Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid
Some of you would defend him to the death hmm?
|
Disagreeing with you on this particular point =/= defending Rush Limbaugh to the death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaemonSeid
What I think some of you are doing and I understand it, in your attempts to clarify and explain his words, is that you are softening what he says.
But I honestly believe that some of you are closing your eyes to what he is really saying underneath his 'noble' disagreement he has with the president.
Some of you simply don't want to believe that that's what he meant.
Some of you want to believe that he is more progressive than what his merits (or demerits) says about him was well meaning in his words.
|
Some are taking what he said at face value, notwithstanding inane, idiotic and hateful things he has said at other times. You are not. I don't think anyone has disagreed that what he said could be viewed the way you understand it. What people have disagreed with is the idea that the statement quoted in your opening post can only be understood the way you understand it.
On its face, the statement indicates only a deep disagreement with Obama's policies, and it is not unreasonable for someone to understand it that way. It requires context to understand it the way you do. You may be right as to what he really thinks, but you cannot support your view just by looking at the four corners of his statement. That's what people have been saying in response to you -- it's not so much defending Rush (something I'd rarely if ever bother to do) as it is looking for clarity from you. You are the one translating -- and you may be translating it quite accurately. But that translation requires context and backing up, because, as already stated, on its face it's an innocuous statement.
Threaded Mode
