Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from softserve. Show softserve's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]Hey Nick and all you other liberals. Rush probably has more black friends than you ever thought of having. And, another thing. You guys hate the truth. You live in a make believe world.
    Posted by revereman[/QUOTE]

    Don't assume. Truth? Your boy just stated today that the President receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is more embarrassing than losing the Olympics for Chicago. What is embarrassing YOU listening and believing his garbage.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : I guess Europe really has outdone the U.S. on human rights issues.They really know how to treat people. Inquisitions,concentration camps,colonialism,gulags,even recent genocide issues in Kosovo, ect.Nice folks.
    Posted by cowtherabbit-[/QUOTE]

    All he was pointing out was the truth about a particular issue, and you go off on some irrelevant rant.  As a matter of fact, very few human societies--and the United States is NOT one of these--are free of gross crimes against humanity in their past. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]Hey Nick and all you other liberals. Rush probably has more black friends than you ever thought of having. And, another thing. You guys hate the truth. You live in a make believe world.
    Posted by revereman[/QUOTE]

    Could we have some proof for anything you are saying? 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Micksoxx. Show Micksoxx's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Yup, we now need to take direction in football from another over weight Republican with breasts. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from derricks. Show derricks's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : Where did you learn about history?  The United States was one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery.  Most of Latin America had done it thirty years previously. 
    Posted by newenglanderinexile[/QUOTE]


    nwenglanderinexile,

    They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  I'm sure you learned a modicum of history, but please get it correct.  Don't quote it in the smarmy knowledge and partial truths used to discredit the Lockean philosophers, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the practical implementation of it as expressed by the founders in the  American Constitutional experience.

    Most of Latin America today, still treats Indians, or mixed blood Indians, as Second Class Citizens, essentially slaves.  There is little effort to change that either.  The Russian Empire "freed" its Serfs, who were bound to the land, around the same time in the mid 1800s.  Unfortunately, it took until 1989 and Communism's collapse, for it to become a reality, that its slave-serfs were able to move about freely, without internal passport restriction. 

    Wilbur Wilberforce and some politicians of England worked hard to free the chattel slaves even earlier in the 1800s, and succeeded with the passage of the Corn laws.  But peasant serfdom was replaced with industrial serfdom, only kept barely acceptable by mass migration to a self-selected, freer, better, place in America for millions.  But England continued the policy of Colonialism until after WWII that impoverished and kept impoverished, vast numbers of colonial serf-slaves.  Other colonial powers were even worse. 

    America's Constitution was created at a time of chattel slavery all around the world.   It was amended in the 1860s to eliminate "de-jure" slavery, accepted 600,000 deaths in accomplishing that act, that would be proportionate to a civil war that took 40,000,000 lives today for some perspective.  That is an effort of monumental proportions, and was necessary to dismantle an economy fashioned on agricultural slavery, that provided a living for the entire South.   

    And in the mid 1960s "de-facto" slavery was really abolished. The first, real and genuine attempt to accomplish that in any mixed, non-homogeneous, society, of any size, in the World.  In the intervening half century, black Americans have finally been able and have joined all other Americans in the melting pot, as per capita wealth, and intermarriage rates approach the norm, and assimilation has really occurred.

    There are other examples of current slavery too. The slavery that the Kim family practices in North Korea that essentially treats everyone as chattel property of  the Kim family's vast Plantation of North Korea is an easy example. 

    Chattel Slavery exists today in the Middle East.  Afghanistan lives in the 7th century AD, and the Taliban were outright proud of their Sharia law and "de jure" slavery for women and others, and would re-institute it immediately in the 2010s were they to come to power, except for the efforts of the western democracies but principally America.  Persia's temporary Sharian regime that enforces female slavery, can still murder millions before it collapses.  

    Saddam Hussein's re-incarnation of the National SOCIALIST slave empire was overthrown with the force of American arms, treasure and blood, just as the original version, that subjugated the individual to Statist serfdom, and contemptuously murdered "untermenchen" was eliminated. 

    It was expenditure of American arms, treasure and blood that bankrupted and overthrew the discredited economic nostrums, and statist Gulag horrors of Communism in most of the World. 

