Al Sharpton Asks NFL to Block Limbaugh Bid

[RobMoney$]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12352252


Sharpton: 'Anti-NFL' Limbaugh should be blocked from bidding on Rams

Oct. 12, 2009
CBSSports.com wire


NEW YORK -- The Rev. Al Sharpton wants the National Football League to block conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh from bidding on the St. Louis Rams (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/STL).
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 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.
In 2003, Limbaugh worked briefly on ESPN's NFL pregame show. He resigned after saying Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

[pshabi]

I don't want Limbaugh owning in the NFL. I don't think the NFL does either. I don't give a rat's ass what Sharpton thinks though.

[YoungRemy]

there were plenty of players who were willing to boycott the Rams if he bought the team.

so yeah, Sharpton didn't need to inject himself into this one either...

[RobMoney$]

I just find it ironic that Sharpton's advocating to deny someone opportunity.
Even if that person is nothing more than a hate peddler, Limbaugh has a right to success too.

But yeah, that's Goodell's job to deny him ownership based on his "associations", not Sharpton.
I hope Goodell makes that clear somehow, publicly. Or else you'll have this clown walking around thinking he has a say in NFL policy.

[Burnout18]

I'm not a Rams fan, but if i was i don't think I would want him owning my favorite team because some players have already come out and said they don't want to play for him because they think he is a racist.

God forbid a pro bowl caliber player, white black or asian, refused to play for the rams because of who the do nothing owner is, i would be livid.

And i don't know if goodell has to comment yet, there are a few other groups pursing interest in the Rams, this might fall through.

[Bob]

I just find it ironic that Sharpton's advocating to deny someone opportunity.
Even if that person is nothing more than a hate peddler, Limbaugh has a right to success too.

But yeah, that's Goodell's job to deny him ownership based on his "associations", not Sharpton.
I hope Goodell makes that clear somehow, publicly. Or else you'll have this clown walking around thinking he has a say in NFL policy.

we wouldn't want al sharpton to develop an ego

[YoungRemy]

The other owners and the Players Association also have a say.

[Documad]

Why give Sharpton the attention? He's like Ann Coulter. If you're talking about him, then he already won.

[travesty]

Please. I would like to see the NFL player that turns down a big contract because he doesn't like the boss. Not going to happen. Did anyone ever refuse to play for Marge Schott? No, and she was as bad as anyone in her racial remarks. The whole idea is laughable.

[travesty]

The other owners and the Players Association also have a say.

I don't want Limbaugh owning in the NFL. I don't think the NFL does either. I don't give a rat's ass what Sharpton thinks though.

If you took Goodell and all of the NFL team oners and put them in a room it would be a near perfect demographic of Rush's audience and the Republican party as a whole. Almost entirely rich white conservative males. What makes you think they are not going to allow their messiah in the club? $$$ talks.

[RobMoney$]

I wonder what Al would think if the situation was reversed and Limbaugh wrote a letter and made a public plea to deny a Black guy potential ownership?

Racist fuck.
He embarresses the entire Black cause.

[RobMoney$]

If you took Goodell and all of the NFL team oners and put them in a room it would be a near perfect demographic of Rush's audience and the Republican party as a whole. Almost entirely rich white conservative males. What makes you think they are not going to allow their messiah in the club? $$$ talks.


I have to disagree.
The NFL is obsessed with their image.
There's no need to court Limbaugh, they'll be lined up at Goodell's office for the opportunity to buy a piece of a team.
Shit's a license to print money.

[YoungRemy]

If you took Goodell and all of the NFL team oners and put them in a room it would be a near perfect demographic of Rush's audience and the Republican party as a whole. Almost entirely rich white conservative males. What makes you think they are not going to allow their messiah in the club? $$$ talks.

32 Voices Louder Than Limbaugh’s

By GEORGE VECSEY
Published: October 12, 2009
The N.F.L. has a policy for just about everything. Tucking in shirts. Use of cellphones or felt pens in celebration of self. Smarting off at inappropriate moments. Wipe that smirk off your face, mister, you’re not in junior high school anymore. And that’s just for owners.

So it is no surprise that the N.F.L. also has a written policy governing the acceptance — and let us hope rejection — of potential owners. The current club owners seem to have the power to turn down somebody just because they don’t like the cut of his jib, whatever a jib is.

