Legislator receives racist death threat from Rush Limbaugh fan

[DonTheTrucker]

Blatant hypocrisy? I don't see it.

This

And I've heard from the right that they are only on the left

Then this

Of course both sides have their share of nutcases, but it seems the right-wing ones are getting cockier these days.

When there's not a shred of evidence to prove it.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

But as far as saying "Rush Limbaugh fan threatens public official," not only should that wacko be jailed for threatening, but Limbaugh himself should sue the guy for Defamation of Character for associating him with the threat of bodily harm.

The problem is that no one knows who sent the fax. That's why the story is so pathetic.

 

[almaniac27]

Blatant hypocrisy? I don't see it.

This

And I've heard from the right that they are only on the left

Then this

Of course both sides have their share of nutcases, but it seems the right-wing ones are getting cockier these days.

When there's not a shred of evidence to prove it.

That's called an opinion sir.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

That's called an opinion sir.

At this point, so is the notion that a Rush Limbaugh fan sent these faxes. But it's being reported as fact. You don't see the problem with that?

 

[almaniac27]

That's called an opinion sir.

At this point, so is the notion that a Rush Limbaugh fan sent these faxes. But it's being reported as fact. You don't see the problem with that?

I think the fact that Rush was name-checked in the faxes makes it more than likely.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I think the fact that Rush was name-checked in the faxes makes it more than likely.

So journalism is based on assumptions now? I'm sure if our politician friend showed up with a backwards "B" carved in his cheek, you'd be skeptical.

 

[almaniac27]

I think the fact that Rush was name-checked in the faxes makes it more than likely.

So journalism is based on assumptions now? I'm sure if our politician friend showed up with a backwards "B" carved in his cheek, you'd be skeptical.

What's a bigger leap of faith? Some nutjob who happens to listen to Rush Limbaugh sends death threats to a guy Rush blasted on the air? Or some state senator is trying to elicit sympathy by making up a story that he got death threats? While I wouldn't put it past a politician to do that, if that was Yee's plan, he wouldn't bring a nationally syndicated radio host with millions of listeners into it. Rush would certainly shame him endlessly on the air if the allegations are false, which would damage Yee's political career significantly, more than any sympathy he might get. In this case, I'm going with the simpler answer.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

In this case, I'm going with the simpler answer.

Because you want to believe it. We're supposed to have higher standards than that, though. Especially when writing news stories or accusing someone of a crime.

Take your average Rush listener. He's likely an old white guy. Not exactly the type of people who do this sort of thing. Maybe if it were Alex Jones or one of the really crazy Internet radio guys, it would be more obvious. It's a common occurrance for certain politicians to just make stories up, slandering people, then the media just running with it. That may be ok with you, but some of us still have standards when it comes to what we believe.

 

[almaniac27]

In this case, I'm going with the simpler answer.

Because you want to believe it. We're supposed to have higher standards than that, though. Especially when writing news stories or accusing someone of a crime.

Take your average Rush listener. He's likely an old white guy. Not exactly the type of people who do this sort of thing. Maybe if it were Alex Jones or one of the really crazy Internet radio guys, it would be more obvious. It's a common occurrance for certain politicians to just make stories up, slandering people, then the media just running with it. That may be ok with you, but some of us still have standards when it comes to what we believe.

You seem to want to believe this isn't true for some reason.

First off, nobody's accusing Limbaugh of a crime, and second, if this is true, this isn't your average Rush listener, this is a whackjob who listens to him. Are you suggesting there aren't any mentally unbalanced people in his audience? And old white guys are just as capable of nutjobbery as anyone. Who knows? The guy could be senile.

 

[quadraphonic]

First off, nobody's accusing Limbaugh of a crime,

the first post of the thread:

If an individual who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater is legally responsible for ensuing panic, then an incendiary talk show host is similarly responsible when he incites violence.

and second, if this is true, this isn't your average Rush listener, this is a whackjob who listens to him.