    Ironically, only to see it resurrected here, by a revolutionary elite, that has captured one of the American political parties, and dragged it far leftward.  It has instituted a program that has divided the entire country as it attempts to discredit every American institution, virtue and success, while setting every minority against every other one else.    

    And please cease your political diatribe against America and its Constitution.  Obama is a constitutionalist lawyer. I had not seen that speech before.  He should know better, but his own statements affirm and condemn him that he is incapable of following his own sworn oath "... to protect, defend the Constitution..." .  

    Where did you ever learn your history?

    Your politics should be tempered in the knowledge that it was Democrats who resisted Emancipation,and supported slavery.  it was Democrats who subverted that Emancipation with Segregation, the American Apartheid, passing so-called "Jim Crow" Laws; it was Democrats who supported them legally and extra-legally, and resisted dismantling those laws for nearly a century, despite Republican efforts to the contrary. It was Democrats who enforced an extra-legal terror program known as the KKK; it was a bare plurality of Democrats who revolted and joined the  Republicans that you so detest, to end "de-facto" second class, semi-slavery of segregated un-empowerment, in the Civil Rights and Voting act of the mid 1960s.
     
    And perhaps worst of all it was Democrats who replaced it with a well-meaning but ultimately evil program that destroyed the Black family and Black culture that had even withstood the evils of slavery in the years after the mid 1960s.  Social Pathologies of every type are now endemic in black society today, and decried by one and all, with in and without Black America, as a result.  

    This is far afield from the original subject under discussion. Would a wealthy commentator-entertainer make any difference to the NFL, as an owner.  No, it wouldn't.   
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]yes, players are already lining up to say they would not play for him, and you can be sure that the rest of the players will follow suit. i think the bottom line with rush and this whole racism thing is that he is perceived to be a racist, and thats that. i have never listened to his show, but i have read the quotes. that leads me to believe he has made racist statements. now, it is possible, according to the fans of his on here, that if you listen to his entire show every day you will see that he really is not a racist. but i'm really not interested in doing that. if he had one racist "slip-up", then fine i would sit around and listen to an explanation. but there are SO MANY statements that offensive, and i just dont care to take the time to hear some convoluted explanations about how every single one is actually not racist. and i think thats how the general public and most of the nfl players would feel about it.  and by the way, this whole nonsense about barak the magic negro...i have never heard the song (although i did hear about the contraversy) and this whole long thing about how it is actually a slight at the la times....the fact of the matter is that most people are not aware of this supposed satire. the average person tunning around the dial stops and hears that song and thinks either "wow! this is cool, i love racist material and i thought i had to hide my feelings but this guy is great" or "wow i cant believe in 2009 this kind of racist material can be considered acceptable." either way, its good for rush because it gets people talking about him. thats the reason he plays songs like that...dont kid yourself with any of these other "explanations." 
    Posted by artielang[/QUOTE]
    Do you think its possible that, just maybe, the liberal media have sensationalized this whole "racist" issue?
    Do you think that, just maybe, you should listen to the man before condemning him on the basis of third party rumors? I challenge you to listen to a show and find him saying anything remotely "racist".
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from softserve. Show softserve's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Get your facts straight. US population over 18 is 226,200,000 according to wikepedia. Rush's audience averages 20,000,000http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html
    This works out to 8.8% of the adults in US listening to rush every day. To put this in context, Howard Stern gets about 5 million, so Rush has nearly 4 times as many listeners as Howard.
    Furthermore, Rush's aueidnce is by far the most educated and knowledgable in radio. More than 38% are college grads. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1675826/posts 

    Still want to trivialize Rush?





    Unclealfie, ridiculous argument, what nobody under the age of 18 listens to Rush?
    You must not be a part of the audience (correctly spelled) that is by far the most educated and knowledgeable (correctly spelled) listening to him....LOL! You must be in lower end of the uneducated 62%.....LOL!  Keep on spouting your conservative mantra....LOL!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from softserve. Show softserve's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    derricks, nice history lesson on slavery,but your ending statement is flat out wrong.

    This is far afield from the original subject under discussion.
    Would a wealthy commentator-entertainer make any difference to the NFL,
     as an owner.  No, it wouldn't.

    Yes it already has. Players are already stating that they would never play for a
     team with Limbaugh as part of the ownership.  

