Rush Limbaugh: "We need segregated buses."

[Larry]

The problem with "he was just being sarcastic" or "he was just trying to make a point" or "he was just trying to entertain by being outrageous" is that many of his listeners don't make those distinctions.

Funny. In this particular thread, his listeners seem to be making that distinction just fine.

(Including that famous Kool Aid-drinking dittohead, me.)

Yeah, Rush has been known to use the "I was only joking" defense, before, to try to run away from the disgusting things he says.

But in this case, it's obvious that he was, in fact, trying to put words in other people's mouths.

Knowing Rush, he was putting them in there

falsely

. If you want to attack him for claiming that "The Liberals are trying to claim that the kid deserved to get beaten, because he sat in the wrong seat on the bus", when no Liberal has said that, then I'd say you're probably right.

But in this case, it's obvious that Rush wasn't advocating segregated buses. He was claiming that other people were.

[Larry]

I think it's hilarious that Bang in this thread did exactly what Rush does on his show, and has managed to derail this thread in much the same way Rush derails legitimate debate.

I think it's hilarious that I'm one of about three people in this thread who are defending Rush Limbaugh.

[Destino]

Rush is definitely NOT suggesting that we need segregated buses. What he's doing is worse. He's race baiting in a incredibly irresponsible manner. He's suggesting (and no he's not being sarcastic) that in "Obama's America" blacks are free to victimize whites. That when the do Obama will support them. He's arguing that somehow Obama has created a situation in which it is ok for black kids to beat up a white kid on a bus and that somehow Obama and the left are claiming that the white kid had it coming.

This along with what has already been reported that racist groups are on the rise in America.

[Larry]

Rush is definitely NOT suggesting that we need segregated buses. What he's doing is worse. He's race baiting in a incredibly irresponsible manner. He's suggesting (and no he's not being sarcastic) that in "Obama's America" blacks are free to victimize whites. That when the do Obama will support them. He's arguing that somehow Obama has created a situation in which it is ok for black kids to beat up a white kid on a bus and that somehow Obama and the left are claiming that the white kid had it coming.

This along with what has already been reported that racist groups are on the rise in America.

Valid point.

I was painting a mental picture, a minute ago.

I've seen people in this thread claiming that if the races in the bus had been reversed, then Al Sharpton would be loudly announcing that the crime was a racial hate crime, and that the Powers That Be were condoning it. (And I think they're correct. That's what Al would do.)

I also observe, that

a) What's being said, here, is "if the races were reversed, Al Sharpton would be saying exactly what Rush said."

And, if Al Sharpton said it, many on the right would say that this proves that Sharpton is a racist.

[Thiebear]

I also observe, that

a) What's being said, here, is "if the races were reversed, Al Sharpton would be saying exactly what Rush said."

And, if Al Sharpton said it, many on the right would say that this proves that Sharpton is a racist.

Al is considered a racist because he only speaks when its a black issue. I'm guessing Rush speaks on both sides as he has hours to fill each day.

So that comparison would be lacking without examples.

[jnhay]

That may be the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say.

[Predicto]

Yes, it was taken totally out of context and it is pure sarcasm that is directed at Newsweek Magazine and their story on how babies can become racist at six months of age.

It was also coupled with accusations about Congressman Wilson being called a racist with various quotes from James Carville, Campbell Brown, Candy Crowley, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Juan Williams, Clarence Page, and more.

But don't let the facts get in your way of wanting to call yet another conservative a racist. At some point, I fully expect to be called a racist in this forum due to being a staunch conservative or because I happen to be a fan of Rush Limbaugh. Eh, so be it.

Yes, it was pure sarcasm. Sarcasm that told his audience, in no uncertain terms, that the current President of the United States is causing a rise in black violence on whites. Stoking their fears of a black crime wave. "This is Obama's America, folks, white kids being beaten by black thugs."

If you can defend that, you can defend anything.

