|
Posted by Joseph on May 21, 2007, 3:19 pm
> > the point is...
> So Rich's kid IS a "rat faced ho" and
>
> > > Sharpton is a race baiting opportunist etc etc.
>
> So Imus and McGuirk is the victim in all this?
> Post some proof showing the above. Should be easy.
>
> > and someone said it publicly. Imus was wrong but how many times does Sharton
> > get to get away with his shake down of
> > individuals or coporations???
>
> And McGuirk proved this how? Why would Imus be wrong if Sharpton is the
> bad guy for pointing his finger at Imus and McGuirk.
...Ambulance Chaser...
> Sharpton isn't a virgin but he didn't call the Rutgers team nappy headed
> ho's.
>
> Why doesn't Sharpton get a pass when Imus got plenty of them over the
> years? By McGuirk's own admission he and Imus have done the same thing
> over 25+ years.
>
> They had plenty of chances to clean up their act. They did it one time
> too many and the chickens came home to roost.
>
> They call your towns kids names over the years I bet it would have
> stopped years ago.
>
> McGuirk didn't have an argument. Hannity and Colmes had to help him out
> because Sharpton nailed him easily.
> Sharpton "won" the "debate". I didn't like Sharpton till this debate. He
> made a good case and made monkeys of his three opponents. Three you ask?
> I sure didn't see anyone helping Al and the article pointed that out.
> Did you catch that this "debate" turned into a slam Sharpton fest?
>
> Give the man his due.
Some of it was for ratings and getting in front of the camera.
Actually this has become quite the game in media and politics today. Never
stick to the central issue. Change the
subject and bash. What credibility would Clinton have standing up for sexually
harassed interns? The point what just a
sidenote of the real debate that was going on. Think about it... Sharpton and
McGuirk debating moral issues, yea
right...
>
> --
> http://rses.org/
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap