Rush Limbaugh Responds To Palin's Resignation

YouTube/RadioEqualizer ^ | July 4, 2009 | by Brian Maloney

[MaestroLC]

Breaking his silence regarding the resignation of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, talk titan Rush Limbaugh tells the Radio Equalizer that rumblings about her personal and political future are "all speculation".

[trisham]

I may be wrong here, but I understood that hoosiermama's post was not directed at you. I hope she will correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my inference that the "nasty people" she was referring to was beckett, in the post where he referred to Palin as a "pinhead" and Palin supporters as "dopes".

I did not in any way think that she was accusing you of the same behaviour. If I had, I would have said something.

[trisham]

Thanks, and I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

I know that faction is out there, but I don’t want folks to totally dismiss the criticisms unless they know these folks are Romeny supporters. Take that with a grain of salt, because we both recognize that’s hard to do.

It’s entirely fair to wonder and even put them in a category as possible Romney supporters.

For the record, I dismissed Romney in the winding down of the late winter months in early 2008. I looked up his record, and I couldn’t support him. I won’t support him.

His Romneycare is reason enough. There is a factor related to healthcare costs, that it has caused to triple since it’s passage. Course Romney is long gone now, don’t call him with your problems Ma.

I appreciate your candor with regard to Palin. It’s possible to be disappointed with someone and still be a big supporter. I urge you to continue to support her as long as you desire.

[trisham]

We shall see what the future brings with Palin. Thanks again.

[DoughtyOne]

While that may in fact be the case, I very nicely asked her to explain who she was referring to. I wouldn’t have done so, if she hadn’t made those comments directly to my long post to you.

She asked me with the rest of you, to please read the book, and see if we didn’t see things differently. Without clarification, I can only come to the conclusion that she thinks I was somehow not understanding the full measure of his infractions, or making additional infractions myself.

I do believe I have a right to ask a fellow forum participant who seems to be taking me to task, to please clarify the drift of their comments. If they want to ignore my request for clarification fine, but don’t ping me back in to still further comments without making the requested clarification.

I’m not faulting you here, because you have a right to your opinion and I’m not going to fault you for it.

It was still upsetting to see some of the terms used in her post, addressed to my comments. So I addressed them in return.

Thank you for the response Trisham. I appreciate it.

[trisham]

I do believe I have a right to ask a fellow forum participant who seems to be taking me to task, to please clarify the drift of their comments. If they want to ignore my request for clarification fine, but don’t ping me back in to still further comments without making the requested clarification.

*********************

Absolutely. I don't know why there was no response, but it may have been that your post was simply overlooked. That's happened to me before, as I'm on somewhere between 12 and 15 ping lists. The sheer volume of posts I receive makes it difficult for me to see or respond to everything.

I'm not sure I've ever spoken to hoosiermama prior to this thread, so I can't know for sure, but from my interaction with her I believe that there was no harm meant.

[DoughtyOne]

I won’t deny that is a possibility.

I too get a number of them, and I do miss some from time to time. Not very often. One of my personal rules is that I always respond to and acknowledge posts to me.

There are very few exceptions.

[trisham]

It’s a thought. :)

[DoughtyOne]

And a fair one...

Later

[potlatch]

[I wasn’t sure if you were just bumping, or if you thought I was in need of reading your tagline.]

Actually I had been reading the thread last night with great interest and was simply bookmarking it.

I will say to you that after reading some of your long replies I found your comments to be very kindly worded. You explain all the reasons for your thoughts without resorting to the meanness so often found here now.

The bookmark was intended to be for your #402 post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2286048/posts?page=402#402

My tagline has been removed, it wasn’t an especially good one and perhaps gave a wrong impression

[hoosiermama]

Sorry, I've been tearing out a toilet and installing a new one....Just getting to FR in spurts. Didn't mean to ignore you, but really don't have time to do a long thesis.

