Cowardly cave in on Rush Limbaugh controversy

[sofia]

Not that im a big follower of neo-con Rush...but the way the group seeking to buy the Rams just dumped him is typical of the COWARDLINESS that will ruin this nation.

It is the FEAR of the left that gives them their power. The co-owners who dumped Rush are bigger enemies to America than the liberals....

[JK/SEA]

Maybe Rush should offer Euros instead of dollars?

Your money's no good Rush!....weird way to run a business.

[BlackTerrel]

The NFL is one of the best run businesses in the United States and they don't need Rush's money. See Mark Cuban's blog:

http://blogmaverick.com/2009/10/13/why-the-nfl-cant-let-rush-limbaugh-be-a-team-owner/


First, let me say I love when I can talk about other leagues. It’s a freedom I really, really enjoy. But lets get to the issue.

I’m guessing the NFL doesn’t really care about what Rush has said before on his show and on other platforms. If it were really an issue, they never would have let him in the broadcast booth a few years back.

What they should be terrified about , and why they should keep him out, is what he might say AFTER he was an approved investor in the St Louis Rams.

The NFL has plenty of owners who I am sure have very strong political opinions. I’m willing to bet that many of them back up those opinions with donations that are all part of the public record. I’m sure some of those probably don’t align with the best interests of the NFL or even the majority of their fans and customers. I can give you a minor example I have had with the NBA. I am never on the same page as the NBA when it comes to copyright issues. I believe we waste too much NBA money trying to fight piracy and other intellectual property issues. We have agreed to disagree on this and other issues. It’s not a problem. Nor do individuals who fall on either side of the copyright issue make their sports consumption decisions based on copyright positions.

Its a great thing that we all just accept the fact that owners, leagues and fans can be on different sides of a variety of issues. We love our sports and want to reserve a spot for them away from life’s partisan issues and problems. Thank goodness for that !

The problem with Rush is that its his job to take on all of life’s partisan issues and problems. Not only is it his job to take on these issues and problems, its key to his success that he be very opinionated about whichever issues he feels are important to him and/or will cause his very large audience to tune in. Given that we will never know what the “next big issue ” in this world that Rush will be discussing on his show is, its impossible for the NFL to even try to predict or gauge the impact on the NFL’s business if something controversial, or even worse yet, something nationally polarizing happens. There is an unquantifiable risk that comes with the size of Rush’s audience. The wrong thing said on the show, even if its not spoken by Rush himself, about a sensitive national or world issue could turn into a Black Swan event for the NFL.

Thats a huge risk that is not commensurate with the value a minority investment in a franchise brings.

This isnt about Free Speech. Its about the NFL protecting their business. There is no reason to put it at risk. If Rush were to retire from his show, or become a local DJ in Sacramento, or just about anything else he may want as a vocation, then I dont think they would have any problem with him being an investor in a team.

Given the current set of circumstances, they would be crazy to approve him as an owner.

[sofia]

Cuban sounds like the typical American CEO.....a gutless money chaser with no regard for principle.

According to his own logic, Cuban would have justified keeping Jackie Robinson out of baseball if whites threatened to boycott Dodger Games in 1947.

"It's a business decision."

There are more important things in life than money.....things like honor and principle. The men who kept Rush out, on the basis of his political views regarding Obama, have no honor.

Isnt illegal to discriminate based on political beliefs anyway???

[Reason]

non-issue

[Romulus]

non-issue

qft

[Deborah K]

You're right. This is cowardice. They dumped him. Seems disloyal and unscrupulous. His listeners should make a big stink.

[BlackTerrel]

There are more important things in life than money.....things like honor and principle. The men who kept Rush out, on the basis of his political views regarding Obama, have no honor.

You can't be serious. Most NFL owners probably don't like Obama. This has to do with Limbaugh's racially charged comments over the past 20 years. I heard Michael Wilbon on ESPN earlier saying that Limbaugh is probably top 5 on a list of people that black Americans don't like. I'd say that's pretty accurate.

[angelatc]

You can't be serious. Most NFL owners probably don't like Obama. This has to do with Limbaugh's racially charged comments over the past 20 years. I heard Michael Wilbon on ESPN earlier saying that Limbaugh is probably top 5 on a list of people that black Americans don't like. I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Which racially charged comments are you referring to, specifically?

And since when do any of us get a pick about who buys the company we work for? Is that a privilege reserved for the rich? The blacks? Media picks? Who, exactly?

Sheesh. I remember when the Moonies bought Helen Thomas's paper. She quit and got a new job. The whole world went on.

You'd think such strapping fine proud young black men wouldn't be afraid of words. Especially words that don't even exist.

[Deborah K]

You can't be serious. Most NFL owners probably don't like Obama. This has to do with Limbaugh's racially charged comments over the past 20 years. I heard Michael Wilbon on ESPN earlier saying that Limbaugh is probably top 5 on a list of people that black Americans don't like. I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Racially charged? Or politically incorrect.

[angelatc]

You're right. This is cowardice. They dumped him. Seems disloyal and unscrupulous. His listeners should make a big stink.

SUcks, but it's business. That's how the free market works. Each party acts in his/her own best interest.

The coalition improved their chances by cutting their weakest link - they acted in their own best interest.

Like it or not, it's exactly what we support.

[Deborah K]

SUcks, but it's business. That's how the free market works. Each party acts in his/her own best interest.

The coalition improved their chances by cutting their weakest link - they acted in their own best interest.

Like it or not, it's exactly what we support.

Sure it is. I certainly wouldn't want the gov involved, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a cowardly act. And his listeners rallying behind him in response would be yet another example of liberty.

[angelatc]

Racially charged? Or politically incorrect.


Ironic that there's even a list of people that black people don't like. I'll bet all of them are white. Can you imagine seeing a list of people that white people don't like, and finding out they were all black?

Excuse the link to the neocon blog: (http://dougpowers.com/2009/10/14/rush-has-no-place-in-the-nfl-but-look-who-does/)


– Michael Vick: felony dogfighting charges
– Leonard Little: vehicular manslaughter/DUI
– Michael Irvin: felony drug possession
– Ray Lewis: obstruction of justice in a murder
– Plaxico Burress: felony weapon possession (in jail but not yet banned for life from the NFL)
– Pacman Jones: technically a felon since he pled guilty to obstruction of an officer case in GA

The comments have more examples. No room in the NFL ownership for an idiot? Brotha, please.

[klamath]

I listened to Rush Limbaugh from the days before he went national in Sacramento. Rush maybe a lot of things such as a blind party loyalist, prowar and such but he is not a racist.
I suspose he is a racist because he has Walter Williams backup host his show.

[angelatc]

Sure it is. I certainly wouldn't want the gov involved, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a cowardly act. And his listeners rallying behind him in response would be yet another example of liberty.

Republicans should boycott football entirely. But they won't.

[angelatc]

Oh look! Black Terrel has left the room.

[BlackTerrel]

Which racially charged comments are you referring to, specifically?

And since when do any of us get a pick about who buys the company we work for? Is that a privilege reserved for the rich? The blacks? Media picks? Who, exactly?

Sheesh. I remember when the Moonies bought Helen Thomas's paper. She quit and got a new job. The whole world went on.

You'd think such strapping fine proud young black men wouldn't be afraid of words. Especially words that don't even exist.

Try Google. Dealing with the NFL let's mention that he once said Donovan McNabb was overhyped because he is black and that the game looked like the cripps against the bloods.

