|
there ya go in Rush's own words...Nope not a bit. Though I will admit I am very cautious in leaping to conclusions regarding anyone's motives. But that cuts across parties for me. I judge people on what they do and say, not on what party they belong to. I realize there are likely racist republicans out there somewhere. I just haven't met any. But I have met people who were willing to vocalize thoughts I percieved as racist and they were all democrats. Anecdotal to be sure but its been my life experience thus far.Almost all the racist I have ever met were either in the Northeast or in West Virginia. Curiously they have all been democrats as well.Maybe because you subconsciously give Republicans a "pass"? Real racism cuts across political lines.Gotta love media matters:)
Yep, you have to love a group that's soul purpose is to smear and take out of context anything a conservative says. Hillary Clinton once bragged about helping to set up media matters to smear her enemies.
|
Guess what? If you had actually read the thread, you would have noticed that I had already posted this exact link, as well as providing the transcript for people who couldn't veiw the link.Gotta love media matters:)
Yes I did and people didn't seem to notice so I did it again. Also might want to point out that Media Matters does not take it out of context considering they post the Transcript and usually the actual call.
There is a long list of Rush's comments on race that make him seem well, umm racist? Also I really got to enjoy his comments he made while a drug addict on drugs. Or his defense that he spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars dealing with his criminal arrest.
yum
|
|
There is a long list of Rush's comments on race that make him seem well, umm racist? Also I really got to enjoy his comments he made while a drug addict on drugs. Or his defense that he spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars dealing with his criminal arrest.
Yeah, I have seen the list. I also saw where snopes.com went out and showed that most of them can be traced to anti-Rush publications and bloggers, but not to Rush himself.
|
Nope not a bit. Though I will admit I am very cautious in leaping to conclusions regarding anyone's motives. But that cuts across parties for me. I judge people on what they do and say, not on what party they belong to. I realize there are likely racist republicans out there somewhere. I just haven't met any. But I have met people who were willing to vocalize thoughts I percieved as racist and they were all democrats. Anecdotal to be sure but its been my life experience thus far.Almost all the racist I have ever met were either in the Northeast or in West Virginia. Curiously they have all been democrats as well.Maybe because you subconsciously give Republicans a "pass"? Real racism cuts across political lines.http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910120009#20091014
there ya go in Rush's own words...Gotta love media matters:)
Your point is? David posted that up above. Doesn't fit my level of criteria for being racist. Rush was talking about their conduct, not their skin color. I allow anyone the right to criticize the behavior of anyone else regardless of either parties skin color or ethnicity.
Besides which, its besides my point. I'm talking about people I've actually met in my day to day life. Strom Thurmond, for instance, was a conservative whose racial views I would acknowledge were probably at one time archaic (though evidence from those that knew him suggests he grew past this for which I would applaud him). But I never met him and never had a conversation with him.
I should make it clear that when I am talking about people I have met whose words made me think of them as rascist, we're probably talking all of five or six people. I generally assume the best of those I meet (allowing them to prove otherwise) and grant their words the benefit of the doubt. Let me also make it clear that I have mostly lived in heavily democratic areas and assume most of the people around me, though democrats, are not rascist. I was not trying to suggest otherwise. My life experience however leads me to the conclusion that most americans aren't rascist and the few I've actually met that are, are not, at the least, republicans.
"... doth protest too much, methinks."
--Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
and again.
|
|
god I hate these boards some days. never forget to copy and paste.
Does anyone else think this, and the sudden apperance of phantom posts indicate that this thread has outlived it's usefulness? We seem to be reaching the "talking in an endless circle using the same arguments and not getting anywhere," phase.
|
|
god I hate these boards some days. never forget to copy and paste.Does anyone else think this, and the sudden apperance of phantom posts indicate that this thread has outlived it's usefulness? We seem to be reaching the "talking in an endless circle using the same arguments and not getting anywhere," phase.
You smurf a good point. So for the second time I will smurf off of this thread. :)
|
|
Yeah, I have seen the list. I also saw where snopes.com went out and showed that most of them can be traced to anti-Rush publications and bloggers, but not to Rush himself.