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : Get your facts straight. US population over 18 is 226,200,000 according to wikepedia. Rush's audience averages 20,000,000 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html This works out to 8.8% of the adults in US listening to rush every day. To put this in context, Howard Stern gets about 5 million, so Rush has nearly 4 times as many listeners as Howard. Furthermore, Rush's aueidnce is by far the most educated and knowledgable in radio. More than 38% are college grads. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1675826/posts   Still want to trivialize Rush?
    Posted by unclealfie[/QUOTE]

    Still, unclealfie you do realize facts are far from what any of those who are firmly in the secular progressive camp care about or respond to? 

    This will likely be my last post on this subject so I am concluding my comments with a few quick facts of my own...
    1. Rush is polarizing, there are many in the Republican party who don't care for him even.
    2. I have revisited Rush's comments on air about McNabb and I agree with him that he has been an over rated QB, nothing against his race just his skills and knowledge of the game. (Hell he didn't even know a game could end in a tie!)
    3. I don't know if Rush will become an owner or not but if he has the financial package to do it then he should be allowed to own a team. His political views are not important as long as they are not violating anyones civil or constitutional rights which they clearly are not. (Just because you don't like what someone says it doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right to those views)
    4. His views and comments about Obama is I believe where a lot of this anti Rush ferver comes from.  It is stupid to make comments like some of my best friends are black because who knows if that is the truth or not and also like I said this is only a race issue by people with a political adjenda. 
    5. And finally, His knowledge of football and sports in general is pretty significant, his early years he was involved in a Kansas City Professional Sports franchise ( I think it was the Royals), but he has a wide breadth of knowledge in the daily operations of a sports franchise and counts many owners in the  NFL as friends)    

    In Closing it is beyond my pay grade as to whether he gets this deal done or not and I personally could care less about it, I just hate to see people make wild assertions about people w/o direct knowledge.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : Still, unclealfie you do realize facts are far from what any of those who are firmly in the secular progressive camp care about or respond to?  This will likely be my last post on this subject so I am concluding my comments with a few quick facts of my own... 1. Rush is polarizing, there are many in the Republican party who don't care for him even. 2. I have revisited Rush's comments on air about McNabb and I agree with him that he has been an over rated QB, nothing against his race just his skills and knowledge of the game. (Hell he didn't even know a game could end in a tie!) 3. I don't know if Rush will become an owner or not but if he has the financial package to do it then he should be allowed to own a team. His political views are not important as long as they are not violating anyones civil or constitutional rights which they clearly are not. (Just because you don't like what someone says it doesn't mean that person doesn't have a right to those views) 4. His views and comments about Obama is I believe where a lot of this anti Rush ferver comes from.  It is stupid to make comments like some of my best friends are black because who knows if that is the truth or not and also like I said this is only a race issue by people with a political adjenda.  5. And finally, His knowledge of football and sports in general is pretty significant, his early years he was involved in a Kansas City Professional Sports franchise ( I think it was the Royals), but he has a wide breadth of knowledge in the daily operations of a sports franchise and counts many owners in the  NFL as friends)     In Closing it is beyond my pay grade as to whether he gets this deal done or not and I personally could care less about it, I just hate to see people make wild assertions about people w/o direct knowledge.
    Posted by DaBlade[/QUOTE]

    Sorry had to add one more thing that I neglected to mention about point #3... Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardsmen and Marines have given and continue to give their lives to afford us the freedom to say and believe as we like. Just look at the world and realize how many people are not afforded that freedom!
    God Bless those who serve and have served.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from cowtherabbit-. Show cowtherabbit-'s posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    • In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
      [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : All he was pointing out was the truth about a particular issue, and you go off on some irrelevant rant.  As a matter of fact, very few human societies--and the United States is NOT one of these--are free of gross crimes against humanity in their past. 
      Posted by newenglanderinexile[/QUOTE]

      Irrelevant rant?The guy is making Europe seem like it was the leader of the world on human rights.I simply pointed out a few flaws with that arguement. I was also simply pointing out the real "truth about a particular issue". I guess you like some truths more that others.The usual liberal hypocrisy.The truth is that
    • slavery in the British Empire did not end until 1834.They then relied on indentured servitude to circumvent slave laws for cheap labor until early into the 20th century (appx 1917)
    • In Russia the emancipation of the serfs did not take place until 1861. Austria-Hungary 1848.
    • Although France ended salvery in 1794,Napolean reinstated it and slavery continued  throughout the French empire until 1848.
    • In Spanish controlled colonies of the new world,slavery did not officially end until 1886.Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The poster who I originally responded to continue's to "invent" facts.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from arnorthrup. Show arnorthrup's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Endless Limbaugh quotes, in context:


