2 rams for the price of 1

Unless you're rush limbaugh

10/15/2009 12:40:55 PM

Quote :

"The point is that there are plenty of objectionable characters who own sports teams and who play in the leagues."

And?

There is also precedent, as I have posted, for a league or commissioner to state strongly that an individual or certain ownership group would not be allowed to buy a team.

Also, Dave Checketts is the one who kicked Limbaugh from the ownership group. Checketts is a conservative Mormon (who by the way, is an excellent sports CEO -- he owned MSG during the glory days of the Knicks/Rangers, at least in my lifetime) who made the decision with multiple factors, including but not limited to:

- Goodell warning the ownership group would be held accountable should Rush say something they deem a fineable offense

- The NFLPA director stating bluntly that he would advise his clients (read: the players) to strongly reconsider signing as a free agent with StL.

- Multiple owners, including Indianapolis Colts owner, Jim Irsay, wouldn't approve an ownership group with Limbaugh involved.

*** And good God, I'm listening to Rush right now and he is preaching that he lost this solely because he is conservative... which is so fucking stupid it shouldn't even be addressed.

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM. Reason : x]

10/15/2009 12:44:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm listening to Rush right now"

i'm sure lots of people are listening to him talk about how he didn't get the NFL bid

which equals ratings and more money in his pocket

i bet he knew from day one that he had no shot of the group getting the ownership bid

but now he's been one of the biggest sports stories over the last week

CHA-CHING!

10/15/2009 12:56:25 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life, care to throw out another erroneous, unsubstantiated or irrelevant complaint?"

Well, well, well...

I wanna see the outrage from MarkGoal...because it looks like George Soros may also be a partner in the bidding war for the Rams, the same George Soros who called President Bush a nazi (which I think in the scheme of things is much worse than twisting Rush's words about McNabb) and finances the far left blog thedailykos.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=asN0f.aMUzQY

OMG WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE FROM THE NFLPA NOW?!?!?! Soros is a highly charged politico whose used inflammatory remarks time and again. So what say you, where's the outrage?

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

10/15/2009 4:40:05 PM

10/15/2009 4:44:01 PM

i wonder how much the price tag will drop when they go 0-16 this season

10/15/2009 4:45:17 PM

aha my friend is convinced that's jordan's plan for the bobcats

run the team into the ground and then buy them and become full owner when the price hits rock bottom

10/15/2009 4:46:32 PM

Funny you should bring up George Soros...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701447.html

Quote :

"Soros's Nats Bid Irks Republicans Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Major League Baseball hasn't narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league's antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team. "It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government." Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that "Major League Baseball understands the stakes" if Soros buys the team. "I don't think they want to get involved in a political fight." Democrats weren't about to let the broadsides go unanswered. "Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) asked. "So Congress is going to get involved in every baseball ownership decision? Are they next going to worry about a manager they don't like? I've never seen anything as impotent as a congressman threatening the baseball exemption. It gets threatened half a dozen times a year, and our batting average threatening the exemption is zero." Davis didn't return calls to his office, but spokesman Robert White said, "The point [Davis] was making was how it would look if Major League Baseball sells the hottest team in the market to a guy who spent more money than the gross domestic product of Colombia to legitimize drugs." Davis chairs the Committee on Government Reform, which recently held high-profile hearings on steroid use in professional and amateur sports. Soros has supported the legalization of some drugs as a way to combat their illegal abuse. A Soros spokesman, Michael Vachon , said the financier was out of the country and declined to comment. Washington entrepreneur Jonathan Ledecky , who heads the bidding group that Soros joined, said in an e-mail: "America's pastime should be protected from the rhetoric of partisan politics. It's unfortunate that the negativism that permeates national politics today is infecting Major League Baseball and the Washington Nationals." Baseball is interviewing lead members of the eight groups that have filed bids to buy the Nationals, who are owned by the league. Most of the bids are believed to range between $300 million and $400 million, with a couple exceeding $400 million, according to sources familiar with the sale process. "We're going to act and make a decision in the best interest of the franchise and the best interests of the game," MLB spokesman Rich Levin said. -- Thomas Heath "

In other words, Republican Congressmen threatened to come down on MLB if they approved the sale of a team to an owner whose politics they did not agree with. They threatened Congressional action. And the justification was his politics, not inflammatory statements being bad for business or a distraction to the league.