This is reassuring given the recent announcement by Rush Limbaugh, a chap who talks on the radio, that he is interested in buying into the St. Louis Rams. Limbaugh is seeking a partnership with Dave Checketts, who has hitherto amassed a good reputation in New York, Salt Lake City and St. Louis...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/sports/football/13vecsey.html

the rest gets political but the gist is there. they aren't going to approve a recognized racist who has publicly mocked their league, their cities, and their players.

[valvano]

If you took Goodell and all of the NFL team oners and put them in a room it would be a near perfect demographic of Rush's audience and the Republican party as a whole. Almost entirely rich white conservative males. What makes you think they are not going to allow their messiah in the club? $$$ talks.

so the Democratic party is the party of poor blacks ?
:rolleyes:

[RobMoney$]

I thought Rush's audience were the liberal campus fuckers attempting to "keep their enemy close".

[travesty]

Interesting read about the innner workings of the NFL under Rozelle. The League by David Harris. That shit is a cabal of very rich folks and they don't play by anyone else's rules but their own.

[Burnout18]

Interesting read about the innner workings of the NFL under Rozelle. The League by David Harris. That shit is a cabal of very rich folks and they don't play by anyone else's rules but their own.

and Rozelle hasn't been commish in 20 years.

When I think of nfl owners and politics I think of the Rooney family in pittsburgh... the same family that came out and openly supported Barack Obama.

[Burnout18]

and Rozelle hasn't been commish in 20 years.

When I think of nfl owners and politics I think of the Rooney family in pittsburgh... the same family that came out and openly supported Barack Obama.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10213142/Colts-owner-against-Limbaugh;-Goodell-concerned

Colts owner comes out and says he wouldn't support rush.

[travesty]

and Rozelle hasn't been commish in 20 years.

When I think of nfl owners and politics I think of the Rooney family in pittsburgh... the same family that came out and openly supported Barack Obama.

No doubt it was a while ago, just recommending a good read. Anyhow, a lot of people are re-thinking their support for Obama at this point. Maybe they are too? I'm not saying Rush is a shoe-in, just that it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was OK'd regardless of what the players think.

[DroppinScience]

I wonder what Al would think if the situation was reversed and Limbaugh wrote a letter and made a public plea to deny a Black guy potential ownership?

Racist fuck.
He embarresses the entire Black cause.

Sharpton wrote the letter because Rush Limbaugh is a racist (or plays one on the radio), not because Rush is a white guy.

[travesty]

Personally I am so tired of everyone the Dems don't like being labeled a "racist". Certainly some people are, but it has become so passe that it has simply lost it's meaning. It is now just a word easily thrown around for shock value and it's effectiveness at putting people on the defensive, especially publicly. When people can't think of any other arguments or come up with any facts to have a rational discussion about a topic it immediatley reverts to the race card and that to me is in fact racist. If race is truly not an issue in your mind then there is no race card to play...take note Mr. Carter. If you truly are colorblind then it should never even occour to you what color a person's skin is nor should it ever be a reason to support or defend any issue you may have. It should be as irrelevant as hair color. Do we celebrate the first blond this or the first red-headed that? Do people say "They're just voting againt him because he's bald"? Why not? Because only people who truly see blond, red-headed or baldness as somehow differentiating that person's value as a human being from everyone else would even notice those things.

I'm sorry but if people like Al Sharpton, Van Jones, Sonia Sotomayor and likely Barack Obama are not "racists" then no one is. By the same token if you beleive that they are racists, they I believe that everyone is....to some degree.

[saz]

sharpton's not racist, he's just a douche.

[DroppinScience]

Look, travesty, I do not know what is in Rush Limbaugh's heart of hearts and what he truly thinks and feels. Maybe he's got a ton of black friends that he loves and reads to orphaned children, etc.

All I can do is take him at his word when he does his radio show. Any man who openly advocated for a return to Jim Crow laws and segregation is a racist. Or he does not mean what he says and just throws it out there for attention. Unless you have lunch with Rush on a regular basis, travesty, I don't think we know for certain.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/17/limbaugh-we-need-segregated-buses/

I'm pretty sure Rush has been guilty of other extraordinarily hateful things on his radio show, but there's no backing out of this one, bub.

[DroppinScience]

sharpton's not racist, he's just a douche.

Agreed. He's a media whore and has come off as buffoon-ish in the past, but I haven't seen him delve off into hate speech.