    Personally, I think it's great that Limbaugh wants to buy the Rams.  He'll get them on a rigorous diet of Haagen Daaz and hillbilly heroin, and every time a call goes against them they'll soil their diapers and cry and complain that the referees are lying liberals who are out to kill their grandmothers.  Eff the Rams.  I think he should buy the Jets and the Giants while he's at it.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Super38. Show Super38's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : Do you think its possible that, just maybe, the liberal media have sensationalized this whole "racist" issue? Do you think that, just maybe, you should listen to the man before condemning him on the basis of third party rumors? I challenge you to listen to a show and find him saying anything remotely "racist".
    Posted by unclealfie[/QUOTE]

    You must be joking.

    Did he or did he not say this;

    I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

    or this;

    You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

    or this;

    Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

    or this;

    Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.

    or this;

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

    or this;

    Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller).


    Wake up....yes, he is a rasicst. If you don't think so then I suggest you look up the meaning in a dictionary.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from softserve. Show softserve's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Super38, come on man don't you understand that all those statements were taken out of context......PPPffft!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : nwenglanderinexile, They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.  I'm sure you learned a modicum of history, but please get it correct.  Don't quote it in the smarmy knowledge and partial truths used to discredit the Lockean philosophers, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the practical implementation of it as expressed by the founders in the  American Constitutional experience. Most of Latin America today, still treats Indians, or mixed blood Indians, as Second Class Citizens, essentially slaves.  There is little effort to change that either.  The Russian Empire "freed" its Serfs, who were bound to the land, around the same time in the mid 1800s.  Unfortunately, it took until 1989 and Communism's collapse, for it to become a reality, that its slave-serfs were able to move about freely, without internal passport restriction.  Wilbur Wilberforce and some politicians of England worked hard to free the chattel slaves even earlier in the 1800s, and succeeded with the passage of the Corn laws.  But peasant serfdom was replaced with industrial serfdom, only kept barely acceptable by mass migration to a self-selected, freer, better, place in America for millions.  But England continued the policy of Colonialism until after WWII that impoverished and kept impoverished, vast numbers of colonial serf-slaves.  Other colonial powers were even worse.  America's Constitution was created at a time of chattel slavery all around the world.   It was amended in the 1860s to eliminate "de-jure" slavery, accepted 600,000 deaths in accomplishing that act, that would be proportionate to a civil war that took 40,000,000 lives today for some perspective.  That is an effort of monumental proportions, and was necessary to dismantle an economy fashioned on agricultural slavery, that provided a living for the entire South.    And in the mid 1960s "de-facto" slavery was really abolished. The first, real and genuine attempt to accomplish that in any mixed, non-homogeneous, society, of any size, in the World.  In the intervening half century, black Americans have finally been able and have joined all other Americans in the melting pot, as per capita wealth, and intermarriage rates approach the norm, and assimilation has really occurred. There are other examples of current slavery too. The slavery that the Kim family practices in North Korea that essentially treats everyone as chattel property of  the Kim family's vast Plantation of North Korea is an easy example.  Chattel Slavery exists today in the Middle East.  Afghanistan lives in the 7th century AD, and the Taliban were outright proud of their Sharia law and "de jure" slavery for women and others, and would re-institute it immediately in the 2010s were they to come to power, except for the efforts of the western democracies but principally America.  Persia's temporary Sharian regime that enforces female slavery, can still murder millions before it collapses.   Saddam Hussein's re-incarnation of the National SOCIALIST slave empire was overthrown with the force of American arms, treasure and blood, just as the original version, that subjugated the individual to Statist serfdom, and contemptuously murdered "untermenchen" was eliminated.  It was expenditure of American arms, treasure and blood that bankrupted and overthrew the discredited economic nostrums, and statist Gulag horrors of Communism in most of the World.  Ironically, only to see it resurrected here, by a revolutionary elite, that has captured one of the American political parties, and dragged it far leftward.  It has instituted a program that has divided the entire country as it attempts to discredit every American institution, virtue and success, while setting every minority against every other one else.     And please cease your political diatribe against America and its Constitution.  Obama is a constitutionalist lawyer. I had not seen that speech before.  He should know better, but his own statements affirm and condemn him that he is incapable of following his own sworn oath "... to protect, defend the Constitution..." .   Where did you ever learn your history? Your politics should be tempered in the knowledge that it was Democrats who resisted Emancipation,and supported slavery.  it was Democrats who subverted that Emancipation with Segregation, the American Apartheid, passing so-called "Jim Crow" Laws; it was Democrats who supported them legally and extra-legally, and resisted dismantling those laws for nearly a century, despite Republican efforts to the contrary. It was Democrats who enforced an extra-legal terror program known as the KKK; it was a bare plurality of Democrats who revolted and joined the  Republicans that you so detest, to end "de-facto" second class, semi-slavery of segregated un-empowerment, in the Civil Rights and Voting act of the mid 1960s.   And perhaps worst of all it was Democrats who replaced it with a well-meaning but ultimately evil program that destroyed the Black family and Black culture that had even withstood the evils of slavery in the years after the mid 1960s.  Social Pathologies of every type are now endemic in black society today, and decried by one and all, with in and without Black America, as a result.   This is far afield from the original subject under discussion. Would a wealthy commentator-entertainer make any difference to the NFL, as an owner.  No, it wouldn't.   
    Posted by derricks[/QUOTE]