[Liberty Star]

I think it was business decision with Rush's allaeged biases and their marketability considered. Our implement of Capitalism has never claimed to be based on morality or justice or fair treatment for all. What Rush sells or used to sell does not seem to sell very well in broader markets.

[Oyate]

The man thrived on controversy, animosity, hated, vilification and all things negative. Let the neocon swine devour each other. What concern of ours is this?

[angelatc]

Try Google. Dealing with the NFL let's mention that he once said Donovan McNabb was overhyped because he is black and that the game looked like the cripps against the bloods.

You made the accusation - it won't kill you to back it up. I was all ready to post that thing that they just totally made up, but figured I better clarify.

He was right about McNabb. Deal with it. It may have been politically incorrect, but it wasn't racist. He said that McNabb was getting credit for things the whole team should be getting credit for because America wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. It's actually racist to say that McNabb should have received all the credit just because he's a black quarterback.

Here's what Rush said about the Crips and Bloods:

What you're really talking about here is the hypocrisy of things. Hypocrisy is all over the place. It's always there. But it is the reality. It is what it is. And that has to be dealt with. And the way to deal with it is not so much point it out as to recognize it as an obstacle and how to deal with it. And those are the kinds of things I can't discuss, but let me take the occasion of your call to explain the Bloods and Crips comment, because these guys who are now admitting, "Okay, maybe we can't source those quotes about Limbaugh and James Earl Ray and slavery, but he said Bloods and Crips! He said Bloods and Crips!"
They're trying to get anything else to continue the narrative here that I am some subhuman species with no rights to exist anywhere outside this radio studio and within these radio waves. I believe the comment's from 2007, and I believe the comments were made to a phone call, I had a phone call -- I think -- I'd have to check the transcript of that date, which I've not done, but my memory is, it was a playoff game in San Diego between the Chargers and the Patriots, and the Patriots had a fourth down with a very few seconds left in the game, fourth and ball game, and the Chargers held 'em. Chargers win. Chargers were leading. Then all of a sudden a ref throws a flag, 15 yards or something for taunting, unsportsmanlike conduct, some Chargers DB had gotten in the face of some Patriots player, was doing a "you can't diss me" act and so forth, and it lost the game for the Chargers. And I praised the official for throwing the flag.

So it's racist to call people acting like common street thugs common street thugs?
Screw that. I'm liking Limbaugh more every time they attack him. Catering to the thin-skinned whiners of the country just enables them. Don't black Moms teach their kids that rhyme about "sticks and stones?" Apparently they should.

If ya'll want any credibility, ditch Al Sharpton. Every time that man speaks, somebody should just shout "Twana Brawley" at him and send him back to his white-hating house where he can be small-minded without destryoing the country.

[revolutionary8]

HANG EM HIGH AND LET'EM DRY.

:D

j/k
heh
It's a joke.

[BlackTerrel]

You made the accusation - it won't kill you to back it up. I was all ready to post that thing that they just totally made up, but figured I better clarify.

He was right about McNabb. Deal with it. It may have been politically incorrect, but it wasn't racist. He said that McNabb was getting credit for things the whole team should be getting credit for because America wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. It's actually racist to say that McNabb should have received all the credit just because he's a black quarterback.

Do you watch football? QB's are always judged on wins/losses. It is a big component of all QB's regardless of race. McNabb is widely regarded as one of the better QB's. Nothing to do with race. He plays two bad games and Limbaugh creates a shit storm over nothing.


So it's racist to call people acting like common street thugs common street thugs?
Screw that. I'm liking Limbaugh more every time they attack him. Catering to the thin-skinned whiners of the country just enables them. Don't black Moms teach their kids that rhyme about "sticks and stones?" Apparently they should.

If ya'll want any credibility, ditch Al Sharpton. Every time that man speaks, somebody should just shout "Twana Brawley" at him and send him back to his white-hating house where he can be small-minded without destryoing the country.

My guess is that Al Sharpton would have trouble buying an NFL team as well. It's a private enterprise. They can decide who they let in.

[Blueskies]

You made the accusation - it won't kill you to back it up. I was all ready to post that thing that they just totally made up, but figured I better clarify.

He was right about McNabb. Deal with it. It may have been politically incorrect, but it wasn't racist. He said that McNabb was getting credit for things the whole team should be getting credit for because America wanted to see a black quarterback succeed. It's actually racist to say that McNabb should have received all the credit just because he's a black quarterback.

Yeah, no.

McNabb is one of the better QBs in football...has been for years...and I hate the Eagles.

If Rush's premise were true, why didn't they hype up Vick as a great QB? Shouldn't all the pundits been talking him up instead of attacking his lack of accuracy? What about Culpepper or Moon (who is one of the greatest QBs of all time statistically, but is always left out of conversations over who the greatest QB is).

Rush's premise was completely untrue. The dude's a douche and I would be pleased if he lost his job on the air.

[angelatc]

Yeah, no.

McNabb is one of the better QBs in football...has been for years...and I hate the Eagles.

The quote was from 2003. Even left-leaning Slate had Rush's back on this:
For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback.

McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.

In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.

The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?

Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage.

In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.

And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson. http://www.slate.com/id/2089193/


If Rush's premise were true, why didn't they hype up Vick as a great QB? Shouldn't all the pundits been talking him up instead of attacking his lack of accuracy? What about Culpepper or Moon (who is one of the greatest QBs of all time statistically, but is always left out of conversations over who the greatest QB is).

Rush's premise was completely untrue. The dude's a douche and I would be pleased if he lost his job on the air.[/QUOTE]

And he did lose that particular job. God forbid anybody call a black man mediocre, even if it is just an opinion based on statistical evidence.

[angelatc]

Do you watch football? QB's are always judged on wins/losses. It is a big component of all QB's regardless of race. McNabb is widely regarded as one of the better QB's. Nothing to do with race. He plays two bad games and Limbaugh creates a shit storm over nothing.




I'm a Bucs fan. There's nobody that can make a legitimate case against me being unable to recognize mediocrity. But from the same article:
Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?



My guess is that Al Sharpton would have trouble buying an NFL team as well. It's a private enterprise. They can decide who they let in.

Sharpton was, as always, leading the racially motivated charge against Limbaugh in this. If he were white the media would have chewed him up and spit him out long ago. But no matter how much of a shit-storm he stirs up, nobody ever talks about the huge self-serving racially divisive lies he told. Tells, actually. He was in the thick of the Duke case too.

[jmdrake]

Which racially charged comments are you referring to, specifically?

The BS comment about the NFL "needed a successful black quarterback" and thus was "pushing McNabb" after Doug Williams had already won the superbowl. Plus that same year Steve McNair ended up the top rated quarterback. It was NOT because McNair was black. It was because of his stats! Rush's comment wasn't just racially charge, it was just plain stupid. Really sometimes this forum floors me. Van Jones is supposedly racist for pointing out the fact that most school shootings were done by whites while in the same speech he acknowledges that a disproportionate amount of crime in general is done by blacks and hispanics, and yet Rush's racial comments made in the context of the NFL are supposed to be ignored? This is the kind of hypocrisy that keeps (some) blacks out of the liberty movement.



And since when do any of us get a pick about who buys the company we work for? Is that a privilege reserved for the rich? The blacks? Media picks? Who, exactly?


