- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
sharpton and jackson are not "officials", are they? they are well known public figures, as is rush. and i'm not so sure about "the rules of the situation".....what are they exactly?You realize there's a difference between PRIVATE business and PUBLIC office don't you?
If Rush Limbaugh stated a quote that an individual on the left said and that quote was absolutely untrue, and if he stated numerous contextless things to then label them as a derogatory name, and I believed that kept that person from entering into a business transaction then yes...I would be upset with Rush as well. And it'd be wrong as well. And it'd be bad for this country as well.
To my knowledge he hasn't done that. If he ever does, I'll happily scream about it.
Going after POLITICAL figures running for PUBLIC OFFICE elected by INDIVDIUAL CITIZENS is not the same as lying about a private citizen attempting to enter into a private contract with a private organization.
Yes, and as I said, I believe his partners only dropped him due to the situation at hand which came about:
1. Due to a leak to the media which was against the rules of the situation
2. Due to sports writers fomenting huge discontent by using completely false quotes and context less quotes to claim he's a racist
3. Due to athletes and owners then using those quotes as the basis for causing a huge uproar
This uproar was not outwardly due to him being "devisive" or "controversial" but was focused around him being a "racist", with the hatchet job stories by many of those sports casterse being the foundation for that.
His partners knew he was controversial when they approached HIM to join. He told them there may be some opposition in ownership due to his fame/infamy, so they knew that. I don't doubt there'd have been some controversy surrounding him.
But based on what's happened in the past week and the foundation for most of it I see zero reason why his group would've dropped him, the commissioner would've came out hinting he'd be against him, or owners coming out stating publicly their opposition to him, if it hadn't been wrongly leaked early and if he hadn't been lied about to foment greater rage and give a foundation of which to complain.
if rush has been lied about, then he's been slandered or libeled, and he has the option to sue. do you think that will happen?