Rush Limbaugh calls for riots at Democratic convention

[Irvine511]

I condemn, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rush that have caused this controversy. Rush has used incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the political divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend conservatives and liberals alike. But for some, nagging questions remain.

Given my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.

Why associate myself with conservatives in the first place, they may ask? Why not change the dial?

And I confess that if all that I knew of Rush were these few snippets from all his years of broadcasting, or if his radio show conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some posters, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I started listening to more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to conservatism, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to torture detainees; to lower taxes on the rich and to blame all our troubles on the gays and Mexicans.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the conservative community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. He is a part of me. And he is a part of America, this country that I love.

you are so white.

 

[yolland]

I am pretty sure the Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton's prediction of riots would be much easier to prove causality.

What were their exact statements?

 

[2861U2]

What were their exact statements?

Al Sharpton on the O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: All right. It looks like, and this has been a crazy race so anything can happen obviously, but it looks like Barack Obama will roll into the convention with more popular votes and more elected delegates. That's what it looks like.

But I'll tell you what: The Clintons aren't going to step aside. So let's just say — we don't usually do this, but I think this is educated speculation — let's just say Hillary Clinton gets the super delegates and gets the nomination, and Barack Obama is angry. What do you do? Are you going to get out there and demonstrate?

SHARPTON: Well, it's not a matter of just what do I do. It's what a lot of people…

O'REILLY: No, but I want to know what you do. You're a big Democrat. Come on.

SHARPTON: Well, I mean.

O'REILLY: Come on, you're a good guy. Are you going to be out there with signs?

SHARPTON: There will be many reactions. There will be many reactions.

O'REILLY: But yours? What is yours going to be?

SHARPTON: Mine will be based on if she legitimately wins it.

O'REILLY: No, just the scenario I gave you. Just the scenario I gave you. Barack Obama has got more popular and more elected delegates come convention time. He's denied it because of the deals of the super delegates. What does Al Sharpton do? Do you take to the streets? What do you do?

SHARPTON: Well, if he is denied the selection of the nominees by super delegates making backroom deals, not 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.

 

[BonosSaint]

Based on that particular exchange, it seems the biggest threat Rev. Sharpton is making is not supporting a ticket.

I had the radio on when Limbaugh was making his riot statements. I didn't get the sense he was inciting to riot as much as I got that a riot was on his wishlist.

 

[diamond]

I had the radio on when Limbaugh was making his riot statements. I didn't get the sense he was inciting to riot as much as I got that a riot was on his wishlist.

This is more of an accurate statement/assessment and not the common sensationalism that rules these threads.

<>

 

[Vincent Vega]

SHARPTON: Well, if he is denied the selection of the nominees by super delegates making backroom deals, not 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.

Is the word "demonstrate" synonymous with "riots" nowadays?

 

[yolland]

SHARPTON: Well, if he is denied the selection of the nominees by super delegates making backroom deals, not 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.

Thanks. So that's supposed to be the evidence for "literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!" according to Limbaugh? Come on.

What about Jackson? Where's his alleged riot-promising statement?

 

[dazzledbylight]

U2387
only have a min right now (don't have a net connect at home]

ah, sorry if I assumed some stuff.......

Oh yeah, the economy -- that, the war [and how digracefully the vets are being treated] AND global warming are the biggest immediate issues.
Giving MORE tax breaks to the wealthiest...oh, please... we have had several previous major tax reductions for the wealthy prior to ? W.
At one point around JFK's time it was close to 90%!
later it was around 45%.

J Bidden yes has some very strong international experiences.

ANd yeah, this race was more tilted towards being "the Democrats to lose..."

and actually as a white person -- the typical white person comment is not as bizzaire as it seems-- becuase I've spent very long time listeninf through various meida where that type of remark comes from. And will be willing to talk about it more when I have the proper time where I now have to leave--which will be most of next week.

so if you want-see you then. go well.

 

[watergate]

Does Rush want a riot of Republicans carrying golf clubs drunk on gin and tonics after they played a round of bridge?

 

[BVS]

Did you read the article? Do you listen to his show, for that matter? He is not calling for riots.

I read the article. Did you read my first post? And yes I do listen to the the show every once in awhile...

I didn't listen that day, but the article seemed to suggest he did call for riots...

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks. So that's supposed to be the evidence for "literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!" according to Limbaugh? Come on.

What about Jackson? Where's his alleged riot-promising statement?

If I said he PROMISED a riot I overstepped. The good Rev's have been on record implying there would be demonstrations and I believe from Jackson "1968" all over again.

Its call Prophesy of Self Fullfillment - If as a leader you say it could/would happen it increases the chances it will.

They are leaders in their community and their comments in my opinion are more inciteful than anything Rush said. They are certainly not saying, the African American community will continue to work through the democratic process and behave in a dignified mannner should Obama lose.

They are borderline making veiled threats.

And Rush's statments - As big an ass as I find the man - were not even close to inciting anything.

 

[BVS]

And Rush's statments - As big an ass as I find the man - were not even close to inciting anything.

I haven't found an exact transcript, so I'm curious, did he not say anything about "and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.", like the first article suggested?

 

[Dreadsox]

I haven't found an exact transcript, so I'm curious, did he not say anything about "and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.", like the first article suggested?

I may very well not be on top of my game. I will have to go back and look for it. The quote I read, and with his show, maybe I am reading the wrong quote led me to believe he hoped that there would be riots ensuring a republican victory in nov. Not that he wanted his listeners to incite riots.

I am not bringing my A game to the forum currently. Maybe I missed it.

 

[yolland]

If I said he PROMISED a riot I overstepped. The good Rev's have been on record implying there would be demonstrations and I believe from Jackson "1968" all over again.

They are certainly not saying, the African American community will continue to work through the democratic process and behave in a dignified mannner should Obama lose.

They are borderline making veiled threats.

And Rush's statments - As big an ass as I find the man - were not even close to inciting anything.

The "promised" quote was from Limbaugh; you referred to "Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharpton's prediction of riots."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042308/content/01125112.guest.html

CALLER: ...your comment about wanting your Operation Chaos to go all the way, like back to 1968 with riots in the streets, turned over burning cars, and I believe you even said "literally"...

RUSH: I did say literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!

I haven't been able to find an article, transcript or video giving the context for whatever it was Jesse Jackson said, so I couldn't comment there. Demonstrations aren't innately undemocratic or undignified, and especially since you seemed rather angry yourself with what you called the "criminal" prospect of Clinton possibly managing to get MI and FL's delegates seated in your thread on that topic back in Feb., I'm a little puzzled why you're seeing veiled threats of riots in talk about demonstrations should she win through a superdelegate majority instead (which, granted, would be legal, but would obviously be perceived as party higher-ups overriding the actual primary and caucus results).

I don't disagree with you about Rush's statements; they weren't incitement.