    derricks,

    They may say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a lot of ignorance is lethal.  Your post is so completely riddled with statements that make no sense and stupid errors that it is hard to know where to begin.  Here are three quick corrections.  The population of the United States in 1860 was about 31.5 million.  The population of the U.S. today is about 305 million--let's say ten times more.  Ten times 600,000 is 6 million, not the wildly inaccurate figure you suggest.

    A decisive majority of Democrats supported the mid-1960s civil rights legislation, not a bare plurality (whatever that could be when you are only dealing with two parties).  The party was admittedly split between northern and southern Democrats, but northern Democrats voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  In 1964 House Democrats voted 152-96 in favor, and the percentage was even higher in 1965.

    The English Corn Laws had nothing to do with slavery.  They legislated the levels of tariffs on imported grain. 

    You sound like Professor Irwin Corey.  Are you?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from cowtherabbit-. Show cowtherabbit-'s posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : You must be joking. Did he or did he not say this; I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark. or this; You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed. or this; Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson? or this; Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it. or this; The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies. or this; Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller). Wake up....yes, he is a rasicst. If you don't think so then I suggest you look up the meaning in a dictionary.
    Posted by Super38[/QUOTE]

    Super,where is the link to this list.I would like to read it myself.thanks
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from artielang. Show artielang's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : Do you think its possible that, just maybe, the liberal media have sensationalized this whole "racist" issue? Do you think that, just maybe, you should listen to the man before condemning him on the basis of third party rumors? I challenge you to listen to a show and find him saying anything remotely "racist".
    Posted by unclealfie[/QUOTE]

    right!! thats my point! i'm just not that interested in listening to political talk shows. i think that you will find that the majority of nfl fans and players feel the same way. sports are about having fun and escaping from difficult realities. thats why a guy like rush and the nfl dont mix. most of us dont want to have to listen to a talk show every day that we're not interested in so we can go around defending the nfl and its owners. vick has made it hard enough. let him stay on the radio and say whatever he wants, doesnt bother me. theres just no reason for him to be a part of the nfl...
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Calmy. Show Calmy's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Kinda brings a new meaning to the term conservative play-calling.