10/15/2009 4:53:17 PM

What's good for Rush is good for Soros then. We'll see how Mr. DeMaurice Smith and the NFL reacts to Mr. Soros, if he is indeed a partner.

10/15/2009 4:54:48 PM

What specific statements by Soros should anger the NFLPA? What specific statements should lead owners to deny his ownership group?

10/15/2009 5:02:04 PM

Ummm...calling Bush a nazi? That is inflammatory. Of course you didn't read the article I linked.

If the NFL doesn't want to offend democrats and the left by blocking Rush for his "comments," then why would they want to offend a large segment of their fans who happen to be Republicans who would find Soros' connections to far left wing politics and inflammatory remarks to be highly offensive?

If the NFL wants to remain politically neutral then they would ban Soros as well.

10/15/2009 5:06:36 PM

is it really worth arguing with a guy who has this picture in his gallery?

10/15/2009 5:08:02 PM

^^You are the only one demanding the NFL remain politically neutral. Many owners are quite active in Republican politics.

10/15/2009 5:11:24 PM

And others are open in democrat politics. They do not politicize their campaign contributions and remain lowkey on the matter.

If you are going to ban someone because they are outspoken then you should do the same unilaterally across the political spectrum.

10/15/2009 5:14:25 PM

Quote :

"They do not politicize their campaign contributions and remain lowkey on the matter."

What does this even mean?


So you don't care to cite any specific statements?

[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 5:24:21 PM

Umm...it means that they do not grandstand when they donate money. Do they run ads saying, "As owner of this team, I ask you the fans to vote for candidate X in November?" No, they don't. Of course every contribution is publicly disclosed, but that's hardly voicing it.

As for Soros:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc

He is asked about his comparison of Bush to the nazis and Stalin. Quite inflammatory anytime anyone is compared to either extreme. Why would the NFL want to bring that kind of controversy to their league?

10/15/2009 5:38:28 PM

He did not call Bush a Nazi. He said the administration engaged in the politics of fear as the Nazis and Communist regimes did.

It's easy to get a knee jerk reaction anytime you hear the word Nazi, but the quote itself is in fact less inflammatory than many of Rush's quotes. Many Republicans were hypersensitive about the politics of fear being compared to past regimes, which is the only thing that would make it inflammatory. Is the worst quote you can find?

Rush has had no qualms about throwing the feminazi term around liberally.

10/15/2009 5:54:16 PM

A BLOO BLOO BLOO NOBODY WANTS RUSH LIMBAUGH TO OWN A FOOTBALL TEAM

10/15/2009 5:54:21 PM

^^ On the flip side, is the McNabb quote the worst you have on Limbaugh, a man who speaks for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 20 years? If anything, it shows he's a bad evaluator of NFL talent, but hardly anything beyond that.

Rush is being blocked out, supposedly, because he is polarizing. There is no doubt that Soros is a polarizing figure. Either apply the same standard across the board or be shown for the hypocrites that you are.

10/15/2009 6:58:53 PM

Soros is attempting to buy an NFL team?

10/15/2009 7:01:48 PM

He is a member of the same investment group that Limbaugh was in (the one trying to buy partial ownership of the Rams)

Quote :

"Limbaugh’s group is led by former Madison Square Garden President and current St. Louis Blues and Real Salt Lake majority owner Dave Checketts, who brings a wealth of sports industry contacts, know-how and credibility. Checketts also brings big-time backers like George Soros, who financed the duo’s failed attempt to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2003. Checketts’s ownership of hockey’s Blues is backed by, among others, TowerBrook Capital Partners, which was formerly known as Soros Private Equity Partners before it was spun off from Soros Asset Management Group in 2005."

10/15/2009 7:05:19 PM

thanks

10/15/2009 7:13:02 PM

Quote :

"Rush is being blocked out, supposedly, because he is polarizing. There is no doubt that Soros is a polarizing figure. Either apply the same standard across the board or be shown for the hypocrites that you are."

What don't you understand? He wasn't blocked out by the NFL. Checketts decided that, because of the public outcry, that he didn't want him to be part of the investment group. It is possible, that like Mark Cuban, the owners wouldn't vote in favor of an ownership group he is a part of. That's part of the checks and balances of the NFL (much like MLB).

