There have been plenty of cases where labor has been outspoken about a change in ownership. The Delta takeover of Northwest was held up for about a year over concerns about seniority by the Northwest's pilot union.
Owners to professional sports leagues are always vetted. The leagues are really a partnership of owners, and not just anyone can buy in. Or randomly start a franchise. The league has to decide if a new owner is detrimental to the league as a whole, and all the parties -- other owners, players union, fans -- are entitled to try to influence the decision. Especially the player's union here -- as his ownership might directly impact its membership.
I think Rush Limbaugh = Colorado Balloon Family (please pay attention to me!) and I also think that, given the destined to shrink aging white demographic of Rush's audience that, Rush Limbaugh's career =
Rush wasn't removed he was prevented by prejudice without anything resembling a full review. That is wrong it seems to me. Owners? As far as I've followed this, only Jim Irsay has been cited. How does that hurt my argument? Are you hallucinating... one owner speaks up?! Sure Rush has personal responsibility for the words that come out of his mouth. Do you have a responsibility to understand their purpose and to put them into a full and proper context rather than buying the cheap shot reductions of him that are proffered by those who would seek to weaken his influence? If Rush were a racist, why then does he have black intellectuals like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams on his show and even entrust hosting duties to Williams on a regular basis? And to answer your snide insinuation made earlier. I used to listen to Rush a lot years ago when I had reason to be in my car noon to 3PM. That's not the case any more. thought he was amusing and I found myself in general but not complete agreement with him on most issues. I don't live and die by his viewpoint like you try to insinuate. I estimate that I've listened a dozen or so hours this YEAR.
At least he wasn't denied the opportunity because of a few opinions. The analog would be that the Rams majority partners would buy Rush out if his minority stake (how ironic is that categorization?) were proving to be detrimental to the team. I realize that Rush is as powerful as the Soviet Union but let's still give him a chance..
Where was the outcry and impassioned defense of Mark Cuban when MLB denied him a chance to buy a baseball team?
he was denied an opportunity because he is a very divisive figure who has made a career out of making over the top comments degrading people who have disagreed with him. there are numerous businesses who rely on the public who would not want a divisive figure like him representing them. had jessie jackson tried to buy an nfl team the same thing that would happen (and no way would you be here defending him). if george will or paul begala tried to, there would not be this kind of uproar because they are actually able to present their opinions without being jackasses. the fact that you fail to understand this (and you may say you do, but your continued idiotic responses trying to defend him show you really dont) completely escapes logic. keep on defending poor ol' rush even though he got exactly what he wanted.
so, one's previous actions can't be a reason why they aren't allowed an "opportunity" to do something else? it's only their actions after they've been awarded an opportunity that matter. that's a messed up opinion. rush had his chance to prove that him being part of certain companies wouldn't have the chance of being detrimental to that business. he failed when he opened his piehole to speak rather than pop pills.
Stop using this as an excuse. There were blacks who fought for the confederacy during the civil war. That doesn't mean that slavery wasn't racist. There were blacks who were against boycotting apartheid. That doesn't mean that Apartheid wasn't racist. His statements should be judged on his statements, and not whether he has a black person as a buddy who fills in as host. That is ignorant. It seems like you are using Sowell and Williams support to make yourself feel better and reassure yourself that you aren't really supporting a racist when you listen to Rush. Sowell has been shown to be an idiot in his views since he compared Obama to Hitler multiple times
Rush wasn't "removed", he was dropped by his fellow investors. If they really felt strongly that they wanted him on board, they could have proceeded with him involved and taken their chances with a vote. They didn't. This wasn't a political move, as much as you would like it to be. It was a MONEY move. It may have been made because he is a political jackass, but make no mistake: this was about dollars and cents. There is NO context in which calling the NFL bloods and crips without weapons, or telling an African-American caller to take the "bone out of her nose" is appropriate. None. Period. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Associating with people of a different color doesn't mean you aren't racist. And liking two black people and insulting the rest definitely doesn't show that you aren't racist. This is the age-old "some of my best friends are black" argument, and it's a load of carp. That's about 11.5 hours too many.
Do you believe that businesses should be free to decide who should be allowed to buy into their business?
Yes and the Owners own the NFL business-- not the players not the NLPA. This "decision" was manipulated before that group made any kind of decision. I haven't devoured the news on it but to my knowledge only Jim Irsay spoke publicly as an owner.
And Irsay is one of the owners and considering no other owner contradicted him it appears that others tacitly agreed with him. Anyway you are doing what Limbaugh supposedly hates and that is crying about victimization. IN this case poor Rush is being victimized by the big bad unions and the PC society who somehow wield power over the owners. How is this any different than Al Sharpton crying about racism as preventing Michael Vick from getting a fair hearing? Apparently you have bought into the politics of victimization that you are arguing it in the case of Rush instead of considering that there were very sound economic reasons for Checketts to drop Limbaugh from his investor group.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cehLiGxguQI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cehLiGxguQI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I didn't say that Rush was removed. He was never "in" to be "removed." It was certainly about money but it was the controvery brought on by the perception of Rush's politics that got him dropped by his partners. Does anyone remember the controvery about Jack Tatum? As I recall, one of the coaches (Noll?) made a reference to a "criminal mentality" amongst segments of the NFL players. Go to Rush's site. You can read the transcript out of which the "Blood and Crips" quote was lifted. The "bone in the nose" comment is just offensive, but then I don't like Chris Rock either. Now Richard Pryor... How far out on a limb do you have to go to assert that he insults "the rest" of blacks except the two who regularly appear on his show? This is naive. I hope you enjoyed expressing your opinion...
Let's see: - Rush wanted to be a part-owner of the Rams. - Some players said they wouldn't want to work for him - Some fans said they wouldn't want to do business with him - His partners decided to let him go so they'd have a better shot at making the deal. Who is Rush and his supporters blaming for this falling through?
so you're saying for one to be a racist, 100% of minorities need to be insulted and feel absolutely offended first?