There is a long list of Rush's comments on race that make him seem well, umm racist? Also I really got to enjoy his comments he made while a drug addict on drugs. Or his defense that he spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars dealing with his criminal arrest.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Those are the more popular ones, which are a mixed bag.
Rush Limbaugh
* On the March 2 broadcast on his nationally syndicated radio show, Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh stated that "since [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL] has -- on his mother's side -- forebears of his mother had slaves, could we not say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and then wins the presidency, he will own [Rev.] Al Sharpton?"
* On the February 1 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh responded to a Reuters report on a University of Chicago study that found that "a majority of young blacks feel alienated form today's government" by asserting: "Why would that be? The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
* On the November 30, 2006, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh proclaimed: My "cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life" because his pet cat "comes to me when she wants to be fed," and "[s]he's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually [a] very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it."
* On the August 23, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program Survivor in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves." Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."
* On the January 10, 2006, broadcast, Limbaugh suggested that some women "would love to be hired as eye candy."
* On the July 17, 2005, broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh announced a new "advertising campaign" for the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in which he would call the facility "Club G'itmo, the Muslim resort," a "tropical paradise down there where Muslim extremists and terrorist wannabes can get together for rest and relaxation." On his website, he sold "Club G'itmo" T-shirts that read: "I Got My Free Koran and Prayer Rug at G'itmo," "Your Tropical Retreat from the Stress of Jihad," "My Mullah went to Club G'itmo and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt," and "What Happens in G'itmo Stays in G'itmo."
* On the March 1, 2005, edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh claimed that "[w]omen still live longer than men because their lives are easier."
* Limbaugh noted on August 9, 2004, than in recent television appearances, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd appeared "just joyless," "miserable," and "did not seem happy at all." Limbaugh then concluded: "Must be a guy. Isn't it always a guy when a woman's unhappy?"
* On June 14, 2004, Limbaugh shared with listeners his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women (NOW): "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG"). Limbaugh claimed that the "militant feminists" who make up the "NAGs" "aren't determining who wins elections. White men are."
* Responding to an Associated Press report that women had recently been appointed as chiefs of police in four major U.S. cities, Limbaugh on May 27, 2004, referenced the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib: "If we've got four new female police chiefs out there, then I guess we can watch out for some naked pyramids among prisoners in these new jailhouses that these women ran, because we had a woman running the prison in Abu Grab [sic]."
* On April 26, 2004, Limbaugh claimed that women "actually wish" for sexual harassment, and said he then "laughed [him]self to tears" when Media Matters for America documented that and other sexist remarks he has made. The Media Matters report also noted that Limbaugh used the term "femi-Nazis" eight times between March 15 and April 29.
* In 2003, Limbaugh made controversial comments about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, which led to Limbaugh's resignation from his position as a commentator on ESPN. During the September 28, 2003, edition of ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown, Limbaugh said that "[t]he media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well" and, therefore, that McNabb "got a lot of credit for the performance of this team [the Eagles] that he didn't deserve."
* According to a June 7, 2000, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article, "As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' " In the early 1990s, "after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: 'Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?' " According to FAIR, "[w]hen 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. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting 'ax' for 'ask'-- when discussing black leaders." FAIR also reported that "[i]n 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: 'Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out.' "
|
I think a big part of the problem is that Racism has changed definition and become a catch all phrase to represent 3 different types of racial hatred. The problem being is that we tend to want to treat racists all the same way when not all racists are the same.
Really there are three types of racial hatred that have fallen under the catch all of racism.
Racism (hereafter refered to as supremecy): this is where someone feels that one race is fundamentally better than another, examples are aryans and the KKK.
Bigotry: this is where you just dislike a race, reasons could be specified (usually causing it to end up in another category) or be vague and undefined "I just don't like black people" is an example of bigotry.
Prejudice: this is where most people fall and is pretty self explanatory, its where you expect a series of behaviors or traits from someone merely because of race. You pre-judge them.
