Comments on: Did Rush Call for Riots in Denver? Uhh….No.

By: Lori

Lori — Tue, 06 May 2008 09:05:15 +0000

John…That was exactly what I thought also. And it was Democrats that were calling up complaining to him that he was encouraging the riots. Do they feel tempted to riot because Rush said to? If so, I'm even more confused than ever…LOL.

By: John

John — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:24:37 +0000

Its interesting to me how whether you think Rush did or did not call for riots, I find it hard to believe that Democrats who literally can't stand Rush Limbaugh would suddenly take his marching orders… Wow what a way of avoiding personal responsibility. As I recall it was Democrats beating up Democrats in 68', and if it happens in Denver, it will be Democrats beating up Democrats again… Is Rush Limbaugh that powerful that he can control Democrats now? I thought he only controled Republicans. Maybe we should start calling the Democrats Dittoheads (or StupidHeads)!

By: suek

suek — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:01:26 +0000

And here's another site to check out. Please note that it is _not_ a Limbaugh site! http://www.recreate68.org/

By: suek

suek — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:58:46 +0000

Sharpton at his finest…

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/al-sharpton-vo…

By: suek

suek — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:47:55 +0000

>>Well, either way, it is despicable to wish violence and harm to an American city and Americans.>>

I didn't hear the show. It seems out of character, but right or wrong, wishing doesn't make it so. Whatever Mr.Limbaugh wants or doesn't want, unless you're accusing him of planning on sending bodies to riot, the decision is entirely up to the people at the convention. Is Limbaugh offering payment for people to riot? Is he planning on being there himself? If not, what difference does it make what he "wishes" for? He can't make it happen – and if Sharpton "demonstrates" and once again it becomes a riot, it isn't Limbaugh's fault, it's on Sharpton's head. Unless you're accusing Sharpton of being a tool for Limbaugh…. Sharpton – and the various other Democrat groups – have the power and the choice to conduct themselves like good citizens or riot. Limbaugh has nothing to do with their choice.

By: Patty

Patty — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:29:55 +0000

The only evidence he showed was sharpton's interview that said "demonstration" not riot. Rush said riot and he said it was the final objective to his operation. Did you listen to the Wed. Show when he first suggested the riot? I do not mean his "dreaming of a riot" explanation, I mean the very first time he made reference to the riot. He said that the final objective to his operation chaos was literal riots with protests, cars burning, fights, etc. just as in 1968. He no longer has this transcript on his website (I wonder why) but this is what he said. He later tried to back peddle and say that he wasn't calling for riots but just dreaming about them. Well, either way, it is despicable to wish violence and harm to an American city and Americans. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree Jimmie. I do appreciate the civil discussion despite our differences.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:59:44 +0000

Al Sharpton is not Martin Luther King. His demonstrations have a disturbing habit of becoming riots, because he incites them. Freddy's Fashion Mart is a great example. There are others.

It may be Limbaugh's notion as far as you're concerned, but Rush has shown ample evidence that Democrats were saying it before he did.

By: Patty

Patty — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:50:37 +0000

Jimmie

A demonstration does not equal a riot. MLK demonstrated peacefully often. Definition of demonstration : a public exhibition of the attitude of a group of persons toward a controversial issue, or other matter, made by picketing, parading, etc.

That definition does not include a riot. Those are two different terms. The notion of a riot at Denver is a Limbaugh notion and he owns it as far as Im concerned Jimmie.