If you don't like Soros, make a public stink about it and get people relevant enough (see NFLPA director) to make public statements. If not, then what can you do?

Nothing discriminatory happened here.

10/15/2009 7:16:07 PM

I still say he knew all along he wasn't gonna be approved. ^Like you said, Checkett made the decision, but it was basically after Goodelle all but said it wasn't going to happen. Rush has had it out for the NFL since ESPN fired him after one week because of his McNabb is overrated bc the media wants a black QB to succeed comment

Whats kind of interesting, if you remember that particular broadcast, Michael Irvin and Tom Jackson (the 2 black guys on the set at the time) as well as Chris Berman and Steve Young, didn't really disagree that McNabb was overrated (at the time he was off to a bad start, but it was early in the season)...the problem didn't seem to be his analysis as plenty of Eagles fans have said much worse, the problem was his explanation...not kosher for TV

I can't speak on behalf of what he has said on his show over the years, but I didn't think he was really off base with his comment on MNF, but obviously his reasoning just isn't something you're supposed to say on TV

little known fact: he also tried out for a booth position but Dennis Miller ended up getting the job over him


[Edited on October 15, 2009 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/15/2009 7:20:40 PM

Honestly, I think McNabb is one of the most underrated QBs of this era, but I also don't think what Limbaugh said is that huge a deal either. The biggest stories about him revolve around how shitty the scummers in Philadelphia treat him.

Goodell really doesn't have the power that a Bud Selig has I don't believe (don't quote me) in terms of veto power, but he did say explicitly that he would watch what Limbaugh said and act accordingly should he become a minority owner. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

The NFLPA director kind of strong-armed Checketts in a way, but he only really has to answer to his clients.

10/15/2009 7:25:47 PM

I figured if they did approve his ownership, they'd write something into the contract that dictated what he could or couldn't say about the league on his own show.

Although as a savvy businessman, I'm sure he would speak highly of the league if he was a partial owner, as it would directly benefit him financially for the league to do well and be well thought of

10/15/2009 7:26:55 PM

Quote :

"On the flip side, is the McNabb quote the worst you have on Limbaugh, a man who speaks for 3 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 20 years? If anything, it shows he's a bad evaluator of NFL talent, but hardly anything beyond that. "

No. I already posted some more troublesome quotes on page 1.


Honestly as a fan I wouldn't be bent out of shape if Rush did become part owner of the Rams, as I don't care about the Rams and my bottom line wouldn't be affected. I wouldn't want him anywhere near one of my teams, though. I also understand why the owners wouldn't want him in the league.

This isn't an anticonservative conspiracy. Alex Spanos (Chargers) for one has given over $2 million to Republicans. Here are the political contributions of team ownerships:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/09/politicians-score-significant.html

10/15/2009 8:35:03 PM

very interesting link

most of the franchises definitely have a heavy bias towards republicans...the rams interestingly have a huge D:R ratio...here's a quick breakdown of the cities and teams with more money to either side...again it leans highly to the right

Much more D money than R money: NFL (the league itself), ST LOUIS rams, PHILLY eagles, BOSTON patriots, SAN FRAN 49ers, MIAMI dolphins, LOS ANGELES rams (lol cause they're in StL now), UFL (the league gives about 40k to dems, 0 dollars to reps lol) LOS ANGELES raiders (lol, see LA Rams)

Similar Amounts of money for each party: PITTSBURGH steelers, INDIANAPOLIS colts, TAMPA BAY bucs, BUFFALO bills, DETROIT lions, CHICAGO bears, SEATTLE seahawks

All the rest have mostly R money...especially the Chargers...over $2mil for Reps, about 40k for Dems

Quote :

"The chart below shows political contributions, by football team or league, to federal political candidates and committees between 1989 and 2009. Persons listing themselves as team officials, coaches, players or employees are included in team and league totals: "

10/15/2009 8:47:17 PM

I think the big big big big big big big big big bottom line is that, arguably, less than 50% of the players on any team in the NFL would want to play for a team owned by Rush Limbaugh.

It's easier just to tell him to fuck off, defer the headache.

I think Rush is only expressing interest in owning a team to expose some sort of unfair slant within professional athletics. I mean, the guy is a fucking high school kid.