I'd like to point out that while all of these terms have uses outside of race, I'm using them in context of race. So while you can be bigoted to women and prejudiced against dogs, that doesn't bear relevance to this discussion.
From what I've heard of Rush I do not believe he is a supremist or a bigot, I do think there is a case to be made that he has some prejudice. However, a large majority of people have prejudice of some form.
Also there is an increasing problem with lumping culturalism in with racism, which muddies the waters significantly. I don't think anyone can make the case that Rush isn't a culturalist. He is conservative and thinks the conservative culture is the best, and while culture can be tied to aspects of race, being a culturalist doesn't make you a racist. I do think culturalists can be as problematic as racists but is a completely seperate issue.
All in all I think if we would stop using racism as a catch all but rather define the problems we can go a lot further towards actually getting beyond them.
|
|
You do notice that there are no entire quotes in that list, right? They have cherry picked things out of what he said and have at best include a whole sentence or two in places. Not exactly what I would all a fair or accurate portrail.
I could give fair and accurate, but that would take time, energy and effort.
How ever very little of what Rush actually says is fair or accurate so...
|
|
You guys make it hard to leave well enough alone.
Rush is not a rascist. Anyone who listens to him any length of time should be able to tell that. He attacks women and blacks and men and whites but never because of where they are from or what color they are.
Rush is a conservative tribalist who thinks that conservatives are better than liberals. He makes fun of the NAGs not because they are women but because they are hardnosed liberal women whom he percieves to lack a sense of humor. He ridicules Jesse Jackson, not because he is black but because he thinks Jackson is a race hustler and an extortioner. Rush was just as hard on Bill Clinton because he disagreed with Clinton just as he does Obama. He is close friends with Clarence Thomas, not because of Thomas' race but because they think alike. He has Bo Snerdley and the Hutch (and even Juan Williams) defend him, not because they are afraid of him, but because those who know him say he is a genuinely nice, polite, generous, considerate man.
Frankly, I appreciate that he does not think he needs to treat any one group different in the way he attacks them. That to me would be bigotted.
|
|
You do notice that there are no entire quotes in that list, right? They have cherry picked things out of what he said and have at best include a whole sentence or two in places. Not exactly what I would all a fair or accurate portrail.I could give fair and accurate, but that would take time, energy and effort.
How ever very little of what Rush actually says is fair or accurate so...
What I would like to point out is that you've lumped a lot of sexist comments in there. What does that have to do with the conversation as to whether or not he is a racist. Especially irrelevant since the NFL is male only.
|
|
On the August 23, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program Survivor in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh stated that the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim." Limbaugh stated that "our early money" is on "the Hispanic tribe" -- which he said could include "a Cuban," "a Nicaraguan," or "a Mexican or two" -- provided they don't "start fighting for supremacy amongst themselves." Limbaugh added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." When the Survivor producers decided to dissolve the show's racially segregated "tribes" after only two episodes, Limbaugh declared that "[t]here can only be one reason for this ... that is the white tribe had to be winning."
Of all the quotes, this one to me is the worst sounding and deserves to be given a fuller context. Part of Rush's schtick is illustrating absurdity by being absurd and the whole survivor episode is an example of Rush's flavor of satire. It was not representative of his views but was his attempt to take some liberal talking points and apply it to a commentary on the Survivor show.
The comment about blacks not swimming was in relationship to some studies and comments on the fact that black children were more likelier to drown. IIRC there was some suggestion by a liberal prior to this that sending government money to inner city swimming pools was discriminatory. The comment about the hispanic team was in relationship to the immigration issue but was also based on the oft stated quote that certain immigrants "would do jobs Americans weren't willing to do." The comment about the white tribe winning was directed at the producers of the show, whom Rush was basically accusing of racism. He was not suggesting that it was natural for the white team to win but was suggesting that the producers would have felt it to be an undesireable outcome.
The whole commentary, rather than being evidence of Rush's racism, was actually an attack against the subtle (and not so subtle) racism of others using parody, sarcasm and absurdity. Rush was no more being an advocate of racism than Jonathan Swift was advocating cannibalism and the mistreatment of the poor with his modest proposal.
