Limbaugh, Lies, and the NFL
by Juan da Baptist on Oct 17, 2009 4:59 AM EDT
Email
PrintComments closed. I allowed this post to stay up due to it being currently relevant to the league. Perhaps a bad decision on my part, as surprise, surprise, a political debate erupted. For those of you who provided thoughtful commentary for others to consider, many thanks. For those who were offended or disappointed to see the post left up, my apologies. After reading the well written fanpost, I decided to leave it up, as it wasn't necessarily political in its tone. But as is usually the case, it turned in that direction. So anyway, let's try to remember the 'no politics' rule here at all times and limit our reflections on relevant NFL topics to points of view outside the realm of politics. If that makes any sense. Thanks. - Blitz - (Michael B.)
I've been following the Rush Limbaugh brouhaha quite closely this week. It surprises me to see that no one has yet to weigh in on this issue here at BTSC. Let me be the first. Baseball is no longer America's pastime, political correctness and race baiting have obviously taken it's place. And in this circumstance it's America's passion that is the clear loser. As a lifelong fan of the NFL (go Steelers) I personally would have welcomed the possibility of Rush moving into an ownership position. Owners such as the once great Al Davis and the ever inept Dan Snyder are running storied franchises into the ground. Jerry Jones repeatedly scrapes the bottom of the barrel and thinks it's the cream of the crop. Could Rush Limbaugh have done much worse? I guess we will never know.
I took the time before writing this post to do a little research. I read Rush's quote about Donovan McNabb in context. I also searched other articles that were being written around that time about McNabb and the overall situation with black QB's in general. I also checked McNabb's stats during the period leading up to the comments. In my view Rush Limbaugh was mostly accurate in his assessment. A week after Rush was fired from ESPN freelance author and sports journalist Allen Barra wrote a very insightful piece putting the whole situation in perspective, the link is at the bottom of this page.
I have focused on the McNabb comments because in all the uproar and with all the accusations of racism that have been hurled at Mr. Limbaugh I have not been able to uncover one shred of evidence (and not for a lack of effort) that Rush ever said any of the other so called racially insensitive things that he has been reported to have said. I have however found a lengthy list of quasi apologies and retractions from numerous media outlets, stating basically that earlier reports of racist remarks attributed to Mr. Limbaugh could not be verified. One of the sources for an MSNBC story was none other than our own James Farrior. Apparently Farrior had heard that the comment "slavery had it's merits" was attributed to Rush and based upon that misinformation told MSNBC that someone who said such a thing should not have the privilege of owning an NFL franchise. The only problem with that remark seems to be that Rush Limbaugh never actually said it, as would seem to be the case with the many other comments that he has supposedly said. Comments which form the basis for the public outcry that he should not be allowed into the already all white club of NFL ownership.
I have listened to Rush off and on throughout the years that he has been broadcasting and can say from my own experience that while his rhetoric is definitely provocative and his perspective intensely conservative, I have never once heard him utter a comment that could be considered racist by anyone other than the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. By the way, wasn't Sharpton the one who made the hymietown reference, and didn't Jesse Jackson recently say that Obama should have his n*ts cut off? While Jackson would like to castrate our president with whom he happens to share a particular genetic trait, Rush has many friends of African American heritage who have come to his defense. Thursday Ken Hutcherson, a former linebacker for the Cowboys who is a now a minister called Rush's show to offer his support. Ken is one of Rush's fishing buddies and just happens to be black. Common sense would tell me that racists don't typically go fishing with folks of the opposite shade, but hey, what do I know. According to the left-wing media I myself am a racist because I, like Rush, do not support the policies of our sitting president.
I was a wide receiver in high school, I had great hands. On the other side of the field was my buddy Carlson who couldn't catch a cold. Carlson was black and ran like the wind, was it because he was black? I don't know, ask Jimmy the Greek. I on the other hand could never get open. To say the least we had a rough time moving the ball through the air. What we never had was a difficult time in the locker room. Race was never an issue, as I assume it is not in the NFL. You can't live with someone six months out of the year, work together, room together, win, lose and shower together with another man for very long before you realise he is just like you.
The sad fact about this latest incident isn't that a knowledgeable fan of the game with the resources, acumen and desire to perhaps make an impact on a team that is currently down on it's luck has been denied that priviledge, though that is part of it. The real downside is that an industry which has led by example on the issue of racial diversity and shown us all how people of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds can come together to achieve great things has allowed itself to be dragged into the mud of race baiting and political correctness. And truth be told, when one bothers to examine the facts rather than base their opinions on here-say, this was never about whether or not a racist or one who has made racially insensitive remarks should be afforded the priviledge to own an NFL franchise, because as a little investigation will show he never made such remarks to begin with, it was always about politics. Unfortunately many good and decent men have let themselves get caught up in this mess because they trusted a few who are purported to be leaders in their communities and trusted the media outlets that irresponsibly reported their ill intentioned falsehoods.
The real offenders here are the likes of Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk who make their living off of other peoples suffering and cannot let the issue of race in America die because without it they would be out of a job. For most of us race is not the issue, or any issue at all. With each passing generation and thanks in great part to athletics, the forward thinking of men such as Dan Rooney and the courage of great men such as Jackie Robinson, the issue of race in America is becoming a thing of the past. My daughter is about to marry a black man, my granddaughter is half black, all of my children are mostly color blind, my grandchildren will undoubtedly be completely so. I myself have grown due to my involvement in athletics and the exposure to other cultures that it has given me.
In closing, it is my sincere desire and hope that some of those who allowed themselves to be caught up in this pathetic and unfortunately successful attempt to defame and disenfranchise someone simply because he holds a diverse political viewpoint from their own would step back, examine the facts and consider the possibility that they have been used, ask themselves the hard questions about how and why, and make certain that they are not pawns in some future political game. When we allow ourselves to be deceived and embroiled in turmoils such as these our society suffers, our great game suffers and in the end we not only lose much of the wonderful progress that we have made but our freedoms as well, freedoms that have given us all the ability to not only live together in peace and brotherhood but occasionally, victory.
http://www.slate.com/id/2089193/ article from 2003 by Allen Barra, noted freelance sports journalist and author
201 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice post
I live an hour away from Philly(going down there for a visit to Penn U today). The McNabb-Limbaugh blowup was naturally big news in my neck of the woods. What many people don’t remember is that when the comments were made, Michael Irvin immediately agreed. No one thought twice about it until a few days later, when some media people chanced on it and politicized the whole thing. My opinion on the whole thing is that people should be able to go into any business venture regardless of political opinion. Last year George Soros, an extremely wealthy and politically active liberal, wanted to buy part of an MLB team. His application didn’t go through for one reason or another, but it certainly wasn’t politics.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Stampede Blue's Resident Steelers Fan
In order to see the rest of my sig, press ALT and F4.
by LV Steelers Fan on Oct 17, 2009 8:52 AM EDT reply actions
i have written a thread on this!!!
I was told that this is a football blog and it was promptly removed! I am a hispanic female from Columbia South Amarica and came here to escape corruption, poverty and freedom! Never would I have believed that the media in this country and the sports media in this country is so one sided and spreading lies and misinformation, it is a DISGRACE!! I have listened to rush since 1988 and have never, ever heard him say what he is accused of!
Black Nascar Driver
Great Piece by the way!
ESPN and the liberal media have powerful ways to take items out of context and persuade the masses to believe their hooppla. I believe Rush’s comments were somewhere along the line of(paraphrasing)…McNabb is overrated bc the media wants to see a black quarterback do well. at the time I also believed that donavan was getting a bit too much love. Just bc a statement involves race does not mean it is racist.
If nascar announced tomorrow that the first black racecar driver was going to start a sprint cup race this week, wouldn’t ESPN go crazy. They would be covering this story from every angle. Outside the Lines, Sports Reporters, sportcenter, around the horn, pti, cowherd, van pelt, rachel nix, pedro gomez…omg could you see the frenzy. Why? I am quite sure it involves race and the media wanting to see that particular driver do well! ESPN has grown so powerful that they could say anything and the masses would believe. They are the ones that painted Rush as a racist. I would love to see Rush go after them!
On a small side note pretaing to ESPN hoopla. How bad do they want to see TO mess up. I mean they were posting headlines along the lines of “TO dosnt want to talk”. I am one of the people that genuinley feels sorry for him. He has had his moments and I am sure has been an asshole, but I do believe competitive fire drives him. ESPN has targeted him and labeled him as the villian they want him to be regardless of his actions.
by TheCommish on Oct 17, 2009 9:32 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
It's a closed club, and they didn't want him in it....
….mostly for business reasons.
Sure, there are plenty of jerks as owners. Davis, Snyder, others. That doesn’t mean they need any more.
I’ve known Limbaugh and have worked with him on occasion. He’s no racist. But he runs his mouth for a living, and says provocative things to boost his ratings and spice up his show. Cautious owners might be wary of that.