[travesty]

Look, travesty, I do not know what is in Rush Limbaugh's heart of hearts and what he truly thinks and feels. Maybe he's got a ton of black friends that he loves and reads to orphaned children, etc.

All I can do is take him at his word when he does his radio show. Any man who openly advocated for a return to Jim Crow laws and segregation is a racist. Or he does not mean what he says and just throws it out there for attention. Unless you have lunch with Rush on a regular basis, travesty, I don't think we know for certain.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/17/limbaugh-we-need-segregated-buses/

I'm pretty sure Rush has been guilty of other extraordinarily hateful things on his radio show, but there's no backing out of this one, bub.

Obviously Rush would fall under the "Certainly some people are..." caveat I put in there. Bub.

[travesty]

hate speech.

So it has to be hateful to be racist? I never had that qualifier in the definition I always used.

[DroppinScience]

hate speech
–noun
speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

rac⋅ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The two sound synonymous to me. Then again, it's well known that reality has a liberal bias.

[travesty]

Seems to me that supporting and promoting Affirmative Action would satisfy #1 and #2. Where does that leave the Democrats and the likes of Al Sharpton?

So what I hear you saying is that the statement "Joe should not be a CEO because he is black" is racist. But the statement "Joe should be a CEO because he is black" is not?

I don't see it that way. Either way you are still using Joe's race as a qualifier to his abilities regardless of whether it is hateful or not. By simply identifying a person's skin color you are inherently differentiating them, for good or for bad, from people with other skin colors. Personally I don't believe anyone should be differentiated that way as it has no absolutely no bearing on one's human value.

[yeahwho]

Not to go into this fray too much, but as far as I can tell Rush Limbaugh has made hundreds of millions of dollars providing a service for those who do not want to listen to Al Shaprton.

It's a strange dynamic and I haven't researched this more than the thread title but I feel that having Rush Limbaugh purchase and NFL team may actually be a good thing. Unfortunately for the NFL it may not be so good, but for the rest of us it seems on the surface great.

[RobMoney$]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/rush-limbaughs-nfl-bid-fo_n_318174.html


ST. LOUIS (AP)--The Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson attacked the bid by Rush Limbaugh to buy the St. Louis Rams on Monday, saying the conservative radio host's track record on race should exclude him from owning an NFL team.
Sharpton sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, arguing that Limbaugh has been divisive and "anti-NFL" in some of his comments.
Jackson said in a telephone interview that Limbaugh had made his wealth "appealing to the fears of whites" with an unending line of insults against blacks and other minorities.


Oh the irony!

Sharpton, Jackson, and Limbaugh have more in common with each other than any of them will ever admit.

I mean what do they think he will do, not hire any black players?

[yeahwho]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/rush-limbaughs-nfl-bid-fo_n_318174.html



Oh the irony!

Sharpton, Jackson, and Limbaugh have more in common with each other than any of them will ever admit.

I mean what do they think he will do, not hire any black players?

The Huffington Post is so appropriately titled. I'm not sure what their huffing before they post but whatever it is it must be pretty fucking strong.

[RobMoney$]

The irony is just off the charts in this thread.
Obama's #1 fan is now bashing the HuffPo?

I used the HuffPo article intentionally.
The same article is posted on several different sites, but continue to kill the messenger.

[yeahwho]

The irony is just off the charts in this thread.
Obama's #1 fan is now bashing the HuffPo?

I used the HuffPo article intentionally.
The same article is posted on several different sites, but continue to kill the messenger.

Bad reporting/journalism is just that, I've seen, heard and read enough small minded journalism since Obama's been elected to fill whole libraries. Rush and Huffington deserve each other for neglecting any objectivity or seriousness on most every reality we face today.

I stick up for Obama because they use him as a punching bag when things don't get done. Rather than examine those who don't do their jobs.

[kaiser soze]

First you start name calling without any provocation

I thought Rush's audience were the liberal campus fuckers attempting to "keep their enemy close".

And then you act like a fucking martyr for no reason when nobody responds to what you posted

The same article is posted on several different sites, but continue to kill the messenger.

wow, talk about playing the victim

Anyways, Rush Limbaugh will get his additional 15 minutes of fame for making the bid and then will tack on another 15 minutes of fame when he starts bitching and blabbering about being discriminated against.

