http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4559454

the world extends beyond his clatch of ditto heads. who would have thunk it.

Prowling is beside himself. :lol:

It extends to a world where employing players like Leonard Little and Donte Stallworth is a-ok but get its panties in a bunch over some dopey commentator. Oh no Rush said comments people disagree with, the horror!

There is something wrong in this world when a thug who destroys dogs gets cheered upon entering a game, but someone with OPINIONS gets demonized for wanting to purchase a sports team. :yup:

the nfl and its fans are hypocrites. how long ago did you stop watching games?

Don't get glee spooge all over your keyboard.

How's your idol Jared Diamond doing, libiot?

Not at all. This is another battle in the war with you libiots, and you've just shot yourself in the foot again. I'm talking public opinion. To be brief, a lot of whites who aren't particularly political (or liberal) are going see this for the PC BS that it is. They may not be Rush fans, but they're already PO'ed about being lumped in with the racists.

I don't remember who was calling the Minnesota game a couple weeks ago, but he had evidently heard enough of the Bros on ESPN talking about how "Favre has to understand that this is Adrian Peterson's team", because Whitey in the booth referred to that claim as "baloney."

He's probably undergoing sensitivity training now.

don't know, he's not my idol. he's fairly brilliant though, so i imagine he's doing quite well. and how are you doing, dumbass?

5 years 9 months and 28 days 10 hours and 38 minutes ago. I may be a little of though.

a little of what?

So now the Rams group needs to come up with a silent partner with a big chunk of cash.

It would be hilarious if the Rams ended up back in LA because of this. They are dying in St. Louis right now, and their "stadium" is a piece of crap. :lol:

That said, Limbaugh had no reason being an owner in the NFL. The controversy surrounding him that has been ignited by the Obama administration since last spring would do nothing but bring a sideshow to St. Louis.

A little of a silly goose who mispells 'off'.

Final thought for the night (but not for the matter), Rush is going to take this much more seriously than he did when the PC crowd had him dismissed from ESPN, as well he should. That was more of a lark, I would think. This is a dream and big business.

It was good to hear Rush remind listeners today that Man of Gawt Rev. Jesse had an illegitimate daughter with a secretary, while he was counseling :rolleyes: Slick Willy through his BJ crisis.

Limbaugh can probably prove financial damages from the false quotes/smears attributed to/toward him. The question is ...

will he?

I doubt it. Seems like a publicity stunt to me.

You have Obama on the brain. I feel sorry for you.

NFL should give Limbaugh the bum's rush
By Tim Sullivan
Union-Tribune Columnist
2:00 a.m. October 14, 2009

Rush Limbaugh has as much right to invest in the National Football League as does anyone else. Which is, to be exact, none at all.

Repeat: None.

Despite keen public interest and significant taxpayer subsidies, the NFL is a private club, not a public institution. It has the same prerogative to screen its members as does Augusta National, and an identical and overriding interest in protecting its brand from those liable to taint it.

The league has no more of a legal or moral obligation to allow Limbaugh to acquire an ownership stake in the St. Louis Rams than does the Walt Disney Co. to appoint Howard Stern to its board of directors.

That doesn't mean it won't happen, but it can and should be avoided.
Simply put, the NFL does not need the aggravation Limbaugh represents. It does not need investors whose views on race are considered inflammatory by significant portions of the population and regarded as patently offensive by a large part of its labor force. It does not need to revisit baseball's Marge Schott experience with a minority owner openly hostile to minorities; one whose rhetorical reach includes a nationwide radio audience.

The same guy who said:
“The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. . . . (Donovan) McNabb got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve.”

And:

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

And:

“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

How much of what Limbaugh says represents his bedrock beliefs and how much of it is hyperbolic pandering to the bigot demographic is unclear.
That much of it is objectionable, however, is obvious. Though his McNabb commentary caused Limbaugh's elimination from ESPN's “Sunday NFL Countdown” in 2003, those remarks were relatively mild compared to some of his other statements.

Limbaugh's public persona conjures a classic Churchill characterization: “a bull who carries his own china shop around with him.”

The NFL does not need this man's money, and it can ill-afford his mouth. If the NFL owners were as wise as they are wealthy, they would make that clear at their meetings this week in Boston. Since the owners are clearly not as wise as they are wealthy — Indianapolis owner Jim Irsay is on record as saying he “couldn't even consider voting for” Limbaugh, but his peers remain mostly mum — it falls to Commissioner Roger Goodell to give Limbaugh the bum's rush.
“Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about,” Goodell told reporters in Boston. “I would not want to see those kind of comments from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL.”

Officially, Goodell says it is premature to take a position; that the Rams have yet to notify him of prospective bidders. Privately, though, the no-nonsense commissioner ought to be telling potential ownership groups that Limbaugh is a deal-breaker, and remind them that the league retains “sole discretion” to make that determination.

“I think the commissioner is his father's son, and I think Charles Goodell the senator would be appalled at the possibility that Rush Limbaugh would have the possibility of being a co-owner of a National Football League team,” said George Mitrovich, president of the City Club of San Diego and the late senator's former press secretary.

“The image (and) the reputation of the NFL would be forever tarnished to have him as an owner. If I were a black player in the NFL — not on the Rams, but any black player — I would go on strike.”

DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, has urged players to voice their opinions about Limbaugh, and the early returns indicate repugnance.

“I don't want anything to do with a team that he has any part of,” New York Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka told the New York Daily News.
“He could offer me whatever he wanted,” said Jets linebacker Bart Scott. “I wouldn't play for him.”

