Rush Limbaugh Calling For Riots In Denver

[Jack]

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer. He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens. "Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country. Limbaugh cited Al Sharpton, saying the Barack Obama supporter threatened to superdelegates that "there's going to be trouble" if the presidency is taken from Obama. Several callers called in to the radio show to denounce Limbaugh's comments, when he later stated, "I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver." Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad. "There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does." "We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said. Later, Limbaugh downplayed his "dreaming of riots in Denver" statement, and said that he wasn't calling for riots and was referring to warnings of trouble if superdelegates decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Limbaugh's comments prompted Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper to say: "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."

(Source)

Does this clown have any credibility left? All he's trying to do (at least before he started backpedaling, perhaps having realized how his comments sounded to rational people) is sow even more divisiveness and discontent between citizens. Is polarizing the electorate going to provide any positive benefit for the country?

[another day]

Wow, that's pretty shameless. He's basically suggesting the old police state tactic of "agents provacateurs", inciting a riot with the intention of making a certain group appear bad.

[Chaossaber314]

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

Isn't that what his whole little, "Get-Hillary-the-nomination-so-the-Republicans-can-win" shindig is called and not specifically a plan to cause rioting in Denver?

Anyone have audio of this because from this quote the matter seems out of context.

[stevemckay]

Gee Jack do you have any credibility? In your “quote” of the article you state:

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots....

Yet the actual article you reference states

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments that appear to call for riots....

My, my. How did that little word play happen I wonder? How did “calling for riots” in your quote change to “appear to call for riots” in the article you reference. Looks like a little edit on your part to emphasis your own political agenda perhaps? If you really did that its just further proof to me that the left is more overtly dishonest than the right.

I am not a fan of Rush but I do appreciate his shtick. I heard this broadcast…I also listen to Randy Rhodes when she is not on suspension should you care to know. He was not calling for riots. He was merely stating that A) if the nomination was stolen from Obama than the odds of riots are greater than zero. B) If there were riots than a democrat will most likely not be elected. And C) he would welcome something that ensures a democrat does not get elected.

He emphasized numerous times that he was not endorsing or calling for them but was merely observing (from his right wing view point) the implications if that event were to happen.

[Halofan48]

Ok, first of all, if you read the top of it, it says it was edited today, after Jack made the OP. So it may of been changed due to complaints. Also, while reading the article, it seems like he would support riots to keep a democrat from being elected. Also, don't try to attack the left. We both know that the right lies much more often then the left. I won't say the left doesn't lie, but compared to the right...

[another day]

Quote by: stevemckay Gee Jack do you have any credibility? In your “quote” of the article you state: Yet the actual article you reference states My, my. How did that little word play happen I wonder? How did “calling for riots” in your quote change to “appear to call for riots” in the article you reference. Looks like a little edit on your part to emphasis your own political agenda perhaps? If you really did that its just further proof to me that the left is more overtly dishonest than the right. I am not a fan of Rush but I do appreciate his shtick. I heard this broadcast…I also listen to Randy Rhodes when she is not on suspension should you care to know. He was not calling for riots. He was merely stating that A) if the nomination was stolen from Obama than the odds of riots are greater than zero. B) If there were riots than a democrat will most likely not be elected. And C) he would welcome something that ensures a democrat does not get elected. He emphasized numerous times that he was not endorsing or calling for them but was merely observing (from his right wing view point) the implications if that event were to happen.

Lol oh please... "Riots would hurt the democrats, but I'm not calling for riots, *wink wink* *nudge nudge*"

give me a break...his implication is clear.

[stevemckay]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ok, first of all, if you read the top of it, it says it was edited today, after Jack made the OP. So it may of been changed due to complaints.

Did not catch that. I formally apologize to Jack for insinuating any dishonest edits.

I still believe this was taken out of context. He (Rush) causes me to turn the radio off more times than not but being that he is worth about $600 million from his spew he is certainly not stupid and I do not believe (esp after hearing it myself) that he was "calling" for riots.

[stevemckay]

Quote by: Halofan48 Also, don't try to attack the left. We both know that the right lies much more often then the left. I won't say the left doesn't lie, but compared to the right...

