Reply With Quote
I'm attempting to use correct terminology instead of choosing words for impact.
I said racialist, you idiot.You want to shoot Mexicans at the border and you want to call people racist?
I'm attempting to use correct terminology instead of choosing words for impact.
i heard him.
who cares? running to defend limbaugh is no different than running to defend sharpton.I hope Limbaugh sues his ass off first.
You're probably right.
I forgot that there are people that pathetic.
Programs proposed and passed in congress affect us all. If Rush buys a team, it only affects those involved.
The man loves the game. Granted, it could be a rumor, but I do believe it. I see it very probable with his ac ulated wealth and love of the game.Cmon guys... are we sure Rush Limbaugh even WANTS to buy the team? Have you checked the sources? How do you know Limbaugh isn't lying about wanting to buy the team? Or that someone isn't MAKING him say these things?
You guys are WAY too trusting of your sources.
You heard him what?
Sure it is. Limbaugh is being mis-characterized as a racist. Al Sharpton isn't being mis-characterized as a lying race-baiter. Cany you say, "Tawana Braly?" How 'bout, "Duke La Crosse Team?" Then, there's the "Crown Heights Riots."
There are three significant incidents in which Al Sharpton's actions led to the ruin of people's reputations and, in the case of Crown Heights, their deaths.
I don't think you can point to one thing Limbaugh has said or done that led to such extreme consequences.
what are "those involved" saying?
No, you fail Cry Wolf...Wow, the ownage in this thread is palpable. To the point of embarrassing. Small wonder WC and NOB have stopped posting in it.
I stopped posting because I had other things to do today, and didn't get here till recently.
Typica... Jump to conclusions...
i heard what everybody heard.
he got canned for it, and thats it.
I disagree. He made a statement based in factual observation. Not racism.
Even ESPN knew it wasn't racist, but because of race-baiters, they all did what they though were best.
Intelligent people know it wasn't a racist remark.
no he isn't.
you can't go after sharpton without limbaugh?Al Sharpton isn't being mis-characterized as a lying race-baiter. Cany you say, "Tawana Braly?" How 'bout, "Duke La Crosse Team?" Then, there's the "Crown Heights Riots."
There are three significant incidents in which Al Sharpton's actions led to the ruin of people's reputations and, in the case of Crown Heights, their deaths.
I don't think you can point to one thing Limbaugh has said or done that led to such extreme consequences.
Which is what?
No, he didn't. The network defended him in the days following the broadcast. , Michael Irving was a panelist on that broadcast and didn't utter a word of disagreement.
It wasn't until the race-baiters -- under the direction of the Rev. Al Sharpton -- reached full tenor that the network changed its mind. And, that was business decision, not a moral one. The incessant harping by Sharpton was bad for business and firing Limbaugh was the path of least resistance to make the nattering stop.
Yes, he is...otherwise, his critics wouldn't be making up to paint him as one.
Sure I can but, we're having this discussion in the context of Sharpton's culpability for smearing Limbaugh.
you brought this up. why do you need limbaugh again?
Since it seems beyond you to formulate an argument in defense of your premise, let me help.
Now, point to the racist part of that statement.
If he had been fired for making that statement, ESPN wouldn't have waited for an "outraged" Al Sharpton to stir the pudding.
Let's put them in a cage and let them fight it out.
We're talking about Limbaugh and Sharpton. Read the le of the thread.
Also, it was you that said, "who cares? running to defend limbaugh is no different than running to defend sharpton."
My response, listing the various misdeeds committed by Sharton and demonstrating just how different defending the two is, was in direct response to your comparison.
How 'bout we just hold the media accountable, for once, when they rush to pimp one of Sharpton's wild-assed accusations. You would have thought they would learn after the Duke debacle.
Has CNN retracted its bogus report containing the fake quote?
you left out the delivery.
do you have to make rush feel any worse?If he had been fired for making that statement, ESPN wouldn't have waited for an "outraged" Al Sharpton to stir the pudding.
Meaning?
I don't think Rush has looked back that often -- except when being smeared in a similar manner, such as is happening now. The man has a nationally broadcast radio show in almost 600 markets with somewhere between 10 and 20 million faithful listeners.
He doesn't need the ESPN gig and, if the NFL doesn't want his money at a time when money is scarce, I'm sure he'll get over it.
intent. no big deal. it wasn't one of his brightest moments.
yeah, he should just move on, or pretend to be a victim. what do you think he'll do?I don't think Rush has looked back that often -- except when being smeared in a similar manner, such as is happening now. The man has a nationally broadcast radio show in almost 600 markets with somewhere between 10 and 20 million faithful listeners.
He doesn't need the ESPN gig and, if the NFL doesn't want his money at a time when money is scarce, I'm sure he'll get over it.
Roll the tape...
You'll notice there are three blacks on that panel. Somebody can be heard agreeing with the comment. I don't know if it was one of the three but, certainly, none of them disagreed with Limbaugh's comment.
I wish I could find a longer clip that shows any reaction by the other four after the comment but, I can't.
Regarding the McNabb incident what proof did Rush Limbaugh have that the media was supposedly playing favorites because of McNabb's race? Why did Rush resort to playing the race card?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