    My guess is he has no interest in Football but figures owning a team will give him excellent access to designer pain-killers.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Rush limbaugh may be many things but he's not a racist. The Donovan Mcnabb remarks were a shot at the media who turned it into racism. As far as I know this is still a capitalist country and he buy into any business he wants. Buy the way..Rush is huge football fan for people that never listen to his show. He is constantly talking about the NFL and watches every game he can. I believe he used to work for the K.C. Chiefs many years ago.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]I feel sorry for the sheltered and uneducated . If you vote. Vote responsibly and learn the issues. Half of these comments probably come from people that can't even name the three branches of government.  Im sorry I commented and I am really done with this blog. I just feel bad for you people. 
    Posted by steve1581[/QUOTE]

    I don't know. I feel bad for people who think a message board is a blog.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : I don't know. I feel bad for people who think a message board is a blog.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]

    I feel bad for everybody...Especially myself
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from newenglanderinexile. Show newenglanderinexile's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : Irrelevant rant?The guy is making Europe seem like it was the leader of the world on human rights.I simply pointed out a few flaws with that arguement. I was also simply pointing out the real "truth about a particular issue". I guess you like some truths more that others.The usual liberal hypocrisy.The truth is that slavery in the British Empire did not end until 1834.They then relied on indentured servitude to circumvent slave laws for cheap labor until early into the 20th century (appx 1917) In Russia the emancipation of the serfs did not take place until 1861. Austria-Hungary 1848. Although France ended salvery in 1794,Napolean reinstated it and slavery continued  throughout the French empire until 1848. In Spanish controlled colonies of the new world,slavery did not officially end until 1886.Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The poster who I originally responded to continue's to "invent" facts.
    Posted by cowtherabbit-[/QUOTE]

    Someone makes an incorrect point that the United States led the world in abolishing slavery.  I point out that this was untrue, that in fact most of the world, including Latin America, had abolished slavery, in some cases decades before.  So you respond by pointing out ... that slavery had been abolished in many parts of the world before it was abolished in the U.S.  Thanks for the support.  If you are attempting to suggest that slavery continued in large parts of Latin America until 1886, try again.  Most of the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America had established their independence much earlier in the century and soon thereafter abolished slavery.  How many Spanish New World colonies were there in 1886 besides Cuba?     
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from paob. Show paob's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    In Response to Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams:
    [QUOTE]This is interesting, if not bizarre.  To say the least, I'm not the biggest fan of the guy, being a minority as I am. I've deleted my original comments here because they were decidedly in poor taste and did nothing to add merit to any arguments I might try to make hereafter.  Instead, I implore you to go to my post on Page 3 and read my statistical analysis of McNabb and one Hall of Famer and tell me if anything BUT race could have motivated his remarks.  I also suggest you read ArtieLang's post a few posts above mine and tell me that such comments don't constitute racism. Then tell me if you would play for him if you were a minority (or if you would play for an owner knowing he was openly and publicly racist).  Could you support a team owned by someone who was racist?  And if the answer is no to any of these questions, then ask yourself - Is it really good for the league to bring upon itself such controversy? No, I'm not a liberal, and no I'm not here to talk politics.  No I did NOT vote for Obama last November - he successfully lost my support by midsummer. No, I'm not black, but I think my alarm at Limbaugh being an NFL owner transcends race.  I'm all for letting him say what he wants - it's on the listener to judge him, but I am opposed to him as an NFL owner. Nonetheless, The question: Is Rush Limbaugh good for the NFL?
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    Mathias Kiwanuka of the NYGiants has gone on record and stated he would not play for Rush Limbaugh if he succeeds in his attempts to be an owner in the NFL. He also stated and I'm paraphrasing here, this is America and you can say whatever you want, but if someone exhibits a pattern wherein they continually make statements regarding a certain race that are racist in nature, it isn't coincidence. I will not be playing for him. 
    It's safe to say that in a league wherein 70% of the players are Black, you can bet the league will be weighing those concerns. 

    Food for thought!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    I owe you transcripts.  I'm checking to see if I can get them from academic databases through my college.

    I didn't forget, although I couldn't be more sorry for creating this monster.  I should stick to talking football like in the Taylor/surgery chat.  At the very least, I was underprepared for anything except the McNabb aspect and what I hear from him loosely throwing around accusations of "reverse-racism."

    Anyhow, I'll try to come back tomorrow with posts/links/PDF's.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams

    Newenglanderinexile,
    You still have it completely wrong. Many Latin-American countries had abolished slave TRADE prior to 1863, but had not actually freed the slaves within their borders. The U.S. did this, by abolishing slave trade in 1808. The U.S. was only the fourth country in the world to partially abolish slavery (slavery was abolished in the "northern" states at it's inception), with Russia, England, and Portugal being the first three.
    After so many gave their lives to free the slaves here in the U.S., many countries worldwide freed their slaves.
     

Share