He and I are both members of AFTRA, but he has strong anti-union views. With a major labor dispute on the horizon, many owners don’t want him shooting off his mouth at times when silence might be better. They have enough trouble keeping the current owners on the reservation.
Also, just remember that the current owners forced members of the Rooney family to divest their share of the Steelers. And they have turned down other people because they might own teams in other sports.
The fact is that they don’t need Limbaugh – a potential minority owner – to create major controversies that could create problems for the business that is the NFL.
If you are REALLY a conservative, and have ANY respect for ownership and property rights, you should understand that the NFL has a right to offer a franchise to anyone of their choosing, and the right to protect their brand. And, if you have any knowledge of reality, you know that there are some owners who make Limbaugh look like a liberal.
You shouldn’t be forced – or pressured – to take on a business partner you think will bring you unneeded controversy, tick off your customers, or even worse.
Stop the victimization. It’s bad theater.
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson
by Homer J. on Oct 17, 2009 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 6 recs
Agreed!
BUT, he was labeled a Racist and he is not!! He was slandered and libel was used against him! If George Soros, George clooney went in on the Miami dolphins, would be going throgh this?? Who is Sharpton and Jackson calling racist?? All in all, Rush does not have a constitutional right to own a NFL team but in America, we should pursue our dreams, not having this limp wristed liberals taking cheap shot a Rush!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 17, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Rush was labeled a racist by people who make their living calling people racist. If Limbaugh was really hurt by the accusations he could really sue them, you know in court with lawyers sue them.
He won’t, because he banked on them doing it when he joined the management group. If nobody yelled at Rush, his little pony show wouldn’t have any audience.
It goes for both sides. Using broad generalizations to create us vs. them paradigms to create an intimate feeling with the listener while you bemoan the failings of the modern world and point the finger at “them,” you never run out of people to be alienated from, so he never runs out of material. It’s a great gig.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah but
but, but, but he isn’t even a racist, yet people say he is, and those um, um, um, you know limp wristed liberals, who, ya know, hate America and stuff, they are the ones calling him a racist, and stuff, and he, ya know, like, his best friend is a black guy and junk, and, those limp wristed liberals are always lying and making stuff up about republican Americans. Cause, Republicans love America and junk, and none of them are really, actually gay. They are just confused.
by worldtrip on Oct 18, 2009 4:24 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually all those red-neck in-bred Hillbillies are just stirring up trouble because back when they were kids Mexicans and Blacks knew their place and didn’t compete with White people for good jobs.
Rush Limbaugh and his fear-mongering co-horts are ruining this country, opposing the tenants of our founding with their hate and war and big business loving capitalism.
I was a Poli-Sci major focusing in foreign policy and economic policy, it’s fun talking real politics when people “talk politics” they usually have no clue what you are talking about and they don’t want to know either. People on both sides prefer ignorant rage over being informed and having the responsibility to get involved.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 4:51 AM EDT up reply actions
How do explain me?
I am hispanic and female..discrimination? I had employers falling all over me to give me a job!! I got my masters degree without taking a GRE because I am hispanic! Yes, i do believe that the left in this country hates america..just look at the facts..Obamas staffers, namely Van Jones openly admires Hugo Chavez..The left in this country loves castro, che guvara and any dictator who hates america..Obama sat in that church for 20yrs listening to hate speech, and he got away with it saying he never heard it!! Could you imagine a conservative attending a church like that? There is a double standard and you libs know it! BTW, didnt Obama call that cop stupid for doing his job? He admitted that he didnt know all the facts before he made his stupid comments!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 18, 2009 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions
O’Bama rarely attended that Church, he became a member because he wasn’t black enough for south Chicago voters. The guy says crazy stuff to get attention in the local press. He does the White man is evil message about twice a year, it’s good for business.
I don’t understand your point with the masters degree, where did you get it?
“The left in this country loves Castro, Che Guevara, and any dictator who hates America” Sigh. Nice broad generalization.
People like Che because he fought oppressive conditions to help the local people. Look at the early results from Mao Zedong, he was phenomenal to the Chinese people until he gained power. The travesty of his reign was disregard for science and massive corruption. Add in Nixonesque paranoia with no checks on power and you get the Mao we hear about now.
Hitler pulled off the greatest economic revitalization in the modern world, there’s even things you can respect Stalin for.
It doesn’t mean you hate America. Like G.K. Chesterton said, “My country right or wrong is like saying my Mother drunk or sober.” There is good and bad everywhere in politics, to label a leader as purely bad and everything they did as Evil would be stupid.
South American dictators have a right to hate America. Read the history of the Banana companies in South America, American companies hired mercenaries to massacre striking Banana workers who lived like Slaves. They lived in compounds and couldn’t leave, when they tried to fight for rights they were killed. Thousands of them. It was in the 1920’s.
People don’t forget stuff like that. Especially the communists who were the ones fighting to save those people. South America is Communist because the Communists were the only ones helping the people. If they hate capitalism and America we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Furthermore in recent years China has been sending massive aid to South America while the U.S. aid is always tied to business deals. You can have this money, but to get it you have to let us screw you over. Geez, I wonder why they don’t like us.
Venezuala, Argentina, and plenty of other South American countries should hate us. We don’t care because as long as they don’t have weapons to fight us and Mexico lies in between them and us they will never be a threat to us.
One of the reasons O’Bama won the Nobel Prize for Diplomacy (notice not for domestic affairs) was because he has opened lines of communication to people we have ostracized and bullied for decades. Come on, Cuba? Are they really a threat to our way of life? Trading with them would result in what horrible problems for America?
And don’t think I’m a loyal democrat either, neither party does anything different. I like O’Bama because he is already the second best foreign policy president since Nixon. The first being George H.W. Bush. Notice Foreign policy presidents, Carter, Nixon, Bush1, O’Bama, they all have one thing in common, they aren’t popular. We love domestic Presidents, sadly the President has so much more power and responsibility in foreign affairs and really can’t do squat domestically (other than beg congress or veto).
Our current problems internationally are the result of 16 years of domestic presidents, you can’t treat the world as being unimportant for 16 years and expect them to love you.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
O yeah!
BTW, che to free oppressive imperialists? Ask any Cuban American what they think of Che? Mao, murdered 70million chinese! Why south american hate the USA…You said that becuase of slavery in South America…that was not done by the USA…Brazil had slaves form Portugal! And the rest of the countries in Latin America, from spain! Nothing to do with the USA!! I got my masters without taking a GRE..which is required, but it wasnt necessay because I am a Hispanic/female…
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 7:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Doesn't it just suck...
When those pesky little details get in the way of broad brush thinking? I know it bothers me.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions
what do u expect?
NYsteelerfan4, world trip is an asshole! He has a big mouth over his type writer..When I told him that hubby and I are coming to pitt later in the season, to say all that stuff to his face…what does he do? COWARD!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
?
Actually, Worldtrip and I share a very similar sense of humor (dry sarcasm), and agree on quite a few things football and other topics. I have absolutely no problem with him as I have no problem with you. I think you missed the point of my reply as well.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
You never told me that you are coming to Pitt
And if you did, I would tell you that there is a still a whole country in between us. I haven’t lived in PA in about 20 years.
Once again...
Details, details, details.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah
I often read her responses and try to figure out how she garnered her interpretation of what was said prior. It’s an amusing game really.
still an asshole!
you are still a jerkoff! worldtrip! acid trip!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
such ugly words from a beautiful woman :(
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
I am not
I don’t even know her.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Do you know what I consider beautiful?
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
You are the one making the assumptions
Feel free. It’s your world.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
I’m saying you don’t know one way or the other. You assume she is beautiful. You don’t need to see a face to make that final judgment? If you don’t need to see the face, then I would surmise you like butter faces.
Like I said
Assume all you like. You abvoiusly know because you would never make such a statemetn without assuming you know all the facts.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
I don’t understand your apparent hostility. I never said if she was beautiful or ugly. I said fat. I have seen beautiful fat women, and ugly women with bodies I find attractive. I’m still trying to figure out how you base beauty. Is if purely from the neck down, with the face having no input at all on your definition? If that is the case, and you like her body, then I guess to you she is beautiful. Even if she has a horse face.
I guess the last piece would be that you got her “i’ll show everyone my tits” picture that she couldn’t wait to send out to everyone and she included her face. If that is the case, you could have just said so.
There is no hostility
You assume I don’t have a picture with per face. That I don’t have a portriat. Do you know that?
You may be surprised.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Again
You could have just said so. A simple “I’ve seen her face” would have sufficed.
Especially since I said “how would you know?”
Because you said
“suck up” assuming all of the rest. True?
