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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy'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]For the sixth time, he's NOT a racist. Racist definition (since you're too lazy to look it up yourself): "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." His BEST FRIEND, Bo Snerdley, is black. How can he hate him and how can he not tolerate him AND be his best friend? Answer: it's impossible, and for this reason, therefore: he cannot be a racist. Is this really a hard concept to understand? Or is your hatred for his politics blinding you to logic? 
    Posted by Ritchie_az[/QUOTE]

    I'm sure Rush is hanging out in the dancehall club dancing to reggae...

    I love how you guys are doing exactly what Rush does, trot out his one token black "friend" to justify the hateful, divisive, racist bull he spews.  Bo Snerdly must be black the same way Clarence Thomas is...
     
  2. 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 : --- The above post does not make a great deal of sense, though the tangled sentence organization may be causing me to misread it. Abolishing the trans-Atlantic slave trade and abolishing slavery are two very different things.  The US slave trade itself was not abolished in 1808; slaves were still transported between states, and slaves were still illegally smuggled into the US despite restrictions on trans-Atlantic transportation of slaves.  Instead of stealing men, women, and children from western Africa for use as chattel, men, women--husbands, wives, fathers, sisters, brothers--and children were sold as part of the domestic slave economy.  Planters would breed human beings for sale as chattel.  To give the US credit for abolishing slavery by banning non-domestic importation is a serious misreading of the historical record. 
    Posted by Somnambulus[/QUOTE]

      I think the problem is that the North had been setting precedents for the world to follow in the fight to abolish slavery since 1777, while the South was actively engaged in the practice until force of arms led to the slaves emancipation. It's rather strange that two diametrically opposing belief systems occured within the same country. It would be more accurate for both sides to differentiate between these two very different societies even though they were bound as a nation under the same constitution. To generalize the U.S as a whole during this sad chapter of it's history discredits those Americans who actively fought for abolition while at the same time lessening the guilt of those who profitted from it's oppressive practice.
     
  3. 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 :   I think the problem is that the North had been setting precedents for the world to follow in the fight to abolish slavery since 1777, while the South was actively engaged in the practice until force of arms led to the slaves emancipation. It's rather strange that two diametrically opposing belief systems occured within the same country. It would be more accurate for both sides to differentiate between these two very different societies even though they were bound as a nation under the same constitution. To generalize the U.S as a whole during this sad chapter of it's history discredits those Americans who actively fought for abolition while at the same time lessening the guilt of those who profitted from it's oppressive practice.
    Posted by cowtherabbit-[/QUOTE]

    Dude, its game day! Drop the history books the way joey galloway drops passes and start cheering for the emanipation of the pats running game from maroney!!!!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from raptor64d. Show raptor64d'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]You're pretty quick to throw out the "racist" card here.  I think you're the racist, NickC.  Conservative ideals make nothing of race.  The thought process is: You work the hardest, you do the best, you get the job.  This is opposed the liberal hippie B.S. train of thought that everyone should get something for nothing.  Is he racist because he believes people should have an incentive to EARN their money by working?  I'm NOT a big fan of Limbaugh (I prefer Michael Savage), but I am conservative, and if you've ever worked for anything in your life, you should understand how these things work.
    Posted by TheDave66[/QUOTE]

    Dude, I pretty much could not have said it better. Being a conservative from Ma I do not find many on this site with the same outlook I have except the Love for the Pats!! I hope Rush byes the team and we will see how many players quit the team, They are so bad now I guess there will be big changes there anyway!!!

    Go Pats!
     
  5. 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 : Dude, its game day! Drop the history books the way joey galloway drops passes and start cheering for the emanipation of the pats running game from maroney!!!!
    Posted by artielang[/QUOTE]

    LOL,You're right.Best advice I've heard all week. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PATS!!!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Somnambulus. Show Somnambulus'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 think the problem is that the North had been setting precedents for the world to follow in the fight to abolish slavery since 1777, while the South was actively engaged in the practice until force of arms led to the slaves emancipation. It's rather strange that two diametrically opposing belief systems occured within the same country. It would be more accurate for both sides to differentiate between these two very different societies even though they were bound as a nation under the same constitution. To generalize the U.S as a whole during this sad chapter of it's history discredits those Americans who actively fought for abolition while at the same time lessening the guilt of those who profitted from it's oppressive practice.
    Posted by cowtherabbit-[/QUOTE]

    Even as some Northerners were organizing as part of the eighteenth-century Anglo American abolitionist movement, their views do not represent the majority by any means, as abolition did not gain traction as a popular movement until the 1850s.  The North was just as complicit in slavery, and the establishment of systemic white supremacy, as the South.  Pennsylvania, for example, a leader in late 18th/early 19thC. emancipation legislation, considered a measure in 1813 to ban the emigration of black people to the state and require all black people--whether permanent residents or visitors--to register with state authorities.  Sure, we might give credit to people who advocated for abolition at any time, but we should not hold up the example of a few as moral consolation for US complicity in one of human history's greatest crimes against humanity. 

