Rush Limbaugh defends Somali pirates

[Scam of God]

"I just imagine the hue and cry had a white Republican President ordered the shooting of black teenagers." - Link

Conservatives, protecting pirates first and Americans last.

[Scam of God]

The pirates didn't kill anyone, so the killing of them was clearly excessive force.

Are you joking? Please tell me that you're joking. Please tell me that you don't see the holding of an American citizen at gunpoint as something other than justifiable cause.

[Scam of God]

The pirates didn't kill anyone, so the killing of them was clearly excessive force.

Are you joking? Please tell me that you're joking. Please tell me that you don't see the holding of an American citizen at gunpoint as something other than justifiable cause.

Somehow, I suspect that the American taxpayers payed more for that rescue operation than the ship would have had to pay to the pirates. While piracy is certainly detestable, and should be punished, it seems that the ship takes that risk when it goes in those seas. It would be better to allow American ships to carry guns. Additionally, since those pirates were killed, I will bet that future irates will be less hesitant to take American lives.

I'm not disputing that private shipping companies need to bear the costs of defending their shipments; it is not the government's job to hold their hand. Nevertheless, in a situation where the life of an American citizen is directly threatened - and by this I do not mean some Republicanesque conspiracy theory, but a situation where a life hangs definitely in the balance - then it becomes the government's job to act if no other way to rescue the citizen is available.

[Scam of God]

lol @ at Einzige linking to the Keith Olbermann site.  Rush Limbaugh's idiocy is a foregone conclusion, but using Olbermann's idiocy to evidence Limbaugh's seems like overkill.  It's "idiocy within idiocy".  Do they somehow cancel each other out? 

Despite your attempt to justify yourself with a fallacy of equivocation, it won't work: Olbermann is significantly more intelligent - and vastly more rational - than Limbaugh. You make the same mistake that moderates do in presuming the 'truth is somewhere in the middle'.

[Scam of God]

lol @ at Einzige linking to the Keith Olbermann site.  Rush Limbaugh's idiocy is a foregone conclusion, but using Olbermann's idiocy to evidence Limbaugh's seems like overkill.  It's "idiocy within idiocy".  Do they somehow cancel each other out? 

Despite your attempt to justify yourself with a fallacy of equivocation, it won't work: Olbermann is significantly more intelligent - and vastly more rational - than Limbaugh. You make the same mistake that moderates do in presuming the 'truth is somewhere in the middle'.

The whole thread is a false premise.

You think that Limbaugh meant it 'as a joke'? Then f**king prove it. Otherwise shut your goddamned trap. He went on for ten minutes expanding on this statement. I'm tired of you assholes getting away with calling every faux pas a 'joke'.

[Scam of God]

lol @ at Einzige linking to the Keith Olbermann site.  Rush Limbaugh's idiocy is a foregone conclusion, but using Olbermann's idiocy to evidence Limbaugh's seems like overkill.  It's "idiocy within idiocy".  Do they somehow cancel each other out? 

Despite your attempt to justify yourself with a fallacy of equivocation, it won't work: Olbermann is significantly more intelligent - and vastly more rational - than Limbaugh. You make the same mistake that moderates do in presuming the 'truth is somewhere in the middle'.

I can't take your word for it regarding his intelligence.  Of all the times I've caught his show, I've never seen him challenged by someone with an opposing viewpoint.  He presents his show as if it were a "news" program, where he gives (his take on) a story, then throws it to some commentator in the little window (usually from some reputable masthead like The Nation, who will basically nod his head in agreement for four minutes.  Heck, even Hannity will debate the issues.  So, the fact that his show isn't much less than a Kool-Aid hour leads me to believe he probably isn't too intelligent.

And? I never said that he wasn't biased, dickweed. Simply that he presented his views in a logical, thought-out manner; that is, he put more than three minutes into reading his talking points memo before he went on-air, as Limbaugh seems wont to do. If you're going to criticize one of my posts, might I suggest that you actually bother to read it first?  

[Scam of God]

lol @ at Einzige linking to the Keith Olbermann site.  Rush Limbaugh's idiocy is a foregone conclusion, but using Olbermann's idiocy to evidence Limbaugh's seems like overkill.  It's "idiocy within idiocy".  Do they somehow cancel each other out? 

Despite your attempt to justify yourself with a fallacy of equivocation, it won't work: Olbermann is significantly more intelligent - and vastly more rational - than Limbaugh. You make the same mistake that moderates do in presuming the 'truth is somewhere in the middle'.

The whole thread is a false premise.

You think that Limbaugh meant it 'as a joke'? Then f**king prove it. Otherwise shut your goddamned trap. He went on for ten minutes expanding on this statement. I'm tired of you assholes getting away with calling every faux pas a 'joke'.

Considering I listened to that days show, I can 100% confirm that he said it as a joke, right at the end of a segment.... I know I can't ever satisfy you to that point, but myself and anyone else who has common sense knows that he was saying it as a joke.

So post a link to the full show and let us decide for ourselves. He tried to justify the statement immediately after making it, which certainly killed any potential for humor it might have had - and which indicates to me he didn't intend for it to be humorous.

[Scam of God]

lol @ at Einzige linking to the Keith Olbermann site.  Rush Limbaugh's idiocy is a foregone conclusion, but using Olbermann's idiocy to evidence Limbaugh's seems like overkill.  It's "idiocy within idiocy".  Do they somehow cancel each other out? 

Despite your attempt to justify yourself with a fallacy of equivocation, it won't work: Olbermann is significantly more intelligent - and vastly more rational - than Limbaugh. You make the same mistake that moderates do in presuming the 'truth is somewhere in the middle'.

I can't take your word for it regarding his intelligence.  Of all the times I've caught his show, I've never seen him challenged by someone with an opposing viewpoint.  He presents his show as if it were a "news" program, where he gives (his take on) a story, then throws it to some commentator in the little window (usually from some reputable masthead like The Nation, who will basically nod his head in agreement for four minutes.  Heck, even Hannity will debate the issues.  So, the fact that his show isn't much less than a Kool-Aid hour leads me to believe he probably isn't too intelligent.

And? I never said that he wasn't biased, dickweed. Simply that he presented his views in a logical, thought-out manner; that is, he put more than three minutes into reading his talking points memo before he went on-air, as Limbaugh seems wont to do. If you're going to criticize one of my posts, might I suggest that you actually bother to read it first?  

Yes, I read your post, but you obviously gave up on reading mine.  Your mentioned his intelligence, and I countered it with a sentence contained IN THE POST YOU JUST QUOTED.

Are you on government disability for your obvious mental retardation? If not, you ought to apply for it; they'd probably give you the entire budget, lock, stock, and barrel. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stop being an absurd ostrich. (word to Opebo)[/quote]

Did I deny that he's biased, you cocksucking ingrate?

No, I didn't. I readily admit that Olbermann is biased, and is not an actual reporter. That said, he is far more articulate than Limbaugh, which is most certainly a sign of intelligence (most conservative commentators, on the other hand, being capable of little more than grunting and scratching at their extremities in response to a challenge).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I not just say that he was?