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
oh yeah
in that case I never have seen her portriat and I was being a “suck up”. lol
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
he doesnt!
worldtrip likes men! Fat, you wish you could have a woman like me, without paying for it! Oh, I forgot, you are into men!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
But seriously
no lie I think she has a nice body. I’m not being a suck up there.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
I know you do
Much too big for me. I’m guessing size 10 minimum, maybe 12 or even 14. I don’t much go for above a size 4. Size 6 if she rocks it well, but not really above that.
THATS WHAT I MA TALKING ABOUT! YOU DONT LIKE SOMEONE, BECAUSE OF POLITICS! YOU ARE CLOSEMINDED!
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Not for you Arn...
but you snuck in before me.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I was about to say
a body like that on any party is a thumbs up to me.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
My point was not that those people were good, but that some things they did were good.
Mao is responsible for enormous loss of life, but the reforms he forced in early on were very good. During the revolution he was loved because his soldiers brought food to the people and treated them well whereas his opponent took their food and raped their women. He may have ended up horrible, but he did some great things early on.
Slavery in South America is not what I was talking about, I’m talking about the 1920’s when American Banana companies hired mercenaries to kill striking workers who were living in slavery-esque conditions.
Our government then overthrew a government that came to power on a platform of land recovery and rights for banana workers and installed a horrible dictator.
It’s the same reason my wife hates Henry Clay Frick, her ancestors were on that bridge, they saw friends die because Frick didn’t want to pay workers a wage they could live on. That stuff sticks with people.
I am not talking about 17 and 18-hundreds slavery.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions
wow
Do you realize how high up the comment you replied to is….of course you do, but I’m amused!!
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Man I had you going...admit it!!
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
when you used the word hostility
I said ah ha! Worldtrip never gives a rip! but he’s actually carrying about my feelings. I’m touched. lol
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
"red-neck-in-bred Hillbillies"??
That’s some bullshit racism right THERE, Mr. “Poli-Sci major”.
What. The. Fuck?
Who do you think you are? Do you realize that you just insulted every one of MILLIONS of Appalachian people who have struggled for centuries to destroy that arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude held by know-it-all, smug, smarmy jerk-off pseudo-intellectuals from those perfect metropoli(where incest, murder, thievery, greed, deception, racism and hate apparently just don’t exist?)?
Fuck you, bigot. Politics is NO “science” either. You study PROPAGANDA. And apparently spread it around like the fertilizer it is, too.
OK, take a step back, read Worldtrip’s post and my first two paragraphs.
It’s satire, we are making fun of the crazy yelling people on the right and the left.
I didn’t do a great job of making that obvious, and I’m sorry. None of the words in the first two paragraphs there were serious. They were mocking the people who actually feel that way. Those people are idiots.
I’m sorry. I failed pretty hard at my attempt at sarcasm and mockery.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah you did, I have a harder time with sarcasm that I can’t do with inflection and facial expressions. I’m working on it.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed
You shouldn’t be forced – or pressured – to take on a business partner you think will bring you unneeded controversy, tick off your customers, or even worse.
Agreed, however, Rush asserts that he mentioned the possibility of backlash to Mr. Checkett and that Mr. Checkett assured him he had been cleared at the highest levels of the NFL. Mr. Checkett has yet to refute that statement. So, it was only after the media frenzy that the Goodell and others spoke out and Rush was dropped by the Checkett group. A group or individual should not be forced to take on a particular business partner, I agree. Nor should said groups or individuals be required to hire underqualified individuals based solely on race or some other minority status when more qualified candidates exist, but that’s another issue. The point is that the NFL was apparently ready to receive Rush as a partner, it was only after the media pressure that they quickly decided that maybe it was not such a good idea. And it’s that kind of pressure, meritless, with malace of forethought, designed to recognize some greater political agenda that resulted in Rush being disqualified. It is that environment of political correctness to which I object and partially why I wrote this post. Had Rush been a less established and powerful media figure, he may have very well been ruined because of the campaign against him, and that is simply wrong.
by Juan da Baptist on Oct 17, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Is poor little Rushbo being demonized?
You ever listen to his show. No malice on his show, no meritless demonizing in his thoughtful, well considered diatribes? If Mr Limbaugh fact checked his stream of conciousness vitriol before spewing it into the public dialogue, maybe I’d have some sympathy here. He is the victim of what the sows. Nothing more.
I can’t stand the man. He insults me, my friends and family (you probably can’t believe this, but we think we are good patriotic Americans, too) in nearly every sentence he utters. And he does purposefully insulting language. Over and over and with the most vile language he declares me and my kind to be his enemy.
You like the guy. Most don’t. Why should a business that reaches out to all Americans, in fact, is a refuge where liberal and conservatives can argue and converse good naturedly.
"More than 70 percent of putts left short do not go in."
Part two
Boy, was that a mess. Here is cleaned up version.
You ever listen to his show. No malice on his show, no meritless demonizing in his thoughtful, well considered diatribes? If Mr Limbaugh fact checked his stream of conciousness vitriol before spewing it into the public dialogue, maybe I’d have some sympathy here. He is the victim of what he sows. Nothing more.
I can’t stand the man. He insults me, my friends, and family (you probably can’t believe this, but we think we are good patriotic Americans, too) in nearly every sentence he utters. And he does it with purposely insulting language. Over and over and with the most vile intentions he declares me and my kind to be his enemy.
You like the guy. Most don’t. Why should a business that reaches out to all Americans, in fact, is a refuge where liberal and conservatives can argue and converse good naturedly bring this guy and his baggage into the fold.
"More than 70 percent of putts left short do not go in."
"most dont" like Limbuagh?
Sorry to break it to you, but he has the largest audience in America. Even bigger, now.
Unless that number is around 120 million, I think most people don’t listen.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Huge difference
between “don’t listen” and “don’t like”.
Agreed
A lot of people listen too him and don’t like him, as well as like him but don’t listen.
I would think it’s safe to say more than half of America doesn’t care enough about Rush to listen to him.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow
Do i need to point this out, or are you just too dogmatic in your absurdities to comprehend it:
“Most” of “those who listen to talk radio” prefer Rush Limbuagh and/or conservative talk radio ilk.
Remember: “Air America” didn’t last. And- it didn’t last BECAUSE “most” radio listeners don’t want to be preached at by smarmy, whiny, obnoxious liberal mouthpieces who repeat trite propaganda simply because it was told to them by other smarmy, smug, arrogant liberal know-nothings.
Funny how so many die-hard “liberals” lose their fire once they start paying their own bills and taxes…..
But, Phantaskippy, no doubt YOU already KNOW everything, so there’s zero point in my trying to express anything to you that doesn’t fit your narrow, delusional, liberal worldview.
Okay, the point being argued was “you like the guy, most don’t”. You responded saying that point was wrong because Rush has the largest audience in America.
I responded with the argument that there are a lot of people in America, and unless 120 million people listen to his show most Americans don’t listen.
You then tried to say that just because people don’t listen to him doesn’t mean they don’t like him.
I countered by saying the reverse is also true, people who don’t like him listen to him, and there are people who like him that don’t listen.
Now you are trying to redefine the argument to be that Most people who listen to talk radio like conservative talk radio.
I won’t even argue that point. But that wasn’t the point we were arguing. We were arguing whether or not most people in America like Rush Limbaugh or not.
The rest of your post assumes I’m a liberal. I’m not, unless you use the classic definition in which case 95% of Americans are liberals.
Believe me it is not hard to be smug and arrogant without being Liberal.
It’s also possible to have a political view that doesn’t fit either side.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions
rec'd
All about risk reward from a business perspective. Homer J nailed it. No surprise.
Freel free to email me anytime at behindthesteelcurtain@gmail.com with questions, suggestions, complaints, etc, or to just say what's up. -Michael Bean (Blitz)
by Michael Bean on Oct 18, 2009 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Just a hypotethical...
You own a business and are considering 2 individuals as new partners. They both have the same amount of funds to invest, they are both intelligent and they have both shown that they are extremely committed to succeeding in any endeavor.
The only difference between the 2 potential new partners is that the first is someone that hardly anyone knows publicly and will likely maintain a low public profile while the other is well known and an unpopular figure among a large percentage of your customers.
Which partner would you choose?
Bingo!
Conservatives, have taken a page from the lefties and love to picture themselves a martyrs.
Northside is right. This ain’t about political correctness. The other owners just don’t want a minority owner of a secondary market team who has a bigger megaphone than anybody else, and makes a living using it.
It’s a business decision, and they have every right to make it.
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson
I don't think
any conservative said that Rush deserves to own a team. They just said that he deserves to have accusations about him investigated and verified by media outlets before they print or transmit them as news stories. I wouldn’t call that playing the martyr.
If the reason given for not wanting him were the reasons that you gave, would anyone really care? I doubt it.
For ideas on statistical analyses, email me at wolfpacksteelersfan@gmail.com.
by WolfpackSteelersFan on Oct 17, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
But there is no reason given. People just assume because of all the yelling that those reasons are why he was rejected.