    Having said that, I am not sure which "two sides" the above post refers to, unless it is to the North and South as regions of the US.  There really was not a "two sides" to the abolition debate for much of its history: slavery and black subjugation enjoyed great support among Northerners and Southerners alike, and, in the North at least, those who did not support slavery were still not in favor of racial equality. 
     
  7. 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 : Even as some Northerners were organizing as part of the eighteenth-century Anglo American abolitionist movement, their views do not represent the majority by any means, as abolition did not gain traction as a popular movement until the 1850s.  The North was just as complicit in slavery, and the establishment of systemic white supremacy, as the South.  Pennsylvania, for example, a leader in late 18th/early 19thC. emancipation legislation, considered a measure in 1813 to ban the emigration of black people to the state and require all black people--whether permanent residents or visitors--to register with state authorities.  Sure, we might give credit to people who advocated for abolition at any time, but we should not hold up the example of a few as moral consolation for US complicity in one of human history's greatest crimes against humanity.  Having said that, I am not sure which "two sides" the above post refers to, unless it is to the North and South as regions of the US.  There really was not a "two sides" to the abolition debate for much of its history: slavery and black subjugation enjoyed great support among Northerners and Southerners alike, and, in the North at least, those who did not support slavery were still not in favor of racial equality. 
    Posted by Somnambulus[/QUOTE]

    The debate to abolish slavery was a very prominent and divisive issue at the time of our countries birth up until it's resolution by civil war. To say there were not two sides to this until the 1850's is completely innacurate. It's gameday though and we can pick this up tommorrow. I hope you enjoy the games today.GOOO PATS!! Here's some info on the history of abolition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#Gradual_emancipation

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Somnambulus. Show Somnambulus'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 : The debate to abolish slavery was a very prominent and decisive issue at the time of our countries birth up until it's resolution by civil war. To say there were not two sides to this until the 1850's is completely innacurate. It's gameday though and we can pick this up tommorrow. I hope you enjoy the games today.GOOO PATS!!
    Posted by cowtherabbit-[/QUOTE]

    The "two sides" argument you have thus far advanced posits anti-slavery as a great social movement in the US.  I agree, and historical evidence supports anti-slavery as a moderately popular movement, but wide-spread white support for anti-slavery did not develop until the 1850s, in large part in response to the Fugitive Slave Act included in the Great Compromise of 1850.  Sure, Garrison began printing _The Liberator_ in the 1830s, but let us not forget that the paper only had about 3000 subscribers, most of which were black.   Nor should we forget that Elijah Lovejoy's Alton, Illinois printing house was burned and he was murdered in 1837 by people who opposed the dissemination of abolitionist views.  In fact, for much of antebellum history, "abolitionist" was something of a slur.

    I grant you that the debate over slavery was one of, if not the most, significant in the Revolutionary era, the Early Republic, and the antebellum period--this much is plain.  But my larger point is to caution you against presuming more widespread support for abolition among the white, US public than actually existed for most of that time. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from cowtherabbit-. Show cowtherabbit-'s posts

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

      I agree with your above post. I'm glad we found some middle ground  based on facts and not emotions.I have learned a great deal these past few days researching the history of this subject and reading other peoples views concerning this blight on our country's history. Many,both black and white, should really examine the truth about slavery and how it's rise and fall affects the way we live today.
     
  10. 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]You're pretty quick to throw out the "racist" card here.  I think you're the racist, NickC.  Conservative ideals make nothing of race.  The thought process is: You work the hardest, you do the best, you get the job.  This is opposed the liberal hippie B.S. train of thought that everyone should get something for nothing.  Is he racist because he believes people should have an incentive to EARN their money by working?  I'm NOT a big fan of Limbaugh (I prefer Michael Savage), but I am conservative, and if you've ever worked for anything in your life, you should understand how these things work.
    Posted by TheDave66[/QUOTE]

    HIPPIE? did you really use the word hippie? Man is 66 your age or IQ or both?
    Who uses the word hippie except an Archie Bunker bigot?...LOL!
      

     
  11. 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 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 : Your a great dancer. I've explained everything already.If you have trouble reading English and your only defense is to rant and rave via virtual world then my points are well proved. You might not like what I posted,but it's all true.Something you are having trouble dealing with this morning. BTW,why would you be scared of a computer? LMAO.
    Posted by cowtherabbit-[/QUOTE]

    I don't know what's more pathetic, the fact that you continue to choose to ignore Rush Limbaugh made those comments or that you want to believe he didn't. That says a lot to me about how you think.
    You take care now dog...

     
  12. 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]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : I'm sure Rush is hanging out in the dancehall club dancing to reggae... I love how you guys are doing exactly what Rush does, trot out his one token black "friend" to justify the hateful, divisive, racist bull he spews.  Bo Snerdly must be black the same way Clarence Thomas is...
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Its always a waste of oxygen to argue facts to a liberal.

    How many times have you listened to Rush, pinhead?

