Rush Limbaugh calls for riots a the DNC in Denver

Limbaugh is a fat asshole that should keep his big mouth shut. But the if he did, he wouldn't sell T-Shirts. His "Operation CHAOS" bullshit may result in the Clintons weaseling into office again. Which would no doubt help his ratings.

Wow. Isn't that illegal?

If Hillary gets the nomination, there will be riots in more cities than Denver.

I haven't listened to the audio, but I would be willing to bet that listening to the audio would reveal this was all tongue-in-cheek. He's not calling for a riot in Denver.

The liberal media will take Limbaugh out of context all the time, which only strengthens his position on the media (and makes him even more popular because it proves him right in many ways). I remember three years ago one of my left-of-center friends was angry that Limbaugh had said something insensitive. He had read the quote somewhere and was angry about it. Unfortunately, the writer of the story convenently left out the entire context of the conversation and that he was being sarcastic. I told my left-of-friend to read the entire transcript. To his credit he did, and his frustration went immediately tipped toward the writer of the article that misquoted and misrepresented Limbaugh.

Rush is just a pompous windbag. Why doesn't anyone talk about when he was using his housekeeper to score him prescription drugs illegally?

I would be willing to bet that listening to the audio would reveal this was all tongue-in-cheek.

Of course it was tongue in cheek.

Anyone who reads this and takes it seriously will find that the joke is on them. That anyone would even present it as being serious IS Rush's larger joke as HeyHey correctly notes.

Why doesn't anyone talk about when he was using his housekeeper to score him prescription drugs illegally?

Because it is irrelevant. He is not running for any office. Nor does he offer opinions about his personal life that may be contradictory to the reality.

Instead, he offers opinions about our government and its relationship to our personal liberty.

Lets say that, instead of politcal opinion, he offered math opinion and he said that, in his opinion, 1 + 1 equals 2.

Would you call in question his opinion because he does drugs?

I would agree that Limbaugh does intend to be tongue in cheek at times. The problem is that millions of his own listeners miss that aspect of it and take it literally. Just like Howard Stern's listeners. All you have to do is listen to the callers that they both get to understand that subtlety, irony and satire have no place on the radio.

P.S. Rush a thrice-divorced, college dropout and recovering drug addict who dates someone 26 years younger than himself. How's that for family values?

"...electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy..."

Holy Toledo! What a ludicrous remark! If Limbaugh would come to NW Ohio and meet with layed off/unemployed people, the homeless panhandlers on the streets, the high amount of foreclosures, the deficit of state, county, and city finances, it might reveal to him the reality life in the midwest and show how the local economy has already been hurt during the 7+ years of the Bush administration.

Sometimes I wonder if the National Republican Party has greased his palm so he would magnify partisan ideals and tenets on his radio program.

flinty, can you provide some backup to your claim that the local economy is a) bad and b) assuming that it is bad, how that is related to the Bush administration?

Before you start rolling out the economic figures, for the sake of background please provide with each figure the number of times that condition has occured in the last 100 years.

For instance, take declines in the Dow. The last time we had a decline in the Dow > 5% but less than 10% was 4 months ago. Declines in that range have occured 360 times since 1900. That is 3.3 times per year. So that would be really hard to correlate with political policy wouldn't it?

Now let's take the worst Dow decline during the Bush administration. That happened in March of 2002 and it was greater than 20%. That kind of decline has happened 31 times since 1900. That is once every 3.5 years or, in other words, once per presidential term. That's not going to work real well for correlation to presidents is it?

So, the stock markets don't tell us anything. Maybe your numbers will. What are they?

"... come to NW Ohio and meet with layed off/unemployed people, the homeless panhandlers on the streets, the high amount of foreclosures, the deficit of state, county, and city finances ..."

flinty, which party has controlled Toledo and Lucas County politics for so many years? Blame the local economy on the local officials.

Babbleman I take your a Rush fan. And by the way this government for the past couple years has been taking away our personal liberties.

...this government for the past couple years has been taking away our personal liberties.

How so? Which liberties were taken away?

Blame the local economy on the local officials

How different are the local, state, and national economies? Are you saying the national economy has no effect on the local? To what extent?

How so? Which liberties were taken away?

Fourth Amendment?

Lucas County was a one-party game before I was even born-and I'm in my sixties. Democrats and democrat lites like Ludeman have been driving it into the ground since the 80s.
And, of course, as always, it veers over to the ten thousandth "I hate Bush" thread. Let's stick to Limbaugh-that was the initial subject of the thread.