I think Jackson Sharpton and Limbaugh hatched this scheme themselves. They all benefit from it. Limbaugh is no longer the king, he has to generate his own publicity, otherwise no one cares about him. Same with Sharpton and Jackson.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
My understanding is that the ownership group he was involved in released a statement that the contraversy had caused him to be an unwanted distraction. You’re probably right that his ratings have increased over this.
For ideas on statistical analyses, email me at wolfpacksteelersfan@gmail.com.
by WolfpackSteelersFan on Oct 18, 2009 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions
no longer king?
his rating are and have always been through the roof! You obviously never listen to the show and staing facts that dont exist!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 18, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Nope, sorry, Glenn Beck has passed him by in exposure and reach. Rush is second place. Ask Rush himself what second place in his line of work is.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Beck has made some outstanding music
I suggest you check out Odelay and Guero.
As Blitz would say, “good stuff”.
Sea Change...
Is pretty good too, in that depressing kind of way.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
heh
I knew after I hit enter that someone would make this joke. If only the Beck I’m talking about was as good as the Beck you’re talking about.
Glenn Beck should be studied, primarily because he is so good at what he is doing.
He’s tapped into the ennui of a large portion of the populace, and better than anyone has turned it into a political fuel.
You can listen to him and blame all sorts of people for anything you want while he himself commits to nothing. It’s amazing work. And it tells us a lot about why our country is in trouble.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, but to be an owner so do the other owners of the NFL. They didn’t want him, so Checkets dropped him.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions
No politics.
That doesn’t mean “No politics if I can manage to sneak a few football references in.” It means “No politics.”
I'm sorry
I’ve sat here and listened to this crap long enough. Rush Limbaugh may not be a racist but he has said racist things. He has said slavery has had its merits. I don’t get this from listening to MSNBC or any other news outlets, I get this information from actually listening to his show. I try, and repeat, try to listen to his show from time to time. But everytime I try I always end up turning because something racially insensitive he said. What he said about Donovan McNabb is completely not true and reflects his out-of-touch view points of race in this country. Donovan McNabb is a top 5 QB in this league, hands down – no arguement. You cannot name 5 QB’s that are clearly better than McNabb, you just can’t. So his comment are unwaranted. McNabb has proven throughout his career that he is one of the best, how many other active QB’s take their teams to 4 straight Championship Games? Yea, he lost the superbowl but it wasn’t like they got blown out, they lost by 3 points – like every other team that played against the patriots.
I admit I’m a black male, so things that he says sounds different to my ears than it would a white male or even a hispanic female. I can take jokes, there is a difference though when someone is trying to make a point and is being serious and when someone doesn’t mean any harm. Rush uses race to incite his audience because of the common misunderstandings between cultures. It just pisses me off so much when people get on here and act like Rush is innocent because he isn’t. I heard him with my own ears, this guys is racially insensitive and will use stereotypes to his advantage. I still listen to him because I have a curious mind and I like to hear various view points.
Just because you can get a couple of black people to come to his defense means nothing. There were white people who supported the black panthers also that doesn’t mean they didn’t say some racist stuff. The problem with this, rush never said it, is that he actually does say it, I’ve heard him say the comment about the NFL being like crips vs bloods for myself. While listening to his show over the radio. You guys are ignorant if you believe he hasn’t said these things and just want to believe the hype of the “left-wing media”.
The issue of race hasn’t died in America because Al Sharpton or Jesse keep it alive. It hasn’t died because people are still racist in America. The same way a bus driver wouldn’t let me and my colleagues get on the bus to go to work because we were black. He didn’t think that young black guys were smart enough to work at Intel. This was 2006, racism isn’t dead, its just masked. Its subtle, not as blantant as it use to be. Its still harder for my fiance to move up in her job than it is a white male, this has happened but thats another story.
Any way, there has been plenty of examples where racism or discrimination has occurred in our society. Rush adds to the problem and that has nothing to do with his politics. I don’t care if you are left or right, you just don’t say some of the stuff this guy says daily on his radio show.
by tannofsteel84 on Oct 17, 2009 12:51 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
I think there's a difference
between “racism” and “separatism”, and being downright misinformed. When I was growing up, my grandfather(who raised me) refused to call a “person of color” black. According to him, they were N*****s. He also thought that Rush Limbaugh was the smartest man on the planet. My grandfather was born in 1927. So he grew up with the whole “inferiority” of non-whites. Therefore, I was misinformed about alot of things (blacks, jews, gays, hispanics, etc., etc.). I didn’t like Limbaugh at all, at any time in my life. The guy just annoyed the hell out of me. I don’t want him to have a team, frankly because I don’t want to hear his mouth any more than I have to.
"My doctor said I'd quit getting nosebleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!"
-Ralph Wiggum
THATS WHAT I MA TALKING ABOUT!
YOU DONT LIKE SOMEONE, BECAUSE OF POLITICS! YOU ARE CLOSEMINDED!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 17, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Just a quick comment on being closed-minded...
I had no idea who Dick Cheney was before he became vice president. I didn’t make up my mind about whether or not I liked him until probably about 2006, but after plenty of consideration and evidence presented regarding his politics, I concluded that I did not like him. More to the point, I don’t like him because of his political views. I don’t think that is closed-minded.
And, that is not strictly a Republican or Conservative thing either. After deliberation and some thought, I quickly lost faith in the Clinton administration, can’t wait for Rendell to get run out of the governor’s office and think that Nancy Pelosi is probably the only person on earth that is a threat to the current president successfully being reelected. As for the obnoxious grandstanders like Jackson and Sharpton, it required little evidence to see that they are rarely more interested in long-term solutions and usually just making a sad attempt to stay in the spotlight.
Not liking someone because of their politics is not closed-minded. Not liking someone when all you know about them is that they are a democrat or a republican or appear on Fox News or MSNBC, is closed-minded. If SteelFever has listened to Rush’s show enough to reach an adequately informed conclusion and determined that he does not like Rush, then SteelFever is not being closed-minded.
And please be mindful of the Caps Lock abuse. It’s never warranted.
by pghnorthside on Oct 17, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is it close minded to like someone because of politics?
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
a wise man once said
dont argue with fools….
by tannofsteel84 on Oct 18, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions
what rush said??
RUSH NEVER SAID SLAVERY HAD IT MERITS!! wHAT SOURCE?? IT CAME FROM A LIBERAL BLOGGER! THATS WHAT i MEAN BY SLANDER AND LIBEL!!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 17, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
You should be sorry
Because in your comments you intimate that the only racism that exists in this country is of the white on black variety. I do a lot of business in predominantly black communities. Being a white, non-racist type individual I make an effort to approach everyone with the presumption of equality. Unfortunately the very fact that I am white is obviously a problem for many of the non-white people that I often encounter. I am certain that the number of black communities where a white person should fear for his life merely by being there is at least equal to if not exceeding the number of white communities where a similar fear is warranted for an individual of African heritage, would you disagree with that statement? Can you point to a recent lynching of which I am unaware? Would not the media have covered such an event thoroughly? Would you say that I am perhaps a bit oversensitive to issues of race and if so would you agree that perhaps many African- Americans are likweise oversensitive? I can at least accept that possibility. Can you likewise admit that some African-Americans use race and race related contraversy as a means to an end. If you can not agree with these simple and undeniable assertions I must assume that you yourself are part of the problem and not the solution.
Furthermore I did not say that racism was dead in America, it is very much alive and kicking. But it IS dying as is evident by the examples I listed in my post, and folks like Jackson and Sharpton due their damnable best to keep it on life support. As far as the statements that you allege to have heard from Rush with your own ears, I do not deny that you heard them, but is it possible that you have mistaken satire for racial insenstivity or even blatant racism? Rush often repeats remarks of both sorts to make a point, it’s called satire. Could it be that your oversensitivity to racial remarks of any variety have left you incapable of telling the difference?
Finally, as Rodney King so eloquently asked “can’t we all just get along?” Apparently not, though many of us are doing our best to not just get along but rise above elements of race in America. Unless we are willing to move beyond our preconceived notions about one another, black and white, we will never be able to do the hard work of tackling this issue head on, and finally begin to apply some salve to the still open wounds that slavery inflicted upon our nation. I have no doubt that you, as a black man have experienced racism, but you fail to recognize that racism is a two way street. Is the racism that I or hispanic peoples or any other ethnic group experience somehow less significant and deplorable? Where was your outrage when Obama called his own grandmother “a typical white person”? Seems a bit racially insensitive to me, but hey, I’m just a white guy and I have no right to even voice my opinion on the issue without being accused of a racist predisposition which I do not posess. Much like Rush.
by Juan da Baptist on Oct 17, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
The fact that you equate yourself to Rush Limbaugh
just shows how naive you are. Sure, racism is alive and kicking, but now the majority of it is “reverse racism” (I HATE that term). See what I did there? You are right, though. There are more neighborhoods where a white person should never, at any time of day, walk down the sidewalk. Can anyone say the same reversed? Maybe in some backwoods southern city/township/shit-splat, but in cities, not so much.