You get to pick your own business partners. It doesn't matter if your rich or poor. It wasn't the "employees" that blocked Limbaugh IT WAS THE COMPANY THAT BLOCKED LIMBAUGH! McDonald's can decide who it wants to allow to own a franchise. The NFL can choose who it wants to allow to become FRANCHISE owners. If you started your own lemonade stand out of your garage you could decide who you allowed to become a junior partner in your business to. It's just part of the free market.



Sheesh. I remember when the Moonies bought Helen Thomas's paper. She quit and got a new job. The whole world went on.


Rush Limbaugh wasn't attempting to buy the NFL. He was attempting to become part owner of a FRANCHISE! The PARENT ORGANIZATION decided not to let him in. He can take his money and go elsewhere. And as you say "the world will go on". Quit your whining.



You'd think such strapping fine proud young black men wouldn't be afraid of words. Especially words that don't even exist.

A) You might not think Rush's words were "racially charged" but that doesn't make it so. Similarly I don't think Van Jones' words were "racist", but people here had a cow about them.

B) Who's "afraid"? Not the "strapping find proud young black men". It's the NFL that doesn't want to lose money if young men, black or white, decide they dislike Rush enough to cut back some on their viewing time, fantasy football, ticket sales etc. The NFL made an economic decision. They have a RIGHT to make that economic decision. If you're unhappy with it quit watching football. I hardly watch it myself because I have better things to do.

Bottom line, private entities like the NFL are allowed to make decisions that they find to be in their own economic best interest. The problem is when the government intervenes. For example when the SEC admittedly attacked Mark Cuban over his plans to show a 9/11 film THAT is a problem! If some business private business deal fell through that would be a different story.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

And he did lose that particular job. God forbid anybody call a black man mediocre, even if it is just an opinion based on statistical evidence.

He didn't get fired for calling McNabb mediocre. He got fired for making the asinine comment that McNabb was being hyped because the NFL needed a "successful black quarterback" when at the time there were other black quarterbacks with the stats to back up the hype. People argue all of the time about which athletes are really worth all of the hype without bringing race into the equation.

Besides, I don't even know what this is forum worth. Rush hasn't exactly been a "friend of liberty".

[SelfTaught]

The BS comment about the NFL "needed a successful black quarterback" and thus was "pushing McNabb" after Doug Williams had already won the superbowl. Plus that same year Steve McNair ended up the top rated quarterback. It was NOT because McNair was black. It was because of his stats! Rush's comment wasn't just racially charge, it was just plain stupid. Really sometimes this forum floors me. Van Jones is supposedly racist for pointing out the fact that most school shootings were done by whites while in the same speech he acknowledges that a disproportionate amount of crime in general is done by blacks and hispanics, and yet Rush's racial comments made in the context of the NFL are supposed to be ignored? This is the kind of hypocrisy that keeps (some) blacks out of the liberty movement.



You get to pick your own business partners. It doesn't matter if your rich or poor. It wasn't the "employees" that blocked Limbaugh IT WAS THE COMPANY THAT BLOCKED LIMBAUGH! McDonald's can decide who it wants to allow to own a franchise. The NFL can choose who it wants to allow to become FRANCHISE owners. If you started your own lemonade stand out of your garage you could decide who you allowed to become a junior partner in your business to. It's just part of the free market.



Rush Limbaugh wasn't attempting to buy the NFL. He was attempting to become part owner of a FRANCHISE! The PARENT ORGANIZATION decided not to let him in. He can take his money and go elsewhere. And as you say "the world will go on". Quit your whining.



A) You might not think Rush's words were "racially charged" but that doesn't make it so. Similarly I don't think Van Jones' words were "racist", but people here had a cow about them.

B) Who's "afraid"? Not the "strapping find proud young black men". It's the NFL that doesn't want to lose money if young men, black or white, decide they dislike Rush enough to cut back some on their viewing time, fantasy football, ticket sales etc. The NFL made an economic decision. They have a RIGHT to make that economic decision. If you're unhappy with it quit watching football. I hardly watch it myself because I have better things to do.

Bottom line, private entities like the NFL are allowed to make decisions that they find to be in their own economic best interest. The problem is when the government intervenes. For example when the SEC admittedly attacked Mark Cuban over his plans to show a 9/11 film THAT is a problem! If some business private business deal fell through that would be a different story.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I don't know much about football, but I think people are worked up over THE FACT that blacks make just as many racially charged comments as whites, if not more, yet most of the liberal politically correct media tends to give them a pass. Blacks in the MSM are making numerous wild accusations of racism when it comes to criticizing Obama. Imus made a comment about nappy-headed-hoes, which I thought was hilarious, and the media is in an uproar along with mainstream America.

Hardly anyone got worked up about Van Jones because few people knew anything about him. And Van Jones makes Rush Limbaugh look like a saint. Van Jones is a radical that would love to see blacks succeed at the expense of whites, and he wouldn't mind achieving that through dictatorial methods -- he is a Marxist after all. With Van Jones, the ends justify the means.

You commented that "Rush's racial comments made in the context of the NFL are supposed to be ignored? This is the kind of hypocrisy that keeps (some) blacks out of the liberty movement." How were his comments ignored? They were all over the media. Damn....

[Krugerrand]

Excuse the link to the neocon blog:

Quote:
– Michael Vick: felony dogfighting charges
– Leonard Little: vehicular manslaughter/DUI
– Michael Irvin: felony drug possession
– Ray Lewis: obstruction of justice in a murder
– Plaxico Burress: felony weapon possession (in jail but not yet banned for life from the NFL)
– Pacman Jones: technically a felon since he pled guilty to obstruction of an officer case in GA
The comments have more examples. No room in the NFL ownership for an idiot? Brotha, please.

We should be fighting on behalf of Plaxico Burress. He let a concealed carry permit expire ... so what - he shouldn't need a permit. The permit was in a different state - so what. He never harmed anybody (other than himself). He had no intentions of harming anybody (himself included). It's sad that an overzealous prosecutor used him as a political pawn for his own gain. The law is the law ... just as nobody should get preferred treatment nobody should excessively punished to make a statement.

[jmdrake]

I don't know much about football, but I think people are worked up over THE FACT that blacks make just as many racially charged comments as whites, if not more, yet most of the liberal politically correct media tends to give them a pass. Blacks in the MSM are making numerous wild accusations of racism when it comes to criticizing Obama. Imus made a comment about nappy-headed-hoes, which I thought was hilarious, and the media is in an uproar along with mainstream America.

Van Jones made some comments about whites and about 9/11 and he got fired. Oh sure he should have been fired for other reasons (we shouldn't have a "green jobs czar" period).



Hardly anyone got worked up about Van Jones because few people knew anything about him.

Are you delusional? People got so worked up about Van Jones that he got fired. :rolleyes:



And Van Jones makes Rush Limbaugh look like a saint. Van Jones is a radical that would love to see blacks succeed at the expense of whites, and he wouldn't mind achieving that through dictatorial methods -- he is a Marxist after all. With Van Jones, the ends justify the means.


Maybe. Maybe not. The quote that was put all over the media to prove Van Jones was "racist" was not at all racist! I'm comparing quote to quote, not person to person.



You commented that "Rush's racial comments made in the context of the NFL are supposed to be ignored? This is the kind of hypocrisy that keeps (some) blacks out of the liberty movement." How were his comments ignored? They were all over the media. Damn....

