Limbaugh: Sharpton is a "race hustler"
October 14, 2009 2:55 pm ET
From the October 14 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
He makes millions and millions of dollars every time there is a Katrina or Jena 6 or Sean Bell incident.
The more Rush tries to defend himself the more pathetic he sounds.
Today he tried to explain his "crips and bloods" comment and it was sad.
He does make a ridiculous amount of money in donations, speaking opportunities, and "consulting fees", usually over racial issues. He gets money to visit radio/TV shows and talk about it. His face gets on TV when something bad happens...he's a hustler.
But him being called out by a race-baiter is a tad funny. And not haha funny.
-------------------------------------------------------------
:)
He should reject all donations because his causes are surrounded in racial issues.
I guess him getting on T.V. and bringing attention to, in your own words "bad things" is the wrong way to approach those types of situations? Every bad situation should be ignored.
I get it you don't like Sharpton but to be fair you should also dislike everyone else who accepts donations, gets paid for speaking opportunities and consulting. So you probably hate all past Presidents and politicians, all business advisers, and all charities that accept donations. They are all obviously "hustlers."
Tell me how Al Sharpton exists as a CONTINUOUS negative force in our society. Or if you'd like just give me one of his bad deeds. Either should be enough to consider him a "hustler" and nothing more.
And what exactly did Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson say that you feel was a public conviction?
I have a feeling that you won't be able to produce any quotes supporting your cause. BUT I might be wrong.
As Jeter probably remembers (I'm assuming age and NY roots), Sharpton came to public attention as a "race hustler," and his first "bad deed" was bad enough to cement that reputation, in spite of some good things that he's done since.
"If we beat this, we'll be the biggest n****rs in New York.
There were many lives and reputation ruined, because these three hustlers were out for themselves, and didn't care who they hurt, even the girl whose cause they were "championing."
Right now Rush is disputing statements which he has been credited with so we know it happens. People are given credit for things they don't say by their enemies to discredit them.
I am not going to use an unsupported quote which show more hubris than malice to condemn a man for the rest of his life. There have been others who have done more and have been scared less than what you are trying to hang Al Sharpton with - Michael Milken comes to mind.
As far as Tawana, she says it happened and actually their family have tried to have the case re-opened. And don't forget in 1991 a jury in LA acquitted those police officers after they were caught on tape beating the heck out of Rodney King. And more recently a jury acquitted some cops after they beat the spit out of man by the name of Frank Judd. The Federal government had to pick up the case in order for that guy to get justice. So I know anything is possible.
Just say you don't like him because he is a rebel-rouser. Everything else is just silly.
Probably none that would satisfy you, from what I've seen on the thread. I heard the tape, at the time of the case, being a New Yorker. You'll admit that Al has a distinctive voice, hard to mistake. I actually heard the recording of him saying the words I referenced above. But since you've ascribed motive to me, I doubt that you'll take my word for it, never mind that I happen to have a frame of reference through which to empathize. I know how dangerous it was, in Northern Ireland in 1991, to be caught by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the cops), breathing while Catholic. So don't give me any crap about disliking "rebel-rousers." I'm much more likely to distrust police than community activists.
Your reference to Rush undermines your argument. He hasn't been "credited with statements" which he's now "disputing." He made the statements, they're recorded and can still be heard. He's just trying to get away with saying that they don't mean what they mean.
The Rodney King, and Frank Judd cases are travesties, and I never have and never would justify them. In monetary terms, the damage Milken did was huge. Was it greater, in the grand scheme of things, than the damage that Sharpton, Mason and Maddox did to race relations in New York? I don't know, and neither do you. In any case, by bringing them up you're indulging in what they call in N. Ireland, "whataboutery." It's an emotional smoke screen, and logically irrelevant. Does the fact that my neighbor gets away with embezzlement give me a pass to beat my wife? No.