Here’s a “fun” fact I picked up a couple years ago: Until 1996, any person of obviously white descent in the state of Washington, could ask a person of obvious black descent for their “papers” (freedom/release from slavery papers). If said black person could not produce such papers, the white person would be justified in shooting, or otherwise detaining said black person for apprehension by police officers. (I’m not sure I have the terminology correct, but you know what it means).
"My doctor said I'd quit getting nosebleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!"
-Ralph Wiggum
Crap...should read "but in major cities, not so much"...
"My doctor said I'd quit getting nosebleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!"
-Ralph Wiggum
Totally On Point!
Limbaugh is the perpetual pot stirrer who sits back gets fat and when a finger gets pointed says….“who me?” It could be fatal that a large majority in this country still sleeps.
by steelersrock08 on Oct 17, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll give you more than 5. Hmmm, they are all white. i guess that makes me racist.
P. Manning
T. Brady
D. Brees
B. Rothlisberger
P. Rivers
A. Rodgers
J. Cutler
"Damnit mom! You almost ran over Greg Lloyd!"
at an autograph signing back in 95. He walked out in front of our minivan, and my mom almost hit him. He apologized.
by PA ARMY OFFICER on Oct 18, 2009 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions
How dare you!
Racists like yourself should be punished with slanderous accusations and the forfeiture of your rights to partake in business!
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Stampede Blue's Resident Steelers Fan
In order to see the rest of my sig, press ALT and F4.
by LV Steelers Fan on Oct 18, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d argue that Rivers, Rodgers and Cutler aren’t better than McNabb. And Roethlisberger and Brees aren’t “Clearly better”
Brees is phenomenal but I don’t remember him playing in a Super Bowl, and he’s had as much talent around him as Donovan. McNabb is slipping as he’s getting older, and he doesn’t fit the usual QB mold, but he’s a great QB. Definately worthy of top 5 discussion, which I believe is what the above poster was saying.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Mcnabb?
Not in BBs class! He is very good! Question, with 2 mins left in the game, who do you want with the ball?
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 7:48 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s not the only quality I judge in QB’s. Ben has had better teams than McNabb, and yet McNabb continues to play at an all-star level. What recievers has McNabb had that are better than the ones Ben has had.
T.O. isn’t as good as Hines, he was better than Holmes, but Hines benefits his QB more than T.O. ever did.
no other receiver he’s had is as good as Plex or Holmes.
Roethlisberger is great, but I don’t think he is “Clearly better” than McNabb at this point. I think he will be in the end, but not yet.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
not the point!!
Who do u want with the ball in 2 min, BB or Mcnabb??? BB or dilfer? BB or Brees? BB or Peyton? BB over peyton!!! why?? look at peytons playoff record? Look how many 1 and out of the playoffs??
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with both of you to an extent
I like BB over all of them. Between Rivers, Rogers and Cutler,..I take McNabb in his prime. Then again I agree he may be declining. I think injuries are taking a toll.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Oct 19, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I like Ben as much as the next fan...
And I’m not trying to rehash an old foolosh arguement here, because Ben has had his success for a very good reason, but…
How many Superbowls do you think Peyton wins with Dick LeBeau’s defense behind him. 5? 6? I bet he’d have more than 1.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I object your honor speculation....this argument has not presedence
Overruled hersay….strike that from court records please.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Fair enough...
I knew it would be highly controversial, and I think the stenographer is on break, so we’ll just have to ignore it for now.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not say you're wrong
I’m just saying I can only go on what has happened. The Colts have had some pretty good defenses and really good offenses, but Peyton has left some stinkers on the field. Again not saying you’re wrong…heck I’m just being a homer. lol
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
I hear you Arn...
But… eh… yeah. Let’s frorget I ever said anything. It’s better for all of us. But here I go again, talking about all of us… typical socialist propaganda (couldn’t resist).
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear you Komrad
oops…
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Get some of those
hand grip things. You know those martial arts things. Can’t remember what they are called.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Are you talking about nunchucks...
Because I’ve seen somebody use those before, it didn’t go very well. Link Although, his main problem was the flip.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Saw that...
That’s how I first saw the clip. That show is freaking hilarious. I could go on and on about clips, but there’s no need. Backyard wrestler moonflip? Too good, in the most painful of ways.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
no those grip things.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
it doesnt make you a racist
you just don’t know anything about football, after B. Rothlisberger you are grasping for straws, you can argue that D. McNabb is better than, Rivers, and of course Rodgers and Culter – what have they done anyways? McNabb has been to 4 straight NFCCG’s a Super Bowl, numerous pro bowls. If he doesn’t play well then the Eagles don’t win, they throw about 40 times a game, they live and die off of D. McNabb, not to say that the D and brian westbrook don’t help but they can win without them playing well. Rodgers, Cutler aren’t on that level yet, they dont have enough play off experience and not enough clout in the regular season to even compare to McNabb. Rivers you can argue but thats it. Still he is one of the best in the NFL, if he ever wins a Super Bowl – hes going in the hall.
by tannofsteel84 on Oct 18, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Cutler and Rodgers???
Are you kidding me? Cutler is better than McNabb? Wtf have Cutler and Rodgers done that warrants them being placed above Donovan? I’m tired of people dogging on McNabb. He is definitely better than Rodgers and Cutler by a clear margain. It’s a little shadier on Rivers, maybe.
I'll have to agree with you
McNabb has done quite well. Rogers and Cutler haven’t done squat when it counts. I like McNabb…not because he’s black. I just think he’s a very good QB. 5 NFC championship appearances and a Super Bowl appearance. People need to cut him some slack.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Oct 19, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Never,ever said "racism has it's merits". Never.
When did he say this? He didn’t.
And THAT is the point: he’s been “disqualified” based on un-truths and hearsay. He NEVER said any about James Earl Ray; he said that MLK was a great man- pretty “racist”, huh?
Read up on the subject before we pass judgement, folks….
Tan and Homer J have made the most sense out of everybody
The man might not be a racist, and I’m not calling him one, but he has said some hurtful things. There’s a difference between joking and what Limbaugh has said in the past. What we say on here is joking. What Obama’s old pastor said is hurtful and racist. Some of the things he says are very insightful; and then he goes and says something that you would hear from a old, deep south – raised bigot.
He has the right to do anything he wants with his money. But he has to know that what he has said in the past will be dug up when a situation like this arises. The NFL is mostly black, so why would you try to own a team made up of mostly black players? Don’t you know that some of those guys are already against you (regardless of them knowing all the facts) just because it’s you?
Limbaugh is very smart, obviously. But his mouth ruined his chances of owning a team. The NFL doesn’t want a potential hostile distraction owning one its teams.
by StoneColdSteel on Oct 19, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Sharpton and Jackson
That Limbaugh invokes Sharpton and Jackson and Obama’s America as the culprits in this is exactly his problem. He makes his living polarizing American politics. He looks for differences where there are none, he invokes enemies where there are none. He fills his airwaves with venom and vitriol to attract audiences and thereby advertisers.
Maybe he is just a sweet old man who is nothing more than an entertainer, but he is a lightning rod by his own choosing. And he wants to act the victim? C’mon.
It was his business partners who ditched him. Who can blame them.
"More than 70 percent of putts left short do not go in."
Thanks for the objective insight
Unfortunately, Sharpton and Jackson couldn’t keep their noses out of it when their opinions had no bearing. Ultimately, while Rush might have really been interested in a minority ownership, he certainly got a nice consolation prize by those two knuckleheads, predictably, putting themselves in a well-deserved firing line.
But although Sharpton and Jackson were against Rush and they were wrong, that doesn’t mean that the NFL or the Checketts group was wrong for not wanting Rush after his presence in the group became public. The league exists because of the goodwill that it holds among the public. There is simply no reason for the league to risk that goodwill among a large percentage of the public when it gets nothing that it needs from Limbaugh.
And euwolfie, although I can’t blame Checkets and his group for dumping him, they were Neil O’Donnell in Super Bowl XXX-esque idiots for including him in the first place. (See that clever football reference I worked in there?)
by pghnorthside on Oct 17, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Rush is a businessman, just like all the rest on both Right and Left who yell and fuss about Conservatives or Liberals.
Guess what folks, it is a big business. These guys make millions. Not because they care about politics and want to help us out, but because they like to make lots of money.
Rush says and does what he knows will bring him attention, and through that attention money.
Knowing his patsies (Sharpton and Jackson) would realize they could profit off this move and thereby allow him to profit is why Rush is as wealthy as he is, he’s damn good at what he does.