     
  13. 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]In Response to Re: Rush Limbaugh as (part) owner of the St. Louis Rams : The "two sides" argument you have thus far advanced posits anti-slavery as a great social movement in the US.  I agree, and historical evidence supports anti-slavery as a moderately popular movement, but wide-spread white support for anti-slavery did not develop until the 1850s, in large part in response to the Fugitive Slave Act included in the Great Compromise of 1850.  Sure, Garrison began printing _The Liberator_ in the 1830s, but let us not forget that the paper only had about 3000 subscribers, most of which were black.   Nor should we forget that Elijah Lovejoy's Alton, Illinois printing house was burned and he was murdered in 1837 by people who opposed the dissemination of abolitionist views.  In fact, for much of antebellum history, "abolitionist" was something of a slur. I grant you that the debate over slavery was one of, if not the most, significant in the Revolutionary era, the Early Republic, and the antebellum period--this much is plain.  But my larger point is to caution you against presuming more widespread support for abolition among the white, US public than actually existed for most of that time. 
    Posted by Somnambulus[/QUOTE]

    Too bad the 360,000 union casualties incurred in the civil war, fighting to end slavery, are not around to hear your pedantic lecture about lack of white support for the anti-slavery movement.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield's posts

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

    Let's see - our president calls a white policeman a racist for having the audacity to arrest a jack@$s who happened to be black and lists his top spiritual leader as a man who preaches that the government created AIDS to kill black men...and he's given the Nobel Peace Prize.  Rush suggests that Donnavan McNabb isn't a great QB, and he's too racist to own a football team?  Anyone else think this is a little out of whack? 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Somnambulus. Show Somnambulus'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 : Too bad the 360,000 union casualties incurred in the civil war, fighting to end slavery, are not around to hear your pedantic lecture about lack of white support for the anti-slavery movement.
    Posted by unclealfie[/QUOTE]

    Yes, too bad.  I think it presumptuous to believe each and every Union soldier died on the altar of abolition.  Anyhow, your comment inadvertently confirms my point--if the number of dead Union soldiers is your evidence for widespread white support of abolition, then that number comes on the heels of a decade in which white support for abolition grew to the scale of a popular, public phenomenon.

     
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tojo. Show tojo's posts

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

    So you think McNabb is a Hall of Fame QB?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from chiz3914. Show chiz3914's posts

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

    The NFL doesn't like controversy so I doubt that they'd like it no matter how you feel about him
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from softserve. Show softserve's posts

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

    Careful sleepwalker you are posting to a person who can not spell nor count (check out its prior posts). He is an Archie Bunker bigot who is dumb as a bag of hammers. He was definitely not in military intelligence....LOL!

    I believe slavery was a secondary issue in the Civil War, it was a war over secession.

    And yes too bad all those good Yankee boys died. Should have just let the South go....good riddance. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from JulesWinfield. Show JulesWinfield'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 : But other then he made a comment about McNabb which I think was taken out of context which is what happens to people as polarizing as he is I do not recall any racist remarks and I listen to him all the time. I just would ask for proof, I know unreasonable isn't it!?   -- http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/ Limbaugh has said some incredibly racist things on his show. 
    Posted by Somnambulus[/QUOTE]

    A couple of those quotes sound pretty racist.  Only problem: the source is Beta News One (For Black America), and it was during the election season in which America's (impartial) media darling, Barak Obama, was running to become the first black Prez.  The article doesn't cite any dates or offer any other proof that these things were said, even though everything that comes out of Rush's mouth is taped.  Simply put, I doubt that many of these things were said, some don't sound racist, and others sound like they were taken very out of context.  The more reliable news sources are only saying that that he doubted McNabb's abilities...
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevethib. Show stevethib's posts

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

    RE:  The media/McNab controversy .... the comment were made in early 2004 season before McNab got to the super bowl.  Anyone reading the verbatim quote, would understand the comment was critical of the media not McNab. As far as McNab is concerned, I lost all respect for the guy when I saw the pre-super bowl interview with him in which he was essentially saying "people should root for me because I'm black".

    Objectively, McNab was good, but rather unaccomplished at the time, and hasn't been good in post-season, but that aside ....  as a Steelers fan, he should have made the comment about Kordell Stewart, who was one of the most overrated QB's in history. As you all probably recall after the 2002 playoff game (in which Brady started and Bledsoe threw a TD, Kordell was crying "the best team didn't win today"? Of course, my immediate comment was that the team with the 3rd best QB on the field usually doesn't win the game.

    BTW,
    Rush just played the "Barack the Magic Negro" parody - listen to it and you will get it - even some of the simpletons out here.  It was sung from the point of view of the writer from the LA Times who said that BO wasn't black enough, wasn't from the 'hood, etc. etc. all based on a column that idiot wrote when he was a Hillary supporter. Reverend Sharpton is thrown in for good measure.

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

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

    Yea and Blackface theater was a tribute to black people. You must understand it's not what you think is racism it's what the targeted people think. What you think is a "pardy" is offensive racism to others.




     
  22. 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

    "Bo Snerdly must be black the same way Clarence Thomas is..."

    I guess you are only really black if you are a liberal. But if you are a successful black conservative, well, you're not a true black man. Is that what you are saying?

    Sounds really stupid if you ask me.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share