If you wanted to use some examples that are relevant, by the way, you might mention Gordon Liddy and Tom DeLay, who are both treated as credible spokesmen, in spite of felony convictions and indictments. That also disgusts me but, of course I disagree with their politics.
My problem with Al, and and I regret it, because I agree with most of the political stands he takes, is that I see integrity and credibility as analogous to virginity: once you lose it, you don't get it back.
I have never ascribed motive to you.
There are statements which Rush has been credited with that no one heretofore have been able to produce any evidence of him actually saying it. The case in point is the statement about James Earl Ray in relation to MLK Jr. I've already explained why I mentioned Rush - I could have used anyone else in the world who has been misquoted or falsely quoted but I thought Rush was more apropos.
I brought up Rodney King and Frank Jude, Jr. as examples of police mis-conduct against blacks that included help from the judicial system. Personally, I don't think a 15 year old is going to put together such an elaborate scheme involving putting feces on her own body - not to mention all the other stuff. Personally, I think the cops got, what we call in my neighborhood, a "hook-up."
Again, your quoted comment is indicative of not a hustler, but someone flying too close to the sun.
With regards to race relations I'm glad everyday that a man like Al Sharpton is out there fighting the good fight. "Fiat justitia ruat caelum!"
1) How do you square, "I have never ascribed motive to you," with, "...you don't like him because he's a rebel-rouser."?
2) How is the Sharpton statement I quoted, "indicative not of a hustler, but someone flying too close to the sun."? Al as Icarus? I don't get it.
2) How is the Rush reference not a red herring, if you're not arguing that Sharpton is being misquoted, as you're obviously not. As an aside, I'll take your word for whatever James Earl Ray/MLK statement you're talking about. I wasn't referring to that, as I hadn't heard about it. But if you're arguing that Rush hasn't left a trail of egregious statements that he later denies, misinterprets, or falsely claims were "taken out of context," please sit down before you hurt yourself.
As for the self-abuse by feces argument, it is hard to believe, which was Tawana's story was accepted at first, until it started to unravel, due to internal inconsistencies. In your position, however, I'd probably believe that the "cops got...a 'hook-up.'" There is, certainly enough history of that.
"Tiocfaidh ár lá"
That should be Tiocfaidh ár lá. Don't know how those j's got in there.
2) Al, if he actually made that statement, sounds like someone who may have fell in love with his power and said something out of HUBRIS and not malice.
2)[sic] Of course I am arguing that Al didn't say it. I asked you for proof and you told me that it wouldn't be enough for my satisfaction. I presume there is no proof. And Rush has been using those quotes as of late to "prove" that he isn't racist. To my surprise I can't source them.
But I also believe that there is no sin worse than hypocrisy, and given Limbaugh's racial history, he has no place or standing to call out the racism of either man, or indeed ANY man.
Relative to Race, his house is about as clean as an outhouse!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine's clean though.
Neither one of those guys are perfect as I ams sure you are not BUT they serve a very valuable purpose in our society and I hope other pick up the torch when they are gone.
God bless Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
Oh, I'm becoming a "troll," huh? I guess you're trying to tell me that you have NOTHING else to add to the conversation. Thats what happens when you talk about stuff you know nothing about. Let this be a teaching moment.
Barry, I think I have in fact been pretty open-minded to your posts here in this thread, in particular. On most issues of race, my charectarization (or mischaracterization) of Jackson and Sharpton might be just about the only thing we don't see eye to eye on. And I've said, very clearly, that I could be wrong. That it's just my impression (of two men I've never met) and little more. It's no more valid that the HIGH OPINION I hold of President Obama, based on the same thing: My impression of the man, based on the evidence I've had.
I don't deny for a minute that there's plenty of racsim left in this country, and that racial justice and equality of opportunity is something that's worth fighting for. I just don't put these two individulas on the same pedestal as I would a modern-day Martin Luther King, Metger Evers, Rosa Parks, etc...