:rolleyes: The MSM is NOT THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT! I'm pointing to the fact that (some) here want Rush Limbaugh's racial comments ignored while people went universally ape over Van Jones making the factually accurate observation that most school shootings were done by whites. And the context that Van Jones made it was not racist in that he also talked about violent crime in other ethnic groups.

Let me spell this out one more time since you apparently didn't get it the first time. If the "liberty movement" wants to be taken seriously it can't run around playing the "race card" every time someone black does something they don't like (Van Jones, Prof. Gates etc), and simultaneously poo poo clear racially charged remarks made by whites. Saying "well the mainstream media sucks too" doesn't cut it. Not if you're trying to hold yourself out as better than the mainstream media.

Regards,

John M. Drake

P.S. Rush Limbaugh is an enemy of the liberty movement and he has been punished by the free market! I don't even know why this is a point of discussion!

[SelfTaught]

If the "liberty movement" wants to be taken seriously it can't run around playing the "race card" every time someone black does something they don't like (Van Jones, Prof. Gates etc), and simultaneously poo poo clear racially charged remarks made by whites.

The liberty movement doesn't play the race card so much. It's people like professor Gates and Jeremiah Wright that play the race card, then the liberty movement go into defense mode. You can't be that clueless and not know who the aggressor is when it comes to racial accusations. God Dammit, Jeremiah Wright is subscribes to the black liberation ideology where whites are the enemies. That motherfucker is a race pimp.

Playing the race card every time someone black does something they don't like? Van Jones thinks black people are suffering today solely because of what the white man did. Why the hell shouldn't white people be angry about that?

[jmdrake]

The liberty movement doesn't play the race card so much. It's people like professor Gates and Jeremiah Wright that play the race card, then the liberty movement go into defense mode.


Oh bull. Did you watch Judge Napolitano's analysis? Professor Gates civil rights WERE violated! And it's not crazy if a black man's civil rights are clearly violated to assume that race MIGHT have been a factor!



You can't be that clueless and not know who the aggressor is when it comes to racial accusations. God Dammit, Jeremiah Wright is subscribes to the black liberation ideology where whites are the enemies. That motherfucker is a race pimp.


:rolleyes: You're the one who begins the conversation with "I don't know much about football". You admit that you're clueless and want to talk about others? And what does Jerimiah Wright have to do with the discussion? Nothing! I can dig up Don Black or David Duke or a host of other openly white racists if that was my point. It wasn't! You are blinded by your own self aggrandizement (and foul mouth) that you've missed the point. Rush Limbaugh words were at LEAST as "racially charged" as Van Jones words regarding white kids shooting up schools! That's a FACT! Deal with that FACT before you try to bring up irrelevant points!

[angelatc]

This is the kind of hypocrisy that keeps (some) blacks out of the liberty movement.

I absolutely disagree. It's your kind of hypocrisy that gives the left permission to make special rules that benefit certain subsets of people.



Rush Limbaugh wasn't attempting to buy the NFL. He was attempting to become part owner of a FRANCHISE! The PARENT ORGANIZATION decided not to let him in. He can take his money and go elsewhere. And as you say "the world will on". Quit your whining.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I'm tempted to not even going to start pointing them out.

The Parent organization didn't kick him out. His partners did. I understand their position entirely.

My comment about not choosing your bosses was in regard to the players who went public with their whining, not the owners and franchise holders.



A) You might not think Rush's words were "racially charged" but that doesn't make it so.

Because only black people get to decide what is racially charged. Got it.


B) Who's "afraid"? Not the "strapping find proud young black men". It's the NFL that doesn't want to lose money if young men, black or white, decide they dislike Rush enough to cut back some on their viewing time, fantasy football, ticket sales etc. The NFL made an economic decision. They have a RIGHT to make that economic decision. If you're unhappy with it quit watching football. I hardly watch it myself because I have better things to do.

Again, no such thing happened. THe NFL didn't make the decision. And since you just admitted you don't even watch the sport, I can only assume that I do indeed know more about what's going on than you do.


Bottom line, private entities like the NFL are allowed to make decisions that they find to be in their own economic best interest. The problem is when the government intervenes. For example when the SEC admittedly attacked Mark Cuban over his plans to show a 9/11 film THAT is a problem! If some business private business deal fell through that would be a different story.

Like, so, if the NFL had an anti-trust exemption from the Democratically controlled Congress, it might mean that perhaps the deal was yanked for under-the-table political reasons? Please say yes.

Again, the NFL didn't nix the deal.

Limbaugh didn't say anything that wasn't true, or at least as true as opinion substantiated by statistics and media (who we can safely assume Limbaugh has an inside track on) . He just upsets the left and they destroy him every chance he can get.

We watched the media do the same damned thing to Ron Paul during the election, and we're a bunch of hypocrites if we support this just because Rush isn't one of us.

[angelatc]

Oh bull. Did you watch Judge Napolitano's analysis? Professor Gates civil rights WERE violated! And it's not crazy if a black man's civil rights are clearly violated to assume that race MIGHT have been a factor!



Actually it is. And anyway, it wouldn't matter if his rights were violated because of his skin color, because rights aren't contingent on skin color. The black people need to give up their special victim status. The police hate all of us.


:rolleyes: You're the one who begins the conversation with "I don't know much about football". You admit that you're clueless and want to talk about others? And what does Jerimiah Wright have to do with the discussion? Nothing! I can dig up Don Black or David Duke or a host of other openly white racists if that was my point. It wasn't! You are blinded by your own self aggrandizement (and foul mouth) that you've missed the point. Rush Limbaugh words were at LEAST as "racially charged" as Van Jones words regarding white kids shooting up schools! That's a FACT! Deal with that FACT before you try to bring up irrelevant points!

Bringing up a self-avowed marxist, Van "Republicans are assholes" Jones as a relevant point. Gotta love the irony.

And by the way - you may have missed it, since you don't follow football, but they also approved Fergie as a co-owner of the 'Fins. So in liberal land, tt's ok to be a felon, or sing about vulgar topics using a plethora of proganity, but god forbid you mention that you think McNabb is over-hyped because the league is desperate for racialy based political correct quota bullshit.

[angelatc]

P.S. Rush Limbaugh is an enemy of the liberty movement and he has been punished by the free market! I don't even know why this is a point of discussion!

I'll say it really slooooowly - because they did the same damned thing to Ron Paul.

Just because we aren't Limbaugh fans doesn't mean we should ever agree to let the whiny left hypocrites make the rules about what we on the right are allowed to say.

[jmdrake]

I absolutely disagree. It's your kind of hypocrisy that gives the left permission to make special rules that benefit certain subsets of people.

:rolleyes: I'm not the one claiming that pointing out the truth about crime stats is somehow "racist" when it comes from a black person, but claiming a statement made by Rush which focused on race was somehow not "racially charged". Coming from someone like you I'll take the bogus charge of "hypocrisy" as a badge of honor. I'm more than willing to come out against people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You're not willing to come out against Rush Limbaugh. That makes you the hypocrit.



The Parent organization didn't kick him out. His partners did. I understand their position entirely.


And you don't think people have a right to decide who they want to be business partners with? What planet are you from?



My comment about not choosing your bosses was in regard to the players who went public with their whining, not the owners and franchise holders.


And they don't have a free speech right to talk about potential bosses? Again what planet are you from? Every time Ruppert Murdoch is about to buy some media company employees complain. Some quit. That's just life. Some employees are in better bargaining positions than others. That's economics.



Because only black people get to decide what is racially charged. Got it.


It's a matter of logic, not race. If Van Jones simple statement about crime statistics are somehow "racially charged" then every time some person points out race and crime stats I should call them racist. I don't. I don't believe you do either. In this case Rush didn't simply bring up race as a corollary, he brought it up as a causation factor! He made the claim that McNabb was being hyped because of race. If you can't see how that's racially charged then you don't know what the term means.



Again, no such thing happened. THe NFL didn't make the decision. And since you just admitted you don't even watch the sport, I can only assume that I do indeed know more about what's going on than you do.


Again if the partners made the decision they have the economic right to do so. Hey maybe you know more about football. But you apparently know nothing about economics. You implied the employees nixed the deal. They didn't.



Like, so, if the NFL had an anti-trust exemption from the Democratically controlled Congress, it might mean that perhaps the deal was yanked for under-the-table political reasons? Please say yes.


Right. It's all some "left wing" conspiracy. :rolleyes:



Again, the NFL didn't nix the deal.


You implied the employees nixed the deal. They didn't.



Limbaugh didn't say anything that wasn't true, or at least as true as opinion substantiated by statistics and media (who we can safely assume Limbaugh has an inside track on) . He just upsets the left and they destroy him every chance he can get.


Van Jones' comment about whites being involved with most school shootings is factually true. And while Rush's particular point about McNabb might have been supported by statistics, his general point about black quarterbacks clearly was not. Steve McNair had the best stats that year. Since you claim to know so much about football you should know that.

Also I don't know why you love Rush so much. Mr. "The Abu Grahib guards were just blowing off steam" is no fan of Ron Paul or the liberty movement.



We watched the media do the same damned thing to Ron Paul during the election, and we're a bunch of hypocrites if we support this just because Rush isn't one of us.

Correction. We watched the media INCLUDING RUSH LIMBAUGH do the same to Ron Paul! Rush was very much a part of the same system you are attacking. Which makes your defense of him all the more laughable.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[angelatc]

:rolleyes: I'm not the one claiming that pointing out the truth about crime stats is somehow "racist" when it comes from a black person, but claiming a statement made by Rush which focused on race was somehow not "racially charged". Coming from someone like you I'll take the bogus charge of "hypocrisy" as a badge of honor. I'm more than willing to come out against people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You're not willing to come out against Rush Limbaugh. That makes you the hypocrit.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about crime stats.

I would be more than willing to come out against Rush Limbaugh if he actually said anything that was wrong. Limbaugh didn't say McNabb couldn't be a quarterback because he's black. He said McNabb was over hyped because he is black, and the stats backed him up on that.



And you don't think people have a right to decide who they want to be business partners with? What planet are you from?

I apparently am from a planet where people can read. I already said - several times - that this is how markets work. The coalition made the decision that was in their best interest. Sadly, the biggest cost is the long term effects on free speech.

Say something that offends the Democrats or the black man? Sorry,nobody will do business with you.



And they don't have a free speech right to talk about potential bosses? Again what planet are you from? Every time Ruppert Murdoch is about to buy some media company employees complain. Some quit. That's just life. Some employees are in better bargaining positions than others. That's economics.

Sure they do, and I have every right to mock them for it, knowing full well they aren't going to break their contracts and sit on the sidelines for 3 years to prove a point. They're just running their over-paid mouths, right on cue.




It's a matter of logic, not race. If Van Jones simple statement about crime statistics are somehow "racially charged" then every time some person points out race and crime stats I should call them racist. I don't. I don't believe you do either. In this case Rush didn't simply bring up race as a corollary, he brought it up as a causation factor! He made the claim that McNabb was being hyped because of race. If you can't see how that's racially charged then you don't know what the term means.

Because it was freaking true! Look! It took me about 5 seconds to find this article (http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/barra/2002/01/23/qbs/) and another 2 to find this one (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=archive&ct=res&cd=10-0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpqasb.pqarchiver.com%2FUSAToday%2 Faccess%2F105620039.html%3Fdids%3D105620039%3A1056 20039%26FMT%3DABS%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26type%3Dcurre nt%26date%3DFeb%2B06%252C%2B2002%26author%3DJon%2B Saraceno%26pub%3DUSA%2BTODAY%26desc%3DBriscoe%2Bpa ved%2Bway%2Bfor%2BMcNabb%2Bto%2Bplay%26pqatl%3Dgoo gle&ei=yk_XSqi9M9eLgQfvysD3Dg&usg=AFQjCNHzzkW9SN98VKhU9No-3NsUJxVhLg&sig2=ofc3f8xmxJ0FnNvgT_YRdg). That's page 1. THere are more than 100 pages to go through if you're interested. Google News Archives is your friend.

And I totally forgot that McNabb himself cried "raaaacist!" when Terrell Owens mentioned he would have preferred Brett Favre as a QB. He called it a "black on black" crime:

"“It’s different to say, ‘If we had Michael Vick or Daunte Culpepper or Steve McNair or Byron Leftwich,” McNabb said of four black starting quarterbacks. “But to go straight to Brett Favre, that kind of just slapped me in the face like, ‘Wow ...”’

You don't get it both ways. You don't get special attention because of your skin color along with a special immunity from being criticized on that attention.




Again if the partners made the decision they have the economic right to do so. Hey maybe you know more about football. But you apparently know nothing about economics. You implied the employees nixed the deal. They didn't.


No, I most certainly did not say that. I mocked the players for thinking they actually should have any say when most of them aren't contractually able to walk-the-walk.


And while Rush's particular point about McNabb might have been supported by statistics, his general point about black quarterbacks clearly was not. [\quote]

First you have me saying something I didn't say, and now you have Rush saying something he didn't say. He could not have been any more specific in his criticism. He did not say anything about blacl quarterbacks. He said McNabb was overrated because there was a lot of pressure for black quarterbacks to succeed. And the stats backed him up, as did at least 1 liberal publication.


[quote]Steve McNair had the best stats that year. Since you claim to know so much about football you should know that.



So, since Rush is a racism I'm sure there are quotes where he's tearing down McNair for being a black quarterback too. Please show them to me.

(bangs head)

Black people who get hyped because they're black - even if that's not the only reason they're hyped - don't get a pass on being called out on the hype when they fail to live up to it. Or at least they shouldn't.

And Limbaugh wasn't really even calling McNabb out. He was giving props to the rest of the team, who actually deserved a little hype.



Correction. We watched the media INCLUDING RUSH LIMBAUGH do the same to Ron Paul! Rush was very much a part of the same system you are attacking. Which makes your defense of him all the more laughable.

Really? What did Rush say about Ron Paul?

[jmdrake]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about crime stats.


Then you weren't paying attention. I didn't say YOU said anything about crime stats. I said that the fact Van Jones brought up crime stats in the context of race was given as "proof" that he was racist. If that is racist then certainly Rush's comments attaching McNabb's media hype to race were in the very least racially charged.



I would be more than willing to come out against Rush Limbaugh if he actually said anything that was wrong. Limbaugh didn't say McNabb couldn't be a quarterback because he's black. He said McNabb was over hyped because he is black, and the stats backed him up on that.


*sigh* Wrong. If you take that logic then Professor Gates was correct in saying that his arrest was racially motivated. Judge Napolitano pointed out the fact that his arrest was improper and unconstitutional. But that doesn't mean that it was racist since there are other possible reasons why it might have happened. If this particular police officer had a record of arresting white people improperly that would undercut the claim that race was the motivating factor. Similarly the fact that there was at least ONE other quarterback with a statistically GOOD record who at the time was NOT being hyped undercuts the argument that race was the motivating factor for McNabb being hyped.




I apparently am from a planet where people can read. I already said - several times - that this is how markets work. The coalition made the decision that was in their best interest. Sadly, the biggest cost is the long term effects on free speech.


Well maybe you don't understand free speech. Free speech only means that the government doesn't come in and proscribe what you can say. Free speech does not mean that you are shielded from the economic consequences of your own stupid actions.




Say something that offends the Democrats or the black man? Sorry,nobody will do business with you.


Rush Limbaugh seems to still be doing well economically. Van Jones got fired. Rev Wright lost his most famous parishioner. But of course you'll only look at situations where the "white man" has been "done in" (in your opinion).




Sure they do, and I have every right to mock them for it, knowing full well they aren't going to break their contracts and sit on the sidelines for 3 years to prove a point. They're just running their over-paid mouths, right on cue.


Yes. You have a right to defend an ass like Rush Limbaugh who's spent the last 8 years fighting against everything the Campaign for Liberty stands for just because he's also made a few liberals mad and think that's intelligent.



Because it was freaking true! Look!


Ummm...you realize you undercut your own position? From your own article. Now, it's back as the two best running quarterbacks, the two greatest athletes at the position, Pittsburgh's Kordell Stewart and Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb, are both just one game short of the Super Bowl, and no one wants to say it for fear of, you know, the black-white thing.

This article was saying McNabb was being underhyped because he was black. No matter. The year that Rush made his stupid comment Steve McNair had the best record in the business! But you're just going to continue ignoring that because you want to live in your fantasy world.



And I totally forgot that McNabb himself cried "raaaacist!" when Terrell Owens mentioned he would have preferred Brett Favre as a QB. He called it a "black on black" crime:

"“It’s different to say, ‘If we had Michael Vick or Daunte Culpepper or Steve McNair or Byron Leftwich,” McNabb said of four black starting quarterbacks. “But to go straight to Brett Favre, that kind of just slapped me in the face like, ‘Wow ...”’

You don't get it both ways. You don't get special attention because of your skin color along with a special immunity from being criticized on that attention.


You're the one trying to have it both ways. You want to talk about "statistics" but you're ignoring the fact that McNair had the best stats that year. But you continue to ignore that because it doesn't fit the "Rush is a victim" garbage you want to put out. The simple fact is that if the media was simply looking for a black quarterback to hype they could have hyped Steve McNair! Now if you really wanted to know the truth you'd ask yourself "Why wasn't black quarterback Steve McNair being hyped when he's got the best stats in the league"? And if you did a little digging you'd find the answer. (Hint. The rest of the Titans stats weren't that hot.)




No, I most certainly did not say that. I mocked the players for thinking they actually should have any say when most of them aren't contractually able to walk-the-walk.


In America everyone has a say. People don't have to listen but everyone has a say. It's silly to assume otherwise.



[quote]And while Rush's particular point about McNabb might have been supported by statistics, his general point about black quarterbacks clearly was not. [\quote]

First you have me saying something I didn't say, and now you have Rush saying something he didn't say. He could not have been any more specific in his criticism. He did not say anything about blacl quarterbacks. He said McNabb was overrated because there was a lot of pressure for black quarterbacks to succeed. And the stats backed him up, as did at least 1 liberal publication.


Oh goodness. You can't be that daft! Rush didn't just say McNabb was being hyped because he was black. He said he was hyped because the NFL needed a black quarterback to succeed! That stupid comment implied that there were no other successful quarterbacks for the NFL to hype! If you can't understand the clear implications of what someone says then you shouldn't even be trying to debate.




So, since Rush is a racism I'm sure there are quotes where he's tearing down McNair for being a black quarterback too. Please show them to me.

(bangs head)


(banging my own head) For the umpteenth time! Rush Limbaugh's statement that the NFL was hyping McNabb was because they needed a black quarterback to succeed could only be true if there were no successful black quarterbacks! YOU keep hyping on stats as proof of success! Well Steve McNair had the stats! I never said Rush said jack about Steve McNair. Quite the contrary. RUSH HAD TO IGNORE STEVE MCNAIRS SUCCESSFUL STATS IN ORDER TO MAKE HIS STUPID COMMENT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!



Black people who get hyped because they're black - even if that's not the only reason they're hyped - don't get a pass on being called out on the hype when they fail to live up to it. Or at least they shouldn't.


When white athletes get hyped to you automatically assume that it's because they are white? Or do you believe there are not white athletes that get hyped?

Really, you're whole argument is retarded. The only evidence that you have that McNabb was hyped because he was black is that he is black. If the NFL simply needed to hype a black quarterback they could have hyped McNair. The truth is that athletes in team sports often get hyped because of how well their team is doing. A lot of people thought Terry Bradshaw was overhyped back in the day because he had great wide receivers that made him look good by making impossible catches. But maybe you think Terry Bradshaw was being hyped because he's bald. :rolleyes:



And Limbaugh wasn't really even calling McNabb out. He was giving props to the rest of the team, who actually deserved a little hype.


If Rush had simply said "McNabb is overhyped because people give him credit that belongs to the rest of the team" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rush made it a race issue and its asinine to claim otherwise.



Really? What did Rush say about Ron Paul?

You're kidding right?

See:
http://ronpaulanswers.blogspot.com/2007/05/rush-limbaugh-ron-paul-doesnt-give-dm.html

[BlackTerrel]

Van Jones made some comments about whites and about 9/11 and he got fired. Oh sure he should have been fired for other reasons (we shouldn't have a "green jobs czar" period).



Are you delusional? People got so worked up about Van Jones that he got fired. :rolleyes:



Maybe. Maybe not. The quote that was put all over the media to prove Van Jones was "racist" was not at all racist! I'm comparing quote to quote, not person to person.



:rolleyes: The MSM is NOT THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT! I'm pointing to the fact that (some) here want Rush Limbaugh's racial comments ignored while people went universally ape over Van Jones making the factually accurate observation that most school shootings were done by whites. And the context that Van Jones made it was not racist in that he also talked about violent crime in other ethnic groups.

Let me spell this out one more time since you apparently didn't get it the first time. If the "liberty movement" wants to be taken seriously it can't run around playing the "race card" every time someone black does something they don't like (Van Jones, Prof. Gates etc), and simultaneously poo poo clear racially charged remarks made by whites. Saying "well the mainstream media sucks too" doesn't cut it. Not if you're trying to hold yourself out as better than the mainstream media.

Regards,

John M. Drake

P.S. Rush Limbaugh is an enemy of the liberty movement and he has been punished by the free market! I don't even know why this is a point of discussion!

Thanks for articulating what I wanted to say.

[Flash]

people went universally ape over Van Jones making the factually accurate observation that most school shootings were done by whites. And the context that Van Jones made it was not racist in that he also talked about violent crime in other ethnic groups.

Van Jones identifyng himself as a 'black nationalist' is where the racism comes into play.


If the "liberty movement" wants to be taken seriously it can't run around playing the "race card" every time someone black does something they don't like (Van Jones, Prof. Gates etc), and simultaneously poo poo clear racially charged remarks made by whites.

History proves you incorrect. Liberalism is a mainstream ideology and liberal talking heads commonly play the race cards. Just watch an episode of Hardball to see that. And yet they are still taken 'seriously.'

[jmdrake]

Van Jones identifyng himself as a 'black nationalist' is where the racism comes into play.


:rolleyes: That's not the point. Van Jones statement about white kids being the ones doing most of the mass school shootings, a factually accurate point was used here (and other places) as "smoking gun evidence" of racism. If Van Jones comment was racist then Rush Limbaugh's was at the very least racially charged. When looked in the context of what Van Jones was saying it's hard to argue that that statement was even racist. Van Jones was talking about violence in the young black and hispanic community and merely pointed out that there is an element of violence among a segment of the young white population also. That people made an issue of this is bizarre. Whether or not there is other evidence of Van Jones being racist is irrelevant to the point I was making and its pretty pathetic that people can't seem to get this.




History proves you incorrect. Liberalism is a mainstream ideology and liberal talking heads commonly play the race cards. Just watch an episode of Hardball to see that. And yet they are still taken 'seriously.'

Wrong again. You aren't even arguing against what I'm am talking about!

My point is not that there isn't bias of one kind or another in the mainstream media (of which Rush Limbaugh is a part!) My point is that on THIS forum there are those who want to cry racism about every slight from African Americans, real or imagined, but aren't willing to admit that Rush was making a racially charged statement When his points were based almost ENTIRELY on on race! I mean really folks, this is ridiculous. Some years ago Dennis Rodman said Larry Bird was getting hyped because he was white. When Isaiah Thomas was asked about it he said that he felt Larry Bird "was overrated". The media raked Isaiah Thomas over the coals even though Isaiah never mentioned race at all in his comments! And yet when Rush Limbaugh not only says that McNabb was being hyped because he is black and goes further to say that this is happening because "the NFL needs a successful black quarterback", implying that NONE of the then group of black quarterbacks were "successful" even though ONE of them had the best stats in the NFL (Steve McNair), there is no other logical conclusion than Rush was making a racially charged comment!

That doesn't (necessarily) mean Rush is racist or a bad person or that he should be barred from part ownership of a football team. It DOES mean, however, that his business partners had a legitimate reason not to want to be associated with him. One person has gone so far as to suggest that there was some "democratic congress controlled threat" that caused the deal to fall through (yet she somehow thinks the NFL commissioner had nothing to do with the decision :rolleyes:) That's just loony. Defend the people who deserve defending. Rush Limbaugh isn't one of them. Not under these circumstances anyway.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[BlackTerrel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503799_pf.html


The free market, rather loudly, told Rush Limbaugh it wasn't interested in what he sells. Undoubtedly there are NFL owners who share Limbaugh's brand of conservatism. A few, I'm told, are so far to the right politically they think Limbaugh is liberal. But the voices that spoke up in the private club Limbaugh wanted to join shouted him down.

It was noticeable enough that several players, very eloquently in some cases, said they wouldn't want to play for a team he owned. But then there was an owner, the Colts' Jim Irsay, who went on the record as saying he wouldn't vote to accept an ownership group that includes Limbaugh. And most important, the NFL commissioner himself, Roger Goodell, said very firmly that Limbaugh's public utterances as they relate to race, to African Americans specifically, are "divisive" and "polarizing."

It was obvious at that point that Limbaugh wouldn't be part of an NFL ownership group. And it's fair. Limbaugh, every day and very publicly, judges people, turns thumbs up or thumbs down on someone's candidacy or worthiness. Now he's been judged: Thumbs down, not interested. Millions of people believe what Limbaugh believes about politics and race. But millions of others believe something else and, more to the point, reject what Limbaugh espouses. And the push-back was more than Limbaugh was going to overcome, so it's over.

When it first became public that Limbaugh was going to be part of Dave Checketts's group that was attempting to buy the St. Louis Rams, it riled up black folks probably more than anyone else, which should come as no surprise. I've met Limbaugh. I communicated with him last week on the issue of his being a part-owner of a franchise. One-on-one, he comes across as approachable and open to pretty much any discussion. But his radio persona is another thing. I don't listen to his show because his comments about people of color anger and offend me, and I'm not easily offended. I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things he has said over the years; I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) that he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word.

But Limbaugh has long history of the same insults and race baiting, to the point of declaring he hoped the president of the United States, a black man, fails. I never understood why someone with Limbaugh's gift for communication was so nasty and, in my opinion, gave cover to bigots everywhere under the guise of conservatism. Clearly, I'm not alone.

The smartest expression I've heard on the entire subject came from Mathias Kiwanuka of the New York Giants, who said, "I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man."

Irsay said Tuesday, "I would not be in favor of voting for him," and he labeled some of Limbaugh's comments "incendiary. . . . We've got to watch our words in this world and our thoughts because they can do damage."

Limbaugh has the right to say pretty much whatever he wants on his show. People with opposing views have the right to say, "We don't want to be associated with that."

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a smart man on these issues, wrote in his blog that this is a bottom-line issue, that the risk of offending people runs hand-in-hand with the risk of costing the NFL money. Cuban writes: "The problem with Rush is that it's his job to take on all of life's partisan issues and problems. Not only is it his job to take on these issues and problems, it's key to his success that he be very opinionated about whichever issues he feels are important to him and/or will cause his very large audience to tune in. . . . The wrong thing said on the show, even if it's not spoken by Rush himself, about a sensitive national or world issue could turn into a Black Swan event for the NFL. . . . This isn't about free speech. It's about the NFL protecting their business. There is no reason to put it at risk. "

Now that his bid to own an NFL team is over and unlikely to be revived, I wonder if Limbaugh has any misgivings about what he says and how he says it. I wonder whether he cares at all that his own history of intolerance (even if it's just perception) has resulted in an institution representing a rather broad spectrum of society, even a private club of men accustomed to wealth and privilege, not wanting to be publicly associated with his views or his bombast. Is this simply everyone else's fault, a "liberal conspiracy," or a rejection that's hurtful enough that it will make Rush Limbaugh take a tough look at himself?

Part of me wonders if some greater good might have been served by Limbaugh actually becoming an owner. Sports, more than anywhere else in this culture, is where preconceived notions are immediately tested and often die. Hostile bigotry can't last long in the athletic arena because whether you're a left tackle, an owner or power forward, you're too dependent on somebody who looks different than you or who practices a different religion. Sports are not without prejudice; but they're the closest thing this society has to a true meritocracy, and as a result, cooperative and constructive human relations in the pursuit of winning are unavoidable.

Folks who would never embrace each other in business, science and technology, religion, media . . . they've got no choice in sports. Stadiums in the United States are completely integrated on Sundays. Churches are not. Even somebody with Limbaugh's bombast, I think, might wind up not just editing himself but actually feeling different about people other than himself if put in that setting every single week as an owner, his business identity tied to sweaty black men. And trust me: Limbaugh loves sports enough that he'd be right there hugging them in the locker room after big victories.

You think if Limbaugh's team had a black quarterback as successful as Donovan McNabb that he'd be dismissive of him?

It would have been interesting to see what might have happened, what fundamental changes might have come about in Limbaugh, had he become an owner. It's one thing to demonize people from afar, but quite another to do it after you've just hugged and cried with somebody of that race or ethnicity after a shared joyous experience.

But we'll never know, not in the context of Limbaugh and the NFL anyway. Perhaps another league will let him in; Missouri has other teams. Perhaps enough people are tired of the incendiary comments, as Irsay said, to simply say, "You have to do better, exhibit a greater tolerance or simply public decency to join us."

Limbaugh is a great communicator of his message. I wonder if he heard this one loud and clear.

[angelatc]

Blackballing Conservatism

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1069/Blackballing-Conservatism.aspx


This is an example of a black-ball ballot box, used famously by 19th-century men's clubs to vote down a potential member via secret ballot (a black marble). After watching the blackballing of Rush Limbaugh this week -- and, as I argue below, the blackballing of conservatism -- I realize the contemporary version would have to be made of glass. There was nothing secret about what happened -- which is part of the reason it was so frightening.

This week's syndicated column:

Before I get to the chilling implications for free conservative speech underscored by the vicious, public campaign to blackball Rush Limbaugh as a potential owner of an NFL team, I want to provide a little context about the pre-existing NFL comfort zone of expression.

I will start with two words: Keith Olbermann. In addition to his nightly gig on MSNBC -- a numbing blend of Leftist politics and something approaching Tourette's syndrome -- Olbermann is a co-host of NBC's "Football Night in America," the pre-game show that leads into "Sunday Night Football." Naturally, that would be Sunday night NFL football.

This job, now into its third season, makes Olbermann not a team owner, of course, but certainly a public face of the NFL. And a public face of the NFL with many filthy things coming out of it. These include, just sampling from recent days, his pronouncement that Limbaugh claiming his own success paved the way for Glenn Beck is "is like congratulating yourself for spreading syphilis." We could slap a headline on that -- "NFL talker compares star radio and TV conservatives with venereal disease" -- except that trash talk against conservatives doesn't generate mainstream outrage.

Take Olbermann's noxious attack this week on Michelle Malkin for what he characterized as her "total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Get that? Olbermann calls an accomplished and best-selling conservative author, commentator, blogger, wife and mother (who also happens to be beautiful) a "big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick," but such dehumanizing venom doesn't count as controversial, or even lightly strain his NBC-NFL connection. Why, at this rate, he could end up on a box of Wheaties. His comments certainly don't rate as "divisive" or "inappropriate" - two of the coded charges leveled at Rush Limbaugh's "public remarks" by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay that got Limbaugh's blackball rolling in the first place.

It was all over so fast. Barely a day passed between the news that Limbaugh was bidding with Dave Checketts for the St Louis Rams and the news that Checketts was dropping Limbaugh as a partner.

But what a day. It goes down in the annals as the day the demonization of conservatism achieved not consensus, but normalcy, and the day the marginalization of conservatives became not a public sport but a civic duty. Think about it. What happened to Limbaugh didn't happen to a "dead white male" on a college campus; nor did it happen to a live white male in a government-mandated "sensitivity course." What happened to Limbaugh took place in a uniquely exclusive slice of the private sector frequented by the super-mega-rich and ostentatious, the kind of people with the kind of money that buys protection from the pressures of what is thought of as public opinion. But what happened to Rush Limbaugh - call it "Rush-baiting" -- reveals that what conservative blogger Lawrence Auster calls the "dictatorship enforced by the charge of racism" has absolutely no boundaries.

Limbaugh's critics were so desperate to make a racism charge stick, to tag Limbaugh as untouchably "controversial," that they resorted to demonstrable lies -- statements Limbaugh never made -- and purposely indemonstrable innuendo. Not that this mattered. As in all dictatorships, the charge itself suffices. It didn't even matter that the dictatorship's emissaries, the eternal charlatans Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who actively lobbied the NFL to oppose Limbaugh, are themselves serially discredited race hustlers. Again, the charge is all it takes to demonize and ostracize the opposition. And Rush Limbaugh -- as the leading voice against the radicalism of the Obama administration, one of the most forceful opponents of the totalitarian social engineering we know as "affirmative action," as one of the great communicators of basic conservative principles -- definitely counts as the opposition.

But with the successful transformation of Limbaugh the potential team owner into Limbaugh the expendable "distraction," his brand of opposition -- a plain-speaking adherence to a conservatism best described as Reaganesque -- has been judged unfit, unworthy even, for the sports-loving mainstream and sentenced to the margins. And that is what is most disturbing about this story. Conservatism in our time has been publicly defined as extremism. Which means, for conservatives, it's time for some intensive historical revisionism of our own.

[jmdrake]

Blackballing Conservatism

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1069/Blackballing-Conservatism.aspx

That's nice.

A) Keith Olbermann isn't trying to buy a football team.

B) His remarks, caustic as they may be, are tame by Limbaugh standards.

C) The remarks quoted in the above article had nothing to do with the NFL so I'm not sure why anyone would expect the commissioner of the NFL to say anything about them.

D) Olbermann didn't bring up race in remarks. Had he ended his remark with "And nobody would be paying attention to Michelle Malkin if she wasn't Asian" you'd have a point.

E) Olbermann has plenty of critics of his own.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Dieseler]

I don't think Rush really ever wanted a football team.
I think Rush has what he wanted all along and he might just be about to take it to the bank.

[1836er]

Good grief. It's actually hard to believe somebody as seemingly non-dumb as Wilbon could be so clueless in his understanding of Rush Limbaugh. Just in what I've heard from him over the years I would guess it only takes a couple hours of listening to his show to figure him out. He doesn't spout racism... what he does is ridicule and point out the hypocrisies of those who actually are racists, and puts together satirical pieces (often in the form of fake songs, commercials, and public service announcements) that lampoons the oppressive mainstream political correctness that has proven to be such a valuable tool for the statists since the 1960s. Decrying Rush's statements as "racist" is about as intellectually honest as contending that Swift actually endorsed the Irish selling their babies to be eaten as food.

This is definitely a case of "blackballing conservatism," which the MSM, the statists, and the dominant PC culture see as the main obstacle in the way of their radical utopian visions for America. And like it or not, Rush's brand of "mainstream conservatism" - which to me is in some (but certainly not all) important ways just as statist and unacceptable as the "Left's" - is nonetheless the main opposition right now. Shit, if Rush's brand of "mainstream conservatism" has now been deemed unfit by the "Gatekeepers of what is acceptable in Mainstream America," you can imagine how much more "unfit" and "unacceptable" our points of view are going to be when they turn the full force of their guns on us.

Regardless of what you think of Rush Limbaugh and his brand of mainstream conservatism, we should be standing against this kind of tyranny... or before long one of us will be typing these words as the last entries in the Liberty Forest before it is shut down...

... Then they came for Rush Limbaugh, and I did not speak out—because I was not a "neo-conservative;"
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Dieseler]

Racist allegations attributed to Rush Limbaugh untrue.
Ballentine tells Juan Williams he can go back to the porch.
YouTube - Bill O'Reilly, Juan Williams and Warren Ballentine Debate Rush Limbaugh's NFL Bid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdC5c_l4kcE)

Juan fires back.
YouTube - Juan Williams Takes On the Race Baiters! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUYx8vUZyhY)

Who's the racist?

[DirtMcGirt]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477021697942920.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel

Rush's response

The Race Card, Football and me...

Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer.

It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.

[angelatc]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nflsigns16-2008jul16,0,1332501.story


NFL is looking at all the signs

The league, concerned that some players might be celebrating by using the hand signals of street gangs, has hired experts to study game tapes.