10/15/2009 10:29:32 PM

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100013647/the-rush-limbaugh-media-lynch-mob/

This has nothing to do with the owners; the head of the NFLPA, who not only gave thousands to Obama but was a part of his transition team, opposed Rush Limbuagh for idealogical reasons. These quotes about defending James Earl Ray and slavery were completely fabricated, and yet the media, in its usual liberal smugness, won't even retract their statements because they claim to know what's really true in the matter, just like Dan Rather when he made up all of that BS about Bush and the national guard.

I think it speaks volumes about the lack of journalistic intergrity in this country, and it goes to show just how venomous the media can be when you are not in lock step with their beliefs.

This DeMaurice Smith fellow is the 2nd most powerful man in football, and he is using this as leverage for the up and coming labor agreement talks. It took fake quotes to rally support against Limbaugh, who was forced to step down from the bidding group.

And if the NFL wants to oppose Rush because he is outspoken and makes his living giving political commentary, then Soros (if he is indeed an investor) should be barred from owning a part of an NFL team for the very same reasons. I wonder if DeMaurice Smith will fight Soros with the same fervor that he opposed Rush. The great thing is that you don't have to make up inflammatory quotes about Soros or his involvement with far left fringe groups like MediaMatters.

This is exactly the kind of person Soros is, but I'm sure he'll be a hero to some on here:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700

I'm sure the NFL would love for this asshole to be a part of the NFL family.

10/16/2009 8:58:09 AM

^ you’re an idiot.

Soros is no where near the same league as Limbaugh. No one knows who soros is.

The NFL is a corporation, they make money by entertaining people. If they people the entertain are pissed about the limbaugh thing, it will hurt their profits. They’d be idiots not to respond to this. If soros costed them money, they’d ditch him too.

This has nothing to do with your delusions of a “LIEberal media” oppressing poor, battered conservatives. This has everything to do with people thinking with their wallets, which is really what you should expect.

When you can get massive amounts of people inside and outside the NFL to be pissed about soros, or anyone, then you’ll see the NFL do something about them.

But to pretend that conservatives are some kind of martyr, and this is just not capitalism at work is dumb, and kind of scary that you could be so delusional.

10/16/2009 9:14:59 AM

If Rush Limbaugh is really so bad, why did the Sharpton-Jackson hit squad et al wait until now to go after him--when Limbaugh simply wanted to be part of a game? Why didn't they go after him Imus-style before now?

10/16/2009 11:23:07 AM

There are only so many hours in the day, and there are a lot of jerks and bigots out there.

I'm sure if you looked back through you'd see something from Sharpton and his hit men around the time Rush made his comments about McNabb. You'd probably find something else they've said about Rush at some point prior to that.

But you can't just keep pounding uselessly all the time. Nothing they say is going to get an apology out of Rush or get him fired, so why keep it up all the time. Rush attempts to do something newsworthy (and lets be honest, besides his usual blathering he doesn't really do much that's noteworthy) and the Rush haters will refocus their attention on him for a week, but after it subsides (hey, the Rush haters actually WON this time, and last time with ESPN too now that I think about it) they'll just refocus on the other problem of the moment.

10/16/2009 11:33:27 AM

Quote :

"the Rush haters actually WON this time"

woo hoo! rush haters +1 .... racists 0

sorry, hooksaw and burro. it sure sucks to be an angry middle class white man in America these days, doesn't it?

10/16/2009 11:41:57 AM

Quote :

"This has nothing to do with the owners; the head of the NFLPA, who not only gave thousands to Obama but was a part of his transition team, opposed Rush Limbuagh for idealogical reasons."

Yes it does. The owner of the Colts already said he'd vote against it and others have intimated it. And the head of the NFLPA has DIRECT influence on the owners opinion. If the head of the union advises his workers to think twice before going to a team that supports a Limbaugh-owned organization then it is an issue with the owners. Checketts realized this himself and backed down from having Rush aboard.

Quote :

"I think it speaks volumes about the lack of journalistic intergrity in this country, and it goes to show just how venomous the media can be when you are not in lock step with their beliefs."

I agree. Doesn't really have much relevance to the situation at hand though. I'm pretty sure a shrewd businessman like Dave Checketts didn't make his decision to jettison Rush based on the misgivings of a CNN or MSNBC reporter. I mean, come on...