--------------------------------------------------------
But if you'd answer my queries, then you might just win someone over on this. I'm not all that stubborn on this one, and most of the other libs here are fairly open minded as well.
I'm sure the thousands of lives that they have positively affected feel differently.
You want to appear academic and non-malevolent but your statement says otherwise: "...is that if they could wave a magic wand and miraculously end racism tomorrow, either by making us all the same color or by magically enlightening us to appreciate all of our various differences and uniqueness, that either man would take that magic wand and snap it over their knee instead."
As to my "malevolence"...?
-----------------------------------------------------
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
----------------------------------------------------------
We call out the slander of the Right. We should do the same on our side as well.
I don't get your point. Explain.
And I don't think one incident in 1991 constitutes a "history" of bad deeds but I might be wrong.
Well I guess that wraps it all up.
How was Al wrong? Should he have not brought attention to this incident? Should he have not advocated for this young woman?
Barry, in the beginning, there was nothing wrong with Al advocating for the young woman. But when the overwhelming evidence showed that she was not telling the truth, he should have dropped her case and stop making any additional public comments about the case.
We, as African Americans sometimes jump the gun when a case involves young Black woman being assaulted by White man.
The Brawley case as well as the Duke case are prime examples of why we should wait before judging.
Personally, I've got nothing but contempt for ANY women, regardless of race, who lies about being raped.
Also do you remember 1991 when a guy was beaten up on tape and the officers in those case were considered innocent? Actually there is a long, long history of crimes against blacks going unpunished which is why people like Al and Jesse are needed.
Personally, I think you should reserve your contempt since you weren't there and you don't know what actually happened.
And there should never be an incident where a woman cries rape and there is no one to take her side. People like you are the reason why so many women are raped and never report it. So you can take your contempt and....
In your mind women should be defended ONLY if you have 100% proof that she was actually raped.
Let's dissect her post to figure out exactly why Pearlene is such an awful person who causes rape victims to live in silence, shall we?That's not the problem, surely. That seems perfectly reasonable, especially since the point at which that evidence was coming in could easily be near the end of that seven months.An entirely sensible and qualified statement if ever I saw one. African-Americans "sometimes" jump the gun in such cases. It has happened, and when it becomes clear that is the case then those making the charges should act accordingly.I don't see the offense here, either. Judging beforehand can lead to serious embarrassment.Is this controversial? Obviously a woman who does that should be severely criticized. Why does that mean that actual rape victims shouldn't come forward, in her mind? Pearlene clearly states that there was nothing wrong with Sharpton advocating for Brawley at first, so your conclusion that she thinks women should be defended only with 100% proof is completely illogical. Did you read her post with any effort at comprehension whatsoever?
Look, we get that you like Sharpton. I don't have any issues with the good work he's done, which I think makes up the vast majority of his career. I'm inclined to believe that Pearlene would agree, largely based on her tone in this post. You yourself said he wasn't perfect, yet when someone makes a perfectly reasoned and tempered argument as to why Sharpton was wrong about something, then that person believes that there must be absolute proof in order to pursue charges and belongs to a group that causes rape victims to avoid seeking justice.
Do you have any concept of how insane that is? Will you look at your posts in the morning with a more lucid eye and apologize for your ridiculous behavior?
I sure hope so.
You are really digging your hole deep now.
Of course you don't approve of women who make false statements BUT you don't drag them and their supporters through the mud for 20+ years.
Personally, I don't believe everything I read and I definately don't believe the Tawana Brawley OR the Duke Lacrosse Team are open and shut cases. People such as yourself like to be extreamly cinical on one hand and naive as a babe on the other. You can't have it both ways.
I don't have all the answers but I do know when I see something wrong and the vehement excoriation of Tawana Brawley, et al for 20+ years is wrong.
Barry, the was ZERO proof of any sexual assault, no evidence of ANY exposure to the elements in temperatures below freezing, which one would expect for someone being held in the woods for several days. The racial epithets were written upside down and Brawley could not give ANY description of the men who she said raped her repeatedly for several days.
Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that somethings are not adding up. But Sharpton, even today, still believes that there was enough evidence to go to trail.
As a 75 year old African American woman, neither YOU nor Al or Jessie can tell me about past crimes against African Americans, I lived through them and I didn't need Jackson nor Sharpton to survive them either!!!
African Americans don't need a spokesman to speak for us. We can d*mn well speak for ourselves. We're individuals who share a race and a history, not a tribe of people who need a leader to figure out where to go!
There should NEVER be an incident when a women cries rape KNOWING SHE'S LYING THROUGH HER TEETH, EITHER!!!
And it's women like Brawley and the Duke woman who cause rape victims not to be taken seriously by lying about being raped when they know no rape occurred.
You need to stop putting words in my mouth and check your unreasonable defense of Brawley.
The ONLY "rape victims" I've questioned are Brawley and the woman in the Duke case where both of those women were flat out lying.
You can praise both Al and Jessie for the good things they've done, but you cannot ignore the things they've done that were flat out wrong.
You haven't done your research. I have. All you have to do is go to the New York Times online website and you will get a better understanding of the Tawana Brawley timeline. What you're dealing with now as I was before is supposition. Once you get the timeline and get actual accounts of the events from journalist you will see that this case was less about Al Sharpton than it was anything else.
Al Sharpton was not wrong in defending her. Bill Cosby set up a $25,000 reward and Mike Tyson set up a $50,000 fund for abused women. This was a real issue and it took a long time to fully develop. You're using your wikipedia account of the case to base your arguments and you're getting it all wrong.
Al Sharpton was considered a opportunist by some BEFORE Tawana Brawley was called a liar. Do with that what you will.
What should he be remorseful for? And how do you know he has "NEVER" uttered a word of remorse?
And how was he wrong in regards to the Fred Harari incident?
As for Harari, the "white interloper" comment was irresponsible. He did apologize for it, but we criticize conservatives for inflammatory comments which have the potential of sparking violent action as well.
As for the Harari incident you have one "irresponsible" statement from a 20+ year career.
That's not bad in my book. And this is what you've used to call him a "hustler?" Sad.
I didn't say he was a race hustler. I think he goes overboard from time to time, which is why I specifically said he had "some history" that was difficult to defend. My point, again, is that you were acting as if questioning his behavior meant that people shouldn't advocate for the less fortunate. That's ridiculous. If you want to debate the merits of labels, have at it, but don't employ absurd straw man arguments.
Questioning his behavior? What are you talking about? People are calling him a hustler and I don't agree. You have submitted as your evidence of bad behavior an incident from 1987 and 1995.
Al Sharpton is the man - and God bless him for it.
If he called the guy a racist - he might have been right. So knowing exactly what Al said makes a difference. WITH REGARDS TO AL, because that is who we're talking about!
And none of these statement clearly defines the man as a hustler. They are inflammatory, slanderous but still aren't consistent with someone who is a hustler.
Basically, you have nothing but dislike and innuendo to support your assertion and that's cool....with you. With me...not so much.
So are you trying to tell me that you didn't make the statement about Al Sharptons "history" to add support to the narrative of him being a "hustler?"
Please tell me what straw man argument I using. Because in case you haven't realized this entire thread is about wether or not Al Sharpton is a hustler. I personally don't think so. I haven't seen you write as much.
Do you think a "history" and "criticism" are the same thing? Do you think they have equal inflection?
Remember all three men were sued of slander at one time so of course there is a point of contention between us with regards to exactly what Al said. But after researching, it was the two lawyers who held a press conference and accused the assistant district attorney of being involved in the crime.
Al is called a hustler because he stands up for other people and he does it in a very public way. So should people stand alone or should others be subjected to being called a hustler? If people can stand for others should they be quiet or can they yell at the top of their lungs? Don't stand up for anyone and don't get on t.v. or else you'll be called a hustler. Alternative: no one help out anyone else and if so do it quietly.
