1. My one, token black, articulate friend wants nothing to do with reparations! 2. Why is scrutinizing the hypocrisy of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton categorized as sowing discord? 3. If you listen to Rush's piece, his real target is the Newsweek coverage of the event-- the so-called Mainstream Media.
Not sure, but Lifelock is probably a solid product. I'm not saying the corporations that are backing him are those that advertise with him. Do you think that he has zero sway in the way Republicans in power act/vote?
I hope Rush gets the team. I bet it would motivate Mike Singletary to be the absolute most aggressive coach in NFL history. SF vs STL would be an epic rivalry.
He is a man with an opinion and a loud voice. He has more sway than you or me... over anybody... but those individuals still have to make up their own minds. Giddyup Dittohead ID# 00000000001 Listener since 1990 12 hours logged in 2009 (SORRY!)
CORRECTION The Executive Director of the NFLPA is trying to galvanize the players' union against the Limbaugh minority ownership bid with his suggestive language and probably taking unprecedented action on a matter such as this. Do you all figure that Limbaugh only loves the white Steeler players?
Last time somebody important called Rush a mere entertainer... things weren't so pretty.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29478402/ "WASHINGTON - Two days after calling conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh a mere "entertainer" with an "incendiary" talk show, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele apologized and acknowledged him as a "national conservative leader." "To the extent that my remarks helped the Democrats in Washington to take the focus, even for one minute, off of their irresponsible expansion of government, I truly apologize," Steele said late Monday." Yawn... this is too easy.
1. I'm not talking about reparations. I'm talking about the history of this nation, and the different significance that words and characterizations have. Why are you bringing up reparations? There's a decent chance your token black friend wouldn't even qualify for reparations. 2.Scrutinizing isn't sowing discord. Pretending that an incident that was deemed not to have a racial motivation was racially motivated and was black people beating on a white one because this is "Obama's America" is both racist in itself and sowing discord. 3. Rush is a proven liar, who routinely ignores facts that are contrary to the point he'd like to make. His point is usually removed from reality. I've heard Rush's piece on the supposed picture of "Obama's America" which is black youths beating down a white one.
Progress has honestly been amazing. I couldn't even imagine what it would have been like to dislike someone based on race alone, or watching such cruelty to fellow Americans.
That's great. I think racism has moved toward ignorance and stereotyping much more than just open hatred based on race, these days. Hopefully progress will continue.
The always provocative Whitlock weighs in and imo hit it out of the park... http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10210084/Goodell-should-say-no-to-Limbaugh
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...says-tuesday-what-he-should-have-said-monday/ Limbaugh says Tuesday what he should have said Monday Posted by Mike Florio on October 13, 2009 1:00 PM ET Radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has joined with Dave Checketts in an effort to buy the St. Louis Rams, has begun to launch the kind of effort that he should have launched on Monday in response to a string of inflammatory quotes that have been attributed to him, and that he claims are not his words. His reaction on Monday to the quotes, which has been reported in various places, was too restrained, in our view. On the Tuesday edition of his show, he said what we thought he should have said on Monday. Regarding quotes assigned to him as to slavery and James Earl Ray, Limbaugh said, "They were never uttered. . . . I never said them." More importantly, he said that he is now working to get apologies and retractions. Limbaugh suggested that the phony quotes trace to a Wikipedia page. There's also a 2006 book, 101 People Who Really Are Screwing Up America by Jack Huberman; we don't know whether Huberman relied on the Wikipedia page or the other way around. Bottom line? The issue has been joined by Limbaugh. He says that his lawyers will be contacting the writers who have attributed the quotes to him, and seeking information as to their sources. If the writers can't show that Rush said the things he allegedly said, he'll be seeking retractions. So stay tuned.
Maybe he can still buy the St. Louis Bloods or Crips affiliate instead? NY Times Fifth Down: "Goodell Voices Concern Over Limbaugh"
I think he should be allowed to buy the Rams and rename them the bloods or crips, or some other negative term of his choosing.
I would like to see his intrasquad scrimmages: A Team: the St. Louis "Halfrican-Americans"? vs. B Team (on account of them not being the A Team): the St. Louis "Femi-Nazis"? The citation for Limbaugh's "Bloods" vs. "Crips" claim (scroll to the last paragraph): Spoiler "There, I said it."
I did some digging. The first two have been debunked and are apparently completely made up. The third one isn't racist (unless you are also willing to bar Jim Rome from buying a team for calling the Portland Trail Blazers the "Trail Gangstas" throughout the late 90s). The fourth one isn't racist and has been twisted out of context. The fifth one was apparently made on a podunk local show in the 70s and apparently no tape exists. Seems to be the only thing you can make a case against him with. The r word is a very serious accusation. For someone who's had such a long career and been scrutinized for a good portion of it, it's hard to pin it on him with such relatively little evidence.
Under what context is it okay to say "who the hell cares" about a minority precisely because they are in the minority?