Half the quotes, at least, when I read them on the list, are satire of a similar sort (or else a purposeful tweaking of people Rush doesn't like.
The only color Rush really cares about at the end of the day is Green. If you think he gives a rat's ass about the color of someone's skin, I think you are probably mistaken.
I think a big part of the problem is that Racism has changed definition and become a catch all phrase to represent 3 different types of racial hatred. The problem being is that we tend to want to treat racists all the same way when not all racists are the same.
Really there are three types of racial hatred that have fallen under the catch all of racism.
Racism (hereafter refered to as supremecy): this is where someone feels that one race is fundamentally better than another, examples are aryans and the KKK.
Bigotry: this is where you just dislike a race, reasons could be specified (usually causing it to end up in another category) or be vague and undefined "I just don't like black people" is an example of bigotry.
Prejudice: this is where most people fall and is pretty self explanatory, its where you expect a series of behaviors or traits from someone merely because of race. You pre-judge them.
I'd like to point out that while all of these terms have uses outside of race, I'm using them in context of race. So while you can be bigoted to women and prejudiced against dogs, that doesn't bear relevance to this discussion.
From what I've heard of Rush I do not believe he is a supremist or a bigot, I do think there is a case to be made that he has some prejudice. However, a large majority of people have prejudice of some form.
Also there is an increasing problem with lumping culturalism in with racism, which muddies the waters significantly. I don't think anyone can make the case that Rush isn't a culturalist. He is conservative and thinks the conservative culture is the best, and while culture can be tied to aspects of race, being a culturalist doesn't make you a racist. I do think culturalists can be as problematic as racists but is a completely seperate issue.
All in all I think if we would stop using racism as a catch all but rather define the problems we can go a lot further towards actually getting beyond them.
Earlier in this thread you laughed at me for saying "REAL racism is basically gone." Now you have essentially restated in lengthy terms what I was trying to say. I suppose your way of putting it, while more verbose, is easier to understand. Perhaps we are not so different in opinion...?
|
|
Earlier in this thread you laughed at me for saying "REAL racism is basically gone." Now you have essentially restated in lengthy terms what I was trying to say. I suppose your way of putting it, while more verbose, is easier to understand. Perhaps we are not so different in opinion...?
Oh no, not at all, you believe it's only racism if it's institutional, I don't. For the record I don't believe it's only racism if it's institutional, I've dealt with supremecy, prejudice, and bigotry towards black people (my wife hates the term african american she only wants to be refered to as black if you are refering to her ethnicity) I consider that all REAL racism, I just ask that people when labeling a person racist be able to define what particular issue that they have with him. Yes I feel that you shouldn't bar someone from things based on prejudice, that does not make prejudice based on race okay. But the best way to deal with prejudice is to not fit the prejudice, not bar people who have it from participating in areas where there prejudice bears no weight on their decisions. I laughed because no REAL racism isn't dead, although I will agree with you that in america institutionalized racism is 99% wiped out, that doesn't mean that it has been wiped out in the world. And that doesn't mean REAL racism is gone because those terms I've defined ARE REAL racism.
The reason I want people to be able to better define racial hatred is because they have different means of being dealt with. You can't treat a person with prejudice the same way you would treat a person who is a supremist (although there is prejudice involved in supremecy) and just lumping all forms of racial hatred as racism tends to lump the methods of dealing with them. Yes it is racism, but what type of racism is important in dealing with the problem.
Earlier in this thread you laughed at me for saying "REAL racism is basically gone." Now you have essentially restated in lengthy terms what I was trying to say. I suppose your way of putting it, while more verbose, is easier to understand. Perhaps we are not so different in opinion...?Oh no, not at all, you believe it's only racism if it's institutional, I don't. For the record I don't believe it's only racism if it's institutional, I've dealt with supremecy, prejudice, and bigotry towards black people (my wife hates the term african american she only wants to be refered to as black if you are refering to her ethnicity) I consider that all REAL racism, I just ask that people when labeling a person racist be able to define what particular issue that they have with him. Yes I feel that you shouldn't bar someone from things based on prejudice, that does not make prejudice based on race okay. But the best way to deal with prejudice is to not fit the prejudice, not bar people who have it from participating in areas where there prejudice bears no weight on their decisions. I laughed because no REAL racism isn't dead, although I will agree with you that in america institutionalized racism is 99% wiped out, that doesn't mean that it has been wiped out in the world. And that doesn't mean REAL racism is gone because those terms I've defined ARE REAL racism.