[jnhay]

Blowing up a fight between two random kids to make a political point is the dumb part. I've always liked Rush's impersonations of a black person "Yeah get 'em boii! Beat his ass home slice!"

[Predicto]

I don't understand why Rush adds Obama to this. Is he saying that Obama influenced them in some way? That it is now easier to beet up white kids?

Don't you see? It's sarcasm. Clever stuff - Jonathan Swift level. I'm sorry you don't get it.

[Hooper]

Rush is very good at his job.

He's just not very good for his party or the country.

[SnyderShrugged]

Yes, it was pure sarcasm. Sarcasm that told his audience, in no uncertain terms, that the current President of the United States is causing a rise in black violence on whites. Stoking their fears of a black crime wave. "This is Obama's America, folks, white kids being beaten by black thugs."

If you can defend that, you can defend anything.

Please dont take this in any way as support for Rush. I really dont like him or his show.

But contrast what you just said with the statements from the Black congressional caucus and prominent Democrat figures this week where they said Wilsons outburst is stoking up racism against african americans.

[Predicto]

Dude, Rush isn't advocating for segregating buses.

Of course not. That really was the sarcasm part.

What Rush is doing is blaming Obama for the terrifying (nonexistent) rise in black on white crime. That is not sarcasm. That is racial fearmongering to a very receptive audience.

The same speech had sarcastic elements and deliberate race-baiting elements. It is not enough to say that it was "sarcasm" unless you can justify the rest of it.

[Destino]

Please dont take this in any way as support for Rush. I really dont like him or his show.

But contrast what you just said with the statements from the Black congressional caucus and prominent Democrat figures this week where they said Wilsons outburst is stoking up racism against african americans.

One is a poor use of the race card the other is telling people that minorities are out to hurt whites and Obama is going to let them.

[rdsknbill]

Do you have any idea what he's talking about? This is typical in politics...take one quote out of context and extrapolate to build a picture of Rush Limbaugh wanting to force segregation back on this country.

If you really believe that's what he wants, you seriously need to take a step back and start limiting your news to yahoo.com.

He doesn't know how

But that is Baculus. He is the ULTIMATE race baiter.

I took this from the thread Tape Shows Beating on Bus of St. Louis Teen

"We know how you feel about this, rdsknbill" and when I replied "What's your point?" CRICKETS.

He Loves to paint that broad stroke.

On another point, do I agree with Rush? I think the guy is a buffoon. Sometimes his message is spot on, but it gets lost in his sledge hammer delivery. He lives off of controversy.

[SnyderShrugged]

One is a poor use of the race card the other is telling people that minorities are out to hurt whites and Obama is going to let them.

sorry, there is no definable difference when you get right down to it.

They both spark racial fears. In fact Johnson said specifically that we could expect white hoods and robes.

I think you might be drawing partisan differences rather than real ones.

[Burgundy Burner]

Yes, it was pure sarcasm. Sarcasm that told his audience, in no uncertain terms, that the current President of the United States is causing a rise in black violence on whites. Stoking their fears of a black crime wave. "This is Obama's America, folks, white kids being beaten by black thugs."

If you can defend that, you can defend anything.

He never said or even implied that Pres. Obama is causing a rise in anything. Again, this was purely about a story from Newsweek on how six month old babies can be racist and the Congressman Wilson saga. You can argue all the other stuff until you are blue in the face, but it's simply wrong.

Even you said that what Congressman Wilson did was not racist (in another thread) - classless, yes. Rush Limbaugh is simply saying that Obama's entourage, cohorts, and select media members are stoking this racial overtone - and that is true. When you get a chance, take a read of that Newsweek piece. Then you may be able to see where Limbaugh is coming from.

I'd stay to debate, but I have an unexpected afternoon of therapy in the pool - the muscles are twitching a bit.

[Destino]

sorry, there is no definable difference when you get right down to it.