Check the thread title."Rush Limbaugh fan" is right there, and it isn't presented as a benign personal characteristic.

 

[almaniac27]

First off, nobody's accusing Limbaugh of a crime,

the first post of the thread:

If an individual who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater is legally responsible for ensuing panic, then an incendiary talk show host is similarly responsible when he incites violence.

Okay, nobody of any significance.

and second, if this is true, this isn't your average Rush listener, this is a whackjob who listens to him.

Check the thread title."Rush Limbaugh fan" is right there, and it isn't presented as a benign personal characteristic.

If he's a fan, then he's a fan. But he's not your typical Rush fan, because he likes to send death threats to politicians. He is a crazy outlier.

 

[quadraphonic]

First off, nobody's accusing Limbaugh of a crime,

the first post of the thread:

If an individual who shouts "fire" in a crowded theater is legally responsible for ensuing panic, then an incendiary talk show host is similarly responsible when he incites violence.

Okay, nobody of any significance.

and second, if this is true, this isn't your average Rush listener, this is a whackjob who listens to him.

Check the thread title."Rush Limbaugh fan" is right there, and it isn't presented as a benign personal characteristic.

If he's a fan, then he's a fan. But he's not your typical Rush fan, because he likes to send death threats to politicians. He is a crazy outlier.

Why point out that he's a "Rush Limbaugh fan?"
Why not "a 49ers fan?"
Why not "a fan of cottage cheese?"
Why not "a fax machine fan?"
There's many other choices, but the media (and their parrots) only chose one.
There's reasons why, and you're probably better off preferring the simpler answer, Mr. Ockham.

 

[almaniac27]

Why point out that he's a "Rush Limbaugh fan?"
Why not "a 49ers fan?"
Why not "a fan of cottage cheese?"
Why not "a fax machine fan?"
There's many other choices, but the media (and their parrots) only chose one.
There's reasons why, and you're probably better off preferring the simpler answer, Mr. Ockham.

Because the guy was reacting to Limbaugh's rant against the guy. I do agree that this isn't very newsworthy at all, I'm sure death threats are made on behalf of media personalities every day. I'd be willing to bet the newspaper doesn't care for Rush (it is in San Francisco after all), or perhaps it was just a slow news day. Or both.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Because the guy was reacting to Limbaugh's rant against the guy. I do agree that this isn't very newsworthy at all, I'm sure death threats are made on behalf of media personalities every day. I'd be willing to bet the newspaper doesn't care for Rush (it is in San Francisco after all), or perhaps it was just a slow news day. Or both.

1. We don't know who the guy is or why he did this. Like I said, this has false flag written all over it. It's one of the most effective tools in the race hustler's playbook.
2. It's somewhat newsworthy if the connection could be verified. As is, it's speculation at best and slander at worst.
3. As has already been pointed out, the news article and OP were chomping at the bit to link this to Limbaugh without a shred of proof, because they have a bone to pick with the guy.

You are right about one thing. Tons of death threats go out every day, and they're almost never solicited by anyone.

 

[quadraphonic]

Why point out that he's a "Rush Limbaugh fan?"
Why not "a 49ers fan?"
Why not "a fan of cottage cheese?"
Why not "a fax machine fan?"
There's many other choices, but the media (and their parrots) only chose one.
There's reasons why, and you're probably better off preferring the simpler answer, Mr. Ockham.

Because the guy was reacting to Limbaugh's rant against the guy. I do agree that this isn't very newsworthy at all, I'm sure death threats are made on behalf of media personalities every day. I'd be willing to bet the newspaper doesn't care for Rush (it is in San Francisco after all), or perhaps it was just a slow news day. Or both.

So you're willing to say he's a nutjob, but you're not willing to say that he would lie about his motivations? Nutjobs lie, ya know?
You're ascribing logical thought patterns to a nutjob.
Is that still the simplest answer?