If he gets to be owner of the Rams good for him, if he doesn't oh well. Isn't this capitalism in it's purest and most beautiful form? Why focus on what people think of him when you can focus on the potential successes and wonder Limbaugh can bring to the Rams.

[RobMoney$]

Travesty said this:
If you took Goodell and all of the NFL team oners and put them in a room it would be a near perfect demographic of Rush's audience and the Republican party as a whole. Almost entirely rich white conservative males. What makes you think they are not going to allow their messiah in the club? $$$ talks.

Valvano said this:
so the Democratic party is the party of poor blacks ?
:rolleyes:

Then I said this in response:
I thought Rush's audience were the liberal campus fuckers attempting to "keep their enemy close".


I don't know what you're on about with me feeling neglected that no one responded to one of my posts?



But yeah, this is a win-win for Limbaugh.
Even if he gets denied, he gets to cry about it on air.
Being a victim of racism feeds right into his steez.

Only thing is he actually IS the victim of racism here.

[travesty]

The Huffington Post is so appropriately titled. I'm not sure what their huffing before they post but whatever it is it must be pretty fucking strong.

Sweetness... you just usurped Rob's quote from my tag lines. Well done. That shit was funny.(y)

[DroppinScience]

Seems to me that supporting and promoting Affirmative Action would satisfy #1 and #2. Where does that leave the Democrats and the likes of Al Sharpton?

So what I hear you saying is that the statement "Joe should not be a CEO because he is black" is racist. But the statement "Joe should be a CEO because he is black" is not?

I have heard this argument before from anti-affirmative action advocates, but I have yet to be convinced that that is what affirmative action is all about. To use your "Joe the CEO" example: my understanding of affirmative action would be: "Joe (who just happens to be black) should be CEO because he is well-qualified and skilled for the position like anyone else of any other race. The fact that he is black should not hold him back from opportunity."

Perhaps you can enlighten me and show me the error of my ways. If two people -- one white, one black -- are equally qualified for a position, but the employer decides to go with the black candidate... yeah, sure, too bad for the whitey, but the black was equally deserving of the position too, right? That just means the white person will have to look for another job. Happens to people all the time. Now if affirmative action means two people -- one white, one black -- are competing for the same position, but the black guy has less impressive credentials than his white counterpart yet the black guy gets the job anyway, then sure, there can be cause for complaint, but is there any hard evidence of this happening or is this rhetoric just playing on white fears?

I am all ears.

[Bob]

i don't know how it works exactly in the employment context (i'm sure every employer does it differently) but i can say that at least in terms of law school admissions, being an underrepresented minority gives you a boost. in general, schools will only look at your GPA and your LSAT score, but if you're a minority (asians and jews don't count for this), you can get admitted with an LSAT & GPA that wouldn't suffice if you were white, they add a few more points to whatever calculus they use to determine admissions. i have to assume that at least a few employers do the same thing.

so basically, a less qualified (but still qualified) minority candidate can get an edge over a more qualified white candidate. it's definitely discrimination, it's just designed to remedy past discrimination which you could argue has resulted in, for example, very few black people going to law school and becoming lawyers (even with the boost, law school classes are still overwhelmingly white).

obviously there's a great deal of disagreement about the usefulness of that

[travesty]

I have heard this argument before from anti-affirmative action advocates, but I have yet to be convinced that that is what affirmative action is all about. To use your "Joe the CEO" example: my understanding of affirmative action would be: "Joe (who just happens to be black) should be CEO because he is well-qualified and skilled for the position like anyone else of any other race. The fact that he is black should not hold him back from opportunity."

Perhaps you can enlighten me and show me the error of my ways. If two people -- one white, one black -- are equally qualified for a position, but the employer decides to go with the black candidate... yeah, sure, too bad for the whitey, but the black was equally deserving of the position too, right? That just means the white person will have to look for another job. Happens to people all the time. Now if affirmative action means two people -- one white, one black -- are competing for the same position, but the black guy has less impressive credentials than his white counterpart yet the black guy gets the job anyway, then sure, there can be cause for complaint, but is there any hard evidence of this happening or is this rhetoric just playing on white fears?

I am all ears.

Sorry. The analogy about Joe had nothing to do with the comment about affirmative action. Bad segue on my part. The point of Joe was to show that a simple statement, not hateful or spoken in a derogatory manner, can still be racist. I don't feel hate or malevolence need be present for something or someone to be considered racist.

