Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges.

1. Again, RL wasn't slandered, because RL has absolutely made racist statements in the past, thus nobody was lying about his alleged racism as implied by the resolution. Yes, the media reported some quotes that have yet to be accurately sourced. However, as I've said in R1, the media has already apologized and retracted those statements. The statements that Limbaugh DID make and are validly sourced can and do depict him as a racist. Pro cannot say that the "evidence" reports multiple quotations were fabricated. The dispute over several quotes is the fact that nobody can source them specifically. That is not to say that there is evidence that RL never said them, but instead that there is no evidence that he did say them. People will have to listen to thousands of hours of recorded RL talk radio - which I'm guessing won't happen soon - in order to be "evidence" that he didn't say those things. 2. Pro argues that I have not provided any decent sources, because my presentations have come from leftist blogs and other liberal sites. Well, is CBS Sports a liberal site? Is LA Weekly a leftist blog? The blog that I did source quoted and cited ESPN, and noted this quote: "There can be no excuse for such statements. Mr. Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants, but ABC and ESPN have no obligation to sponsor such hateful and ignorant speech. Mr. Limbaugh should be fired immediately." When a respected, retired general condemns the statement of a sportscaster, you know he's gone too far. Additionally, if Rush Limbaugh made these statements on his talk radio show, I would like for Pro to please detail how he expects me to cite specific clips and one-line verbal statements online. The reality is that these statements were made by Limbaugh (many of which he has admitted), so for Pro to suggest that they be discarded simply because of how I've cited them online is absurd. There is no realistic way to cite comments that Limbaugh has made on his talk show over the decades he's been around; the reality is that he DID make these statements, and my sources have written about it (including fair.org, which is NOT a biased liberal blog, but in fact a national media watch group which has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship). If Pro has found any of my specifically cited sources to be fabrications as he said he did, then he is obligated to present the evidence instead of just merely making false accusations. [ Quotes ] 1. Pro says that Limbaugh's Bloods and Crips reference was him merely complaining about excessive violence in the NFL. First, why is Pro's interpretation of Limbaugh's statements any more valid than mine? The fact is that Pro has no more knowledge of what Limbaugh meant than I do, so we can only look to the context of what Limbaugh said in order to try and extract his intention. Surely Pro can say that Limbaugh later on clarified what he meant by that statement; however, obviously RL isn't going to come right out and admit that he made a racist comment. If Limbaugh's intention was really to discuss NFL violence, then why didn't he just say that? Why did he liken it to well known street gangs that are predominantly black? I suspect that because these gangs are predominantly black the same way that the NFL is predominantly black, that he was making a joke about what it looked like on the field. Regardless, that is a very specific statement that could easily be considered offensive by some, and thus despite Limbaugh's intention, it was still an inappropriate comment which can definitely be considered racist. Also, Pro's hockey quote fails to be an adequate comparison to what Limbaugh said. Rush didn't say that a fight between the Bloods and the Crips resembled an NFL game, the way a fight in Pro's joke resembled a hockey game. Instead, it was the other way around. Now when referring to the violence of a predominantly white hockey game, would Rush Limbaugh have made the comment, "Man - it looks like the Bloods and the Crips out there?" I highly suspect that the answer would be no (because it wouldn't make a connection and thus not be 'funny'). 2. Pro said that he could not find the context of the quote about the NAACP. Again, these quotes were taken from RL's talk radio show, which would be nearly impossible to quote in their full context here online. Instead, when RL made these quotes over time, they were taken and reported on in various sources in the media including the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Detroit Free Press, the Washington Post, etc. In fact, this statement (and the others that Limbaugh is now denying) have been around for years, including in a well known book. It wasn't until they may have cost him his bid for the Rams that he is suddenly denying that he's ever said them. Could it be because these statements are now in the public eye? No. They've been posted on my cited sources and the subject of much controversy for years. Sports commentator Jason Whitlock writes, "Limbaugh doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on racial matters... You can argue the comments are presented out of context and were meant as jokes. Then I'd argue that Limbaugh needs to get on the comedy-club circuit and out of the business of attempting to influence presidential politics." Pro writes, "In general, Limbaugh has been highly critical of the NAACP for putting liberal ideology ahead of the interests of black people. For example, the school voucher program in Washington was of great benefit to under privileged black citizens, but the NAACP stuck to the liberal agenda of opposing it." The truth is that the NAACP has always been opposed to voucher programs based on the premise that these programs use public funds to support private education. They see voucher programs as hastening the abandonment of public schools while leaving behind the majority of low-income students of color. This may be a conflict of opinion as most liberal/conservative battles are; however, it's ridiculous to suggest that the NAACP is acting specifically to hurt black people, and Rush's statement against this organization was unwarranted. Pro continues, "If Con will provide the full context, I will be able to better figure out what is going on." This implies that Pro intends on defending Rush, despite the true intent or content of his quotes. 3. It's appalling for Pro to suggest that because blacks are composed of only 12% of the population, that their issues should not be heard (regardless of what the issues were). We don't dismiss issues that are made by white people because they're a majority of the population. Of course many "black issues" are nonsense the same way that many "white issues" are nonsense. The point is that Rush specifically stated that black issues shouldn't be heard. 4. Pro excuses RL's blatantly racist quote because it was made in 1971. Sure RL could have matured since then, and should be forgiven if he's apologetic. However, you can't force people (NFL players, coaches, administration, etc.) to be comfortable after Rush made that statement publicly, and continued to make questionable statements all throughout his career. 5. The idea that NFL commentators play up McNabb's success because of his race is ridiculous. In a league that's composed of over 70% African Americans, why would they be using his race to exaggerate one's success? That's completely illogical. 6. Pro says that RL is "obviously being sarcastic" when he makes fun of Obama. Last year Limbaugh referred to Obama as "the little black man-child." When Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate - the first black woman ever elected to that body - Limbaugh would play the "Movin' On Up" theme song from TV's Jeffersons when he mentioned her. Sarcastic? Perhaps. Still majorly offensive? You bet! As far as Pro's insistence that RL isn't a racist, I'm out of characters for now, but will address every one of Pro's matters in R3.