 

[almaniac27]

Why point out that he's a "Rush Limbaugh fan?"
Why not "a 49ers fan?"
Why not "a fan of cottage cheese?"
Why not "a fax machine fan?"
There's many other choices, but the media (and their parrots) only chose one.
There's reasons why, and you're probably better off preferring the simpler answer, Mr. Ockham.

Because the guy was reacting to Limbaugh's rant against the guy. I do agree that this isn't very newsworthy at all, I'm sure death threats are made on behalf of media personalities every day. I'd be willing to bet the newspaper doesn't care for Rush (it is in San Francisco after all), or perhaps it was just a slow news day. Or both.

So you're willing to say he's a nutjob, but you're not willing to say that he would lie about his motivations? Nutjobs lie, ya know?
You're ascribing logical thought patterns to a nutjob.
Is that still the simplest answer?

Yeah, you're going off into hypothetical lala land. I'm just going off what the article says, because that's all we have.

 

[quadraphonic]

Why point out that he's a "Rush Limbaugh fan?"
Why not "a 49ers fan?"
Why not "a fan of cottage cheese?"
Why not "a fax machine fan?"
There's many other choices, but the media (and their parrots) only chose one.
There's reasons why, and you're probably better off preferring the simpler answer, Mr. Ockham.

Because the guy was reacting to Limbaugh's rant against the guy. I do agree that this isn't very newsworthy at all, I'm sure death threats are made on behalf of media personalities every day. I'd be willing to bet the newspaper doesn't care for Rush (it is in San Francisco after all), or perhaps it was just a slow news day. Or both.

So you're willing to say he's a nutjob, but you're not willing to say that he would lie about his motivations? Nutjobs lie, ya know?
You're ascribing logical thought patterns to a nutjob.
Is that still the simplest answer?

Yeah, you're going off into hypothetical lala land. I'm just going off what the article says, because that's all we have.

Nothing hypothetical there.
You said he's a whackjob, even though we don't know who he is.
And for some reason, we can trust everything he *allegedly* says, even though we don't know who he is.
That's a lot of faith to misput into the whackjob, as well as the people who presented the story to you.

 

[almaniac27]

Why point out that he's a "Rush Limbaugh fan?"
Why not "a 49ers fan?"
Why not "a fan of cottage cheese?"
Why not "a fax machine fan?"
There's many other choices, but the media (and their parrots) only chose one.
There's reasons why, and you're probably better off preferring the simpler answer, Mr. Ockham.

Because the guy was reacting to Limbaugh's rant against the guy. I do agree that this isn't very newsworthy at all, I'm sure death threats are made on behalf of media personalities every day. I'd be willing to bet the newspaper doesn't care for Rush (it is in San Francisco after all), or perhaps it was just a slow news day. Or both.

So you're willing to say he's a nutjob, but you're not willing to say that he would lie about his motivations? Nutjobs lie, ya know?
You're ascribing logical thought patterns to a nutjob.
Is that still the simplest answer?

Yeah, you're going off into hypothetical lala land. I'm just going off what the article says, because that's all we have.

Nothing hypothetical there.
You said he's a whackjob, even though we don't know who he is.
And for some reason, we can trust everything he *allegedly* says, even though we don't know who he is.
That's a lot of faith to misput into the whackjob, as well as the people who presented the story to you.

This thread was started about an article. We are discussing said article. For all we know, this guy could be the tooth fairy, but that's not very likely, is it? In my book, anyone who sends death threats is a weirdo. Perhaps certifiably insane, perhaps not. Sure he could be lying, but so can anyone. If you start questioning every little thing in this article, you'd better start questioning everything. Do we really exist? How many angels can dance upon the head of a pin? Your line of reasoning is going nowhere. From what I can see, the San Francisco Examiner is a well-established newspaper that's been around for 150+ years, and I doubt they would want to weaken their journalistic integrity by doing a little shitstarting. That's my opinion, you can have your own, but let's try to be realistic here. Why do you have such a hard time accepting the fact that a listener of a radio show might take things too far?

