Rush Limbaugh: Obama Looks 'Demonic' In Recent Photos
"Rush Limbaugh said Monday that President Obama has "switched from Messiah to demon."
The radio host said the president looked "demonic" in photos that were taken over the weekend and that appeared on the Drudge Report Monday.
"These pictures, they look demonic," Limbaugh said of the Obama photos. "And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released....It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this."
I mean, I feel like I'm watching The Omen: 666 and all that," he would say later. "This is weird, weird, weird stuff."
First of all, note that Limbaugh doesn't have the balls to own what he said in less than one sentence. First he says "...I don't say this lightly."
Then the coward says in the very next sentence: "I'm not saying anything here."
Then he references the Omen after implying that our first bi-racial American president looks like the devil. IOW, he's EVIL, to be dehumanized, hated, and rejected--in any way possible. Afterall, shouldn't good Christians get rid of the demonic in any way possible?
This is Limbaugh's message to his followers.
This is the titular leader of the GOP, and this is what he hammers into the empty skulls of his listeners.
Limbaugh has looked at the facial expressions of Mr. Obama giving speeches and decided they are demonic.
This is where we are as a country, and these are the sort of racist demagogues who get to influence the weak-minded and the bigots.
I have oftern wondered how long it would take before the Limbaughs of the GOP finally used the language of the Nazis: Remember it was the Nazis who demonized the Jews through their relentless propaganda.
How is what Limbaugh is saying any different? Someone--anyone--answer that question.
47 comments:
As a religious leader I can dogmatically say that Rush Limbaugh is a lardass.
I'm not saying anything here but I think the fattest cannibals ate their young males out of sexual jealousy.
I'm not saying Rush is sexually jealous of young males just because he can't see his penis. Or that he eats young males. But the coincidences between his humongous waistline and that of cannibals that eat young males is cause for thought. And you never see young males leave Rush's kitchen.
Hmmmm...
I'm not really saying this, but Limbaugh is a jerk-off.
Let me just say plain and simple... Limpy, Beck, Palin, Angle, Buck, Paul, Hannity, O'Donnell, and their ilk ARE of Satan....just sayin'
"I'm not saying anything here," but people who listen to Limbaugh are bigger asses than he is.
And I don't say that lightly.
Rush is starting to remind me of the Church Lady with his obsession with ... I don't knoww.... Satan!
"How is what Limbaugh is saying any different? Someone--anyone--answer that question.
Ok, I'll try.
first of all, limbaugh did not take those pictures. a photographer did. thus the first question I'd ask myself is whether the photographer took those pictures so as to create the impression that limbaugh got?
that possibility cannot be dismissed.
second of all, what a picture of a person may imply is not necessarily what a person is. since any implication is an assertion of the person who reveals the implication then it is up to that person to prove the implication as being the intent of the other person.
thirdly, the only thing that an accusation based upon an implication reveals is the contempt that the accuser has for the person being accused.
fourth, a person should first determine whether or not the implication they got from what another person says is the intent of that person before making the accusation for the sake of self-respect. and the only way to do that is by asking the person themselves.
in other words there is a big difference in what a person actually"is" as your readers have declared limbaugh "is" as opposed to what a picture of a person as taken by a photographer implies.
in conclusion, if limbaugh's character is revealed by the unsupported implication of Obama then so is yours by your unsupported implication of limbaugh in this particular instance.
both only indicate partisan political views in my opinion.
Dear "The Griper,"
You're over-analyzing what is first-grade simple:
Rush Limbaugh said that Obama has "...switched from Messiah to demon," that the president looked "demonic," that "An American president has never had facial exprssions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expression like this," AND "I feel like I'm watching The Omen: 666 and all that."
Any honest person would have no trouble in hearing or reading those words and understanding that Rush Limbaugh is demonizing the president, that he is comparing the president to Satan.
That he was interpreting a photo is merely a jumping off point for Limbaugh to inject his relentless calumny and hate-mongering of this man.
How anyone can defend some radio-hate jock who compares the American president to the Devil is depressing and symptomatic of the times we live in.
BTW, Limbaugh, being educationally deficient, apparently has never seen photos of Richard M. Nixon, who very often was captured on film with "facial expressions like this."
