If your problem was with Limbaugh to begin with, why didn't you say so? Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh did not sing this song and was probably barely involved in its creation.
But he's adding fuel to the fire by playing it on his show.
Don't defend the guy.
As a frequent listener of Rush's
Why? Did Casey Kasem not send out your Long Distance Dedication or something? Rick Dees play the Disco Duck one time too many? Don Imus was away on sensitivity training?
trust me when I say that most Shanklin parodies are combinations of high concept titles and intentionally bad impersonations.
Yeah, I already pointed out that Shanklin's performance sucked ass.
In this case, Rush probably sent Shanklin the article and told him to make a song out of it. So he got a megaphone, did an Al Sharpton impersonation, and used lines from the article in it.
In other words, he was more than just "barely" involved.
Thanks for oxymoronic argument. :biggrin1:
First of all, the RNC did not endorse or send this out. A candidate for RNC chairman (not the one I support; people who are in charge of losing campaigns have no business running the RNC) sent out the album as part of a gift bag to the people who may be voting for him. This seems like a pretty easy thing to miss.
Thanks for the clarity, I guess.
Perhaps he should have sent out lumps of coal instead?
To be sure, this will hardly impact the career of either individual. Rush still has the most listeners for any radio talk show, and his pushing the envelope and disdain for political correctness is hardly new.
Well, that says a lot to the listener base that Rush has. Let it be known, I love a cleverly thought-out and worded politically incorrect joke. But Rush himself has been involved in comments that not only cross the line, they border on the line of unnecessary slander.
In radio, you're either shocking or boring, which is why liberal talk radio never took off.
They don't need radio. According to all the people on the right, dem libs have all of the news media with pictures. And whoever controls the images controls the culture. :biggrin1:
Also, it seems people have a misconception about the right's opposition to Obama.
The issue is not about "the right". It's an individual issue.
I can honestly say that some conservative people just don't agree with Obama and his policies. That's fine. However, when someone is just duped into believing scare tactics, character smears and slander, that's an entirely different story. I'm sure if I said that I didn't vote for McCain because he's too old and angry, then every conservative would be jumping on my back the same way every liberal jumps on the backs of people who didn't vote for Obama because he was a Extreme black, muslim elitist who plans to share the wealth.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with his skin color.
For some people, it is. Just like some people voted for him just because he is black. Don't assess the entire conservative base on this argument.
We have already displayed the willingness to vote for non-traditional (read: not white male) candidates. Palin was an example for that.
Well, you at least have the "male" part taken care of.
In all likelihood, Michael Steele will be the next RNC chairman. Not that it makes a lick of difference to me, but Bush has had the most diverse cabinet in history. It's more diverse than Obama's has proven to be so far. The Republicans are the party of Lincoln. The Democrats are the party of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and George Wallace.
ROTFLMAO!
Honestly, do you think I'm going to fall for that line of ridiculous bullshit?
If you think today's Republican has any values that are in line with Lincoln, then you're more crazy than I thought. The Republicans were in tune with slavery just as much as Democrats because people of BOTH political affiliations owned slaves pretty equally. When Africans were brought over to this land, they were to work for an owner for several years and then be set free. The North followed this rule, and the South did not. As a result, the Civil War came about. Lincoln "freed the slaves", but I guess none of today's Republicans remembered that any black man that was still "in service" to an owner STILL had to live out the remaining days of their contract. So really, Lincoln didn't free anyone. His maneuver was more of a business related one than of civil liberty. But I guess "freeing the slaves" has a better ring to it, doesn't it? As for the Ku Klux Klan? For every George Wallace, there's a David Duke that we can point at as well. So please, don't shovel me any of the rhetoric.