They both spark racial fears. In fact Johnson said specifically that we could expect white hoods and robes.

I think you might be drawing partisan differences rather than real ones.

I disagree completely. In fact I think the difference is obvious. One is suggesting that racism is behind a political snubbing... the other is suggesting violence is being allowed (and encouraged) by Obama and the left against whites. You think telling you black people might harm you and your children is a small thing?

[Wrong Direction]

He never said or even implied that Pres. Obama is causing a rise in anything. Again, this was purely about a story from Newsweek on how six month old babies can be racist and the Congressman Wilson saga. You can argue all the other stuff until you are blue in the face, but it's simply wrong.

Even you said that what Congressman Wilson did was not racist (in another thread) - classless, yes. Rush Limbaugh is simply saying that Obama's entourage, cohorts, and select media members are stoking this racial overtone - and that is true. When you get a chance, take a read of that Newsweek piece. Then you may be able to see where Limbaugh is coming from.

I'd stay to debate, but I have an unexpected afternoon of therapy in the pool - the muscles are twitching a bit.

Exactly, in no way did Rush try to paint this as a rise in black on white crime. He's making fun of the Newsweek piece and calling out the people who blame all dissent to Obama on race.

[Dan T.]

I understand the opposition to Obama and his policies. What I don't understand is the virulent, rage-filled nature of some of that opposition... vein-bulging, spittle-spewing rage we've all seen among some during protests caught on videotape.

That's the part I don't understand. I wonder whether - for some minority of people - race plays a factor in that rage . And even for that small minority, I'm not saying that race is the primary factor for the rage, but it is part of a cumulative set of circumstances fueling it.

[laurent]

He never said or even implied that Pres. Obama is causing a rise in anything. Again, this was purely about a story from Newsweek on how six month old babies can be racist and the Congressman Wilson saga. You can argue all the other stuff until you are blue in the face, but it's simply wrong.

No, he didn't imply it, he stated it as a matter of fact. White kids getting beaten up by black kids on the way to school, that's Obama's America.

There's no ambiguity here, there's no out of context comments or snippets, it's straight from the horses mouth.

Give Limbaugh credit though, his sarcastic remark about segregation is a great decoy from the core of his statement.

[Predicto]

No, he didn't imply it, he stated it as a matter of fact. White kids getting beaten up by black kids on the way to school, that's Obama's America.

There's no ambiguity here, there's no out of context comments or snippets, it's straight from the horses mouth.

But if you read the whole thing IN CONTEXT, then he really was talking about the rabbit population in Australia.

You just don't "get" Rushbo.

[rdsknbill]

There's no ambiguity here, there's no out of context comments or snippets, it's straight from the horses mouth.

Shouldn't that be "Straight from the Horse's ass?"

[Larry Brown #43]

Rush is definitely NOT suggesting that we need segregated buses. What he's doing is worse. He's race baiting in a incredibly irresponsible manner. He's suggesting (and no he's not being sarcastic) that in "Obama's America" blacks are free to victimize whites. That when the do Obama will support them. He's arguing that somehow Obama has created a situation in which it is ok for black kids to beat up a white kid on a bus and that somehow Obama and the left are claiming that the white kid had it coming.

This is exactly what I got out of the comments as well. As far as I can tell, most people in this thread have completely misinterpreted Rush's comments--but nevertheless his comments were very bad and very stupid.

He more or less was claiming that black people and the left are the ones advocating for segregrated buses because they feel the white kid shouldn't have been on that bus or in that particular seat.

[laurent]

Shouldn't that be "Straight from the Horse's ass?"

Quite possible, english is my secondary language and I often mix stuff like this up. Then again I thought that straight from the horse's mouth was a proper expression, as in straight from the source.

[@DCGoldPants]

seems some people are willing to defend one guy by saying it was out of context. Then attack another guy because of what they believe he was insinuating. That's impressive stuff right there. Mind readers.