Quote :

"This DeMaurice Smith fellow is the 2nd most powerful man in football, and he is using this as leverage for the up and coming labor agreement talks. It took fake quotes to rally support against Limbaugh, who was forced to step down from the bidding group."

Again, it didn't take anything but the thoughts of Smith to temper Checketts' enthusiasm of having Rush aboard. And more power to Smith if he uses this to gain leverage. That's his job. To get his players the best deal possible. That's capitalism.

Quote :

"And if the NFL wants to oppose Rush because he is outspoken and makes his living giving political commentary, then Soros (if he is indeed an investor) should be barred from owning a part of an NFL team for the very same reasons. I wonder if DeMaurice Smith will fight Soros with the same fervor that he opposed Rush. The great thing is that you don't have to make up inflammatory quotes about Soros or his involvement with far left fringe groups like MediaMatters."

Free country, brother. Start a protest against Soros. Campaign to a higher up Republican/Conservative. Write to San Diego's owner, a known large Republican donor... stop bitching about it not being fair on the Internet and do something about it. If you can rally enough public outcry then Checketts will be forced to jettison him as well...

10/16/2009 11:46:33 AM

Quote :

"If Rush Limbaugh is really so bad, why did the Sharpton-Jackson hit squad et al wait until now to go after him--when Limbaugh simply wanted to be part of a game? Why didn't they go after him Imus-style before now?"

PS (developing):

The Search for the Wikipedia Libelist (important update)
October 16, 2009

Quote :

"Thanks to an intrepid blogger with the tag Trapdoc posting a letter to Mark Steyn, the search for the Wikipedia Libelist responsible for damaging posts to the Rush Limbaugh account has been narrowed to the IP address of a New York City law firm: 'The quotes were added by a user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146. This address has been used mostly to make changes to the article about Rush, but also Karl Rove, Sean Hannity,.. James Dobson and Sara Palin from 2005 until earlier this year. 'While others have noted this in various forums, no one seems to have made the connection that this IP address is used as a gateway by the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP (see here, for example) that all users from that IP address come from the pbwt.com domain.)' The firm provides a wide array of legal services with a broad spectrum of politically correct causes served: 'It is one of the first major firms in New York City to elect a woman as managing partner. In addition to its Diversity Committee, a group of Patterson Belknap attorneys formed PAC -- Patterson Attorneys of Color -- to assist with the enhancement of workplace diversity and the recruitment, retention and promotion of attorneys of color. Another group, Out at Patterson, focuses on issues relevant to the firm's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, and Women Lawyers at Patterson (WLAP) focuses on women's issues.' Considering Rush's militant political incorrectness, there may be a large number of potentially culpable attorneys and/or staffers to choose from. However, a forensic data retrieval technician should surely be able to narrow the focus and identify the likely poster. Perhaps Rush can enlist the aid of PBWT alumni, Rudy Giuliani, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau or firm partner, Edward F. Cox, (son-in-law of former President, Richard M. Nixon) in his search for justice. There is no question that Mr. Limbaugh has been damaged by the salacious quotes added to his Wikipedia profile and their dissemination in the PC-stream media. Hope this helps, Rush. You know they say the only cure for a lawyer is another lawyer....."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2009 12:07:05 PM

Quote :

"The NFL is a corporation, they make money by entertaining people"

The NFL itself is a non-profit organization. The individual franchises make money.

10/16/2009 1:14:30 PM

Quote :

"^ you’re an idiot."

Take your dime store insults somewhere else.

Quote :

"Soros is no where near the same league as Limbaugh. No one knows who soros is. "

You're fooling yourself if you think that Soros isn't a major behind the scenes player in american and world politics. If I were the piece of shit that Soros is, I'd want to remain anonymous too. But alas, his name is as toxic as Michael Moore's and he is extremely vitroilic and polarizing figure.

Quote :

"The NFL is a corporation, they make money by entertaining people. If they people the entertain are pissed about the limbaugh thing, it will hurt their profits. They’d be idiots not to respond to this. If soros costed them money, they’d ditch him too. This has nothing to do with your delusions of a “LIEberal media” oppressing poor, battered conservatives. This has everything to do with people thinking with their wallets, which is really what you should expect. When you can get massive amounts of people inside and outside the NFL to be pissed about soros, or anyone, then you’ll see the NFL do something about them. But to pretend that conservatives are some kind of martyr, and this is just not capitalism at work is dumb, and kind of scary that you could be so delusional."