I asked you to read a very small book, less than 100 pages to better understand where I was coming from. Instead you insist on me giving analysis of what is in YOUR head. That I can't do even if I were willing to do it.
From the book:
1. We ALL invalidate—you, me, the guy next door everyone.
2. It is not up to another person to determine if the validation was on purpose.
3. Only the person doing the validation can determine that
(Your unwillingness to investigate a premise I asked you to look into invalidated me. (It says my information is not of value to you and you do not value my thoughts).
4. The book list many types of validation...most are innocently done,
5. Others are used to control, keep folks in a certain place... Those include abusers, misogynist etc that I mentioned before....even teachers, and parents.
6. People who are targets in this type of relationship often minimize or make excuses for the person who is the invalidator.

I don't know your background and can't answer why you made the comments you did, whether they were intentional invalidation or just innocent comments.

You certainly intentionally minimized anything I said or suggested in your last post that any suggestion I made had no value to you. If I in turn suggested you (get a life) or some other flippant comeback I would be invalidating you, I don't care to do so.
My original intent was just trying to give people some information so that they could handle the onslaught that we are going to be facing against Sarah. I included you because I thought you were interested in the topic. Obviously you're not.
You seem to have taken it personally. Look at yourself ..only you can determine where you stand ....the analysis is yours....Same belongs to the others (all others) on the thread regarding their own comments and intent.

Now I really must get some work done....Hope this helps clarify, Get the book less than $2. used on amazon. for more information.

[hoosiermama]

You are correct...It was an attempt to help folks handle attacks on Sarah....

You got it.

[DoughtyOne]

I think your tag line was great. I just wasn’t sure if there was a tie-in that I should respond to.

Put it back, and thanks for the kind words of agreement.

[DoughtyOne]

Been there, done that.  I've had my hands in some of the rarest of conveniences from an early age.  Replacing toilets and sewer pipe were a few of the tricks my grandfather taught me.

Once you had posted to other people including myself, without responding on point to me, I naturally thought you didn't care to response.  I don't think that is all that irrational.  I accept your explanation.

If you would have addressed comments to me about invalidation literature, I wouldn't have balked at the concept, if you hadn't done it to my extensive comments.  What bothered me was that you linked them to my extensive comments in #402, which I actually perceived as a possible invalidation in and of itself.  Further I thought you were possibly inferring I was guilty of certain things.  That's why I asked you to explain some things to me, so I could take them in the proper context.  A simple response there would have sufficed.

Your unwillingness to investigate a premise I asked you to look into invalidated me. (It says my information is not of value to you and you do not value my thoughts).

I didn't say I wasn't willing. I didn't state your thoughts had no value, and I didn't dismiss them.  I responded on point to every issue you raised.  I stated I didn't believe it was appropriate to throw those terms out there the way you did, and expect me to leave them hanging while I purchased reference materials, waited for them to come, read them, and then came back to the forum to respond on point.  Quite the opposite, I was paying close attention to what you said.  I wouldn't have objected if I had dismissed your thoughts.  I think that speaks for itself.  And what is that comment between brackets there, if not an invalidation of my comments to you?  Shouldn't you value my thoughts?

Although we've both been here for a long time, I don't know you well either.  All I can do is try to divine what you meant, and ask you to explain something if I have a question about it.

I went to great pains to make sure my reasons were clear for making the comments I did to you in that post.  That means that the post was far longer than it needed to be, but I didn't want you to misunderstand anything I said.  And yet, you still did.

You reduced the post to this, "You certainly intentionally minimized anything I said or suggested in your last post that any suggestion I made had no value to you."  I went out of my way to state that I did not totally dismiss the value of reading your materials.  I believe that was the core of your post.  So I'm somewhat baffled by your comment that I minimized any suggestion you had made.  Look, you use words like bigotry, abuse, and misogyny to me, and then expect me not to react.  Again, aren't you doing the very thing you are taking me to task for?  You dismissed the validity of the responses I made to your action, didn't you?  What you do is you make comments, and if I respond to those comments, I'm invalidating your thoughts.  I'm not if I disagree and explain why.  Here you're invalidating mine though.  That's what it seems like to me.