 

[quadraphonic]

This thread was started about an article. We are discussing said article. For all we know, this guy could be the tooth fairy, but that's not very likely, is it? In my book, anyone who sends death threats is a weirdo. Perhaps certifiably insane, perhaps not. Sure he could be lying, but so can anyone.

Who is "he?"
Nobody knows who sent the fax, do they?
That's part of the point that means this is more than "said article," it's also about how "said article" is presented, how factual it is, how much information is unknown, and so on and so forth.

If you start questioning every little thing in this article, you'd better start questioning everything. Do we really exist? How many angels can dance upon the head of a pin?

Or I guess you can do the opposite and not question anything before you accept it [depending on the source and content, likely]?
I don't think questioning the integrity of the article is going to lead any one to questioning their own existence or how many angels can dance on a pin, though. People question what people say every minute of every day [less so if it agrees with what they already thought]. I'll give you that you were exaggerating for hyperbole there, but it was overexaggerated.
Also, I didn't have to question "every little thing in this article," just the most glaring, obvious things, then I quit. Tried to come to the simpler answer by the quickest route, and all that. Used to be, most people didn't trust every word "anonymous" "unknown" sources *allegedly* said.

Your line of reasoning is going nowhere.

I was only using the words you said.

From what I can see, the San Francisco Examiner is a well-established newspaper that's been around for 150+ years, and I doubt they would want to weaken their journalistic integrity by doing a little shitstarting. That's my opinion, you can have your own, but let's try to be realistic here.

I didn't say "shitstarting," I am just saying "maybe they need to have more actual information before they accept everything verbatim from anyone."
And, nah, no newspaper, certainly not even in San Francisco, has ever muckraked or exaggerated, I guess?

Why do you have such a hard time accepting the fact that a listener of a radio show might take things too far?

A listener of a radio show can do practically anything his heart wants to do.
So can a politician's spokesman, a false flag operative, or whoever controls the [half-]stories.
Just be wary.

 

[almaniac27]

Who is "he?"
Nobody knows who sent the fax, do they?
That's part of the point that means this is more than "said article," it's also about how "said article" is presented, how factual it is, how much information is unknown, and so on and so forth.

You're right, we don't. Should I have said "she"?

Or I guess you can do the opposite and not question anything before you accept it [depending on the source and content, likely]?
I don't think questioning the integrity of the article is going to lead any one to questioning their own existence or how many angels can dance on a pin, though. People question what people say every minute of every day [less so if it agrees with what they already thought]. I'll give you that you were exaggerating for hyperbole there, but it was overexaggerated.
Also, I didn't have to question "every little thing in this article," just the most glaring, obvious things, then I quit. Tried to come to the simpler answer by the quickest route, and all that. Used to be, most people didn't trust every word "anonymous" "unknown" sources *allegedly* said.

The only source I see is Yee's spokesman, who is named in the article.

I didn't say "shitstarting," I am just saying "maybe they need to have more actual information before they accept everything verbatim from anyone."
And, nah, no newspaper, certainly not even in San Francisco, has ever muckraked or exaggerated, I guess?

I see this article was posted in the crime section, and they are reporting on what the official word from Yee's spokesman is. Putting Limbaugh's name in the headline is certainly sensationalizing, they probably figured it would get them more hits. Muckraking, shitstarting, you say tomato...

A listener of a radio show can do practically anything his heart wants to do.
So can a politician's spokesman, a false flag operative, or whoever controls the [half-]stories.
Just be wary.

What would be Yee's endgame here though? A little blurb in the police blotter of a secondary newspaper in Frisco, where does that get him?

I imagine faxs are relatively easy to trace, and if the California Senate sergeant at arms is on the case, we should see new details on this pop up very soon.

And believe me, a California state senator with an axe to grind against Limbaugh is very easy for me to believe, just not as easy as some loser with a fax machine who decided to play 1995-era tough guy. It's like a tree-based message board!