How can you comment on what I say, which is specifically about the topic, without commenting on the topic? You addressed my comment about Al Sharpton being considered to be a hustler by some by commenting on his HISTORY. Who are you trying to fool, yourself?
If you are able to mount a defense of Sharpton that shows that he didn't engage in any poor behavior, that's fine. What you can't do is accuse someone who says that of thinking that people should suffer in silence. That sentiment does not rely on the use of the "hustler" label in any way, shape, or form. It has nothing to do with it at all, and would apply to any similar scenario.
Do you understand?
On the contrary. Check out my blog and I think you will find that I am 100% for "standing up for the little guy" and for "oppressed people" in general. What's more, last month I did a write up specifcally on RACE. Please check it out, I'm curious to know hwat you think of it. It's called "Diversity is not the new racism, COLORBLINDNESS is" and it's in the September arcihves. If I'm reading you correctly, I THINK that you will find it to your liking. But I'm curious. So please let me know. (Here or there, but preferably there.)
As for Messr's Sharpton and Jackson? I figured my statements would generate some controversy. That's fine. I understand. MY IIMPRESSION of these two men - and it's just that: my impression; it's not based on anything more profound than that - is that if they could wave a magic wand and miraculously end racism tomorrow, either by making us all the same color or by magically enlightening us to appreciate all of our various differences and uniqueness, that either man would take that magic wand and snap it over their knee instead.
Both have made way too much of a name for themselves, and way too much of a career out of, fighting the problem for me to believe that either really wants it to go away. Kind of like why Republicans will never actually DO ANYTHING to substantially limit or outlaw abortion: It's way too valuable an issue for them! And they BENEFIT from the ongoing existance of the issue! (Just like AS & JJ do with race.)
Like I said, that's JUST MY OPINION, nothing more. And I could be wrong. Very little of my ego is tied up in it. I have very little of any substance to back that up, I'LL ADMIT IT. So if you feel you can proove me wrong with any amount of concrete evidence to the contrary (as opposed to high-flying rhetoric) I could be easliy convinced otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------
From what I've seen, though... I don't see it.
I don't know how close you have been to racism in your life but I can tell you that if any one man had the ability to wipe it away from our lives they wouldn't squander that opportunity for money.
What a victim knows that a non-victim doesn't know is that life is very, very fragile. And it isn't only the victim who has the potential to be affected by wrongs but the victims brothers, sisters, mothers, father, sons and daughters. And this goes for all wrongs all victims and all non-victims. We are all living in separate worlds as much as we would like to convince ourselves otherwise.
When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are long gone they know racism will still be here. Do you actually think they want their progeny to continue to go through what they have gone through? Racism has caused people to lose everything - not to mention their lives. I've seen racism up close and personal and its nothing you want to embrace. I met the guy who was beaten by the cops in NY and sodomized with a plunger. He is living very well and has tons of money. Do you think he would rather have the money or his innocence and dignity as a man?
Your statement is a prime example of the sheer ignorance some people in this country have about racism.
When someone treats you differently because of your skin color you will know the gut wrenching, depressing, feeling that it creates. These men stand up to it everyday and should be commended. Jesse Jackson was there when Martin Luther King was shot and killed. Al Sharpton himself was a victim of a would-be assassin and yet they both get up everyday and fight the good fight.
But you're wrong about one thing: I HAVE been the victim of racism. Not LYNCHING, assault, KKK style... my LIFE was never in danger... But I have lived within the POV of a 'looked down upon minority' going to high school as a WHITE kid in a predominatley ASIAN school, and as an American Engineer woking for a Japanese Comapny. And I can assure you that every stereotype that the whites have even been accused of holding about the blacks (or latino's) over the years, the Japanese in particular and the Asians in general hold towards Whites: Stupid. Lazy. Flunkies. Less worthy as a people. Can't date my daughter. You name it, I've heard it.
