Reply With Quote
The NFL is a private club, they get to decide who joins. If you don't like it, write your local Senator about their anti-trust excemption.
When will the left stop trying to cir vent our rights?
Sharpton: Block Limbaugh's Bid for Rams, first part of article:
Sharpton, Jackson Attack Limbaugh's Rams Bid, part of article:(CBS/AP) The Rev. Al Sharpton wants the National Football League to block conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh from bidding on the St. Louis Rams.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday. He said Limbaugh has been divisive and "anti-NFL" in some of his comments.
Limbaugh did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
Limbaugh shot back at Sharpton on his radio show.
"Now, this saddens me as well this disappoints me," he said. "I know Rev. Sharpton. Sharpton is better than this. He knows better than this. You know, I didn't judge Al Sharpton's fitness to be in radio when he wanted to earn an honest living for once, given his well-do ented past as the author of the Tawana Brawley hoax. I believe in freedom and I also don't discriminate."
Limbaugh said last week that he is teaming up with St. Louis Blues hockey team owner Dave Checketts in a bid to buy the Rams. He has declined to discuss details of the offer, citing a confidentiality agreement.
The NFL is a private club, they get to decide who joins. If you don't like it, write your local Senator about their anti-trust excemption.
"plantation dreams" by rush limbaugh.
I agree. As much as the likes of Jackson and Sharpton want the people to be free, why do they try to stop out the free association of others?
Jackson and Sharpton have every right to pe ion the NFL. The NFL has every right to heed or ignore their pe on. If they decide Limbaugh isn't ownership material, it is their right to exclude him.
Jackson and Sharpton aren't impeding anyone's rights at all.
he called sharpton a hypocrite, not a criminal.
I hope you feel that way when the NFL sells the team to him.
Really?
Do you think their words will have no effect? I never said they were violating their rights. Just trying to stop such actions. That's not a hindrance?to impede (third-person singular simple present impedes, present participle impeding, simple past and past participle impeded)
1. to get in the way of; to hinder
Isn't it an evil act to thwart someone else at their endeavors? It most certainly isn't moral, without cause!
Sharpton and Jackson are doing what they always do, who the cares? The NFL is a private club, and Sharpton ain't a member. Sharpton is always good for a laugh.
Limbaugh will probably make a pretty good owner...time will tell.
Now look up the webster's definition of "Rights", jackass.
Jackson and Sharpton may be impeding Limbaugh's bid, but not his right to bid.
Sure. Other than a radio show, Limbaugh isn't all that different from some of the current owners anyway.
Why?
I'll tell you what. If you stop using incorrect terminology for impact, I will to. Up to the challenge?
Limbaugh has the "right" to bid for an NFL team, he does not have the "right" to be approved. That "right" is reserved by the National Football League.
No Sherlock...
Did you read my last?
I have no clue what you mean by that.
You started this thread with:
No rights are being cir vented. Unless you just want keep ing about much Jackson and Sharpton angries up your blood, the point of your thread is moot.When will the left stop trying to cir vent our rights?
I'm going out on a "Limb"augh....He ain't RACIST!
Rich, Republican, megalomaniac. etc.
Gotcha lefty.
OK, I understand. You are too re ed to understand the following:
If you're not re ed, then you know what I meant, and you are incapable of providing a sufficient argument against. Instead you have to complain about my word selection.If you stop using incorrect terminology for impact, I will to. Up to the challenge?
Which is it? Re ed, or incapable?
No, I understood perfectly that this thread is really just an excuse to about Al Sharpton. That's OK.
BTW, where in this thread did I use "incorrect language for impact?"
Subsidizing in the gripe against Halliburton.
I didn't say it was this thread.
fair enough.
So wait, people who aren't making the decision on behalf of the NFL, but who think that allowing Limbaugh -- or anyone else for that matter -- would be a bad choice, should just basically shut their mouths and are somehow impeding a right to free association?
Never minding that neither Sharpton, Limbaugh, nor the NFL are state actors, since when is advocacy on behalf of a particular position a contravention of another's rights?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
