So Limbaugh is irrelevant? Hmmm.

He incited people to riot at the Democratic Convention in Denver.

That's where the criminal element comes in.

Try to keep up.

 

Interesting to note that when Rush calls for demonstrations in Denver, it's thought of as some sort of charming prank.

When Al Sharpton organizes civil disobedience in New York, he's a terrorist.

 

Re: Limbaugh, Sharpton.

Both are loudmouths. Neither espouses ideas I would call "terrorism."

What were Limbaugh's exact words in "inciting to riot" anyway? I honestly don't know.

 

It's no different than street bosses in Philly getting paid to "get out the vote." And it's not like Washington is squeaky-clean in the political machine circles.
If you believe that, I've got some swamp land....

Oh, and do some deep investigative stuff on this site and you'll find plenty of people who refer to Limbaugh as irrelevant.

 

"Demonstrations" and "civil disobedience" are two different types of behavior.

 

Limbaugh said Hillary was done after Iowa. And, he will be right.

 

Please describe that difference.

 

Tawana Brawley says Al Sharpton is irrelevant.

 

A demonstration can be a peaceful, orderly, non-violent collective statement or protest that doesn't break the law. Civil disobedience is generally against the law.

 

When I hear the word "demonstration," I think "loud protest done for maximum effect, with a large group espousing their views in a public place."

When I hear "civil disobedience," I think "people refusing to pay taxes or give up their seat on the bus."

 

When I hear "refusing to pay taxes," I think "Patriots" and not the New England kind.

 

Rush can say whatever he wants. I just don't understand why he has as loyal a following as he does.
I've always thought most people could spot a phony (and it's been pretty well documented over the years that he is a phony in more ways than one).
Maybe I'm a little too optimistic about human nature.