Here’s a link of Rush’s friend, ex-NFL player, and self-hating Uncle Tom(?) Ken Hutcherson defending his friend.
Hmmm…a black person who actually knows Rush is defending him while many who only know him through the insults hurled at him from the media call him a racist.
I do not know if Rush is a racist. He does play one on radio though. That is what we have to judge him with. He has been very racist on the air. You can not judge his act like a TV actor because his act influences real world politics. He is getting rich pandering to small minded bigots. He can not escape it.
By the way ,it was not liberals who screwed up his bid. It was being abandoned by the other owners who are conservative.
Wait-a-minute, this black guy “vouches” for Rush? Wow! I’ve been wrong about him.
Rush is not a douche-bag, race-baiting, racist. :rolleyes:
Wow…I stand in awe of you superior wit and intellect. This thread would not have been complete without your brilliant input. :rolleyes:
What Limbaugh has to say on the matter:
I agree with him 110%
I think it’s absolutely despicable that the left uses MCarthy tactics against its enemies.
It doesn’t take superior intellect to call you on your “here’s a black guy who doesn’t hate Rush” shenanigans. Yes, Ken Hutcherson is a black man; yes, he is Rush’s friend; yes Rush is still a douche-bag, race-baiting, racist. Please try again.
I am STILL in awe of you superior reasoning skills. Try again.
You seem to be under the impression that one black man saying that Rush isn’t a racist is somehow compelling. I mean, it might, if there weren’t Rush’s body of work to compare it to, but since we can judge for ourselves based on the things that he’s said, Hutcherson’s opinion is practically irrelevant.
With Michael Steele ,that makes two. But an occasional Uncle Tom does not define the Rush view of blacks. The overwhelming majority know what a bigot he is.
purple monkey dishwasher
You’re really bad at this. The statement matters, your hypotheticals don’t. Context is useful in understanding the statement.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the left used Limbaugh tactics against poor, innocent Rush. Calling one’s opponents racists is one of Limbaugh’s own tactics, and I’ve got no sympathy for the fact that his enemies might merely have been more successful in their efforts than his cronies were in trying to similarly tar Sonia Sotomayor, for example.
And how many of the right wing screamers have called Obama a racist? It’s stunning how hypocritical they are.
There’s a bit of a difference, seeing as the quotes that were used against Limbaugh this week appear to have been fabricated whereas Limbaugh has not being accused of falsely attributing quotes or actions when he assesses these others as race baiters or racists.
That Limbaugh argues about racial topics on his show is hardly news.
At any rate, at heart, I consider your argument to be the weakest of all possible arguments. “He did it, too.” doesn’t work for five year olds.
Whatever guilt you assign, or don’t assign to Limbaugh does little to change the fact that his ownership bid was derailed by accusations of racism based on what looks like fabricated quotations. I think people of all politics should consider this to be wrong, and stand up to defend the one falsely accused.
Bo Snerdley, his program manager makes three “Uncle Toms”
Stephen A. Smith makes four “Uncle Tom’s”
Those black people that work with Rush and know him seem to universally support him and genuinely like him, so I guess they’re all “Uncle Tom’s,” too.
Why the hell does a color of a man’s skin determine whether his opinion of another man carries weight or not?
By the way, I consider the term “Uncle Tom” to be pretty fucking racist as you’ve used it. As if a black man who doesn’t have the “proper opinions” that you think a black man should have is somehow worthy of derogation.
That’s pretty racist, boy. Who do you think you are telling black people how to think, or deriding their opinion based on the color of their skin?
The liberal case against Limbaugh is the same as it was during the McNabb thing. “We know he’s a racist, because we know he’s a racist.” Because of this anything he says is interpreted to support the conclusion, and used as an excuse to demonize, discredit and exclude the man from fair business dealings that there is no valid reason to exclude him from.
It is McCarthyism all over again.
Two of the quotes were fabricated. There were literally dozens of others that were used that were not. And the most pertinent quote (the Donovan McNabb one) was seen by millions live on ESPN.
Missed the edit window: Not to mention that if there’s no smoke to this - if there’s nothing objectionable about Rush - why on Earth would the NFL owners reject him? Is this group of largely conservative Republican billionaires so easily fooled? It would be nice to say that “The Left” had the power to reject Rush as an owner of a NFL team, but none of the things that were brought up had anything to do with why he was nixed - the NFL owners on their own decided that Rush wasn’t worth the trouble or the risk.
He was commenting on the perceived racial attitudes of others, which while controversial is quite different from racism.
Anyway, the owners didn’t “decide by themselves.” That’s a bit disingenuous considering the pressure brought to bear on them through this fiasco. The controversy and the fabricated quotes coerced them.
But if that’s why - why can’t they take it back? “All is forgiven, Rush, we were wrong, we welcome you in!” The reason is because those quotes were but an unnecessary bit of icing on the cake. Take them away, and there’s still literally dozens of other things he’s said that can be sourced, and still make him objectionable, as well as the fact that he’s a controversially political figure that the NFL has decided they want no part of.