Cigar
01-17-2014, 08:06 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65224/large/rl.jpg?1389791171
On Monday's program, right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh finally admitted what the rest of us have suspected for a long time.
He is utterly and completely full of shit (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/how-rush-limbaugh-decides-what-is-true/283078/). In a segment about (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/01/13/why_conservatives_won_t_defend_christie_the_way_we _defended_clarence_thomas) Chris Christie's innocence or lack thereof in the bridge scandal, Limbaugh explained to listeners how he simultaneously swore off critical thinking and figured out Clarence Thomas was innocent of sexual harassment prior to the conservative Supreme Court Justice's confirmation:
I began the biggest, full-throated defense of Clarence Thomas that there was, and I didn't know him. I'd never met him. I had to read and find out who he was and, you know, about his life, the things he'd done, where he'd worked, gone to school.
Yet I didn't feel I was taking a risk at all in a full-throated, never-ending, full-fledged not only defense of Clarence Thomas, but an attack, a returned attack on Anita Hill and the Democrats. Now, how was I able to do this with such confidence, not having met the man, not having known the man? I don't do things for show here. I don't do things to get noticed here.
The reason that I -- and I have been fully vindicated, by the way -- was able to defend Clarence Thomas with total confidence against this, is I knew he didn't do it.
I knew he didn't do it, and I didn't know him. But I learned about his character. I learned about his family. He was conservative. He was courageous. He was a conservative African-American. You learned that they had tried to destroy him at Yale 'cause he didn't get in with affirmative action. He betrayed them. He betrayed the civil rights coalitions because he climbed the ladder without them, showing that it could be done.
What was it that made me do this? I didn't think I was risking anything. I really didn't. If I'd had the slightest doubt of his innocence, I woulda never opened my mouth. If I thought that there was just a tiny thread of possibility that what Anita Hill was saying and what the Democrat witnesses were saying was true, I woulda stayed silent. But I didn't. I went to the equivalent of the mountaintops and started shouting. Now, why? Character, conservatism, and my knowledge of the left.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65285/small/b.gif?1389810853
Cliff's Notes Version:
Rush Limbaugh declared Clarence Thomas's innocence not because he actually knew Thomas was innocent but because Thomas was a conservative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65223/large/ct.jpg?1389790838
Oh, and the fact that his accuser was a woman may have had a little something to do with it as well. Limbaugh's disdain for women (http://www.google.com/search?q=limbaugh+women) is remarkably well documented thanks to his habit of recording his sexist opinions and broadcasting them on 600 radio stations.
Anita Hill's account of Thomas's behavior, which included discussions of pornographic films and pubes on Coke cans (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/13/us/thomas-nomination-judge-s-backers-take-up-his-defense-posing-motive-method-for.html) was validated by her passing a polygraph test (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/the-thomas-nomination-hill-said-to-pass-a-polygraph-test.html).
Clarence Thomas refused to take one.
Thomas is just one of a long line of randy Republican buggers (http://www.alternet.org/story/140933/rating_the_greatest_gop_sex_scandals_of_the_past_2 0_years) who have been called out for their sexcapades. And, not surprisingly, pretty much all of them have come up with ludicrous explanations in an attempt to salvage their public images and careers, from Larry Craig's wide stance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801664.html) to Mark Sanford's Appalachian hike (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/where-is-gov-sanford-and-whos-in-charge-of-sc/).
But apparently the ones who fly a Gadsden flag (http://www.gadsden.info/category/tea-party-protests) are incapable of lying.
Rush Limbaugh is not burdened by things like "facts" or "evidence." He will defend anyone he deems worthy of entry into his right wing club--particularly if he detects the heady musk of sexism.
It's not breaking news that Rush Limbaugh is full of crap.
It's just a little unusual to hear him admit it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/15/1269775/-Rush-Limbaugh-Finally-Admits-He-s-Full-of-t?detail=email
On Monday's program, right wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh finally admitted what the rest of us have suspected for a long time.
He is utterly and completely full of shit (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/how-rush-limbaugh-decides-what-is-true/283078/). In a segment about (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/01/13/why_conservatives_won_t_defend_christie_the_way_we _defended_clarence_thomas) Chris Christie's innocence or lack thereof in the bridge scandal, Limbaugh explained to listeners how he simultaneously swore off critical thinking and figured out Clarence Thomas was innocent of sexual harassment prior to the conservative Supreme Court Justice's confirmation:
I began the biggest, full-throated defense of Clarence Thomas that there was, and I didn't know him. I'd never met him. I had to read and find out who he was and, you know, about his life, the things he'd done, where he'd worked, gone to school.
Yet I didn't feel I was taking a risk at all in a full-throated, never-ending, full-fledged not only defense of Clarence Thomas, but an attack, a returned attack on Anita Hill and the Democrats. Now, how was I able to do this with such confidence, not having met the man, not having known the man? I don't do things for show here. I don't do things to get noticed here.
The reason that I -- and I have been fully vindicated, by the way -- was able to defend Clarence Thomas with total confidence against this, is I knew he didn't do it.
I knew he didn't do it, and I didn't know him. But I learned about his character. I learned about his family. He was conservative. He was courageous. He was a conservative African-American. You learned that they had tried to destroy him at Yale 'cause he didn't get in with affirmative action. He betrayed them. He betrayed the civil rights coalitions because he climbed the ladder without them, showing that it could be done.
What was it that made me do this? I didn't think I was risking anything. I really didn't. If I'd had the slightest doubt of his innocence, I woulda never opened my mouth. If I thought that there was just a tiny thread of possibility that what Anita Hill was saying and what the Democrat witnesses were saying was true, I woulda stayed silent. But I didn't. I went to the equivalent of the mountaintops and started shouting. Now, why? Character, conservatism, and my knowledge of the left.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65285/small/b.gif?1389810853
Cliff's Notes Version:
Rush Limbaugh declared Clarence Thomas's innocence not because he actually knew Thomas was innocent but because Thomas was a conservative.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/65223/large/ct.jpg?1389790838
Oh, and the fact that his accuser was a woman may have had a little something to do with it as well. Limbaugh's disdain for women (http://www.google.com/search?q=limbaugh+women) is remarkably well documented thanks to his habit of recording his sexist opinions and broadcasting them on 600 radio stations.
Anita Hill's account of Thomas's behavior, which included discussions of pornographic films and pubes on Coke cans (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/13/us/thomas-nomination-judge-s-backers-take-up-his-defense-posing-motive-method-for.html) was validated by her passing a polygraph test (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/14/us/the-thomas-nomination-hill-said-to-pass-a-polygraph-test.html).
Clarence Thomas refused to take one.
Thomas is just one of a long line of randy Republican buggers (http://www.alternet.org/story/140933/rating_the_greatest_gop_sex_scandals_of_the_past_2 0_years) who have been called out for their sexcapades. And, not surprisingly, pretty much all of them have come up with ludicrous explanations in an attempt to salvage their public images and careers, from Larry Craig's wide stance (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801664.html) to Mark Sanford's Appalachian hike (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/06/where-is-gov-sanford-and-whos-in-charge-of-sc/).
But apparently the ones who fly a Gadsden flag (http://www.gadsden.info/category/tea-party-protests) are incapable of lying.
Rush Limbaugh is not burdened by things like "facts" or "evidence." He will defend anyone he deems worthy of entry into his right wing club--particularly if he detects the heady musk of sexism.
It's not breaking news that Rush Limbaugh is full of crap.
It's just a little unusual to hear him admit it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/15/1269775/-Rush-Limbaugh-Finally-Admits-He-s-Full-of-t?detail=email