To take anything a person who gets wealthy off getting people to listen to them as a sincere non-profit motivated comment is foolish. If they operated that way they wouldn’t have their jobs.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you think Rashard Mendenhaul will get more carries this week?
Or that Polamalu will have a good game? Just some football questions…
Who's laughing now, O Line??? Ben Roethlisberger (from the Podium) to his O-Line and the world in Superbowl XLIII
by SteeladyinVA on Oct 17, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Hopefully
the knee brace Polamalu will be wearing won’t hinder too much of his effectiveness
by BubbyBrister6 on Oct 17, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Somewhere out there
There is someone laughing at us as human beings. We all share the same origins. The ideologies of race, politics and religion are all there to maintain the power structure of any given society.
Rush is the one laughing--all the way to the bank!
Without creating phony controversies, Limbaugh would still be a third-rate DJ in some small-time radio market. I doubt that he ever seriously wanted to own an NFL team or even part of one. This is just another one of his many publicity stunts—so that he can portray himself as a victim of lefties, socialists, feminazis, blah, blah, blah!
Every time Limbaugh says or does something outrageous, his ratings get another bump from the morons who take him seriously. Yeah, someone is definitely laughing.
I think...
… the author joins SB NATION on 17th of october and at the same date he writes this contoversial piece. Seems like he looks like a good writer? no? Maybe just maybe he has some connections to Limbaugh… no? just a thought :-)
no connection
Actually I have been posting on BTSC for about a year now under a couple of different handles. When I tried to sign on the other evening it seemed that the process had been changed somewhat since my last post. In the past I had always logged in through my Yahoo account. As it happened, I was unable to successfully log in using my previous information, hence, the new account. I have no connection to Rush Limbaugh and my post was not meant to be a defense of him as much as it was an indictment of the current culture of political correctness, which in my humble opinion is the greatest enemy of freedom and liberty that our grand republic has ever encountered.
by Juan da Baptist on Oct 18, 2009 6:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Martyrdom and Political Correctness Work on Both Right AND Left....
It was the left that invented martyrdom and victimology, but the right saw that it has its uses and they were smart enough to use it themselves. Rush is a terrific showman, and he’s positioning himself as this year’s version of the Chicago Seven, the Jena Six, or maybe the Indianapolis 500. It’s pure theater. But that’s what he does so well.
And it was the right that invented political bullying – deliberately confusing dissent with disloyalty. The left convoluted that on college campuses and came up with political correctness.
But the bullies on the right are more dangerous, in my experience. I clearly recall Ted Koppel reporting from Iraq in the days after the invasion – and warning that there was a lot of opposition to our presence there and it might not be the picnic everyone was hoping for. He spoke of the willingness of those who hate us to die to kill our soldiers. He was reporting the facts on the ground – as he saw them – and providing a warning. But a lot of people on the right actually questioned his patriotism and said only Fox was presenting the truth.
The left attacks you personally and calls you a bigot, a racist, or homophobe if you disagree with them. The right questions your loyalty and patriotism. And the right seems to be better organized, has a lot more money, and its crazies have more guns and go shooting up churches and doctors who perform abortions. So take your pick, Juan.
Hanging or shooting?
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson
by Homer J. on Oct 18, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right on, Homer!
You touched on one point that needs to be emphasized. The political Left in this country has absolutely no significant clout, whereas the Right continues to dominate the levers of government—even with a Democrat in the White House.
Conservatives are dominant largely because they control most of the money in America. It makes no difference whether their views are in the minority; they can afford to buy congressmen, senators, radio/TV stations to do their bidding. Very few on the Left can command this kind of money.
Anyone who holds even moderate views today is attacked as a “leftie” by the right-wing hate machine. America has become a nation dominated by high-priced propaganda. Those who can’t afford the price of admission are never heard.
"The political left in this country has absolutely no significant clout"
The left has more money coming in from average Americans than does the Right, 60 seats in the senate, an overwhelming majority of the house and a staunch liberal in the White House. Their failure to pass anything they promised(except the stimulus which most peolple are shaky about) seems to be more about political considerations for 2010 than a lack of clout.
Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Stampede Blue's Resident Steelers Fan
In order to see the rest of my sig, press ALT and F4.
by LV Steelers Fan on Oct 18, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Not a very strong argument
If “average Americans” are the ones funding “the left,” then I guess most Americans aren’t conservatives after all, contrary to what blowhards like Rush and O’Reilly claim.
Okay, I’m going to argue that the ideas of Left and Right in this country are half the harm.
There is no great left conspiracy to take over and ruin the country.
There is no great Right conspiracy to take over and feed the babies of the world to power hungry capitalists
There are human being with different desires and beliefs, some corrupt and some not. Our two party system forces them to conform to one side or another if they want to win an election and be able to help people. Our current culture and election process then forces them to find ways to get tons of money in order to have a realistic chance to win.
Plenty of people run for office with good ideas and a desire to help people. the problem is 90% of the job is just keeping your seat.
The fault lies in two places, the first is we Americans (self included) who don’t have the time to do the research into people to find out who they are and what kind of character they have. We rely on the media and their party platform to tell us. Blame modern society or our culture, whatever, but the truth is we don’t do the work needed to get really good people in office. We just don’t have the time.
The second fault is in the Constitution. The document is 200 years old and it is probably the best of it’s kind in the history of the world. That doesn’t mean it is perfect. Our democracy has lasted far longer than history says democracies last. largely because we have found ways to balance opposing forces like Capitalism and Communism, Socialism and individualism. But every system of government has weaknesses, and ours was created with the idea of voters being people with the knowledge and discernment to choose the right leaders. It’s a different world now.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions
code words
I rarely post here because, as much as I’m a fanatic about the Steelers, I can’t say I bring any particular specific knowledge to watching football, and so would rather just read what people who perhaps have more direct knowledge, or at least more informed opinions, have to say.
But as long as we’re wandering off a directly football related question: I listen to Limbaugh occasionally, and the idea that he isn’t a racist — or at least traffics in racism in his daily discourse — is laughable. Sure he might not have actually exactly said the quote about McNabb, or whatever, and perhaps he doesn’t come right out and bluntly say “African Americans should be kept in their place” (or Latinos, or Muslims, or women, etc.) but his meaning is crystal clear. Using code words, insinuations, half-truths, quarter-truths, no-truths, cruelty, mockery, etc. , his show is pretty much based on demonizing “the other” and stoking paranoia. If you took out the hatred, there really wouldn’t be a show.
If people want to listen to listen to and enjoy him, well, fine. It’s a free country, and he is a skilled entertainer. But please don’t try to make the absurd claim that his show isn’t racist. It doesn’t take a very long listen to understand that it rather obviously is.
As great as the Rooney’s are, I personally think that teams should actually be owned by the cities, as the Packers are, but given that that’s not the case, nor likely to become so in any decade soon, I think that Limbaugh has as much right as anyone to apply for a franchise. I also think the league has a right to determine how a potential owner might reflect on the league as a whole. There are in fact some owners who politically are on the far right,, but I can imagine that having a very public hate mongerer associated with the league might not be to even their taste.
Go Steelers. Trounce the Browns!
+1
Nice post Buzz. Trafficking in hatred sums up the entire Limbaugh schtick. No one on these boards knows exactly why Limbaugh’s potential NFL involvement is now a dead issue, but the kind of debate we’ve seen on this topic provides all the proof we need that the league is better off without him in it. He’s a polarizing, hatred-promoting entertainer whose public image and personal and professional agendas are not needed by the NFL.
by steeler.lifer on Oct 19, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions
and hates puppies
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Oct 19, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
You are kidding, right?
First of all…CITIES CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT OWN TEAMS!! Greenbay Packers area publicly traded company…THE STATE DOES NOT OWN THEM! You can buy stock in the Greenbay Packers! Just like GE, GM, etc, etc! You are a typical statist who does not believe in private ownership of property…by what you said, you really dont listen to Rush if any, at all! He correctly points out that African Americans 90% vote democratic…for years now, and they still have the same gripes as they did 40-50yrs ago! The democrateic party is designed to keep the masses pacified by giving away handout and discourage entrepenurship..They believe that profit is evil and the “rich” should pay all their money to the government! Can u picture the state running a football team? They cant even deliver the mail, collect garbage, etc, etc..If they did run a football team, it would look like this..12% black, based on affirmative action…13% hispanic, 68% white, whole half the team will be female! Tell you you wimpy limp writed, lisp speaking pinkos, would that be fun to watch????
Thanks for making my point
1) I do listen to Rush. I hear him very clearly. He basically facilitates people like you spewing vicious nonsense like this. You really can’t make a point without calling someone names, making vast assumptions, hurling nasty accusations, and just basically making crap up, can you? Is this how you teach your children to make a point? Just scream and spew?
