If Howard Stern is the undisputed leader of the medium, why expect professionalism from Coward?

As offensive as Imus was, I'm begining to see a double-standard. There is new show on TV called, "The Whitest Kids You Know," on which they poke fun at 'whiteness.' Can you imagine a show called, "The Blackest Kids You Know," on which they would poke fun at, 'blackness?' Of course not. Just sayin...

This happens every year. A respected memeber of the white community (Larry Bird, Paul Hornung, Don Imus) says something, and everyone flips out.

Would Al Sharpton be in the eye of the shit-storm if he called Eastern Kentucky's Womens Basketball team, "a bunch of mullet-haired rednecks"? I would imagine a different reaction.

Simply shotty journalism. If Bill O'Reilly didn't debate Gerry Rivers, would Salon take this stance?

If we substitute 'America' for 'Bill O'Reilly' would this be published? Why don't we invite everyone in the world to come into America illegally? That would surely push the crime-rate to zero in America. Right?

Freedom isn't free.

For a moment, put yourself in another American citizens' shoes. How would you feel if your teenage daughter was killed by a drunk driving illegal alien? No, don't bring up fair trade coffee or Iraq or anything else. How would you feel if your teenage daughter was killed by an illegal alien who was drunk behind the wheel? How would you feel about this issue?

I imagine you would agree with Mr. O'Reilly more than Mr. Rivera. Maybe not.

Baseball and precipitation don't mix. Don't tweak the schdules for futuresnow. I'm surprised Bud Selig didn't throw his hands up and declare a tie. I listened to Bud on the radio last night, he was in Arizona for the Reds Red Snakes game, and don't worry, he is still the dweebiest man alive.

quoting you: "The crime is drunk driving and that's what should be punished in accordance with the law."

Actually the crime was illegally entering our country. That should have been punished in accordance with the law. Instead, it wasn't, he wasn't deported, leading to the second crime, which is drunk driving and manslaughter, which NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED if we punished the original crime.

Is everyone in here taking crazy pills?

Last night, watching tv, I realized we hit a new low (and I'm sure we'll slide much farther in the years to come).

The two biggest stories:

"Nappy Headed Hos"

"Who's Anna's Baby-Daddy?!"

We've eliminated the need for Jon Stewart.

I love those words being used together. I got another one for you guys. (I played ball for a long time on a bunch of different levels - and I got away with this one hundreds of times, and got caught once).

Playing third base gives a player a unique opportunity for a savory cheat. Okay, guy on first, ball hit anywhere left of center and past the outfielder. That baserunner, who is watching the ball ahead of him, rounds second, and at some point has to pick up his third base coach to see if he is sending him home or not. The later he focuses on his coach and the base, the better. The third baseman, amidst all the confusion, knows that everyone is watching the ball and no one is watching him. Hell, even the third base coach, like 8 feet away doesn't even glance at you, same with that baserunner who is coming right at you. Your shortstop is the cutoff guy, because the ball got all the way to the wall, so the third baseman is supposed to stay at third, but it's also acceptable (if your shortstop has a shitty arm) to be the cutoff between the shortstop (who is somewhere in leftfield by now) and home.

Okay, now it's time to cheat. The thirdbaseman should act all flustered like they dont' know whether to stay at third or go be a cutoff guy. The thirdbaseman needs to kind of get in the way of the runner, making him stutter or lose sight of the base, but never ever ever actually making contact with the guy. It effs up the runners timing, and the odds of throwing that guy out at home just went up 100 fold. Again, did it hundreds of times (even in D1 college ball), got caught once (in seventh grade).

I guarantee I would have got you too. And it certainly can be interference without contact.

I'm sure most Democracts will agree that they've nominated some pretty weak presidential candidates in the past 2 elections (no? well, they couldn't beat W). Democracts shot themselves in the foot with slightly less than electable candidates. Why, why, why in the hell would they nominate someone who could alienate voters, for any reason? It's wrong to not vote for someone because they don't have a penis, but, this is America, and we'll just count up the votes, and that will be that (no intended irony).

How many Democrats would prefer losing the next presidential election because voters were anti-feminists, to winning the election with Barack Obama?

I'm a dude, I won't vote for Hillary because she scares me. But I will vote for a Democrat if you nominate anyone other than her. Fair? Maybe not, but, it's my vote, in Ohio, and it's worth like 350 votes on a coast. So, maybe you should take me seriously, or not.

but they still let me vote