Any man, including Jesus Christ, if he lived in these times, could be captured on film looking angry.
But Limbaugh being the destructive radio hate-jockey that he is, decided that this was a perfect opportunity to get his listeners honked up on the idea that Mr. Obama is the Devil.
Limbaugh has his place in history sewn up as a disgusting and divisive demagogue. Right up there with Father Coughlin and Goebbels.
Logic 101 (continued)
...second of all, what a picture of a person may imply is not necessarily what a person is...
Ya think?
Limbaugh is a celebrity radio host. And the bottom line for him is ratings. and those ratings are driven by the controversial statements he makes. he is also smart enough to cover himself when he recognizes that negative implications can be found in his statements.
that is his intent. he has declared that many times.
so, by buying into the implication that you did you have helped drive up the number of visits to his web page thus making him appear to be more popular than he actually is and having more followers than he actually has which is exactly his intent.
that is a simple fact that you ask for.
Sean Hannity said the political atmosphere would get uglier the closer we got to election day, I guess he was right! (Not an exact quote because I only listen to him with half an ear just to see what he’s ranting about—he gets on my nerves.)
Limbaugh contradicted himself. First he said, “And I don't say this lightly." And then, "… I'm not saying anything ..."
So which is it? Is he serious or not saying anything?
Then he proceeds to go on and on about how we’ve “never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this.”-- Well, maybe that’s because no one ever caught them on film!
I also don’t like how he said "It’s strange these pictures would be released." Why? You all know I’m not a huge fan of Obama’s, but he’s photogenic, although these photos certainly aren’t flattering. What’s the big deal he took bad pictures? That doesn’t make them or him demonic. Rush is trying to project something, like Shaw suggested, EVIL, onto Obama by suggesting it. Oh LOOK at his picture! He's EEEEVILLL!! **rolls eyes** It's ridiculous! But what's scary is some people WILL believe it!
P.S.If Limbaugh wants to see demonic—I can show him quite a few photos of myself where my eyes are glowing RED!
I am glad to know that Rush can now analyze facial expressions from photos and deduce from his analysis that someone is "demonic."
Yes, ratings are important to Rush....and of course everyone who listens to him understand that he is just an entertainer....which is why he gets the opportunity to entertain at such functions like CPAC...
Its his entertainment value that they respect him for.
Of course that does not explain why his fan base are called "Dittoheads"
Griper, you are mincing words here.
There can be no doubt that the contempt Mr. Limbaugh has for President Obama has gone over the line.
But here's is what startles me even more when we consider this.
Where are my Christian brothers and sisters who should be outraged at Mr. Limbaugh for not being more Christlike in his treatment of President Obama?
People that go every week to church are cheering a man who is openly contemptuous of his fellow man. How is that showing love?
Not to get off subject folks, but it appears that Sleuth has finally got a blog up and running.
Sleuth's blog
Well, Limbaugh is intimately acquainted with Satan...
You can always tell what a right-winger is by what he or she accuses someone else of being.
Actually I kind of wish Obama was Satan. It would be pretty cool seeing what would have happened to all those obstructionist Republicans in Congress by now.
Making a fuss about Obama's appearance shows real chutzpah, coming from a man who looks like a giant mutant bullfrog.
Every time Limbaugh opens his maw and little flying piglet dies.
Griper: first of all, limbaugh did not take those pictures.
But Limbaugh spoke the words … (you do know the difference, don’t you?)
Griper: a person should first determine whether or not the implication they got from what another person says is the intent of that person before making the accusation for the sake of self-respect. and the only way to do that is by asking the person themselves.
Tell you what! Why don’t you ask Limbuagh yourself and get back to us with his definitive answer.
Griper, did anyone ever talk to you about your lousy composition errors? And how annoying you are when you litter the room with pretzel crumbs? Now, pick up your litter and don’t slam the door on your way out.
guess they ran all out of Bruce Willis signs from "Die Hard III" or raccoon outfits. Nobody but nobody is that damn stupid. Black folk are just gonna let it slide. Republicans want us to go buckwylde. Two more weeks, I'll be glad when it's over. Then we'll have to worry about what the Republicans have planned in 2012.