This whole mess started with the head of the NFLPA, a lobbyist for a heavily Demcratic leaning firm in DC who has donated thousands to Democrats and was a part of Obama's transition team, sent a letter to Goodell about Limbaugh's involvement. Rush's money is just as spendable and green as the next guy's, but he was opposed and even had blatant lies spread about him because the left is intolerant anybody who doesn't agree with their agenda.

Even the worst franchises in the NFL make money. Money isn't the issue here. It has to do with excluding those whose values are different than yours. And if the NFL is consistent on this, they will exclude George Soros as well, because he's just as outspoken as Rush.

Hiding your bigotry behind the guise of capitalism is nonsense, because if you can exclude people based on their views, then why would it be wrong to bar people based on race, or gender, or creed? I'd be willing to bet that if the owner of Golden Corral wanted to have a whites only restaurant using his white customers as "evidence" that he could make more money, you'd be screaming from the rooftops about whitey keeping you down. It is funny to see you mention the economic system you hate when it serves your purpose, and I bet at the same time you have no problem with quotas or affirmative action.



[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 7:58 PM. Reason : more]

10/16/2009 7:53:58 PM

Quote :

"Free country, brother. Start a protest against Soros. Campaign to a higher up Republican/Conservative. Write to San Diego's owner, a known large Republican donor... stop bitching about it not being fair on the Internet and do something about it. If you can rally enough public outcry then Checketts will be forced to jettison him as well..."

I want to see if Mr. Smith will hold Soros to the same standard that he did Rush, minus the lies and bullshit. I don't think that is too much to ask.

10/16/2009 7:56:47 PM

CNN, MSNBC admit they were wrong about Rush quote
Oct. 16, 2009

Quote :

"CNN's Rick Sanchez and MSNBC's David Shuster have both reported Mr. Limbaugh had said slavery 'had its merits.' On their seperate television programs on Friday the anchors said they never confirmed the quote themselves. Before admitting they had made a mistake, Mr. Limbaugh threatened to sue over the matter and had many conservative allies, including those at the conservative-leaning Media Research Institute, supporting him. Mr. Sanchez was the first to say he had wronged Mr. Limbaugh by posting a message to his Twitter account Thursday night that said: 'we did not confirm quote. our bad.' His on-air apology on Friday seemed more heartfelt. 'We should not have reported it - not have reported it - without independent confirmation, and for that I apologize,' he said. MRC's media tracking blog, Newsbusters.org, has video HERE. Mr. Shuster, on the other hand, opted only to 'clarify' his previous statements, but not openly apologize during his program on Friday. 'MSNBC attributed that quote to a football player who was opposed to Limbaugh's NFL bid,' he said. 'However, we have been unable to verify that quote independently. So, just to clarify.' Video HERE."

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/oct/16/cnn-msnbc-admit-they-were-wrong-about-rush-quote/

10/17/2009 6:19:02 AM

It's really hard to believe that people would devote so much time to defending RUSH FUCKING LIMBAUGH.

Just go ahead and wave a flag that says 'I am stupid'

10/17/2009 8:38:32 AM

Who it is doesn't matter, it's why it happened.

This is like if someone made the argument that indians shouldn't own an NFL franchise because their stink of curry is repulsive and might offend those who go to the games. And then to top it, the media made up a bunch of stuff like indians never bathe and ruin hotel chains. You might get a little offended by that.

10/17/2009 8:48:42 AM

if you knew me, you'd know that I really don't care about Indians anymore or less than anyone else.

I'm pretty much the worst indian on the planet, and tend to identify with rednecks more than any other culture.

10/17/2009 8:51:24 AM

We just might get along then.

10/17/2009 8:52:15 AM

Man, you all are really going to bat for this chucklehead. Assumptions: confirmed.


^ Stupid isn't an ethnicity.

[Edited on October 17, 2009 at 9:52 AM. Reason : ]

10/17/2009 9:50:39 AM

Stupidity is believing the lies that have been repeated time and again, even when actual proof points in another direction, and then having the audacity to believe it anyway.

