deluca67 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Rush Limbaugh when a group of rich old white men reject him? That's like Al Sharpton being kicked out of the NAACP. I can only imagine how devastating it was after spending a good portion of his adult life coddling 'Rich White America' and the ideals that this country only belongs to them. He may be on the phone at this moment calling his maid looking to score some "blues." :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Rush Limbaugh when a group of rich old white men reject him? That's like Al Sharpton being kicked out of the NAACP. I can only imagine how devastating it was after spending a good portion of his adult life coddling 'Rich White America' and the ideals that this country only belongs to them. He may be on the phone at this moment calling his maid looking to score some "blues." :w00t: :lol: I guess when you are so far right, everyone else is left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Dan Wetzel makes a good point in his column. The whole reason Limbaugh is rich enough to invest an an NFL team is because of his divisive radio show. He should not be shocked his words have come back to haunt him. Live by the sword... Dan Wetzel column PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He should be allowed to own a team as long as he can buy one and will play by the league rules. There's nothing indicating he would be any better or worse of an owner than anyone else. The rest of the story is garbage - politically oriented crap. You don't like his politics, fine, but you're no better than your own low opinion of Limbaugh by saying he shouldn't be an owner because of his politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He should be allowed to own a team as long as he can buy one and will play by the league rules. There's nothing indicating he would be any better or worse of an owner than anyone else. The rest of the story is garbage - politically oriented crap. You don't like his politics, fine, but you're no better than your own low opinion of Limbaugh by saying he shouldn't be an owner because of his politics. This may be true, but when players have publicly said they wouldn't play for the guy, amongst other notables in the NFL not too "cozy" with the idea, it raises concern to say the least. Not just any Joe Schmo can waltz in with billions of dollars and expect the elite pack that is the NFL to accept with open arms. If they don't like you, or if they see you as a liability, you're not welcome, bottomline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He should be allowed to own a team as long as he can buy one and will play by the league rules. There's nothing indicating he would be any better or worse of an owner than anyone else. The rest of the story is garbage - politically oriented crap. You don't like his politics, fine, but you're no better than your own low opinion of Limbaugh by saying he shouldn't be an owner because of his politics. Damn the free market. Hoisted on his own petard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 This may be true, but when players have publicly said they wouldn't play for the guy, amongst other notables in the NFL not too "cozy" with the idea, it raises concern to say the least. Not just any Joe Schmo can waltz in with billions of dollars and expect the elite pack that is the NFL to accept with open arms. If they don't like you, or if they see you as a liability, you're not welcome, bottomline. Kinda like Jim Balsillie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Kinda like Jim Balsillie Exactly. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He should be allowed to own a team as long as he can buy one and will play by the league rules. There's nothing indicating he would be any better or worse of an owner than anyone else. The rest of the story is garbage - politically oriented crap. You don't like his politics, fine, but you're no better than your own low opinion of Limbaugh by saying he shouldn't be an owner because of his politics. Obviously, you're a fan of his. Different strokes as they say. You can't expect someone who spent most of his entire adult life spewing hatred, fueling fears and inciting controversy; a realistic candidate for such a position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He's not being attacked bc hes conservative or a Repub, its bc of his specific comments about black people and black athletes, aka McNabb is held up by the media bc they want a black guy, or now that we have a black president white kids get beat up, Obama is "halfrican" . It doesnt have anything to do with his political beliefs (small govt etc) but his incendiary rhetoric for the simpletons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He should be allowed to own a team as long as he can buy one and will play by the league rules. There's nothing indicating he would be any better or worse of an owner than anyone else. The rest of the story is garbage - politically oriented crap. You don't like his politics, fine, but you're no better than your own low opinion of Limbaugh by saying he shouldn't be an owner because of his politics. Politics isn't the issue. Being a racist is the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFan526 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 The way I look at it, it's not so much his political beliefs that's the problem with the owners, as I guarantee almost every single owner of an NFL team is a Republican and probably to a large extent agree with Limbaugh's ideals. Of course they'd be since they are all rich and looking for their taxes to be reduced. I'd even say Jim Irsay, himself, might have Republican leanings as well. But at the end of the day, you can't have a guy in the NFL ownership that is going to say things that are divisive and interpreted to be racist by a league of players in which the overwhelming majority of players are minorities. It's a PR nightmare. Hell, even I'm a big free market economics guy and tend to agree with a few (emphasis on a few, but certainly not all) of the things he speaks about, and I wouldn't want Limbaugh owning a team because what he says and his rhetoric is hurtful whether that is his intention or not. Perception is reality and the reality is that most players in the NFL perceive him to be a racist. You can't have a racist owning an NFL team, whether real or perceived. At the