Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
 Disagreeing with you on this particular point =/= defending Rush Limbaugh to the death.
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. |
The clarity is in his history.
The clarity is what he has said in his past makes one looking at his present statement and calling what he said suspect.
His past statements, actions and POVs, which is so abundantly clear is the reason why you should look past the makeup applied to the face of his statements.
Scroll back a few and look for some quotes by him, I left earlier.
Hybrid Mode