Actually we both don't know that. At best I would agree that they lie the same. The Vietnam war was waged by the democrats. There were a butt load of lies there. Lets not forget FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to get the US in WWII or all the lies from the non-American left. Or are we just counting the last 8 years?

[Jack]

Looks like a little edit on your part

Please note: the thread title and quote was taken directly from the original page. No editing performed. Blame Channel 7 for the editorial softening.

Rush has never required any additional editing to make him sound foolish.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Halofan Also, don't try to attack the left. We both know that the right lies much more often then the left. I won't say the left doesn't lie, but compared to the right...

I see Rush Limbaugh as the right wing equivalent of Michael Moore. They're both overzealous mudslingers who make their cases through rumor, innuendo, out of context half-truths, over blown rhetoric and outright bullsh!t.

But not only does there seem to be lot more hi-profile Rush Limbaughs out there --Bill O'Reilly, Shawn Hannity, Anne Coulter, Pat Robertson, etc. etc. -- it also seems that the right is far more willing to bring their venom into mainstream politics.

Think back... where's the Democratic equivalents of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove? While the Republicans were running campaigns of character assassination and "Bimbo Eruptions" against Bill Clinton, how were Clinton's campaigns against Bush and Dole? Wasn't it Dan Quayle, after losing in '92, who said that if Clinton ran the country like he'd run his campaign, the country was in good hands.

What's the equivalent of the GOP campaign of a thousand small lies against Al Gore -- the Internet, Love Story, Love Canal, his sister in the Peace Corps, etc. etc. etc. etc. -- in order to paint Gore as a liar? What's the equivalent of the Swift Boating of John Kerry? What's the equivalent of "The Bitch" campaign of hatred against Hillary Clinton?

Gawd only knows what the right might throw at Barak Obama? Some variation of their Southern Strategy? I can hardly wait.

.

[Derek Wolff]

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have more than five videos, a few that have been in theaters like michael moore does. Rush doesn't blast people with clips of dying children in Iraq that were caught in cross fire or explosions.



Rush enjoys his cup of bullsh*t every day with his listeners, but he doesn't try to shock you into silence or belief in what hes saying like Moore does.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Derek Wolff Rush doesn't blast people with clips of dying children in Iraq that were caught in cross fire or explosions.

I suspect he would if he weren't on radio or TV. And he does insult 13 yr-old children on national television.

Quote by: Derek Wolff Rush enjoys his cup of bullsh*t every day with his listeners, but he doesn't try to shock you into silence or belief in what hes saying like Moore does.

Really? Apparently someone believed him.

"...when the Republicans captured Congress in 1994, they held a ceremony in honor of Limbaugh, naming him "an honorary member of Congress" and "the Majority Maker." That night, the conservative propaganda machine had reached its full potential."


.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: jack Please note: the thread title and quote was taken directly from the original page. No editing performed. Blame Channel 7 for the editorial softening. Rush has never required any additional editing to make him sound foolish.

My uncle used know Limbaugh. He thought Limbaugh was a royal ass to those around him. Superior, nasty, and just not a very nice person.

This sounds like the kind of guy who says "I think we should ban pink shirts" just for the media attention, and apparently it's working.

It's because of polarizing partisan hacks like him, that we have a "house divided" (not the legislative one).

I don't mind two parties attacking each other, I mind the people not being able to talk to a person from a different party.

[thedude]

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have more than five videos, a few that have been in theaters like michael moore does. Rush doesn't blast people with clips of dying children in Iraq that were caught in cross fire or explosions. Rush enjoys his cup of bullsh*t every day with his listeners, but he doesn't try to shock you into silence or belief in what hes saying like Moore does.

No, you're right. It's a shock of an entirely different nature. Less rotten.com, more white hood.

I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

I mean, why didn't these morons leave New Orleans before the hurricane? I'll tell you why: because they wanted to rape and loot! That's just the way some people are! And if they're black — if the rapists and looters are black — it's not George Bush's fault! We've had these problems ever since the Emancipation Proclamation. Once the whites leave town, all you've got is overwhelming lawlessness. That's not racism, Mr. Snerdley; it's a proven, demonstrable fact. Have you even seen a ghetto in Greenwich, Connecticut? I rest my case