same time, I don't believe sports is a platform to spout your political beliefs anyway, and hence, I'd be wary of guys on the left becoming owners of NFL football teams as well. Frankly, I don't want any politician or political commentator owning a sports team because politics and sports should not mix. If Al Franken became part of an ownership group to own the Vikings, I would want the NFL to accept him either. Politics and sports should not mix in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I agree that this is more about African American players using their free market leverage to oppose a divisive character who has expressed opinions counter to their interests. They only insuring that it would be monetarily detrimental to the league to support Rush's ownership. Political in some respects, but in a free market, leverage is everything and unless Rush can find a way to overcome his negative affect on the league, I doubt, I can't see these owners agreeing on anything that would negatively effect their bottom line. Me, I don't like Oxyboy for a lot of reasons including my view that as a hypocrit and because of his felony drug abuse he should still be in jail... and got off easy, but that is just me. If legally he is able to own a team then the next step from a monetary standpoint is it would have to make sense for the owners. It appears right now that is not the case, but who knows stranger things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 He's not being attacked bc hes conservative or a Repub, its bc of his specific comments about black people and black athletes, aka McNabb is held up by the media bc they want a black guy, or now that we have a black president white kids get beat up, Obama is "halfrican" . It doesnt have anything to do with his political beliefs (small govt etc) but his incendiary rhetoric for the simpletons. That's exactly it. I don't know the political beliefs of any of the 32 NFL team owners, because they've largely kept them to themselves. Even a politically active sports team owner, such as Golisano, has the sense not to make incendiary remarks (if he even has the beliefs that would cause him to make such remarks). I'm all for free speech, but I'm also all for the free market. And in the free market, speech has consequences; you vote with your dollars. Pro-choicers won't order from Domino's Pizza. Diehard Christians won't shop at stores that stock music with "explicit" lyrics"*. The NFL is smart not to alienate a good portion of its fan base, and a very large portion of its talent, by including Limbaugh as an owner after decades of hateful remarks. Colin Cowherd had a rare good point yesterday: Would the NFL sell a team to someone who made a ton of money in the porn business? In the gambling business? Not likely. It has little to do with Limbaugh's politics, and everything to do with the fact that his business is selling hatred. Where the hell this term came from, I'll never know. Aren't all lyrics explicit? Is there a such thing as implied lyrics? Just call them dirty words or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Where the hell this term came from, I'll never know. Aren't all lyrics explicit? Is there a such thing as implied lyrics? Just call them dirty words or whatever. PMRC The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was an American committee formed in 1985 by four women: Tipper Gore, wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore; Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; Pam Howar, wife of Washington realtor Raymond Howar; and Sally Nevius, wife of Washington City Council Chairman John Nevius. They were known as the "Washington wives" – a reference to their husbands' connections with the federal government. The Center eventually grew to include 22 directors. I loved it when Dee Snyder handed their to them. Dee Snider, frontman and lead singer of glam metal band Twisted Sister, testified that he "[did] not support [...] Mr. Gortikov's unnecessary and unfortunate decision to agree to a so-called generic label on some selected records".[6] Like John Denver, Snider felt that his music had been misinterpreted. He defended the Twisted Sister songs "Under the Blade", which had been interpreted as referring to sadomasochism, bondage, and rape, and "We're Not Gonna Take It", which had been accused of promoting violence. Snider said about "Under the Blade", a song Snider claimed was written about an impending surgery, that "the only sadomasochism, bondage, and rape in this song is in the mind of Ms. Gore." He stated, "Ms. Gore was looking for sadomasochism and bondage, and she found it. Someone looking for surgical references would have found it as well." Snider concluded that "The full responsibility for defending children falls on the shoulders of my wife and I, because there is no one else capable of making these judgments for us." Not to mention, that the "explicit lyrics" sticker was a drawing card for all angsty teens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Where the hell this term came from, I'll never know. Aren't all lyrics explicit? Is there a such thing as implied lyrics? Just call them dirty words or whatever. The best always are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 It is clear that most of you have never listened to Rush. and as for being a racist, yeah he's such a racist that he chose Clarence Thomas to preside over his private ceremony wedding. He's such a racist that he routinely has black conservatives such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell on his show and praises them to no end for their intellectual contributions to the conservative movement. <_ i guess these guys are just too dumb to see the real rush. :rolleyes:> I guess if an unsubstantiated smear campaign is your cup of tea - just keep on chatting. Nothing like around inciteful words to combat the meanie you claim is inciteful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 It is clear that most of you have never listened to Rush. and as for being a racist, yeah he's such a racist that he chose Clarence Thomas to preside over his private ceremony wedding. He's such a racist that he routinely has black conservatives such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell on his show and praises them to no end for their intellectual contributions to the conservative movement. <_< I guess these guys are just too dumb to see the real Rush. :rolleyes: I guess if an unsubstantiated smear campaign is your cup of tea - just keep on chatting. Nothing like around inciteful words to combat the meanie you claim is inciteful. Again, it's not his beliefs that are the problem; it's the things he says; some of which have nothing to do with race. And "unsubstantiated smear campaign?" Isn't that what Rush does every day? (And yes, there are people on the left fringe who do the exact same thing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 It is clear that most of you have never listened to Rush. and as for being a racist, yeah he's such a racist that he chose Clarence Thomas to preside over his private ceremony wedding. He's such a racist that he routinely has black conservatives such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell on his show and praises them to no end for their intellectual contributions to the conservative movement. <_< I guess these guys are just too dumb to see the real Rush. :rolleyes: I guess if an unsubstantiated smear campaign is your cup of tea - just keep on chatting. Nothing like around inciteful words to combat the meanie you claim is inciteful. You are better than that with this lame argument... pulllease, it doesn't pass the smell test... I am not saying he is a racist, don't know his heart, but he will say anything to attract attention and piss off folks. That is his stick.... And yes I have listened to Rush because he is entertaining and polarizing at the same time.... I don't have to smear just listen to him yourself and think would you want to be a target of one of his on radio attacks... Foget about it and yes there are those on the left that do the same thing and I guarantee the owners would oppose any offers from them too... Duh! Think the Dixie Chicks could buy a team... not! So you just keep pandering to Rush.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM8-PL16 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 thank you SDS... was thinking along similar lines... and for those of you who are basing things on quotes of his or things he said, make sure you know what you are talking about and make sure he actually said them. Many quotes have been thrown around lately that were NOT said by Rush... just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't make it fact. Or in a book for that matter... no one is saying you have to like him or agree with his politics but to call the man racist is just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 thank you SDS... was thinking along similar lines... and for those of you who are basing things on quotes of his or things he said, make sure you know what you are talking about and make sure he actually said them. Many quotes have been thrown around lately that were NOT said by Rush... just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't make it fact. Or in a book for that matter... no one is saying you have to like him or agree with his politics but to call the man racist is just ignorant. Where I just saw a good quarterback, Rush saw a black quarterback. Call him what you want. I'll call him racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 thank you SDS... was thinking along similar lines... and for those of you who are basing things on quotes of his or things he said, make sure you know what you are talking about and make sure he actually said them. Many quotes have been thrown around lately that were NOT said by Rush... just because it's on Wikipedia doesn't make it fact. Or in a book for that matter... no one is saying you have to like him or agree with his politics but to call the man racist is just ignorant. I never listen to Rush (or really any political talk radio or TV, for that matter), but I'd be curious to see some actual quotes by him, in context, that qualify as racist. I didn't think the McNabb comment from a few years ago was intended to be racist so much as a shot at the media for political correctness. It's also worth noting that Imus got fired a couple of years ago for an unambiguously racist comment (calling the Rutgers women's volleyball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos") -- so it seems like if Rush had said stuff like that, he would've been canned as well. There's a disturbing trend afoot now in which those who disagree with the president on policy are dismissed as racists or bigots. I think calling someone a racist is a pretty significant indictment. It shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM8-PL16 Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 totally agree with you nfreeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted October 15, 2009 Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 Where I just saw a good quarterback, Rush saw a black quarterback. Call him what you want. I'll call him racist. no better example of how ridiculous the commentary has been against Rush than the McNabb deal. A situation so horrible, that no one gave it a second thought until a single columnist wrote about it several days after it occured. It was so bad that Tom Jackson didn't flinch. and by the way, when he gave credit to the Eagles defense for their success during those years - if you argue that he only saw a black QB then you have to argue he only saw a black defense too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2009 I never listen to Rush (or really any political talk radio or TV, for that matter), but I'd be curious to see some actual quotes by him, in context, that qualify as racist. I didn't think the McNabb comment from a few years ago was intended to be racist so much as a shot at the media for political correctness. It's also worth noting that Imus got fired a couple of years ago for an unambiguously racist comment (calling the Rutgers women's volleyball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos") -- so it seems like if Rush had said stuff like that, he would've been canned as well. There's a disturbing trend afoot now in which those who disagree with the president on policy are dismissed as racists or bigots. I think calling someone a racist is a pretty significant indictment. It shouldn't be thrown around lightly. That is correct. Here are some interesting quotes attributed to Limbaugh. The writer of the article sources each quotes. Everyone can decide for themselves on the legitimacy of each quote. http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.