The more accurate question is which right hasn't been abridged by the neocons,, he said as software scanned his words for keywords that may or may not promt human review.

The world economy is being destroyed by the bush greed machine. Millions have been issued a death sentence because he hasn't funded ESC research. Millions will die because he has withheld infomation, censored the nations scientists, silenced their voices, audited their speeches, changed the findings of their work. Just on global warming, the delays he has caused could easily cost the world trillions in dealing with warming issues.

Revoked every right you have under the constitution, at the govt's whim, all of them.

And rush is one of his talking lying turds.

Well, the right to use spell-check seems to have been gotten rid of.

Two words: Patriot Act.

Thanks, HT - the Patriot Act. So, no matter how much cynicism or conspiracy theory you want to inject, the purpose of the Patriot Act is to search and destroy enemy elements operating within our borders. Given the nature of the modern threat of terrorism, policies aimed at domestic anti-terrorism will inevitably look like the Patriot Act.

But aside from that, the Patriot Act certainly has the potential to take away liberty. But let's talk reality. Can you name anyone who's liberty has been taken away? If so, how many?

Now let's just take 1 policy from the other side of the political fence and see how they compare.

Over half of all government spending is on social programs (about 13% of our combined productivity). That means that one group is forced to pay for the programs and another group gets to use the program. This means that the half that pay are being forced to work for someone else. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with giving to someone else. But the people that are paying are not giving. They are compelled to pay at gunpoint. They are coerced to work for someone else.

This is just one reduction in liberty from the other side of the political fence (and there are many, many others) that I will contrast with the Patriot Act. So do I know of anyone whose liberty is taken by this policy? Yes, I do. There are 135 million taxpayers in this country - and every single day, under the threat of force - they are told who they have to work for and how much.

You, know, the Patriot Act and wiretapping argument always kills me. Those who make the argument subscribe to a politcal philosophy in which every single policy specifically involves the removal of liberty. Then, when there is one challenge to liberty from the other side - even when it is to maintain sovereignty and protect our way of life - all of a sudden the left is all about liberty. Overnight, the left are suddenly big champions of liberty.

What a joke. What a sick joke.

Over half of all government spending is on social programs (about 13% of our combined productivity). That means that one group is forced to pay for the programs and another group gets to use the program

Which amendments do Medicare, Medicaid, and/or Social Security violate? Better yet, you imply because of these programs it's OK in your book to violate the 4th amendment?

I know of one, and the press has shown many that nobody wants to remember. There was one who asked the govt if the thawed permafrost along the alaska pipeline had inhibited efforts to inspect the pipeline, and contributed to the large large large leak of crude oil from that pipeline. He was called on the phone by the govt, and soon after his house was rummaged through by the feds and the local cops. They duped his computer and ransaked the place. Seems we've gone from having 170 days of frozen permafrost that the inspection and repair trucks drive on , to only about 50 days. He has no criminal record. Go ahead babbleman, ask the wrong question, even if your allegations are right. You see, he was standing in the face of bush's climate change denial, a little play he puts on to benefit his coal and oil buddies. You dare not defy that. Then talk to those EPA scientists who aren't allowed to publish the truth of their hard work, because if flies in the face of burning more coal and carbon injection and the urgent need to stop poisoning the American people with a thousand chemicals known to kill them. Homeland security is a sick joke, I agree on that. How can you have "homeland security" when you let millions of illegal aliens cross the southern borders every year? You can't, homeland security is designed to spy on Americans, its a political tool more than a military or intelligence tool. Contract companies handle much of the information. So better stop calling those 900 numbers. :-)

George Orwell couldn't have written a more accurate real life play of his works.

Which amendments do Medicare, Medicaid, and/or Social Security violate?

He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.

Security, well the only way to do that is to seal our borders. Neither party wants to do that.

Economy, well you can't fix that by spending billions on social programs. You can't even fix that by spening billions on a war. The only way to fix that is for the government to spend less.

Economy...The only way to fix that is for the government to spend less.

Exactly, mike.

While taxation and spending aren't directly linked, I think one way to direct citizen attention on spending is to concentrate all federal taxes into one tax and switch the base from income to consumption.

That way:

1. People have better visibility of what they are paying (no more embedded taxes like corporate tax).

2. Paying taxes is voluntary in that you can choose to consume less.

3. The government would no longer know what citizens make so they can't use that information to divide the population for political gain. (I assume that prime and pink would be big on this item since they are now big defenders of liberty).

4. Citizens are incentivized to save.

5. The attractiveness of investing in American business would skyrocket because corporate taxes go away.