10/17/2009 10:17:45 AM

Quote :

"You're fooling yourself if you think that Soros isn't a major behind the scenes player in american and world politics. If I were the piece of shit that Soros is, I'd want to remain anonymous too. But alas, his name is as toxic as Michael Moore's and he is extremely vitroilic and polarizing figure."

It’s like you didn’t read anything I posted…

I didn’t comment on soros’ power. Of the ~20 million people that watch football weekly, I can pretty much guarantee that a majority of them have heard of limbaugh, and are vaguely familiar with his style, while almost none of them would have known who soros is. So complaining that people complain about someone they likely haven’t even heard of doesn’t make any sense, which is what you’re doing.

Quote :

"This whole mess started with the head of the NFLPA, a lobbyist for a heavily Demcratic leaning firm in DC who has donated thousands to Democrats and was a part of Obama's transition team, sent a letter to Goodell about Limbaugh's involvement. Rush's money is just as spendable and green as the next guy's, but he was opposed and even had blatant lies spread about him because the left is intolerant anybody who doesn't agree with their agenda. "

Limbaugh is not really a conservative, he’s a shock jock. He adds nothing to politics, except entertaining the slower members of the country with vaguely political arguments. “the left” is intolerant to him because he blatantly lies about the “agenda” of the left on a regular basis, something he apparently got a taste of. If this was Bill Kristol or Tom DeLay even or some other conservative, no one would care. But, if you need to feel persecuted to validate your beliefs, go right on ahead.

Quote :

"Even the worst franchises in the NFL make money. Money isn't the issue here. It has to do with excluding those whose values are different than yours. And if the NFL is consistent on this, they will exclude George Soros as well, because he's just as outspoken as Rush. "

lol. So you’re saying that there aren’t any conservatives in the NFL? Or conservative NFL team owners? Of all the things this is clearly NOT, excluding conservatives is at the top of the list.

Quote :

"Hiding your bigotry behind the guise of capitalism is nonsense, because if you can exclude people based on their views, then why would it be wrong to bar people based on race, or gender, or creed? I'd be willing to bet that if the owner of Golden Corral wanted to have a whites only restaurant using his white customers as "evidence" that he could make more money, you'd be screaming from the rooftops about whitey keeping you down. It is funny to see you mention the economic system you hate when it serves your purpose, and I bet at the same time you have no problem with quotas or affirmative action. "

Golden Corral having a whites-only restaurant is not in any way similar to the NFL not accepting a bid from Rush Limbaugh. He isn’t being excluded for being a conservative, he’s being excluded for specific racist things that he’s said. And if the PLAYERS themselves say the wouldn’t play for him, that is not an imagined economic problem, that’s a tangible issue. And I don’t know where you get the idea that I hate capitalism. 99% of liberals don’t hate capitalism, you need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Quote :

"Stupidity is believing the lies that have been repeated time and again, even when actual proof points in another direction, and then having the audacity to believe it anyway. "

… and you should take this more to heart.

[Edited on October 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM. Reason : ]

10/17/2009 10:57:05 AM

Quote :

"Golden Corral having a whites-only restaurant is not in any way similar to the NFL not accepting a bid from Rush Limbaugh. He isn’t being excluded for being a conservative, he’s being excluded for specific racist things that he’s said. And if the PLAYERS themselves say the wouldn’t play for him, that is not an imagined economic problem, that’s a tangible issue. And I don’t know where you get the idea that I hate capitalism. 99% of liberals don’t hate capitalism, you need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. "

Like what perhaps? Where are these specific racist statements? You mean the ones that were made up and linked to a liberal law firm in NYC? I'm sure the NFL, the media, and others would love to see proof of said racist comments.

You have the audacity to say I haven't read a thing you have said, and yet you repeat a lie that have been disproven repeatly since yesterday.

10/17/2009 11:02:20 AM

^ lol, Rush has a history of saying racially insensitive statements, do you really need me to find them for you? And the thing I have in mind was a video they showed of Rush on some ESPN show when i was eating pizza.

10/17/2009 11:07:13 AM

Yes fucking find them since the only ones the press used were lies. I'm sure that myself and the rest of the world would love for you to find actual quotes.

10/17/2009 11:18:40 AM