Given Limbaugh's record on the race front, the blowback was predictable. What's surprising is that such a divisive figure would have survived the scrutiny of a seasoned operator like Dave Checketts, the St. Louis Blues owner who is leading the hometown effort to buy the Rams.

There are at least four plausible explanations for this apparent oversight: 1) Checketts miscalculated the amount of uproar Limbaugh would cause; 2) Checketts' financing is so precarious that he cannot afford to be too particular about his partners; 3) Checketts has convinced himself that the only color that matters in the NFL is green; or 4) Limbaugh broadcasts what many NFL owners more quietly believe.

Certainly, Limbaugh is unlikely to encounter opposition from the Chargers. Limbaugh is politically in tune and personal friends with Chargers owner Alex Spanos, and wrote the fawning foreword to Spanos' book, “Sharing The Wealth.”
“You are about to race through a marvelous and riveting account of a distinctly American life in which the concepts of ‘failure’ and ‘can't’ do not apply,” Limbaugh wrote. “You will discover how one man, who started his quest with but eight hundred dollars in his pocket, became one of the most successful people this country has produced, in every phase of his life, from career to family to friends.”
Limbaugh's own career has been indisputably successful. Where the NFL is concerned, however, he has earned the right to fail.
Union-Tribune
Tim Sullivan: (619) 293-1033;

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/200...augh-bums-rush/

It looks like the lying racists won this round.

I hope Rush sues the fuck out of all of them :D

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

Rush is a victim of speaking while white. And that's even if you remove the false Wiki crap.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/1...it_a_in_li.html

Play the blame game all you want, but it seems to me that as soon as Colts owner Jim Irsay came out publicly and said that he would oppose that ownership group, that set the wheels in motion.

That snopes link means what exactly?

Seriously? It's pretty self explanatory, as is every instance when someone links to Snopes or FactCheck.

Let me know if you still don't know what the link means and I'll explain it so you can understand.

I think Rush should be forced into buying a share of the Eagles.

Yea, I know what snopes is. But the snopes link didn't disprove any of Limbaughs comments that were cited in the article I posted.


"The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. . . . (Donovan) McNabb got a lot of the credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve.”

And:

“The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

And:

“The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

Is the first comment racist?

The second cant be attributed to Rush or anyone for that matter.


I want to see the context the third was made in before I pass judgment because it's a weird comment to make.

There were many accusations that NFL players were flashing gang signs during the 2007 season. Perhaps that's what Limbaugh was referencing. It seemed legit enough for Goodell to hire some people to look for gang signs being flashed.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nflsig...0,1332501.story

That you should educate yourself...? :brow:

What has always irked me about this ‘racist quote’ is that it isn’t racist AT ALL! Tom Jackson had NO immediate reaction whatsoever, and it wasn’t until days later, when Jessie and Al realized that Limbaugh had made comments about a black person that it suddenly BECAME a racist comment. Limbaugh in fact was doing something FAR FAR worse than criticizing a black QB, he was criticizing the MEDIA. And THAT was not allowed to pass.

Just for shits and giggles, do you have a transcript of the full conversation? Limbaugh was saying that McNabb didn’t deserve the credit, do you remember who he said DID deserve the credit? (I’ll give you a hint, it was QUITE A FEW BLACK PEOPLE!)

Per snopes;

THIS PUTATIVE STATEMENT DATES AT LEAST AS FAR BACK AS 1992, SO THE ONLY DOCUMENTATION WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE FOR IT IS INDIRECT. ALL THE SOURCES WE’VE FOUND THAT REFERENCE IT CITE THE JANUARY 1993 ISSUE OF FLUSH RUSH QUARTERLY AS THEIR SOURCE.

That would be like Prowl writing a book claiming that Obama was from Kenya, and then a newspaper picking it up as gospel and attributing it to Prowl's book. Do you see the problem with that?

And:

NFL Can’t Shed the Thug Life
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/nfl_can_she...Jtqw9PzVHVcLTpN

Haynesworth suspended for unprecedented five games
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2610577

Michael Vick. Plaxico. Pac-Man. Carruth. Shall I keep going…?

Hmm, would those be the statements that he has been accused of making by MSNBC, CNN, ESPN et al THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN FALSE?

Here's the transcript.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12...ure_.guest.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharn...edia-lynch-mob/

NO

True. Denying the Holacaust isn't literally anti semetic either, butt when someone makes such an outrageous claim, you have to question what the speakers intentions are. Based on his past career, Rush's broader intentions were probably "let's create doubt on any positive portrayal you see about black people in the media." Ya know, like prowling.

You're nearly dead on with Tom Jackson though. He never initially brought race into the discussion, but he did refute the factual content based on McNabb's performance, as he should have.

Former NFL player Ken Hutcherson called Rush today. Notice when he mentions that the guys are lying through their teeth about turning down an NFL paycheck (because they wouldn't accept Rush money), he points out that their girlfriends, wives, or mothers would FORCE them to.

Notice there is no mention of a father there to give them advice -- ax yourself why... Because they are AWOL. It's a damned shame that in a league where a positive male role model is so sorely needed, someone the likes of REV. BabyDaddy Jesse Jackson (who has an out-of-wedlock child with one of his RainbowPUSH Coalition secretaries) is playing the role of the moral authority.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5109.guest.html

This reminds me of the PC / libiot creepiness that crept it's way into the NBC Sunday Night Football studio a couple years ago...

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/05/vide...night-football/

Meh. M.A.A.N.