The Young Turks

I am personally much more outraged at the left's continued attacks on the Duke Lacrosse players than I am for Don Imus. I saw Jackson on t.v. a couple nights ago and he was berating those guys for hiring a stripper. So after 2 years of dragging them through the mud, he feels the need to attack them for that? How many guys have never been to a strip club in their life...expecially if the whole damn team was hiring them as an ad-on for a team party. They probably came, laughed at what was going on at this party, left, and the next thing they know the Sharpton-Jackson duo is on them.

Here is a J-schooler writing an article called "Don't feel sorry for the Dukies" in which he talks about their "privilaged lives." F this guy. If he wants to find someone living a privilaged life, he should meander over to the Kennedies house where when crimes are actually committed the lawyers cover for them or their personal docotrs cover for them with "ambien" prescriptions.

The professors at the liberal arts and indoctrination department are STILL attacking this kids. I posted enough so I don't even want to post links. It's pathetic that after two years, their schools can't stick up for its own athletes because they want to protray Whites repressing blacks, men exploiting woman, jocks as meatheads, and privilaged people exploiting the poor.

That outrage is misplaced.  Limbaugh, Savage, Bennet, Imus.  All idiots, all appropriately smacked.  Firing one of them won't "create" racism.  That racism is already there.  Nor will punitive measures against them ruin their careers.  Look at Limbaugh.  He was fired by ESPN once apon a time, but is he any less of a highly-respected journalist today?

Okay, really bad example. 

And here is the New York Times talking about Nifong's "strong" case after their "thorough review" of the evidence.

"This was perhaps the Times' most misleading paragraph: "By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.""

What evidence was the Times looking at??? Answer- they weren't looking at anything. They were advancing liberalism and attacking white American, which is a #1 goal of liberal arts schools. As of January of this year the author wrote another article basicall retracting what he said, which I can't find a link to, but by that point in time the case was completely over and we were jsut waiting for the official- it's over. The question remains- what the hell was the New York Times looking at to begin with. Absolutely nothin.