Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges.

Slander is "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report" http://dictionary.reference.com.... Slander remains slander if it is later admitted and apologized for. (Few of the slandering organizations actually apologized, they made the lame excuse that the false quotations "could not be sourced." Would, "Claims that Obama was a child molester could not be sourced." fly? I hope not.) Slander remains slander if the person falsely accused may be rightly accused of something else. The three false quotations were in regard to praising James Earl Ray, citing advantages of slavery, and certain statements about the NAACP. Those false statements were the proximate cause of Limbaugh being dropped from the NFL investment group, not the McNabb controversy or anything prior to that. The statements were malicious, false, and defamatory and that is all that is required for them to be slander. Con proposes that malicious statements that cannot be supported by evidence ought to be deemed true, or at least not false, unless they can be conclusively proved false. This is the doctrine of being guilty until proven innocent. Con approvingly quotes the notion that "the benefit of the doubt should not be extended .. " Under this doctrine, a right-wing blogger could assert, "Obama said he wants a Marxist future for America." and it would have to stand without benefit of doubt. That's absurd! Con's principle of presumptive guilt is nonsense because the burden of proof of misdeeds always belongs to the accuser. Every claim must either be proven or otherwise dismissed. If we do not dismiss the unproven, virtually any fabricated statement would stand. It is a practical impossibility to document every word a person has said in their entire life in order to prove that they didn't say something. In the the case of Limbaugh's radio show, the audio transcript of ever show is posted on his web site, and large segments are posted as written transcripts. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com... Con acknowledged the transcripts exist, but claimed that it as the job of Limbaugh defenders to go through them and prove he *didn't* make the alleged statements. No, it is the accusers job to find the offending statements. In the previous round I cited two Limbaugh listeners, both black, who claimed to listen faithfully and to have never heard anything racist. That's what Con wanted. I said it would also suffice if someone reputable said they heard the show, gave the date, and provided the quote with the context with which it was said. If there was no tape, evaluation of the evidence would depend upon the credibility of the witness who claimed to hear it. Quotes given out of context are extremely suspicious, because they are self-evident of an agenda in which the person quoted is supposed to be found at fault based upon a single sentence. Out-of-context quotations are self-evidently biased. So clearly Con's sources are biased. If an accuser cannot even cite the time and place of the alleged statement, then it ought not be used. 1. Con wants to know why her racist interpretation of Limbaugh should not be honored above my non-racist interpretation. One reason is that Con is accusing Limbaugh of being a racist, and therefore has the burden to show that her interpretation is the correct one. The context of the remark would either support or deny her interpretation, and if it cannot provided, the accusation is unsupported. My interpretation is based upon Limbaugh's explanation of his remark, http://video.aol.co.uk... (go to the 2:45 point in the video). Limbaugh's remark was occasioned by a game being lost by a "taunting" penalty between plays. This shows the importance of context. Con muses, "would Rush Limbaugh have made the comment [for a hockey fight] ... I highly suspect that the answer would be no ..." Con fantasizes about Limbaugh, then holds him guilty for actions in the fantasy. (Can we all apply the same principle to those we dislike?) Since Limbaugh's original remark was occasioned by a taunting penalty, it is reasonable to suppose he would have made it with respect to a hockey penalty that cost a game. My larger point was that person with a racist way of viewing the world can interpret many things as being about race when they are not. Con didn't dispute that. 2. Con claims, "Again, these quotes were taken from RL's talk radio show, which would be nearly impossible to quote in their full context here online." Why would they be able to quote on line? Con admits the transcripts are available. Moreover, if they were reported at the time they were made, why are there no dates, no times, and no individuals who claim specifically when they heard them? Why is there no context? We ought to have something like "Yesterday on his show, Limbaugh was discussing the taunting penalty that cost the game with the Patriots, and he said that sometimes it ..." That is not asking a lot, but it is apparently too much for ideologues with an agenda. Con confirms that the NAACP upholds the liberal principle of opposing vouchers above the acute interests of black students in Washington DC who benefited substantially from a voucher program. Demonstrations in support of the DC voucher program were made by black parents, who according to con's logic must have been racist for opposing the NAACP. Con believes that liberal ideology should be upheld regardless of who it hurts, the faith-conquers-all approach, but it is nonetheless legitimate, and not racist, for Limbaugh to express a different viewpoint. 3. As far as I can determine the quotation is a fabrication. I can find no source on the net, let alone context. However, assuming it is true, Con is unable to suggest what aspect of minority interests Limbaugh said we shouldn't care about. Should we take up arms and march on Washington if blacks own very few Chinese restaurants? No, it doesn't matter. Other things do matter. So what was the subject? 4. I said that Limbaugh's 1971 quote was "intemperate and inexcusable." Con then claimed that I excused it. My claim was that intemperate remarks by twenty year olds should not brand people as life-long racists. If con takes the contrary position, she should assert that all remarks made at age twenty should be held to accountability as if they were made in later years. At the time, Limbaugh was on a "shock jock" sports call in show, in the style of Howard Stern, and the caller was speaking incomprehensibly. Limbaugh has since said he regrets the comment. 5. Apparently, Con does not understand that even though 70% of the players in the NFL are black, a much lower percentage of quarterbacks have been black. Consequently, it is perfectly logical to want a black quarterback to do well. In any case, Limbaugh's comments were disparaging of commentators, not blacks. 6. Ah, more quotes without sources or context. Writing fiction is fun! I offered substantial evidence that Limbaugh did not behave as a racist. He has key staff, colleagues, friends, and supporters from the black community. He vigorously supports black conservatives. Limbaugh cares about his conservative principles, not a person's race. Con did not respond, so I will not be able to rebut the new arguments she makes. It's Con's responsibility to fit her argument into the space provided. The Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live asked "Could it be Satan?" in response to every event she didn't like. Con asks "Could it be racism?" with the same voice. Only if you see Satan or racism, respectively, everywhere. It's a product of the observer, not the event. It's about political correctness requiring that true statements cannot be made if they could possibly be misinterpreted by PC ideologues. Limbaugh was maliciously defamed. The resolution is affirmed.