Any party that would promote an idiot, know-nothing like O'Donnell has to be rejected.
What is wrong with these people?
Why do they align themselves with morons?
Oh wait...they admire them.
See Sarah Palin.
It's amusing watching right wingers bemoan poor Juan Williams denied his 'right to free speech'. Wasn't on view when Helen Thomas got the axe. Of course Helen isny the nitwit Williams is. I was amazed to read the transcript where Juan is nervous flying wirh peopke in 'Muslim garb'...
Idiot.
NPR is off to a good start. Cokie should be next.
Careful Silverfiddle.
You're going to throw out your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
Sigh.
The endless misdirection of one Silverfiddle continues.
".. Meanwhile, your friend GreenBird let loose a sickening racist rant against Juan Williams."
Not addressed to any one poster the 'your friend' can only refer to those who post hereabouts. Like the guy quoted this crowd resides mainly on the left side of the political spectrum. Now I still haven't visited each and every blog on the internets so I've yet to actually make the acquaintance of one "GreenBird" (sic) so I was unaware of his alleged crimes against humanity.
No matter.
To the yellow guy in the brown hat the fact that he views those in this thread as similar in outlook to Greeneagle is enough to convict despite the fact that it's likely very few of us actually know who the other blogger actually is. Nor likely even to care.
Sorry Silverfidle.
Wishing won't make it so.
You just left a comment at Green Eagle's blog lamenting political correctness then you bash G.E. for using a politically incorrect term Silverfiddle.
Make your mind up man. Justice Clarence Thomas won't have fellow righties playing both sides of the fence when it comes to racially offensive stereotyping and adjectives.
Dave,
"People that go every week to church are cheering a man who is openly contemptuous of his fellow man. How is that showing love?"
he smiles. good question. you might first ask your fellow men in here the same question. where is the love you seek shown to limbaugh?
Dear The Griper,
Are you serious? LOL!
I've read Limbaugh's grindingly racist comments since BEFORE our first bi-racial president took the oath of office. Limbaugh has been relentless in his slander of our American president. And now you ask us, when we are righteously angry at his divisive words, to show him love?
I remember the days and weeks after the 9/11 catastrophe; I remember how we Americans all came together, supported each other and President Bush--all of us REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION.
The recent catastrophic financial disaster that hit this country is no less damaging, IMHO, and yet the GOP has done nothing but keep Americans at each other's throats with suspicions, anger, hatred, and bile.
Perhaps if the opposition had shown some willingness to work with Mr. Obama, we could have accomplished a swifter recovery.
Even now, the obstructionist GOP is still holding up judicial appointments, almost two years into the Obama administration.
And now I read that we must show love to one of the worst of the worst who has made a living off of hatred and lies and who continues to damage our country?
How about showing some love to the man who was elected by a substantial number of Americans to represent and lead this country? That would be a positive thing.
Show love to a man who makes millions of dollars through slander and promoting hatred of Mr. Obama?
Shaw, the Griper is baiting and taunting you, has NOTHING worthwhile to say, and is just wasting your time.
Griper, you might pose an interesting question but for the fact that the GOP, and Rush, continually claim to speak for God.
Right or wrong, few on the political left are claiming the mantle of CHristianity in their politics.
It is incumbent on those that do so, and this includes those bloggers who claim to be God honoring, t act in a way consistent with their faith.
WHile the GOP and conservatives lament the separation of church and state, their actions speak to their practical inability to live that our, as witnesses by Rush and his many "Christlike" followers.
It's bad enough when The Griper refers to himself ( 'he smiles') in the third person. But fishing for compliments ('good question') in his own post is too much.
The horror. The horror.
Dave, about those who lament the separation of church and state, what they fail to understand is that the anti-establishment clause actually guarantees freedom of worship. If one denomination is more privileged than another, eventually other denominations suffer oppression.
Terry Randall, case in point, has been clear in his stated goal: To establish his denomination as the national religion with threats of "convert or die."
Randall may be a nutcase but a dangerous one because there are dozens of denominations with the same stated goal.
And the reason why we find Limbaugh so offensive is that he expresses the same mentality in his politics. Either you belong to his tribe, or you are demonized.
