I first thought of the old phrase regarding the "pot calling the kettle", but someone would surely start calling me a racist. Now, "hisself". Really? This is an elected official saying "hisself"?

And just to update, since I got some questions about this. I took another listen (and asked the reporter who did the interview for a ruling) and think I misheard it so it's been corrected. My apologies.

Every time I hear about Al Sharpton all I can think about is the Tawana Baloney case in which Sharpton and that other imbecile (whose name I can no longer remember) represented Tawana Brawley when she claimed to have been raped and abused by a group of white policemen in New York. Upon further investigation all of the police were found to be not guilty of anything that they could be charged with and Ms. Baloney eventually admitted that she made up the whole thing so that her step-father would not beat her for being out past her curfew. As I recall, neither Sharpton nor his buddy ever admitted that Ms. Baloney was lying and, it is my understanding, that she is living somewhere in hiding from the authorities in New York.

Before Sharpton does anything else he should get off of his behind and go find Ms. Baloney and turn her over to the authorities in New York and then issue a personal apology to each and every one of the accused officers.

For those of you who are too young to remember this incident, I suggest that you read up on it on the internet before you respond to this comment.

Kudos to Burns for telling it like it is!

Bryan, I thought a news reporter's job was to write unbiased stories. Your coverage lately regarding LGBT issues with pending legislation on both the State level and the County level have been very obviously skewed against civil equality. Are you a reporter or a pundit?

Burns to the point!

Al "Super Simpleton" Sharpton is a total embarrassment. He gives religion a bad name and should be viewed as one of the Obama zombies.

Del Burns really ought to refrain from name calling. Isn't he allegedly a man of God?

There was a time in recent history when the good Rev Al did act like an ass. So did Rev Burns. One difference between the two is that Burns never changed and Sharpton did. Instead of dismissing Rev Al as a charleton, I started paying attention to what he was saying now and not digging up decades old speeches and rhetoric. He is quite intelligent and politically astute. Don't let the hair fool you! Take a chance and hear what he has to say these days (MSNBC). Burns on the other hand is like a broken record. Unplug him already.

And if Sharpton agreed with Burns he would be brilliant, wouldn't he?

@Chuck_Barton You are missing the point. Which is simply let go of the past and see what they are saying now. Sharpton has matured, Burns has not.

Is is. My apologies. Read too fast.

Sharpton a smart 'politician'? Huh? I thought he was a hack Baptist minister who was hired by PMSNBC to do..ahem..commentary along with all the other liberal jackasses there.
he is nothing more than a first class race baiter..THAT he's good at!

@Frank, @Marv, you guys are operating on old information. Just as you have matured so has the Rev Al. Like it or not, in current time, his message is on point. Rev Jesse has been superseded by people who can think for themselves. You don't see any body running to him for much these days.

@Paul, While I will agree that Big Al has toned down his message some are you denying that Sharpton was involved in that scam involving Tswana Brawley a few years ago? I haven't seen a whole lot to make me change my opinion of Big Al.

Frank, it's the rhetoric, that's all. Sharpton has issues, Bush has issues, Reagan has issues, Clinton has issues, just simply stop. Argue policies please.

Rev Al has always been astute. He got taken in by Tawana Brawley and instead of walking away, he doubled down. He learned something from all that sensationalism. Whatever he was in the past, he is on fire right now and running with his new found celebrity. And yes, Paul, don't they all have issues? It's what keeps us typing inside all these comment boxes, LOL.

<[:-)))

Yes they all have issues. We should be discussing policies. Unfortunately some of these people with these issues let their issues determine how they handle policies, if that makes sense to you. For example, someone with some serious issues cannot or will not let common sense help determine how to solve problems that they face because they can't or won't separate their personal issues from the policies they may need to formulate for the good of the people. They need to be able to be objective when discussing policies which determine what is best for the country. For example, Obama's health care which he and the Senate rammed down the US people's throats. He knew that the majority of the US population was against his version of health care reform. He could care less. He basically took the role of dictator and with the help of the Democratic controlled Senate forced the population to accept it. Like it or not. Of course he, the Senator, Congress and a few administration friendly businesses were exempt from having to accept his health care reform. The businesses were given a "temporary" reprieve from having to participate in the new health care reform. From what I understand, the full impact of the increased cost of this health care reform won't kick in until 2014 I believe. This will be past the Presidential election so he doesn't have to worry about repercussions of the wrath of the "dumbed down" American electorate.

Ah Frank, what is it you don't like about health care? Specifically about talking points, do you remember the Iraq war and what was done there? How about the Bush tax cuts? Were Democrats complicit, you bet they were! But it was rammed down our throats. Tax cuts with 2 wars is nuts.

I will argue with you the good/bad of single payer healthcare (Obama had 60/100 votes in Senate) all day long, but civilly. We can disagree about politics all day in a civil manner. But as I have said, when the "have-a-lots" attempt to convince the "haves" that their enemy is the "have nots", our country has serious problems. That is where we are today.

My 23 year old son now has health insurance he would not have otherwise because of "Obamacare", many with "pre-existing conditions" now have care they would not have otherwise. What is bad about that? Helping the human condition I thought was always good? Tell me please otherwise and explain.

Sing it, Paul!

Paul, you misjudge my opinions and intentions. I am not completely against health care reform. This country desperately needed and needs health care reform. I also have a forty-four year old step-son who lives with my wife and I. He does not have health care and is suffering from a fractured skull which happened during a fall last year. He was in a coma for two months . As a result of the fall he seems to have suffered a stroke and pretty much helpless at this time. He still needs health care, medicines and therapy if he is ever to return to being as close to normal as possible.
We are now fighting to get him SSA disability and Medicare. It is an uphill battle. After going with him to the Harford County Social Services I get the distinct impression that some of their employees are being paid to keep people from obtaining help and not to help them get the care they need. We were treated very rudely during our visit there. At least that is my impression.
True health care reform could start with allowing or forcing all health insurance companies to participate in all the states in this country. Presently some states only allow just a few health care companies to do business in their regions. There is not enough competition in the states by all of the companies. I could go on and on to name different things to make health care better and cheaper, but I don't want to write a novel on this website.

As far as the Iraqi war is concerned, yes that was rammed down our throats also. I was against that. Bush had a personal axe to grind in Iraq and took the American people kicking and screaming into that war. That was not a shining part of Bush's administration. The human condition is very important, you and I disagree on how to solve the problems.

Why should government be in the business of setting moral standards? That is rightly a function of spirit and philosophy. There seems more justification for churches to be involved in politics, which is the right and duty of all citizens.

Do something or don't do something because, "I said so", and I'm strong enough to make it tough on you if you disobey. So you're saying government DOES have the right to legislate morals, because government has all the power to say "I say so". So we don't need philosophical or spiritual reasons to do or not do something - we don't need churches or learning - only big government telling us what's right or wrong. Is that what you're saying? "Big Brother is watching you!".

Any form of gov't is born out of philosophical beliefs. Religions that operate within the controlling sphere of a particular form of gov't, must support the philosophical beliefs of the gov't. If not, serious destabilizing conflict can ensue & we've seen examples of that. The US could exist without religion. We have laws that secure basic human rights & we have a code of justice. The US could not exist without a government.

I would have you consider who exactly has or is about to take over the country? I would argue the very few with a lot of money.

Frank,
Your comments on Feb 10th were absolutely spot on! I could not have said it ay more succinctly. Keep fighting the good fight as I will, too. As for Paul, forgive him for he knows not what he says. Probably bought the CNN, PMSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc etc line of BS real good...oh well.