Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Rush buying the Rams (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Rush buying the Rams
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So Rush wants to buy the Rams. Apparently Al Sharpton doesn't like that:
quote:
In a letter sent to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Monday, Sharpton wrote that he was “disturbed” to hear about Limbaugh’s interest in the Rams and asked for a meeting with Goodell “to discuss the myriad of reasons as to why [Limbaugh] should not be given an opportunity” to purchase the team.

Sharpton argued that Limbaugh has been “anti-NFL” in his comments about several of the league’s players, specifically naming Philadelphia Eagles quarterbacks Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb.

Rush is “anti-NFL”? Yeah right.

Even Jesse Jackson has weighed in:
quote:
In an AP interview, the Rev. Jesse Jackson charges that Limbaugh plays on "the fears of whites" and doesn't deserve the privilege of owning an NFL team.
Some of this stems from Rush's comments on McNabb several years ago but those comments were really directed at the media, not McNabb and are racist only if you want them to be - and I don't doubt many do want them to be. There are other comments being attributed to Rush to promote the racist meme that are outright fabrications. One quote being push is:
quote:
You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.
That has been debunked, nobody can attirbute it to Rush from any broadcast or speech. The response:
quote:
There will be no retraction. The quote is disputed, but it has not been proven false.
It has not been proven false? Until it's proven false, it must be true. That's the standard? I think everyone sees the problem with that.

The next hit on Rush and his NFL aspirations is character - his drug problem. Apparently the NFL has a problem with those that become addicted to pain killers and those people shouldn't be associated with the NFL. Yeah, right ... I bet Brett Favre is next on the hit list. Right? Or wait, is that only going to apply to owners? Well, not really. You see, Stacy Ann Ferguson is well on track to partial ownership of the Dolphins - you may know her simply as Fergie, the Fergalicious Grammy-winning singer and actress who sings about "her humps" and has a history of drug and sex escapades. But she's OK, she's a big time Obama supporter. That washes all your sins away I guess.

Some of the players supposedly claim they won't play for the Rams if Rush owns them. ROTFLMAO, sure they won't. Looking for the multi-million dollar, multi-year NFL contract and they're going to say no? Yeah, right. Sure they will.

Should Rush be allowed to buy the Rams? Why not? Certainly none of the reasons given so far are valid - most are not even true.

[ October 14, 2009, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Should Rush be allowed to buy the Rams? Why not?

It's still a free country and we still have a 1st Amendment, so yes he can buy it. Or more to the point, it's not really anybody's business but the buyer and the seller.

Some people on the left are going to whine because R. Limbaugh is a right-wing partisan figure. So what?

Interestingly enough, I never heard any comments about Mr. Jane Fonda owning the Atlanta Brave's. But then again Ted Turner was more eccentric than distinctly partisan.

This is just a case of the 24 hour news cycle making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 3789

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Some of this stems from Rush's comments on McNabb several years ago but those comments were really directed at the media, not McNabb and are racist only if you want them to be

That's not true.

When a guy takes one supposedly bad player, and says that his poor performance is evidence that all quarterbacks of his race are no good, that's a racist attack on black people.

Do you think that there is any level of bad playing that would have caused Rush to say "Peyton Manning is over-rated as a quarterback, like all white quarterbacks"?

Posts: 231 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since NFL teams are franchises sold by the NFL, it is entirely up to Limbaugh, the current owners, and the NFL (commissioner and other franchise owners have to approve any sale IIRC) whether the sale is allowed. No-one else's opinions count for much.

Except that...

if Limbaugh is sufficiently controversial (and if he is indeed widely perceived as racist) then his (joint) ownership of a club could hurt the NFL financially, and if the people with the votes think it is likely that selling to Limbaugh will hurt their bottom line, then it is going to get vetoed pretty quickly.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As you present it, vulture, Rush's purchase bid is perhaps a kind of litmus test.

Not that I have the slightest interest in pro football (except for Superbowl 1/2 time entertainment).

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
swbarnes2 said:
When a guy takes one supposedly bad player, and says that his poor performance is evidence that all quarterbacks of his race are no good, that's a racist attack on black people.

Holy history rewrite Batman! Go back and look at what Rush said.

I pulled the quote from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/

quote:
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL," Limbaugh said. "The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well ... McNabb got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve."
His comment was clearly aimed squarely at the media coverage and not at McNabb.

As to his choosing McNabb to illustrate his point, the Eagles were 0-2 at the time the comment was made and McNabb was in a bit of a rough patch. McNabb did come back strong and show that he deserved at least some of the hype the media was throwing his way.

In my opinion Rush did a classic "open mouth, insert foot" maneuver there but it was not racist by any rational definition of the term.

[ October 14, 2009, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Vulture, I have a hard time believing anything could hurt the St Louis Rams any worse than they currently are. They've grabbed the Lions' badge of shame from last year and ran with it. Yeesh.

As for the McNabb quote, here is the actual quote for everyone to judge for themselves:

"I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

One can decide for themselves whether G2's comment ("those comments were really directed at the media, not McNabb and are racist only if you want them to be") or swbarnes' comment ("When a guy takes one supposedly bad player, and says that his poor performance is evidence that all quarterbacks of his race are no good, that's a racist attack on black people") is more accurate.

In any case, what I find depressing (but not surprising) is how many of these media outlets took the fabricated "quotes" from Rush at face value. Look people, Wikipedia is a valuable tool. But anyone with an ounce of brains should know that it should not be trusted for anything controversial. Want to look up the molecular weight of glucose? Great, because nobody is idealogically opposed to that. But there are millions of partisans out there, and all it takes is one rabid partisan to lie and it ends up on Wikipedia.

So why on earth are our wonderful media, full of editors and fact-checkers, who divinely and impartially tell us the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth, using Wikipedia as a reference??? These "quotes" are pathetic; anyone with half a brain could tell that if they were actually said they would have created a storm of controversy at that time. So why was there no storm? The answer's obvious, of course. But shouldn't that have at least given these oh-so-brilliant editors and fact-checkers pause?

And it also makes me curious as to how slander and libel laws can deal with the anonymity of the interwebs. If Rush does lose out on this deal because of the controversy, he has a real claim that lies stated by others have caused him significant financial damage. It would be a rather assholish move (not to mention very difficult) to go after a random Wikipedia editor (if that is indeed where it originated instead of a moronic blogger or something), but is CNN and these newspapers and all responsible for quoting from very disreputable sources? Can they be sued? I'm not a lawyer, I don't know.

Oh yes, and since I promised last time a Rush topic came up that I'd through an equally charged attack against a lefty commenter for every one thrown at Rush so that all can see that he's not special, here we go: hey, did you hear that Chris Matthews talked about wanting to see Rush die from a CO2 pellet? How violent and evil! Even worse, he got the idea from the death of a black villain (dun dun DUN!) in a movie. Chris Matthews is equating Rush to black people! He's racist!

Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.
Yes, this quote is directed at the media, not at black people. But a person could easily infer from it that Limbaugh believes black quarterbacks and coaches are generally overrated because of the media's desire to see them succeed.

Limbaugh would be a huge headache for the league whenever drafts and hirings/firings are discussed. Are the Rams going to hire white coach because Limbaugh believes the black candidates are just a product of media hype? Even if he pledges to be color-blind it's all anyone will talk about.

People who can't be trusted to keep their political opinions to themselves are a liability in almost any business situation. Football isn't an exception.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rush's time on ESPN boosted that particular show's rating by 10% for awhile. When what Rush does (create controversy) threatened to cross the benefit/deficit ration into negative returns, he resigned.

Sounds like it was profitable for all those who were financially invested.

Also, Rush is a pompous arrogant narcissistic and mean-spirited ass, but he's not stupid. No no no.

[ October 14, 2009, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
Are the Rams going to hire white coach because Limbaugh believes the black candidates are just a product of media hype? Even if he pledges to be color-blind it's all anyone will talk about.

Did you know Tony Dungy was on the radio show?
quote:
RUSH: I have been looking forward to the next few minutes ever since this interview with Coach Tony Dungy was put together. Recently retired from the Indianapolis Colts, coming off the million copies of his first book Quiet Strength. This book is Uncommon, is the title, Finding Your Path to Significance, the subtitle. Coach Dungy, welcome here. I can't tell you how thrilled and honored I am to be able to speak to you, sir.

COACH DUNGY: Well, thank you, Rush. I feel the same. It's great being on with you and thank you for having me.

You can google up the entire interview. Clearly Dungy does not see it this way and I bet Rush would be ecstatic to get Dungy running the Rams - the guy is a winner, something the Rams sorely need right now.

[ October 14, 2009, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elisabeth Meinecke at Human Events has it nailed:
quote:
For all the fuss over Rush Limbaugh’s attempt to buy the NFL’s St. Louis Rams franchise, you’d think he’d been torturing dogs or accidentally firing pistols in nightclubs.

Oh, wait: those are the players. All Rush Limbaugh has done is work hard for decades to build his personality and radio empire to dominate conservative talk radio. Yet, less than three months after the NFL conditionally reinstated a convicted felon, some of its associates and fans are complaining because Limbaugh wants to buy the Rams.

This group of critics includes an assortment of football players, the head of the NFL Players Association (DeMaurice Smith), and, of course, the Rev. Al Sharpton.


To listen to his opponents howl, you’d think it was the worst thing for the NFL since Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl a couple of years ago.

“I know I wouldn't want to play for him. He's a jerk. He's an ---. What he said (about McNabb) was inappropriate and insensitive, totally off-base. He could offer me whatever he wanted, I wouldn't play for him. ... I wouldn't play for Rush Limbaugh. My principles are greater and I can't be bought." So Jets linebacker Bart Scott told the New York Daily News.

Scott’s principles, meanwhile, are so great that he once had to be restrained by a teammate from taking issue with a referee during an NFL game that just happened to be viewed by 17.5 million, making cable history. This was after he threw an official’s yellow flag into the stands protesting his unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

The Giants’ Mathias Kiwanuka and Eagles’ Donovan McNabb (about whom Rush made the ‘black quarterback’ comment) also said that, though Limbaugh was free to purchase the team if he so chose, they wouldn’t play in St. Louis anytime soon.

There are about a gazillion undrafted players doing an endzone dance on hearing the news. It’s a privilege to play in the NFL, and when quality players like Kiwanuka, Scott, and McNabb get their jerseys twisted over something ridiculous, there are many talented (maybe more talented?) players waiting to take their place.

And it’s more than a little interesting that all three -- McNabb, Kiwanuka, and Scott -- are perfectly happy having as teammates high profile athletes indicted for crimes. Kiwanuka played with Plaxico Burress (currently in jail), McNabb plays with Michael Vick (just out of jail), and from 2002-2008, Scott was teammates with Ravens great Ray Lewis, who was indicted on double murder charges in 2000 but cleared after pleading to obstruction of justice.

So none of these folks are ones to deny, yet Rush Limbaugh -- whose only crime is to be a conservative -- is beyond the pale?

Rush’s longtime confidante and behind the scenes radio commander in chief, affectionately known to listeners as ‘Mr. Snerdley,’ is black. If Rush were really ‘racist,’ Mr. Snerdley wouldn’t have tolerated it for all these years. And the race card in the NFL is a tricky business, especially with owners. Real Clear Sports reminds us that Oakland Raiders’ owner Al Davis had several minority milestones: he hired the first Latino head coach (who won two Super Bowls), the second African American coach, and woman to be CEO of the team. But players aren’t lining up to play in Oakland.

Meanwhile, NFL Players’ Association head DeMaurice Smith is actually encouraging players speak out against Rush.

“[Sport] in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends,” Smith said in an email to the union’s executive committee and later reported on by ESPN.com. “Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred."

Yes, that was exactly what Smith’s sport did when Jaguars player Brian Williams (now with the Falcons) went on a racist rant in 2008 when he was pulled over for a suspected DUI. News 4 in Jacksonville reported the officer’s notes showed Williams telling the officer, "I (expletive) your momma ... I (expletive) your wife twice" and that he would do something to the officer’s daughter. He publicly apologized later.

But he was never fined by the NFL.

Of course, Smith’s crusade brought out the bottom-feeders. First, as usual, was Rev. Al Sharpton -- who has built his entire career on division, discrimination, and hatred -- flying to his side. In a letter reported by Politico Monday, he applauded Smith for “publicly asking that the league seek to unify, not divide, in a letter to the executive committee.”

How would a Limbaugh-owned team cause division? I fail to see why anything Limbaugh has said (or what people have wrongly accused him of saying) indicates he wouldn't be a good NFL owner. He certainly couldn’t embarrass the 0-5 Rams any than they have been this year, or last year, or the year before that. Right now, the Rams are a marketing quagmire. Limbaugh is a sports fan -- he wants a successful team. Build a successful franchise, and the players will come. There is absolutely no evidence that any player shouldn’t want to work for a Limbaugh-owned franchise.

In fact, the absurdity of the opposition to Rush owning an NFL franchise has done the unthinkable: brought Keith Olbermann to his defense. Think about this: critics of Limbaugh’s NFL bid have produced such ridiculous arguments that even Olbermann can see through them.

Olbermann called them out in his ‘Worst Persons in the World’ segment last Thursday.

“There’re now gonna be character tests for sports owners? There’ll only be three of them left,” Olbermann said. “Unless they beat the Vikings Sunday, as of next Thursday, it will have been a full year since the Rams won a game. My God, if Limbaugh wants to buy them, far be it for me to tell him he’s flushing his money down a rat hole.”

Brace yourselves: pigs may be flying, Hell may be frozen, but HUMAN EVENTS actually agrees with Keith Olbermann. We wouldn’t choose to say it the same way, but (shudder) Olbermann is right on this one.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MAAN - my new shorthand for Much Ado About Nothing

First, the existing owners will be the only ones to decide if he's in or out, and it will be based only on business. I think we've seen that the owners never ban somebody from the NFL based on character flaws, so he's probably in.

Second, I doubt the Rams have any fans to lose at this point who aren't already gone to the hills. They are barely able to manage seven points a game, were shut out in two of their five games (0-28, seattle; 0-35, san fransico).

Third, Rush would be a minority owner. He's not going to run around hiring and firing people, Steinbrenner style.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mariner:
Vulture, I have a hard time believing anything could hurt the St Louis Rams any worse than they currently are. They've grabbed the Lions' badge of shame from last year and ran with it. Yeesh.

... and then fumbled said badge in the end zone [Smile]

Between the Rams and the Raiders, we may be witnessing two historically bad teams.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe Rush should try to buy the Raiders. He'd fit right in with that team. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The NFL doesn't like controversy, not because a controversial owner might hurt the the team he owns a stake in, but because he might alienate enough of the fan base for the league to cause league sponsors to withdraw their support. Losing advertising is bad for business. If NFL owners think that Limbaugh could cost them advertisers through his political activity, there's no way they'll vote to allow the sale of a team to his group. If they don't believe he'll cost them advertisers, then his group will be evaluated against other possible groups without his political opinions weighing much. After all, NFL owners probably agree with him a lot more than they disagree with him.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4559454

It seems that Rush is likely out of this bid altogether. Anyone care to do some post-hoc motive speculation?

Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The motive is clear:
quote:
Dave Checketts, chairman of the NHL's St. Louis Blues and the point man in the Limbaugh group attempting to buy the Rams, realizes he must remove the controversial conservative radio host from his potential role as a minority member in the group in order to get approval from other NFL owners, the sources said.
Obviously conservatives are not welcome in the NFL.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
The NFL doesn't like controversy, not because a controversial owner might hurt the the team he owns a stake in, but because he might alienate enough of the fan base for the league to cause league sponsors to withdraw their support. Losing advertising is bad for business. If NFL owners think that Limbaugh could cost them advertisers through his political activity, there's no way they'll vote to allow the sale of a team to his group. If they don't believe he'll cost them advertisers, then his group will be evaluated against other possible groups without his political opinions weighing much. After all, NFL owners probably agree with him a lot more than they disagree with him.

You would have a point I could accept except for one thing: Michael Vick.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Has the NFL lost anything because of Michael Vick? Was there enough outrage, 3 years after his dog fighting came to light, that the NFL took on risk by re-instating him?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 said:
quote:
Obviously conservatives are not welcome in the NFL.
Interestingly, The Wall Street Journal ran an article not long ago titled Why Your Coach Votes Republican:
quote:
In all, 20 coaches active in the 2008 season gave to Republican candidates seeking federal office. Three donated to Democrats. This disparity is even more striking given that, among the individual donors in the '08 campaign cycle, Mr. Obama outraised Mr. McCain by more than a 5-to-1 margin.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Has the NFL lost anything because of Michael Vick? Was there enough outrage, 3 years after his dog fighting came to light, that the NFL took on risk by re-instating him?

Yes, Vick tortured and killed dogs. There is certainly at least as much risk with Vick as there is for allowing a conservative radio host to buy minority ownership in a team.

quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
G2 said:
quote:
Obviously conservatives are not welcome in the NFL.
Interestingly, The Wall Street Journal ran an article not long ago titled Why Your Coach Votes Republican:
quote:
In all, 20 coaches active in the 2008 season gave to Republican candidates seeking federal office. Three donated to Democrats. This disparity is even more striking given that, among the individual donors in the '08 campaign cycle, Mr. Obama outraised Mr. McCain by more than a 5-to-1 margin.

It seems then that the only substantive difference between these coaches and Rush is they don't exercise their free speech rights as much which probably makes them "good" Republicans or at least unknown as Republicans. You think maybe they should be sure to keep their mouths shut and not talk about their political affiliations/beliefs? Would it be alright to drive them out of the NFL if they do start talking?

[ October 14, 2009, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You think maybe they should be sure to keep their mouths shut and not talk about their political affiliations/beliefs? Would it be alright to drive them out of the NFL if they do start talking?
In this case, Limbaugh is like the "new hire" at a job. Do you want to hire a guy who is guaranteed to say and/or do something controversial that has nothing to do with football (since that is how Rush amassed his audience and fortune), or do you go with the guy who probably will not cause controversy?

You live with the guys you've all ready hired, since it is usually more trouble than it is worth to get rid of them. But you don't invite new trouble in if you can help it.

Rush creates controversy. He shouldn't be surprised if he is excluded because of that.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think there is also a fundamental difference between a guy like Vick, who (whether you believe in the sincerity or not) publicly apologized and has taken some steps to atone for his actions, and a guy like Rush, who is controversial as a career choice. If all goes according to plan, Vick will be known as a football player who made some really stupid choices. Rush would never be known as an owner who happens to be controversial (think Mark Cuban or maybe even Jerry Jones). Instead he would be a divisive public figure who would be bringing every bit of that divisiveness to the NFL arena. At least I think that's how his ownership group saw it, and how those who spoke out against it saw it. Personally, I'm betting there are worse people who already own professional teams and we just don't know as much about them. But, as Wayward pointed out, nobody will sweat it as long as they don't bring too much controversy of their own.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yes, Vick tortured and killed dogs. There is certainly at least as much risk with Vick as there is for allowing a conservative radio host to buy minority ownership in a team."

Not really. Vick is making superficial overtures of regret and putting energy into the fight against dog fighting. That is probably more than enough to satisfy the average football fan. I doubt Limbaugh will be out giving press releases about how sorry he is for the controversial stuff he's said anytime soon.

ed. to add: or what aupton said. It should be noted I have never watched a game of football in my life. But I did play Madden 2009 once, and the Rams sucked in it.

[ October 14, 2009, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So how does dog-fighting conflict with pro football? Other than that the former involves dogs not humans and pits them to the death not the cervical fracture.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[qquote] So how does dog-fighting conflict with pro football? Other than that the former involves dogs not humans and pits them to the death not the cervical fracture. [/quote]

I suppose it conflicts with pro football as much as being a conservative talk radio host does.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be fun to see Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh play tennis...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grudge Match.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't you mean Drudge match?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rush Limbaugh has been dropped from the group seeking to purchase the team, with the following statement,
quote:
"Rush was to be a limited partner--as such, he would have had no say in the direction of the club or in any decisions regarding personnel or operations," Mr. Checketts, owner of the NHL's St. Louis Blues, said in a statement released Wednesday. "This was a role he enthusiastically embraced. However, it has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis. As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703790404574473810039848146.html

[ October 14, 2009, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
"Yes, Vick tortured and killed dogs. There is certainly at least as much risk with Vick as there is for allowing a conservative radio host to buy minority ownership in a team."

Not really. Vick is making superficial overtures of regret and putting energy into the fight against dog fighting. That is probably more than enough to satisfy the average football fan. I doubt Limbaugh will be out giving press releases about how sorry he is for the controversial stuff he's said anytime soon.

The difference being, Vick did it. The controversial things being attributed to Rush that killed the deal are made up, complete fabrications. Why should he be issuing apologies for something he never did? If Rush really is racist, why do people have to make up quotes to prove it? Fake but accurate is still the standard when it comes to demonizing conservatives.

The political landscape will one day swing the other direction. Once Republicans take power again, is this the standard you guys want? I'm all for it if you really want it and I will be far from alone in embracing this strategy. Is this the way we want to go?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Rush creates controversy. He shouldn't be surprised if he is excluded because of that.

Create what you perceive as controversial, generate made up quotes to "prove" your case, and that justifies this. Is this true only for white conservatives or does it apply to everyone?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The difference being, Vick did it. The controversial things being attributed to Rush that killed the deal are made up, complete fabrications. Why should he be issuing apologies for something he never did? If Rush really is racist, why do people have to make up quotes to prove it? Fake but accurate is still the standard when it comes to demonizing conservatives.
That's a straw man. Of course fabricating quotes is reprehensible, but Limbaugh has created plenty of legitimate controversy.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not a straw man at all. The fake quotes were a major part of this effort, it was used by a number of media outlets and pundits.

If being controversial is a disqualifier for the NFL, then when does the cleanup start? Let's get all the controversial people.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's face it the NFL wouldn't want a liberal that was that outspoken as a co-owner either. If Michael Moore was trying to buy part of a team that would get killed as well. The NFL doesn't want an owner that is that politically active because anyone that politically active alienates some people. It's not worth it to the NFL to have a Limbaugh or Moore as an owner. If only 1% of NFL fans quit watching because of who the owner was then it's a bad deal for them. I don't think the deal died because of the fabricated quotes; I think it died because Rush is a divisive figure in politics.

Fabricating quotes is a stupid and immoral tactic. I would hope that whatever media outlets propagated them will issue retractions and apologies.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Create what you perceive as controversial, generate made up quotes to "prove" your case, and that justifies this. Is this true only for white conservatives or does it apply to everyone?
Personally, I don't think he is a racist, and I agree that his quote does not show it.

He is still a controversial figure.

This guy thrives on controversy. He's made his fortune on it, by pissing people off, being rude, being obnoxious, making enemies when none are needed. Even you have to admit that.

Consider his appearnace on the Jay Leno Show the other week. He got to drive the electric Focus around the race course they have in the back. Part of the race is to avoid a cut-out of Al Gore that suddenly swings out onto the course.

Rush didn't just hit Al. He backed up to hit him again. [Smile]

You might try to shrug that off as good-natured fun, but there was nothing good-natured about it. Or about him. He is mean, bullying, vindictive and rude. He loves making fun of those he disagrees with.

Sure, there are many on the Left who do similar things. And I'm also sure you find them rude, too. But just because someone on the Left is an ass doesn't make Rush any less of one.

His audience, of course, loves it. That is why they follow him, because he "speaks the Truth" to those in power (the Left). But for those who are not his audience, his is simply an egotistical, lying ass.

Whether he is a racist or not will not change that fact. He constantly says provocative things. He could weather this storm about being a racist, but what about next week? Next month? Next year? What about the controversies that he will create in the upcoming months?

All of these would reflect on the Rams and the NFL.

Who wants to buy themselves that much trouble? For a few measly bucks that you can get from someone else? It ain't worth it.

Sure, the controversy about him being a racist is probably "fake but accurate." But if you haven't noticed, that is exactly what Rush often does when talking about Liberals. And if you haven't noticed, it is because you haven't looked closely at what he says. So don't try to scare us with that horrible "Liberal" boogieman. The Conservative Demagogues have perfected it to a "T" over the past couple of decades. [Razz]

There will always be controversial figures in the NFL, because it is too big an organization to weed them all out. But why invite in someone who's life is dedicated to creating controversy? As a conservative, you should be sympathetic to an employer who wants to avoid trouble, for whatever reason.

Rush brought it on himself, and has no one else to blame. Even though he is doubtlessly right now blaming it on "Liberalism," just like he always does. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Is this true only for white conservatives or does it apply to everyone?"

We've made a special exception for you, G2.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I assume that if George Soros, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton are ever trying to acquire an ownership stake in an NFL team you will all be suitably vocal about their controversial nature and how they are unsuitable as NFL team owners.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I assume that if George Soros, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton are ever trying to acquire an ownership stake in an NFL team you will all be suitably vocal about their controversial nature and how they are unsuitable as NFL team owners.
Who is "you?" [Smile]

I, for one, didn't complain about Rush trying to buy an NFL team. In fact, I think it would be funny, especially if some players did walk out/transfer out of the team (as highly unlikely as that would be). I couldn't care less, one way or another.

I'm sure somebody would complain, most likely one of the Conservative Demagogues we hear so much. [Smile]

One thing you would not hear is me complain about any of them being denied ownership in an NFL team because of their controversial nature. They, too, would have earned it.

Rush, of course, is the epitome of such a controversial character, since he relishes pissing his opponents off.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's not a straw man at all. The fake quotes were a major part of this effort, it was used by a number of media outlets and pundits."

Well it is if you were responding to me, which you were. He has said plenty of controversial stuff before the quote you say was made up. I don't care if he does or doesn't, but its hard to argue the guy doesn't drag around drama with him

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1