These kinds of polarizing polemics are dangerous on another level: There are always cranks willing to act on impulse ... witness the crank who was arrested for threatening the Tides group, the lone assassins who murder abortion doctors, the man who killed worshippers in a Tennessee Unitarian Church (because they were considered 'liberal'), or the man who killed a guard at the Holocaust Museum.
Remarkably, Beck and Limbaugh always hide behind clown masks while refusing to acknowledge the impact of their hate rhetoric.
What Shaw said!
BTW, Limbaugh does not make controversial statements. He spews vile and repellent swill that exploits his audience's basest instincts. If that's entertainment, we've come a long way down since Chaplin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htw7shWR3oU&feature=youtu.be
shaw,
both sides speak contemptuously of the ideology of the other side. and both sides will demean those they feel are the leaders of that side, some thru implication and others by assertions.and some will use the actions or words of the few to demean the whole side.
its as if neither side feel that they can win the hearts of the people by sticking to the issues.
and it isn't only the celebrities that are doing it anymore. the common people are getting into the act too.
and it is deplorable in my mind. for while they do it it is obvious that the truth isn't being sought for the problems we face as a nation. they are too busy looking for ways to put each other down.
he just laughs at arthurstone's remarks of him without comment.
Dave,
the last Preacher I spoke with declared that Christian love was meant to be for all regardless and without any buts in the giving and showing of it.
The "both sides do it" argument is either an excuse for cheap cynicism or an intentionally blindered perspective to justify putting Republicans in power.
The modern political polarization of the country began with the Bush I campaign of 1998, a campaign so ruthlessly savage that manager Lee Atwater apologized for it on his deathbed. It was in this campaign that conservatives demonized the honestly held philosophy of millions of Americans by referring to it as "the L word."
Newt Gingrich picked up the baton in the early 90s, and even wrote memos to fellow Republicans instructing them to describe Democrats using words like "sick" and "traitorous." He went so far as to blame child murderer Susan Smith's crimes on liberalism.
Gingrich's cohorts in the right-wing media all but declared that Hillary Clinton had murdered her best friend. They led two witch-hunts against Bill Clinton, the first over allegations that the Arkansas media had investigated and dismissed ten years earlier. The other, of course, was the impeachment of the President of the United States over the kind of sexual peccadillo that any number of Republicans had engaged in.
Do I need to go on? Swift boating, cut-and-run Democrats, the raft of books portraying liberals and Barack Obama as treasonous subhumans out to destroy America, the depredations of the right-wing media, and -- of course -- the vile racist mobs of teabaggers. And I haven't even mentioned Limbaugh. Beck, O' Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Ingram et al.
If you want to support this bunch, go ahead. But be honest with yourself about what you're supporting.
K,
thank you for proving me right. i appreciate it. i need say no more
Griper gets a history lesson that he can't respond to (because there is no response), so his comeback amounts to "I'm made of rubber, you're made of glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
I firmly believe it's possible to 'love' someone (in the Christian sense) and still find them a despicable human being.
Why not?
Arthurstone nods at the wisdom of his remark. Then he smiles...knowingly. His thoughts then return to a simpler time. A time before the internets. A time when we all were spared the most banal of thoughts which, in this day and age, are shared immediately upon their entering the noodles of posters everywhere.
Then he frowns. Then he smiles again. He has proved himself right once more. Again. And again. The greater truths reveal themselves once more.
He grins.
Suddenly he frowns. He grimaces.
Lunch isn't setting well for him. He regrets the peppers he ate.
And so it goes...
He again has to laugh at Arthur's statement. Wonder if Dave would consider your belief as an assertion of wisdom?
As some observers in this forum have astutely recognized, such as Monsieur K above, the Griper has descended into the de rigueur of sandbox logic which begins with: “You started it first.” How childish, how churlish, how boring and stupid!
What I object to most is skirting the edge of ridicule on fellow commenters, such as :
The Griper - he just laughs at arthurstone's remarks of him without comment
And arrogant, self congratulatory bullshit like this …
Griper - K, thank you for proving me right.
Griper, if you pull crap like this again, you will be deleted on sight.
Post a Comment