No, it's not the same as being sodomized by the police. Not by a damned site. And I'm not saying it was. Obviously. That would be absurd. But I've had no shortage of people over the course of my life looking down at ME because of the color of MY skin. That's a feeling I'm VERY FAMILIAR with.
--------------------------------------------------------
I've also been an American Engineer in Germany and Austria and (just like the Japanese) the German Engineers have rather high opinions of themselves relative to American Engineers as well. Boy I loved it whenever we could surpass them or show them up!
That he's a race-baiter calling out a race-hustler.
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
And yet the Right PRAISES the man for it! That's truly the worst part of the whole situation!
-----------------------------------------------------
At least we're principled enough to be able to criticise someone who's associated with OUR SIDE! That alone makes US the better group.
. . . says the man who sang, "Barack the Magic Negro" . . .
I don't know why these "adults" try and use an excuse they wouldn't let their seven year old get away with.
"But Tommy said it first!"
Rush talks a good game on his radio show but he would not dare go into the poor communities of his fan base.
RUSH IS ALL TALK AND NO ACTION! WHAT HAS HE EVER DONE TO HELP ANYONE BESIDES HIMSELF
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704250022apr25,0,3205433.story
On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.
In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income.
Check this out while your at it
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Liberal are genrous when it come so to other peoples time and money. There own? Not so mcuh!
Hm, you may want to ask Oprah Winfrey and George Soros about that . . .
So he donated ~13% of his income. At that level? BIG DEAL. You need the last 13% of 33 MILLION a lot less than you need the last 5% of 1.6 Million. (And he think he speaks for people of make 40-80 THOUSAND a year?! YEAH RIGHT! What could he POSSIBLY know about actally NEEDING the money you earn?! What could he possibly know about having to WORK for a living?!)
You think he speaks for YOU GUYS?! You're gott damned fools if you think he cares about anything except protecting his own power, wealth and ego.
---------------------------------------------------------
You conservtaives know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!
That is false and I refuted the point and that’s all you can come up with.
That is false and I refuted the point and that’s all you can come up with.
Ok let me get this straight he donates 4.7 million for tax breaks. Even though you don’t get as much back in tax breaks as you donate?
As for your other attempt to claim a moral high ground, republicans may donate more money, but democrats volunteer more time. And Poof! there goes another reichwing talking point...
Any comment I have on the subject is strictly for pointing out the hypocricy of highlighter's attempt at some non-existant moral high ground.
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."
That's what I thought...
Memo to soppy (sic'k'): The reason we conservatives don't agree with reducing the tax breaks for charity is because it will decrease the amount of money given to charities. This will in turn decrease the helping of the poor. The fact you spin it as something other then this basically says a lot about how your pathetic mind thinks.
"As for your other attempt to claim a moral high ground, republicans may donate more money, but democrats volunteer more time. And Poof! there goes another reichwing talking point... "
Wrong again but no point in disputing it because you have a warped way of processing facts and data in your 'brain'.
Other than this, I gotta get back to work so can't play with you libbies today. Even retired I have a bunch of work to do as opposed to so many of you on this Board who apparently don't have a life; except to make up lies about conservatives.
BTW: Go George Soros! Buy those Rams. Other then endorsing Nazis, you are model citizen as opposed to Rush who simply believes in self empowerment.
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.
Limpballs ranked 10th?
How come I didn't hear about him in the Slate 60??
The character of Rush Limbaugh is the personification of evil. soulless Rush Limbaugh has absolutely no room to accused anybody of anything as long as he worship the devil.
LOL! All you do is hustle lies! Sharpton is a little bit over on his defenses of the minority, but at least he's still one of the few from the days like MLK in his time who actually stood up and said something about what is going on in this country. Besides the gays marching on D.C. for rights what other protest we had that was positive? THIS!
We need to become more intellegent then this! WOW!