2) You don’t know anything about me. For one thing, I’m currently very involved in a local issue fighting the government using eminent domain to take over private property. I am anything but a “stateist.” I’m not heavily invested in cities owning teams, but I think it’s an idea worth exploring, and by the way, I don’t think the city would be worse at running a team than, say, the private owners of the Pittsburgh Pirates.
3) Dan Rooney, who very publicly supported Obama, does run a football team. They are, in fact, pretty fun to watch.
Anyway, thank you for making my point for me.
The government can deliver the mail and collect the garbage.
I love it when people use the post office and garbage collection as examples of government failure. It’s like saying that you can’t win a superbowl without a good running game and then using the 2008 Steelers as an example.
You know what else the government runs? The armed forces. Are you trying to say that our armed forces are incompetent? I thought you supported our troops.
by houksyndrome on Oct 18, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions
armed forces..
BTW, hubby is a military officer and his opinion that our military is great IN SPITE of our govt! plus, govt runned military is MANDATED by the US constitution! Do you really think the post office is efficient? Our schools too? Look at the cash for clunkers? How is that going? How is all this “hope and change” working for us?
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions
"Do you really think the post office is efficient?"
If you had a privately run company, handling millions upon millions (if not billions upon billions) of pieces of mail a day, would you be able to keep track of every single one? Not ever losing a single one. If you can, can you promise that all of the deliver on time, as soon as they possibly can?
Do you really think the job they do is easy? It’s not, and most likely there aren’t many of us that could do it any better. And if your problem is with the employees of the USPS, then put yourself in their shoes, working at a job that a good percentage of them dislike, if not hate, just to keep the benefits they can’t get at another job, because the free chosing owners of private business decide to save a few bucks and not provide good coverage or any coverage to their employees becuse they don’t have to (which is their right to not do if they choose, I’m not intentionally knocking them for not doing it. I would provide them, and do, at my company, but that’s my choice too).
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Our schools too?
Our schools, in my opinion stink, for the most part. But most of that is due to mismanaging of funds, and or overpsending by the individuals in charge of each school. With the ecxeption of a few states who have government standardized testing, the influence that government has on schools is overblown. The government gives schools money, and in turn the money is spent frivilously by the people running the schools. My opinion, I don’t have a lot of facts at the ready to prove it. I know how the schools I went to (4 public schools) are run, but that’s about it.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
cash for clunkers..
dealer are still waiting to get paid!
by nycsteelerfan on Oct 19, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Is that the best knock you have?
Because if you think the banking and loans industry pays up front 100% of the time you’re wrong. I have a relative in auto sales, and some local banks don’t pay him right away on loans fairly regularly. And that’s just for a car or two at a time. Try getting paid for a few thousand, all up front. It’s not easy.
The bottom line is that the main goal, short term auto industry assisstence, worked pretty well. My main knock is the after effect and the lull in business the industry has seen since. It was a short sighted program. But if it’s goal is short term assisstence it’s automatically short sighted anyways.
And since the checks they’re waiting for are signed by our nation, until the inevitable crumbling of the union occurs, the check is in the mail.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Cash for clunkers is a failure?
The reason the money is slow is because it exceeded expectations. People traded in cars left and right.
Cash for Clunkers failed like the 2005 Steelers failed to lose in the playoffs. They exceeded projections.
Any company that exceeds projection that much has a hard time. Our government was designed to be inefficient, so it works slower. If you don’t like the inefficiency, blame the Founding Fathers or find a good dictatorship, they are very efficient.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
"Look at the cash for clunkers? How is that going?"
It had it’s intended purpose, short term spending on domesticly owned car companies. Which, for what it’s worth, it accomplished. Unfortunately, the bonuses stopped, and so did the spending. At least the mafia didn’t end up stealing the used cars and sell them to African countries behind our government’s back, although maybe the gov’t should have themselves, and put the money to our national debt (joke).
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
"plus, govt runned military is MANDATED by the US constitution!"
Oh, those dirty socialists who wrote our constitution! (Kidding)
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I got my mail today, could you please tell me who delivered it, I always thought it was the Post Office.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I got my mail today, could you please tell me who delivered it, I always thought it was the Post Office.
posted on 10/18 at 11:49 pm
you didn’t get your mail yesterday…yesterday was sunday. lies!!!!!
breathe in deep feel your heart beat, just to know that life's worth livin'. feel your feet on the earth, better love it while it's still here spinnin'.
by NoCal-SteelCity on Oct 19, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
details details.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
Well I did. It just happened to have been sitting in my mail box. I work Saturday.
But good catch.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Calm down and stop shouting....
The citizens of Green Bay and surrounding areas bought the Packers – at $25 a share I believe – to keep them in operation and keep them in Green Bay.
That’s not owned by the government, but it IS owned by the people. Thousands of people own shares, Many of them own only one share. (And it is often a mess to run such an operation. ) I assume that’s what Buzz is talking about. People in a city or a region getting together to own and operate at team. Nobody in their right mind would want Luke Ravenstahl or Dan Onorato owning the Steelers instead of the Rooneys.
And while you genuflect before the shrine of free enterprise, just remember Robert Irsay moving the Colts in the middle of a winter night….stealing the team from the loyal fans of Baltimore. A single owner – be it Irsay, Al Davis, Dan Snyder of whomever – can be every bit as awful as government ownership. And as awful as government ownership might be, at least the bastards must answer to the voters. All Bob Irsay had to do was pay the Mayflower Van Lines.
A football team with a private owner interested only in the bottom line can leave a city easier than you left Colombia to come here. That’s what Buzz was saying.
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson
Whoa, the people owning the company, that’s called communism my friend.
(this is joking around, but seriously it is communism, just like unions are)
by Phantaskippy on Oct 18, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions
One of the main reasons for the NFL’s popularity is that it is by far the most socialistic business enterprise in professional team sports.
by steeler.lifer on Oct 19, 2009 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Satire?
Well, if I was to answer that, I’d say that what I actually said was that I sort of preferred cities owning the teams, not states, by which of course I mean exactly what Homer is saying I mean, which is that the CITIZENS of the cities should have a stake in the teams. It doesn’t take a mind reader to intuit what I meant, it just takes someone who can actually understand what they read…
But I’m not actually going to answer, because I can only assume you’re engaged in some kind of satire, cleverly mimicking Limbaugh and his followers’ way of seizing some small point of what someone said, taking it fully out of context, willfully misinterpreting it, slanting the hell out of it, then just screaming about it mindlessly over and over until any actual conversation is impossible. Funny stuff — well done!
Good game for the Steelers today. The turnovers and special teams play are troubling, but man does that offense look like it’s got some oomph. If we can stay clear of more injuries I think we’ll be OK as the season progresses. It’s hard to repeat a Super Bowl but I think we’re in the hunt.
Divide and conquer
See what’s happened here? One article has Steeler Fans at each other’s throats. Republican and Democrats (those in office) just want to keep everyone fighting so they can share power. As for Limbaugh, the NFL doesn’t need the trouble. There are lots of deep pockets out there. Left and Right, wake up.
by VinniePie on Oct 18, 2009 6:21 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
The Hegelian Dialectic
at work in it’s purest form
How sad that so many are so easily manipulated, diverted, and misdirected by so few.
Everyone so busy defending their beliefs they have no time to question them.
by tobiathan on Oct 18, 2009 11:28 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Oh, yeah-
On the “internet” everybody thinks that what THEY say is more clever, more accurate, and more true than everyone else.
I hate this shit. I won’t even like reading the comments here anymore for a long time. And I definitely don’t want to get to know a lot of the people who posted on this thread, which is the exact OPPOSITE reason i used to come to BTSC.
It would’ve been better if Blitz had AVOIDED politics, instead of encouraging them.
agreed
The unfortunate side effect of the popularity of this site is that it has attracted quite a few sarcastic assholes. This site used to be a community where people could express their opinions openly. Not so much anymore. There are a ton of folks on here now that I completely skip what they have to say, simply because I know they are predictable.
Am I one of them?
Truthfully I think most know I’m on the right, but I try not to bash left or right….even though there are idiots on both sides.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Oct 19, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
nah
I’m not really talking about this thread specifically. I don’t really care whether someone is Democrat or Republican, I think they’re both full of shit. I really mean that the overall tenor of this site is not what it used to be.
I see what you mean
I little good natured ribbing at times is good, but not when it ends up a battle of insults.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Oct 19, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting
I actually really appreciate the back and forth that happens politically on this site at times. I feel like the fact that we are all Steeler fans has the ability to transcend some of the disagreements that we have about politics. Although, I know it’s not the purpose of this site, I find the political and racial discussions on here to be quite interesting – even with the occasional yelling that goes on.
by SteelerBuddha on Oct 19, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
“On the "internet" everybody thinks that what THEY say is more clever, more accurate, and more true than everyone else.”
Well, I think most people, on the internet or not, tend to think that they’re more clever and accurate and all. I suspect you do as well, tobiathan.