What I actually did, was call you on every aspect of what I thought you had done, that was inappropriate.  Mixed in there, I was also gracious enough to state that yes, the books you referred probably did have value.  I just suggested that folks should be careful about how they apply the information in them.  I gave examples why.  I don't think it's wrong to recognize things for what they are as parts of sentence structure or potentially abusive tools (if you will).  I just don't think it's appropriate to characterize every instance of some of those things to be very destructive or manipulative.  Of course they can be at times, but people need to realize that at other times they may not be.  I all depends on the situation.

No, actually I am interested in this subject matter.  I just don't want to have something posted to a post I spent hours developing, that may infer that I'm a bigot, an abuser, a misogynist or all three.  Yes, I did take that personally.  Who wouldn't?

You state that only I can determine what my intent was.  Frankly, I would hope that people could read that post of mine and know damn certain that it wasn't evidence of bigotry, an abusive nature, or misogyny, and for that simply reason NEVER EVER post something to it using terms like those, especially if the fail to flesh out whether I was guilty of them or not.

Your response helped to clarify some things, but it is extremely frustrating for someone to suggest that I need to go read a book so I can stop doing what they are doing.

Look, this post makes it seem like I don't like you.  I didn't appreciate your note, but this stops here as are as I am concerned.  I'd be glad to talk to you on other threads.  I believe you think I am over-reacting here.  I don't believe I am, but what the heck.

I realize you're working, so I'll clam up until you return.  If you don't want to say more, I do appreciate your response.

Hope you task was completed to your satisfaction.
.

[hoosiermama]

We’ve been connected to each other since the freeper cruises.....
I just don’t have time during the day to go into long threads...and when I do stop by a thread and see long detail discussion on who said what, it IS annoying to me.....things we used to send to the back room.....Usually I just go on, but there were enough other comments on the thread that I was interested in, kept coming back.

I understand why you went to beck’s...defense as I explained to you earlier...I often do that myself. Sometimes even for new freepers who are just learning the ropes...I remember one, who you could probably name, that would sometimes have a little too much to drink when thay posted and we all made allowances.

But I really don’t have the time to discuss and discuss.

I have had contact with you since mentioning the book including jokes on the freepathon thread....So I was taken back with your long post above that I felt invalidated by....

Particularly since I refuse to say anymore than each person must look at their own actions as to why we do it....and we all do, although most are unintentional...I certainly didn’t criticise your actions.

Beck’s comments were invalidations. The book mentions how to deal with such comments. I’ve learned from the book: 1. they don’t need to be discussed or excused, just acknowledged for what they are. 2. where/why they come from is not yours or mine or anyone elses problem...they belong to the source....and should be left with the source.

I certainly have never had any ill will to you for all these years we’ve posted to each other, would hate to see it now.

Now I really must get to the garden.

[hoosiermama]

"No, actually I am interested in this subject matter. I just don't want to have something posted to a post I spent hours developing, that may infer that I'm a bigot, an abuser, a misogynist or all three. Yes, I did take that personally. Who wouldn't?"

Never said you were: Those were just part of the content of the book...letting you know some of what is in it and that invalidation is part of those problems and may be the source of the invaldation. Others didn't take it personally.

[trisham]

My friend, you are a gentleman.

[DoughtyOne]

Hoosiermama, I don’t harbor ill will toward you, and I appreciate the note.

I should remember better having interaction with you on the cruise threads, but right now I barely do, simply because you mentioned it. It’s not personal at all.

Yes, we have probably had recent contact on the Freepathon Thread, but I’ll be honest, there are times when I make responses when I don’t focus on the name of the person. I enter those threads to bump, and read the comments, but I don’t quite give them the same attention that I would a normal thread on news topics. Sorry.

I do remember the person you’re referring to. And I think it’s funny how you worded it, exactly right.

Good luck with your chores.

[DoughtyOne]

You were not posting to their comments. You were posting to mine. And you did say the tactics were used by people guilty of those things. Take care...

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt