Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 7:24:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
On one hand, you think: Phuck the NFL. If they don't want to play for Rush, then they don't have to. That's capitalism. You pick who you work for. The reality is, you don't always like your boss. But at the end of the day, pro players make millions being adored and playing a game for a living. What are they gonna do if they refuse a paycheck for Rush Limbaugh? There are no jobs out here, sillies :)

However upon thinking this through further, Rush was really not done a disservice if you think about it. Whether the guy was unfairly judged is unknown, but the fact of the matter is that the NFL requires a 3/4 majority approval of a new owner applicant. That rule exists for a reason. So, if the people don't want him as an owner, tough luck. They have the right to vote nay upon his application.

The problem here is that RL supporters maintain that RL was being rejected because of his politics and manipulated quotes. The reality is that people can reject him on whatever they want or feel about RL, and further, he did make very specific offensive quotes which he has admitted to saying. Having your words misinterpreted is a risk of anyone in the public eye; hell, he does it to others all the time. Now he's paying for it. But other people aren't really making stuff up -- he IS an ashole.
President of DDO
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 7:49:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I wish I knew what you were talking about so I could comment on it. :(
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 8:13:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Haha, I know what you're talking about. But I have to write an essay on Beowulf right now. :( I'll leave my thoughts later tonight... or maybe tomorrow depending on what time I finish.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 8:56:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You don't "have to despise them now," they are already beneath contempt, the Rams.

Ain't nothin happenin there prolly.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 10:44:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He's entitled to his bid, but I doubt he'll become Rams ownership.

As for some players saying they wouldn't play for the Rams if he's part-owner: Yeah, right.

Crying "blood money" sounds impressive now to pundits who love praising athletes who "take stands"; but saying it now, especially when it won't likely happen, isn't significant.

But I'm sure Donovan McNabb will somehow feel offended if Rush gets some ownership. I can't wait for that completely over-hyped story to be re-hashed.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:02:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There were no manipulation of quotes. RL whined about the NFL looking like "Cryps versus Bloods" ... there is no good context to put that in.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:09:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 11:02:16 PM, PervRat wrote:
There were no manipulation of quotes. RL whined about the NFL looking like "Cryps versus Bloods" ... there is no good context to put that in.

What if he was talking about the amount of violence and disrespect in terms of teams amongst the players on the field?
President of DDO
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 7:46:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 11:02:16 PM, PervRat wrote:
There were no manipulation of quotes. RL whined about the NFL looking like "Cryps versus Bloods" ... there is no good context to put that in.

I concur 100%, PervRat.
Rush Limbaugh has the collective ear of millions of people in this country and is the defacto spokesmen for the Republican party. So it isn't disturbing that he personally is a bigot or a racist; the disturbing thing is that he represents the sentiments of a large segment of middle-white-America. He commented once on his show that James Earl Ray, the assasin of Martin Luther King Jr., should have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. That was an insult not only to Black America, but to every single person in this country. Martin Luther King Jr. is revered by many Americans, he is not just an icon for Blacks.

The popularity of Rush Limbaugh is a testament to the disturbing fact that racism, bigotry, and ethnocentrism are alive and well in America. It makes perfect sense that the NFL does not want him. Rush has got some major nerve! He publicy stated that NFL football games are nothing more than gang fights. That statement was a slap in the face to every athlete in the NFL who worked hard and triumphed over physical boundaries to become an elite athlete. And then he comes along and wants to be part of something he publicy tried to discredit and smear.

The fact that Limbaugh is a racist homophobic bigot is only a small reason why I agree with those who voted to keep him out. The main reason is that he is a giant hypocrite.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 7:47:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 11:02:16 PM, PervRat wrote:
There were no manipulation of quotes. RL whined about the NFL looking like "Cryps versus Bloods" ... there is no good context to put that in.

Yes there is. I've used that phrase to describe Eastern Europe. And Israel/Palestine for that matter. And probably a few other things. It's a convenient turn of phrase you know.

Of course, when you bring the NFL into it, that kind of removes it from that sort of context. On the field, you're only violent toward people who chose to be there knowing about the violence, there's nothing mutually morally repugnant as the phrase is supposed to suggest.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 8:00:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 7:47:49 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/14/2009 11:02:16 PM, PervRat wrote:
There were no manipulation of quotes. RL whined about the NFL looking like "Cryps versus Bloods" ... there is no good context to put that in.

Yes there is. I've used that phrase to describe Eastern Europe. And Israel/Palestine for that matter. And probably a few other things. It's a convenient turn of phrase you know.

Of course, when you bring the NFL into it, that kind of removes it from that sort of context. On the field, you're only violent toward people who chose to be there knowing about the violence, there's nothing mutually morally repugnant as the phrase is supposed to suggest.

I believe that Rush Limbaugh meant it in a racial context.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 12:27:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://sports.espn.go.com...

he is out... it was not really fair that he did not get a "fair shake"

i like rush and i think he could have brought a spark to a team that frankly sucks

but it does not matter
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 7:14:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 8:00:33 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:

I believe that Rush Limbaugh meant it in a racial context.

And... that's no more valid than someone believing he didn't.

Regarding the "James Earl Ray" comment, respectively:

http://www.sfgate.com...

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com...

So based on your lack of (even minimal) adequate research, your hunch (as per the possibly racist character of Rush's "bloods/crypts" comment) is rendered even less credible.
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 3:29:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just because it turned out that Limbaugh never made the comment in question does not mean that my assesment of him is any less credible. While reading an article about the topic of Rush and the Rams the aforementioned (now proven false) quote was attributed to Limbaugh. I didn't even make the proverbial flinch of disgust because such a comment is so apropos for Limbaugh. That certainly does not let me off the hook for not double-checking and/or confirming the facts but let's face it: No matter which way you slice it, Limbaugh is nowhere near the epitome of a progressive, tolerant, free-thinking individual.

Limbaugh has called Obama an "affirmative-action president," ignoring the fact that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. They don't give out extra points on GPA's for blacks, or any other group, that has to be earned personally. Limbaugh stresses the importance of personal responsibility and accountability. So here comes a bi-racial man who, through hard work and being responsible, overcomes adversity and gets elected as the first president of African ancestry; and Limbaugh pulls out the affirmative action card. I guess being born black qualifies as affirmative action for Limbaugh.

I am not surprised at all that the NFL, which is an organization that provides role-models for many youth, wants to steer very clear of the vitriol that is spewed by Limbaugh and his ilk.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 5:29:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 3:29:51 PM, 1-2-3 wrote:
[...] but let's face it: No matter which way you slice it, Limbaugh is nowhere near the epitome of a progressive, tolerant, free-thinking individual.

I never said he was. That's a red herring.

Limbaugh has called Obama an "affirmative-action president," ignoring the fact that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.

(1) So graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law School automatically makes one a great candidate for president?

(2) Or, more likely, Limbaugh alluded to the fact that the president's race was made such a big deal by his own party; plus the 90+ % support from black voters.

Did you know Obama is the first black president? We're only reminded of it every other day, it seems.

Limbaugh stresses the importance of personal responsibility and accountability. So here comes a bi-racial man [...]

See? Even YOU just had to mention it.

[...] who, through hard work and being responsible, overcomes adversity and gets elected as the first president of African ancestry....

Wow, twice in the same sentence!

[...] and Limbaugh pulls out the affirmative action card. I guess being born black qualifies as affirmative action for Limbaugh.

(1) Yeah, maybe. Or perhaps it's how so many feel compelled to stress his blackness to bait the pathos of the American public.

(2) I guess acknowledging race-baiting constitutes racism for you.

I am not surprised at all that the NFL, which is an organization that provides role-models for many youth, wants to steer very clear of the vitriol that is spewed by Limbaugh and his ilk.

Neither am I. If they don't, the Obama administration and supporters might coordinate a smear campaign against them, too.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 8:24:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://online.wsj.com...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 12:13:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Limbaugh's modus operandi is race baiting.
Concerning race baiting: Limbaugh called Obama an "affirmative action" president even though everything he accomplished hitherto was because of personal determination and focus.

USAPITBULL: You insinuate that African-Americans casted their vote for Obama because he was black, as if to say that blacks couldn't have voted for him because they agree with his idealogy. Racism in it's purest form, my friend. Just so you know, generally speaking, black voters cast votes for the same reasons any other voters do. Do you think blacks would have voted for any candidate, just because he was black? What if Clarence Thomas ran for president?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 3:19:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
USAPITBULL: You insinuate that African-Americans casted their vote for Obama because he was black, as if to say that blacks couldn't have voted for him because they agree with his idealogy.

To say "did not" is not to say "could not." I do not read minds, and frankly of what little evidence there is on the matter available to me there is more evidence of whites voting for Obama on the basis of his race than there is of blacks doing it (and both cases largely concern the primaries), yet nevertheless, did not is not could not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 9:13:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am debating this subject with theLwerd. http://www.debate.org...

The claims that Limbaugh is a racist are absurd. If anyone else wants to try to make the case, I'd be happy to oblige with another debate.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 2:13:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 12:27:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
http://sports.espn.go.com...


he is out... it was not really fair that he did not get a "fair shake"

i like rush and i think he could have brought a spark to a team that frankly sucks


1) Rush Limbaugh isn't going to make the team play any better.
2) In fact, it may make them pissy and distract them to play worse.
3) Nah, Rush didn't get a fair shake, but as he often says - life's not fair.
4) This was an example of Rush's preferred economy - the free market - at its best :D
5) He made a bid and didn't get it. If a black person was in his position and claimed it to be a racist decision, he'd criticize them... yet he's doing the same thing (making excuses and accusations as to why other owners didn't want to vote him into the league). Unbelievable.
President of DDO
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 2:27:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/18/2009 9:13:15 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I am debating this subject with theLwerd. http://www.debate.org...

The claims that Limbaugh is a racist are absurd. If anyone else wants to try to make the case, I'd be happy to oblige with another debate.

If the claim is so absurd, why did you decide to debate it? If something were absurd it would not take so many words to deny it because it would be obvious. I am following the debate.

ABSURD ~ (adjective) 1. not in accordance with common sense 2. ridiculous, foolish
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 4:06:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/18/2009 12:13:52 PM, 1-2-3 wrote:

USAPITBULL: You insinuate that African-Americans casted their vote for Obama because he was black, as if to say that blacks couldn't have voted for him because they agree with his idealogy. Racism in it's purest form, my friend.

(1) Actually, I alluded to a fact. What I implied is that, perhaps, a correlation existed between the Democratic Party's emphasis on Obama's race---in conjunction with any ideology---with over 90% of that particular race claiming to have voted for him.

(2) My friend.

Just so you know, generally speaking, black voters cast votes for the same reasons any other voters do. Do you think blacks would have voted for any candidate, just because he was black? What if Clarence Thomas ran for president?

(1) That's good to know. And yet you imply that blacks, collectively, would not vote for a specific other black man. Why not? Nothing to do with race?
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 6:37:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 4:06:28 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
At 10/18/2009 12:13:52 PM, 1-2-3 wrote:

USAPITBULL: You insinuate that African-Americans casted their vote for Obama because he was black, as if to say that blacks couldn't have voted for him because they agree with his idealogy. Racism in it's purest form, my friend.

(1) Actually, I alluded to a fact. What I implied is that, perhaps, a correlation existed between the Democratic Party's emphasis on Obama's race---in conjunction with any ideology---with over 90% of that particular race claiming to have voted for him.

(2) My friend.

Just so you know, generally speaking, black voters cast votes for the same reasons any other voters do. Do you think blacks would have voted for any candidate, just because he was black? What if Clarence Thomas ran for president?

(1) That's good to know. And yet you imply that blacks, collectively, would not vote for a specific other black man. Why not? Nothing to do with race?

I did not imply anything; I asked a question which you chose not to answer. The question is: If Clarence Thomas ran for president do you think that 90% of registered black voters would vote for him as they did for Obama?
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2009 6:24:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/19/2009 6:37:35 PM, 1-2-3 wrote:

I did not imply anything; I asked a question which you chose not to answer. The question is: If Clarence Thomas ran for president do you think that 90% of registered black voters would vote for him as they did for Obama?

(1) No.

(2) And I think race plays a part in that, which is why I asked you my questions (which you chose not to answer).

(3) The rationale behind your question challenges your own attempted point.