Don’t get me wrong, I mostly agree with you. I come to this site to get away from politcs. I don’t care about the politics of the players and the coaches (Andy Van Slyke was one of my favorite athletes ever, and I suspect there’s very little we’d agree on politically), and I don’t care about the politics of people who post here. Give me a good solid analysis of why the Steelers were having trouble in short yardage situations, or who our likely 3rd round pick will be next year. Please, let’s talk some football.
But when people start moaning that poor Rush Limbaugh is misunderstood, or that (direct quote) “the left in this country hates america…” well, y’know, they’re injecting politics into the conversation, often in a really insulting way, and I don’t think I’m being a wiseass by saying that I disagree with them, and by saying why.
Now please, let’s talk about the Vikings.
Like it or not
sometimes sports and politics overlap. There are a hundred other posts on this site related exclusively to football, and yet you chose to click on this one. Obviously something about the topic interested you enough to not only check out the thread but to leave a comment. If you want to talk Vikings, let’s talk Vikings. But as we do let’s remember that there is a big world out there aside from sports.
The powers that be absolutely love the fact that somehow it has become taboo in our culture to discuss politics, race or God forbid, religion. When we lose our freedom of speech, freedom of expression, or worse when we voluntarily forfit those rights it is only a matter of time before we lose the very freedoms that gave those rights to us in the first place. We are dangerously close to the point in this country where we make the leap from political correctness to outright government endorsement and regulation of what is and is not acceptable speech. Take a look at Europe or our northern neighbors if you don’t believe me.
Self censorship is a requirement of any civil society and many who have posted on this thread could benefit by a little restraint. But censorship of the authoritarian variety should be outright rejected by all members of any society which expects to remain free and democratic.
God bless free speech, God bless our founding fathers for having the wisdom to guarantee us this privilege God bless the men and women who have fought and died to maintain these freedoms. And kudos to the guys who run BTSC for not doing something incredibly stupid, destructive and unAmerican by censoring this thread.
by Juan da Baptist on Oct 19, 2009 1:45 AM EDT reply actions
Cool
Hey let’s bring religion into this. Here I’ll get it started. I don’t believe in this “God”, but if there is one, she’s a fucking prick.
Ok you go.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Gee whiz
but then again three lefts make a right
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
If I named my toaster God, it could bless free speech, or are you against inanimate objects approving of abstracts?
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
free speech
I have posted in the past (here and on other sites) but it’s true that it’s been awhile. The reason that I chose to contribute now is because that when it comes to insight about football I’m just a guy who watches it on TV (albeit a LOT of it on TV), but when it comes to politics and media I feel I might have enough knowledge to throw my two cents in.
Yes, obviously, sports and politics often mix — I would argue that they mix a hell of a lot more often then people acknowledge — and I’m also glad that there was no censorship here. But I’ll be honest and say that it’s kind of a letdown to come to BTSC and get dragged into a discussion like this. There are many other sites where I can be called an America hating limp wristed lisping pinko, etc, but not that many other sites where I can enjoy such extensive, well considered analysis of the Steelers.
This is my last post on this thread, so let me just go out by saying that I completely agree that censorship is bad, but would suggest that singling out the main threats to free speech as “political correctness, regulation, and the government” is a distraction; you omit the more profound threat, which is the all pervasive corporate and religious media that enforces a general muffling of any ideas that go against “acceptable” norms. You say to look at Europe. OK, in Europe they generally have a much, much wider and freer range of discussion on issues than they do here (for those about to call me a commie, etc., please note that I am saying “generally,” and not “always”). And if they are slightly less tolerant of racist or hate speech (and it’s not a given that that’s the case), well, perhaps they’re slightly more aware of where racism and hate can lead.
By the way, I’m perfectly aware that some people who are perceived as being on the left are completely obnoxious and take it too far, and I’m annoyed as anybody by them, but “Political Correctness” is an overused and much abused term, and complaining about it is more often than not (again, not “always,” just “more often than not”) just kind of a lame excuse for wanting to indulge in hate speech.
Thanks again to BTSC for running a great site.
Hey!
Don’t hate me because I’m black. Hate me because I’m a stud. The ladies love me for both reasons.
LOL
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
LOL I guess
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
by PixburghArn on Oct 19, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Dang straight, I don’t want to have to get to know details about people before I hate them.
It’s much easier to just hate people for easily identifiable characteristics.
I hate people who wear glasses, or who look like somebody who might wear glasses but got contacts so they wouldn’t have to. And Waitresses. That’s why I try to tip well, they are evil and scary.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions
and they have free access to your food
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
You wear glasses don’t you, you sound like a person who wears glasses.
I won’t be deceived by your perfect vision lies.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions
This entire post shows why the owners don't want Rush.....
They’re selling football….not political controversy. And whether they agree with Rush or not on politics, they simply don’t want their successful product to lose a portion of its fan base because of a minority owner of a second-tier franchise.
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson
I think the league could survive Rush Limbaugh being a minority owner
I think it’s silly myself. That’s just my opinion. Many people don’t agree with the lunkheads of hollywood, but I don’t see hollywood struggling. Like I said that’s just my opinion for what it’s worth. Then again some opinions are worth more than others. That’s why Rush was denied.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
The other owners don’t want to have an owner with a controversial talk show. Just like most owners don’t want their players tweeting all the time. It’s an uncontrolled element with potential to affect public image.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
but buying hookers is ok
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
but it's going to cost you
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
they are quite friendly
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
'Course they could, Arn. They just don't need his money or the aggravation....
…it would bring.
And then there’s the matter of egos. These billionaires with superinflated egos aren’t looking to bring in some minority owner who has a bigger megaphone than they do.
Agreed?
I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer.
- Homer J. Simpson
Makes sense
They don’t have to let him in because they ……don’t have to.
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill
I have to admit
I really like this thread.
I know I got in some trouble a while back by arguing about gay comments on the site. For a bunch of different reasons my posts lead to shutting down the discussion – which was exactly the opposite of what I wanted. I had no problem with people making gay jokes as long as we could actually talk about them freely.
I think the real problem is that we need to open up the discussion – say what’s on our mind – not self edit, jump to criticize others, hate on each other or devolve into sloganeering. If we do that, I believe that the discussion take us into interesting places.
I really like what Tobiathan had to say above. For all of it’s messiness and the fact that it is a football post, this is a great Hegelian dialectic, or argument as we like to call them at my family table. What’s the fun of arguing over the stuff you agree about?
I think one of the nice things about discussing politics on a football post is that we are all in someways bound by a shared value – that is we are all fans of the same team. Also, because of that, many of us have established a community.
In the BTSC community you generally are not judged by what you believe but by how well you can make the argument about what you believe. Over time, you begin to notice which people are worthwhile arguments. You start reading their stuff much more closely. Maybe you aren’t always convinced by the arguments they make but you generally learn from them.
For example there have been ongoing arguments on this site about Bruce Arians. The question by itself get’s blood boiling. But whether you think BA is great or awful (or somewhere in between) is generally not interesting.
You can shout yes, no or maybe at the top of your lungs all day (and many people do), but that doesn’t your argument worthwhile.
On the other hand some people have made interesting supported arguments. They have diagrammed plays, brought in history, showed video footage, talked about the evolution of offensive schemes and different ways to use the run and the pass. You, may not agree with what they have to say, but you can learn from those arguments.
Which brings me to politics. Politics in this country is in a rather sad state. Most people left and right – both on the public stage and among the population in general, spend a ton of time yelling slogans. Their arguments are no more sophisticated or interesting to me than an argument like “Bruce Arians sucks” or “Bench Limas Sweed”.
It is much more interesting when someone can support their point, look at the nuance, give examples etc. It’s also much more helpful when two people with different points of view agree to have a civil discourse (with a sense of humor) and learn from one another. I think we have established a community that does that quite well when discussing Football. We desperately need similar communities that help us discuss politics with the same level of civility, nuance and true discourse that we have at BTSC for talking about football.
My main beef with Rush is that in some ways I feel that he is purposefully inflammatory, and despite being a very smart guy spends a ton of time painting things as black and white (no – not racially – but politically).
The same however could be said of Olbermann though – and in a somewhat different way of Jon Stewart.
I am not saying that these people don’t have a place in the media, in public life and in Football – I think they do (with the possible exception of Jon Stewart – who probably doesn’t know a whole lot about football).
But I do think we have a strong need for other models of discussing politics. I would love to see people talk about politics in the way that we at BTSC (preform self-congratulatory pat on back) talk about football.
+1, Bravo...
A great write up, with the knowledge and perspective I’d expect from anyone with Buddha in their name. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 19, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
FIRE BRUCE ARIANS!!!!!!
what were you talking about again.
But seriously, great post.
by Phantaskippy on Oct 19, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."
Art Rooney Jr.
"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