The reason I want people to be able to better define racial hatred is because they have different means of being dealt with. You can't treat a person with prejudice the same way you would treat a person who is a supremist (although there is prejudice involved in supremecy) and just lumping all forms of racial hatred as racism tends to lump the methods of dealing with them. Yes it is racism, but what type of racism is important in dealing with the problem.
There were some interesting definitions made along these lines in the interracial marriage thread(along with some stories from my youth), you might want to check that out.
|
|
There were some interesting definitions made along these lines in the interracial marriage thread(along with some stories from my youth),...Earlier in this thread you laughed at me for saying "REAL racism is basically gone." Now you have essentially restated in lengthy terms what I was trying to say. I suppose your way of putting it, while more verbose, is easier to understand. Perhaps we are not so different in opinion...?Oh no, not at all, you believe it's only racism if it's institutional, I don't. For the record I don't believe it's only racism if it's institutional, I've dealt with supremecy, prejudice, and bigotry towards black people (my wife hates the term african american she only wants to be refered to as black if you are refering to her ethnicity) I consider that all REAL racism, I just ask that people when labeling a person racist be able to define what particular issue that they have with him. Yes I feel that you shouldn't bar someone from things based on prejudice, that does not make prejudice based on race okay. But the best way to deal with prejudice is to not fit the prejudice, not bar people who have it from participating in areas where there prejudice bears no weight on their decisions. I laughed because no REAL racism isn't dead, although I will agree with you that in america institutionalized racism is 99% wiped out, that doesn't mean that it has been wiped out in the world. And that doesn't mean REAL racism is gone because those terms I've defined ARE REAL racism.
The reason I want people to be able to better define racial hatred is because they have different means of being dealt with. You can't treat a person with prejudice the same way you would treat a person who is a supremist (although there is prejudice involved in supremecy) and just lumping all forms of racial hatred as racism tends to lump the methods of dealing with them. Yes it is racism, but what type of racism is important in dealing with the problem.
I did, the difference there is that the judges prejudice WAS bearing weight on his decisions. I don't think if Rush has some prejudice that he'll not hire the best people regardless of race.
Interesting bit of reporting long after the fact.
Did Al Sharpton and the NFL “Rush” Limbaugh Away from his Dream?
By Bill Neri-Amadeo at 6:42 am on Monday October 26, 2009
Rush Limbaugh has been rebuked by the NFL and the partnership group that courted him led by St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts because he is an alleged racist and the leader of the firestorm about the Conservative talk show host was none other than the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton was quoted on www.ESPN.com as saying, "It's remarkable in that he was denied by other powerful whites. At the end of the day, his peers said, 'You are a liability.' Even the rich and powerful do not want to be identified with racism." Where do we even begin to break this story down?
Rush Limbaugh is a loudmouth. He is arrogant. He is headstrong. He can be at times hypocritical. Is he a racist? I’m not really sure. On the other hand…Al Sharpton has shown who he is on a continual basis. Let’s briefly examine the history of the two individuals and allow you to make the call.
Rush Limbaugh is one of the most outspoken Republican supporters this country has ever seen. A strong political voice and a die-hard sports fan, ESPN made a questionable move when they hired him to be a host on NFL Game Day in 2003. During his tenure there, Limbaugh made a commentary on Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb and stated, "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
While this comment may have been misplaced, I think many people shared his sentiment. As an Eagles fan and supporter of black quarterbacks and black head coaches, I too want a black quarterback to be successful and I hope it is Donovan McNabb because I feel the fans of Philadelphia deserve to have a Super Bowl Championship brought to their great town. However, ESPN fired Limbaugh the next week and fellow host Tom Jackson stated that he would’ve resigned if the termination was not made yet when Limbaugh made the comments; Jackson sat in the studio and agreed with him. I’m not sure how that was racist. When we turn the page, there have been some controversial moments.
