -13/+54up next: how to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not be held accountable ...
- smotpoker, <
- dswinscoe, on 04/25/2008, -13/+54up next: how to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and not be held accountable ...