As for affirmative action Bob is right many schools do assign "extra credit" during the admissions process to some minorites based soley on race. I not only feel this discriminitory to non-minorities but also that you are basically telling the minority student that "you really don't deserve to get in, but since you're (insert ethinicity of choice) we're gonna lower the standards a little for you". How is that not discriminatory to everyone involved?

The 2003 Michigan University case was the big test of this admissions procedure in the Supreme Court. From an NPR article;

June 23, 2003 -- In its first ruling on affirmative action in higher education admissions in 25 years, the nation's highest court ruled Monday that race can be used in university admission decisions. But the narrowly divided court also seemed to put limits on how much of a factor race can play in giving minority students an advantage in the admissions process.

If race plays ANY factor in a decision isn't that decision, by definition of the word, tainted by racism?

Worse than college admissions are the EEOC's Affirmative Action "guidelines" that tell businesses what percentage of minority and gender mix employees should be hired at each level within the company. These "guidelines" are used to determine a company's eligibility to bid on government contracts. Minority and woman owned business are also given preference in contract bids. These guidelines are in reality de facto quotas. Litigation concerning discrimination, unfair hiring practices, hostile work place and other EEOC related charges virtually ensure that these "guidelines" are met and exceeded. No company wants to go in front of a jury during a simple wrongful termintaion case and explain why they employ 5% less Hispanics than the EEOC guidelines recommends. Who wants a bunch of uppity Liberals protesting in front of their company calling them "racists"? It's much easier to just meet the EEOC guidelines, even if you have to take a few lesser candidates to do it.

In other scenarios the Higher Courts have actually imposed real, race based hiring quotas as punishment to companies, and most notably police and fire departments (Boston, Philly), who were found guilty of discrimination. Nothing like curing discrimination with more discrimination. (n)

As you can see this is not just rhetoric. BTW what are "white fears"? Do those come from Glenn Beck's "white culture"?

The whole idea of Affirmative Action is patently absurd and does nothing but further the racial divide in the country. Unless you truly believe that one race is simply not capable of competing with others for jobs, college or whatever without help or special treatment from others then Affirmative ACtion can not be defended. If you do believe that last statement then you perfectly match the definitions you presented earlier for racism. Equal opportunity for everyone, special treatment for no one. Thanks for listening.

[DroppinScience]

Bad reporting/journalism is just that, I've seen, heard and read enough small minded journalism since Obama's been elected to fill whole libraries. Rush and Huffington deserve each other for neglecting any objectivity or seriousness on most every reality we face today.

I stick up for Obama because they use him as a punching bag when things don't get done. Rather than examine those who don't do their jobs.

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder makes the following observation:

From day one of his administration, the left has held Barack Obama's feet to the fire way more than the right ever did to George W. Bush -- at least until Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Put another way: the diversity of opinion about Obama and his presidency among activist Dems far exceeds early Bush-era diversity of opinion among activist GOPers.

Is there any doubt that this is accurate? I can't imagine how there could be. And is there anyone who believes that this is a bad thing?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/14/criticism/

He continues:

All one has to do is act like a citizen first, not a party apparatchik or fan club devotee, which means nothing more than this:

(1) If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is good and constructive, say so and give him credit;

(2) If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is bad, wrong and/or destructive, say so and criticize him for it;

(3) If there were things you claimed to find so horrible and wrong when Bush did them (indefinite detention, denial of habeas corpus, renditions, state secrets, endless wars, military commissions, compulsive secrecy), and Obama does them, apply the same standards. As Bob Herbert put it rather simply: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House."

(4) If there are ongoing debates about policy, agitate for the outcome you think is best rather than the one the White House wants, where those two are different. If there are policies you think should be adopted that aren't, complain about that, critique it, and find ways to maximize pressure.

(5) Don't personalize political leaders and be driven by emotional attachments to them one way or the other. They're nothing more than public servants -- an extremely powerful one in the case of the President -- who should be assessed based exclusively on their actions.

(6) If anything, when it comes to the most powerful political official on the planet, it's best to err on the side of excessive checks and criticism rather than excessive deference and trust. Presidents have no shortage of people and institutions loyally devoted to their message and agenda.

[yeahwho]

I'm not too sure why you quoted me? Is there a reference point I should take into account?

OK, well no big deal I guess, maybe you've crossed threads from the Nobel Peace prize.

Then it makes a bit of sense.