During the last Presidential election, Limbaugh made many derogatory remarks towards our President Barack Obama and strange commentary towards the players of the NFL. Many feel that Limbaugh has lost touch with society and should not be given the chance to own an NFL franchise and amongst those people staunch in their views against Limbaugh have been the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Now, when we analyze Sharpton, the first question that comes to mind is “What does he have to do with the NFL?” Sharpton is not in the NFL is any capacity but yet his words ring loud and were the main reason Limbaugh was denied part ownership of the St. Louis Rams. Sharpton feels Limbaugh’s words are what did him in but we need to ask, does Sharpton have any accountability for his won words?
In 2007, Sharpton said of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney who was running for office and is Mormon that, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." These are truly words of bigotry and yet Sharpton was not held accountable.
While what Sharpton said about Romney was wrong, perhaps there was not a greater form of injustice than the Duke Lacrosse scandal when several Duke Players were accused of raping a black woman. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, in the midst of the allegation called for Duke Lacrosse coach Mike Pressler to be fired and the university did as these two leaders wanted. As the facts came out, the players were innocent and the coach was left without a job. Sharpton never so much as apologized for his role in having an innocent man terminated. Al Sharpton is far from a good, fair or racially moral man.
I don’t like Rush Limbaugh and I don’t like Al Sharpton. Both have colorful histories and neither should be given a free pass for the comments they have made. However, the great thing about America is that if you fight hard enough for your dream, you can make it a reality. Rush Limbaugh fought to get where he is and has the money to buy a portion of an NFL franchise.
While I won’t listen to Rush or add to his empire, I’ll leave you with one question: Who is Al Sharpton to stop him?
I thought it was the administration of the NFL who disallowed the purchase, not Sharpton.
|
|
I thought it was the administration of the NFL who disallowed the purchase, not Sharpton.
Actually it was his partners who decided he should step out of the deal, based mostly on Sharpton's words.
Now, when we analyze Sharpton, the first question that comes to mind is “What does he have to do with the NFL?” Sharpton is not in the NFL is any capacity but yet his words ring loud and were the main reason Limbaugh was denied part ownership of the St. Louis Rams.It is just like the fact that techincally Al Sharpton did not fire the Duke Lacrosse coach, but it was his action that casued the event.
While what Sharpton said about Romney was wrong, perhaps there was not a greater form of injustice than the Duke Lacrosse scandal when several Duke Players were accused of raping a black woman. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, in the midst of the allegation called for Duke Lacrosse coach Mike Pressler to be fired and the university did as these two leaders wanted. As the facts came out, the players were innocent and the coach was left without a job. Sharpton never so much as apologized for his role in having an innocent man terminated.
I did, the difference there is that the judges prejudice WAS bearing weight on his decisions. I don't think if Rush has some prejudice that he'll not hire the best people regardless of race.
Actually I wasn't referring to the case at all, simply the specific definitions that were made there.
Actually it was his partners who decided he should step out of the deal, based mostly on Sharpton's words.
"Who's more the fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him?"
--Obi-Wan Kenobi
Thanks for keeping it off politics guys. :(
Thanks for keeping it off politics guys. :(
Why did Rush get dropped as a buyer? Politics. You can't discuss the issue without talking about politics. Sorry.
That still doesn't explain the rogue's gallery of people who only turned out when it became a political discussion. Like you, pres man.
That still doesn't explain the rogue's gallery of people who only turned out when it became a political discussion. Like you, pres man.
Me? A rogue? Oh, you ice princess.
|
|
That still doesn't explain the rogue's gallery of people who only turned out when it became a political discussion. Like you, pres man.
Maybe because before it became a political discussion it was boring and was gonna fall off the page. But someone brought the politics in and suddenly the conversation was interesting. I mean really even with the politics there wasn't much to say.