Rush Limbaugh "Dreaming of Riots in Denver"

@anniepa (27219)
United States
April 25, 2008 11:58pm CST
I started a discussion a few months ago and received a lot of dissenting responses about the possibility that Rush Limbaugh should be charged for urging voters in Ohio to switch parties in order to sway the Democratic primary there. I admitted it was a bit of a stretch but I also admit I'd love the idea of Limbaugh behind bars, Limbaugh in handcuffs and shackles, Limbaugh in an orange jumpsuit - never mind, I don't really mean that last one. However this time I don't see how anyone can defend him: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html "He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens." 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." He also said, "Screw the world!" OK, Rush Robots, let's have it - how are you going to defend your hero this time? Are there any of you who think he has loyal enough fans to actually do what he's dreaming of? Let's discuss it. Annie
2 people like this
4 responses
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
27 Apr 08
In your article, I didn't see a quote of Limbaugh saying his listeners have a responsibility to make sure riots happen, although I agree that saying those riots would be "the best thing to happen" for this country sounds like a strong suggestion. I know the Democrats aren't going to riot on Rush's say-so. And since when did the left get a reputation for burning cars and houses? I've never burned my car or my house, and I don't know anyone who has.
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4373)
• United States
29 Apr 08
Thank you for explaining this. I kept coming back to see if you would and you did a great job. Thanks again.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Apr 08
Okay, I guess I'm first up to bat. BTW, we're called Ditto Heads because we agree with some of the stuff he states, not Rush Robots, I'm not mind numbed, just enlightened. Now, Rush wants no more than to destroy the liberal agenda that's being forced on people who watch the news with slobbering mouth's. He doesn't want riots, but he knows they've happened, like in 1968. The dems were going nuts and when they can't have their way they go bezerk. He's just stating a fact that Al Sharpon mentioned, that B.O. supporters would demonstrate if it went the other way. Demonstrate? We'll see what that means, he knows that those in charge of starting riots just might do that. He didn't say for them to do it but he knows they might. That would complete the truth that those people don't know how to debate and win, they have no agenda that doesn't include them strong holding or threatening. He's not my hero, he's just a guy that affirms a lot of the things I think are true. I do my research, I'm my own man.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27219)
• United States
26 Apr 08
I know what you call yourselves and I'm not referring to you personally since I don't know you personally and I have no intention of offending anyone but I've heard his show often enough to think about 99% of those who call him are mind-numbed robots. I heard what he said on his show and I read part of the transcript; he told his listeners it's up to them to make it happen. He spoke of burning cars, burning houses - even killing children - as he sang "I dreaming of riots in Denver". I'm glad you do your research and that you're your own man and you're certainly entitled to your own opinion but my opinion is Rush has really gone too far this time. There is absolutely no reason to believe it "might" happen without outside interference. Thanks for responding and I hope you're not mad at me! Annie
1 person likes this
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
27 Apr 08
If you would have been paying attention instead of constantly trying to find fault with the man, you would have realized that he was recalling the 1968 Democrat National Convention and the riots that occurred there. I do believe that he is entitled to a bit of wishful thinking, and considering the rift that has been caused by the Obama/Hillary campaigns there is a very real possibility that such a thing could happen. There are a LOT of democrat voters who feel like they have been disenfranchised by the antics of the party so far, which is what occurred in '68, so he is envisioning something that very well could happen. It is also very possible that if there is a repeat of '68 then the democrats will lose. I love how democrats always want to see people put in prison for their political beliefs and speech... because it demonstrates exactly how you feel about the Bill Of Rights and our individual freedoms.. You know who I would like to see in prison?... People like Pelosi and Carter and all of the others who violated the Logan act by their unauthorized visits with foreign leaders and groups against the wishes of the President and in spite of the fact that they had NO authority to go. Then there are all those democrat Congressmen who are using their position to enrich themselves while in office such as Feinstein and others. You want to have people put in prison for what they say in violation of their 1st Amendment rights... I want them in prison for the actual crimes they commit.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
26 Apr 08
Annie, you are miss quoting him. Annie you are taking him out of contexted. His comments are up to interpretations. My bad that only applies to Obama, and Rev. Wright, and no one else. Obamites you all are great. The quote about riots in Denver first came from the Rev. Al Sharpton, an Obama supporter. I am sure that was out of contexted to, or misinterpretation.
@anniepa (27219)
• United States
27 Apr 08
You sure are hard to follow! What the heck does "out of contexted" mean? Ooh, I'll bet I know - it's something your fearless leader, Bush, said so you're playing the little game of pretending it's really a word. You and Rush, what a clever pair. Anyway, here's what Al Sharpton said when questioned by Bill O'Reilly: O'REILLY: “Barack Obama’s got more popular, more elected delegates. Come convention time, he’s denied it because of the deals and the superdelegates. What do you do, Sharpton? You take to the streets? What do you do?” SHARPTON: If he is denied the selection of the nominee by superdelegates – O’REILLY: Right. SHARPTON: — making back-room deals, not the by the voters? well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket. I guess you can decide what context that should be taken in if you know the definition better than you know how to spell it or use it. If you come up with Sharpton inciting riots from his followers, all the power to you. Most people know, whether they're from the right or the left that sometimes when one hears or reads a small part of a larger speech or sermon it actually is possible for it to be taken out of context or misinterpreted. I read the entire transcript of what Limberger said and I don't see how it was taken any way other than how he meant it. Annie
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
27 Apr 08
Next time you ever misppell which you do I will nail you to the wall, from here on out, Miss Perfect.
@anniepa (27219)
• United States
28 Apr 08
I addressed the spelling issue in another discussion, I'm not sure if you read it or not but I don't mind if you "nail me to the wall" if I do misspell something. It was you who asked me if I even think before I write so I thought you'd be one to take great pride in what YOU write. I guess you didn't read any of the rest of my response here, but that's fine. By the way, yes I do think before I write but I don't think about making sure not to write something someone may not agree with and I do try to treat those who disagree with respect. Annie
1 person likes this