Cheers.

[yeahwho]

in general, schools will only look at your GPA and your LSAT score, but if you're a minority (asians and jews don't count for this), you can get admitted with an LSAT & GPA that wouldn't suffice if you were white, they add a few more points to whatever calculus they use to determine admissions. i have to assume that at least a few employers do the same thing.

So here I sit with my lot in life, an Asian Jew with the name of Muhammad Goldstein holding a GPA of 2.80 and a LSAT of 145. How many years am I going to work at this carwash?

[Burnout18]

limbaugh was dropped from the checketts group.... oh this was all for nothing.

[Bob]

So here I sit with my lot in life, an Asian Jew with the name of Muhammad Goldstein holding a GPA of 2.80 and a LSAT of 145. How many years am I going to work at this carwash?

law schools are doing you a favor by rejecting you. you just don't realize it yet

[DroppinScience]

I'm not too sure why you quoted me? Is there a reference point I should take into account?

OK, well no big deal I guess, maybe you've crossed threads from the Nobel Peace prize.

Then it makes a bit of sense.

Cheers.

In this thread and others, you have expressed an open contempt for those who criticize the President -- whether it's from the left or the right. I'm with you on the right because what generally passes for discourse on their side right now is obstructionism and fear mongering with no basis in facts and reality. Basically they seem to be opposing for the sake of opposing. But your attacks on critical voices on the left (Huffington, Zinn, et al) seems to be that they are "small-minded fucks" or "bad journalists."

Greenwald's points for how to deal with any elected official (praise the good they have done; condemn the bad) is pretty straightforward and deserves repeating to anyone -- no matter what side you are on politically. Blind cheerleading and knee-jerk defense for Bush was disastrous. I think the same for Obama would also be dangerous. We all need things put in perspective. If you oppose this line of thinking, you are certainly free to speak up.

[travesty]

If you oppose this line of thinking, you are certainly free to speak up.

I oppose our President's line of thinking!
He is ass ramming America without the common courtesy of a reach-around for the public.

[yeahwho]

law schools are doing you a favor by rejecting you. you just don't realize it yet

Sure, there's probably 5 attorneys for every car wash employee injury. I think I have shammy elbow and serious rim rot now.

[yeahwho]

In this thread and others, you have expressed an open contempt for those who criticize the President -- whether it's from the left or the right. I'm with you on the right because what generally passes for discourse on their side right now is obstructionism and fear mongering with no basis in facts and reality. Basically they seem to be opposing for the sake of opposing. But your attacks on critical voices on the left (Huffington, Zinn, et al) seems to be that they are "small-minded fucks" or "bad journalists."

Greenwald's points for how to deal with any elected official (praise the good they have done; condemn the bad) is pretty straightforward and deserves repeating to anyone -- no matter what side you are on politically. Blind cheerleading and knee-jerk defense for Bush was disastrous. I think the same for Obama would also be dangerous. We all need things put in perspective. If you oppose this line of thinking, you are certainly free to speak up.

That is sort of what I thought was happening, this football team thing seems unimportant to me, if Rush has money and some town, corporate entity is willing to sell him a football team, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Bob]

Sure, there's probably 5 attorneys for every car wash employee injury. I think I have shammy elbow and serious rim rot now.

i'll take the case

[saz]

That is sort of what I thought was happening, this football team thing seems unimportant to me, if Rush has money and some town, corporate entity is willing to sell him a football team, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

still though, you're ignorning the main point: he's the president, not your boyfriend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPDhQAeMYmI&feature=related).

[yeahwho]

still though, you're ignorning the main point: he's the president, not your boyfriend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPDhQAeMYmI&feature=related).

I'm trying my hardest to figure out what Al Sharpton or Rush Limbaugh or any of this thread has to do with my boyfriend Obama.

How is Obama my boyfriend, the main point?

[DroppinScience]

You brought up why you stick up for Obama from all types of criticism, so I thought it appropriate to address that.

[yeahwho]

If we're counting backwards I brought it up. If we're counting forwards you brought it up. :p

[yeahwho]

Looks like more than just a few people believe Rush Limbaugh is a racist. I really like this statement from Mathias Kiwanuka of the New York Giants,

"I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man."

[valvano]

more Sharpton race baiting that turned out to be a hoax

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/race_attack_victim_lied_o4Fa3YxxfmGo3P3nHo9AQO