You attempt to show the majority of blacks don't vote just for blacks; in doing so, you intimate they will vote for someone with an ideological structure like President Obama's (which is still herd mentality).
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 11:15:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/20/2009 6:24:54 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
You attempt to show the majority of blacks don't vote just for blacks; in doing so, you intimate they will vote for someone with an ideological structure like President Obama's (which is still herd mentality).
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Why is it herd mentality? Republicans have traditionally opposed most types of programs aimed at helping blacks climb out of the hole dug for them by slavery, racism, Jim Crow, and ethnocentrism. The examples are endless, but one of the more well-known is The Pell Grant program. It was started by democrats and unsuccesfully blocked by right-wing Republican conservatives. This program was/is responsible for facilitating the entry into college of thousands of economically disadvantaged minorities. Dick Cheney voted against making M.L.K.'s birthday a federal holiday while he was a lawmaker from Wyoming. Actions like these are not going to make a group of people more appealing to blacks. So until the Republican party makes the issues and concerns of black America part of it's agenda they should expect the "herd" to look elsewhere.
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 11:16:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why is it herd mentality? Republicans have traditionally opposed most types of programs aimed at helping blacks climb out of the hole dug for them by slavery, racism, Jim Crow, and ethnocentrism. The examples are endless, but one of the more well-known is The Pell Grant program. It was started by democrats and unsuccesfully blocked by right-wing Republican conservatives. This program was/is responsible for facilitating the entry into college of thousands of economically disadvantaged minorities. Dick Cheney voted against making M.L.K.'s birthday a federal holiday while he was a lawmaker from Wyoming. Actions like these are not going to make a group of people more appealing to blacks. So until the Republican party makes the issues and concerns of black America part of it's agenda they should expect the "herd" to look elsewhere.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2009 8:25:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/21/2009 11:15:20 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:

Why is it herd mentality?

Because you're implying what the vast majority of one race of people, collectively, would not do.

Republicans have traditionally opposed most types of programs aimed at helping blacks climb out of the hole dug for them by slavery, racism, Jim Crow, and ethnocentrism. The examples are endless[...].

You are wrong.

While I certainly won't defend every decision Republicans ever made, your claim is a gross misrepresentation of fact.

Let's review some GOP "tradition":

*Abraham Lincoln: Author of Emancipation Proclamation; publicly and frequently condemned slavery and fought against its spread to new states.

*Benjamin Franklin Butler: Democrat before the Civil War who, post-war, as a Republican, authored the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (aka, the Ku Klux Klan Act).

*Ulysses S. Grant: Leader of Union forces during the Civil War; ardently supported Butler's KKK Act and Force Acts (1870-71), and signed them into law, essentially labeling the KKK a terrorist organization against which the government could take action. Why? In order to better protect voting rights of blacks.

*Calvin Coolidge: Published letters and publicly admonished restrictions against blacks ambitious for public office. Said Coolidge in one letter: "[As president, I am] one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution...."

*Dwight D. Eisenhower: Personally committed National Guard forces to enforce integration of resistant public schools.

*Civil Rights Act (1964): House votes (GOP 80%; Dems 61%); Senate votes (GOP 82%; Dems 62%).

*Richard Nixon: Adjusted restricted school busing in D.C., and elsewhere, which allowed for more funding to failing schools, and safer integrating; also, his administration established Affirmative Action (as we know it today). In fact, Nixon even instituted quotas.

*George H. W. Bush: Appointed the second black Supreme Court Justice in its history.

*George W. Bush: Appointed the most racially diverse cabinet in presidential history; also worked with Ted Kennedy to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, which "aimed" to hold schools accountable for improving academic standards, particularly with minorities. He also pushed for social security reform, which—I argue—would empower minorities more than any other demographic.

Dick Cheney voted against making M.L.K.'s birthday a federal holiday while he was a lawmaker from Wyoming. Actions like these are not going to make a group of people more appealing to blacks. So until the Republican party makes the issues and concerns of black America part of it's agenda they should expect the "herd" to look elsewhere.

(1) Go ahead and consider one decision from a "lawmaker from Wyoming" indicative of "traditional" GOP civil rights action.

History won't.

(2) And now you acknowledge the black vote as a collective herd with a specific political agenda. Bravo.