So should this viagra oxycontin popping bloated un-american traitor be allowed to own a football team in todays america? NO WAY! It would be the end of football as an american sport. This clown would pollute the game so bad it would make it a joke. He should sponcor a big time wrestler since that is the fan base he does appeal too

That is an insult to wrestler fans....

Rush should not be allowed to buy any type of sport team period. All players would feel slimed.

Rush Was Punked: “Obama Thesis” Hoax


It must have seemed so perfect. An obscure blogger unearths some pages of President Obama's college thesis. The report supposedly comes from big-time journalist Joe Klein of Time magazine. And the thesis has some real gems: like Obama's disdain for the Constitution.

The whole thing was nothing more than a satirical post on a humor blog. But Rush Limbaugh, who quoted from the supposed thesis on his radio show, sure wasn't laughing. Here's how it went down.

An unknown blogger picked up on a made-up post meant as a joke, which claimed that Joe Klein had gotten his hands on 10 pages of student Obama's college thesis. Rush Limbaugh jumped on it, which immediately sparked Web searches on "obama thesis."

Supposedly titled "Aristocracy Revisited," the excerpt revealed the president had "doubts" about the "so-called founders." Juicy. Except not true. Limbaugh discovered halfway through his show that he'd been had, but defended himself by saying basically the thesis felt true. Listen in to Rush's mea sorta culpa.

Joe Klein finally jumped in, and called the report "nonsense" on his Swampland blog, and the blogger who thought the hoax was real also apologized.

Let's hope someone kept their sense of humor in all this. Still, for a humble post to go from humor blog to major media outlet sure seems impressive. Someone ought to write their thesis on it. For real.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/news/24557

Seven years before Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber became a GOP campaign theme, the Democratic presidential candidate said in a radio interview the U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.

In a newly unearthed tape, Obama is heard telling Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

(Story continues below)




In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79225

I could care less either way. Don't know anything about Rush and dislike the Rams but it's interesting to me that some people should be denied freedoms because of their political views

They wont let Rush in the NFL because of what he supposedly said.

But it's ok for someone to say things like this and still announce NFL games.

•"Mr Bush, shut the hell up!"
•"You're a fascist! Get them to print a T-shirt with the word 'facist' on it!"
•Likened the Bush administration to the Third Reich
•Michelle Malkin is a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick"
•Jewish reporter Chris Wallace is a "monkey"
•Roscoe "Chicken and Waffles" Parrish
•Said Fox News is worse than the KKK, worse than Al Qaeda
•Compared Fox News to Nazis
•George W Bush is "psychotic" with "blood on his hands"
•Olbermann censured by the ADL for Nazi imagery, including the Nazi salute
•Called the GOP the greatest terrorist threat in America
•Derided Hispanic Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as a "houseboy"

Yes out of the mouth of Kieth Olbermann.
I guess we know politically where the NFL stands.
And the hipocracy of the comishoner and owners.

He isn't trying to buy any of them.

The comish said “We’re all held to a high standard here.”

It's laughable the double standard.

Does it matter buying announcing still a part of the game.

Why did Rush leave ESPN?
Because of something he said.

It's ok for Olberman to say those things and still announce the games.

None of it was racist though.

•Derided Hispanic Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as a "houseboy"

That's not racist?

Nope.

How is that not racist?
It's like calling a black man the n word

No it's not. It is like calling a hispanic a good slave.

Did I miss where all the Rush-haters acknowledged that all the people in the media came back and admitted that all those race-baiting quotes that they had attributed to Rush were all made up? that they were false? that they all had cited someone else's writing about Rush rather than Rush himself?

Did I miss that?

So I guess it's ok to slander someone in the media and cause an uproar on made up "facts" about someone and end up denying them to engage in a legal enterprise..

I just want to make sure I know what America I'm living in..

Is it the America where what a certain group of people think someone believes is more important than what that person is actually on record as saying?

Did everyone else miss the utter irony in the media who claimed Rush said all those things (but didn't) derided Rush for saying that "Even if Obama didn't say it, we know he believes it" and then played you his own words where he expressed that very opinion??

Just checking..

No where was it proven Rush did not say racist things.

No where has it been proven Rush is not a racist, bigot, misogynist, etc...

He is a sicko that should make good Americans shamed he is one of them.

That's not how we do things here in America, you facist!

Here we have the "presumption of innocence"

It's part of due process. You can't just level an allegation at someone and proclaime them guilty in absence of proof to the contrary..

Why don't you prove that he said whatever it is to which you take offence.

And aside from the presumption of innocence, we also have this thing called "freedom of speech", freedom of expression.

You're essentially convicting the man of a thought crime.

And punitively prohibiting him from engaging in free enterprise as a private citizen on account of him saying something (even though he really didnt) that offends someone.

People have a right to not engage in enterprise with someone who they feel has a questionable character.

Rush has proven to have a very flawed character.

Rush is a misogynist, racist, and a bigot.

Plaxico Burress carried a loaded pistol into a NY nightclub, a violation of a good many laws. When he gets out, the NFL will hire him back.

Michael Vick was convicted of promoting anf fuding an illegal dog fighting ring. He's been allowed back into the NFL.

I could name you a couple dozen players in the NFL who have been arrested and convicted of spousal abuse and domestic voilence..

NFL players have been convicted of drug trafficking and possession. Yet, they're allowed back into the league to play.

Where's your outrage for the actual crimes they've committed and been allowed to play?

The media convicted Rush Limbaugh of "Thought Crime", a development all Americans should be very concerned about..

The problem here is those guys pay for their crimes. They get a punishment for them and pay.

Rush doesn't pay for his crimes. And he is a "thought" "speak" whatever you want to call it, criminal.

Maybe this is karma for him.

You know negativity does come back to bite us.

You, apparently, are not familiar with the premise of freedom of speech..

There is NOT SUCH THING as a THOUGHT CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not in this country.. Maybe in Stalinist Russia, there may be.. But NOT here!

Don't you get it??

You can dislike Rush or anyone else all you like.. But your dislike of their way of thought is not tantamount to a crime..

Our minds are the last bastion of freedom.. Once it becomes a crime to think a thought, all is lost.

You like it in this case because you agree with those that would silence Rush. Wait until that is not the case and your smarmy little smile won't be nearly as wide.

Wait until someone thinks your thoughts are declared subversive and it's declared that you cannot engage in this free enterprise or that. Then perhaps you'll think better of the Stalinistic stance.

Bleeping Facists!!!