Rush to Judgment

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

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    How about the small fact that this guy Rush is one of the biggest D bags the planet has ever seen. Thats enough for me to say f*ck him. Take all that "he has a right" c rap and toss it out the window, he is a giant D bag and i hope he never comes anywhere near the NFL.
    Posted by MVPKilla2009


    Well right, but all the "he has a right" people, conveniently choose to ignore that the NFL absolutely has the same right.  Rush wants into their club, not visa versa, the NFL recognizes that Rush would be bad for business.  They are under no obligation to accept his money.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Calmy. Show Calmy's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : No, it's not his politics, it's him.  He is one of the most arrogant, obnoxious, POS douchebags in a country full of arrogant, obnoxious, POS douchebags.  If he acted the same way in support of socialized health care and gay rights, I would still despise him.
    Posted by themightypatriotz


    He is inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.  The other day I heard some quote about how.... and i'm paraphrasing ' Michelle Obama should just stick to gardening.'  How anyone with a 6th grade education thinks that is a funny/acceptable thing to say about the first lady is beyond this guy. Especially when the first lady is black and person saying it has less than a perfect track record when it comes to race relations.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    When you allow the piece of sh*t deuschebags who are already in power to dictate which other piece of sh*t deuschebags they will allow to share that power, ultimately, what you end up with is only one kind of piece of sh*t deuschebag in power. Calmly is correct when he (she?) says that the owners can exclude anyone they choose (so long as he's white), but once you begin thinking it's okay to excommunicate anyone who doesn't see the world from your perspective, it's a short goose-step to . . .


    well . . .

    I'm not gonna say it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
      So it's perfectly okay for owners like the Irsay's to sneak their teams out of town under cover of darkness for sweetheart deals elsewhere, but Rush is not accetable because he had the nerve to say something that a lot of knowledgeable people believe, but don't dare say for political reasons? Irsay is his father's son, and I would consider it a compliment that he wouldn't want me in his little club. Rush has as much right to buy into a franchise as anyone else who's got the money. Do the current NFL owners not see the hypocrisy of using exclusionary tactics to limit membership in their secret circle to deny entrance to a guy who is, himself, exclusionary?
    Posted by prairiemike


    NFL owners have a right to do whatever they want with their teams/league. 

    Last I checked, hypocrisy meant acting in a manner contradictory to one's stated position on a matter.  I believe the word you're looking for here is irony, as in Irsay saying to Rush, just before they boot him out the door, "I hope the irony's not lost on ya."

    How's that for a witty retort?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    That looks pretty accurate to me.

    Irony.

    Hmmmm . . .

    well done.


    Feel better now?

    Let me ask y'all this:

    If Rush was a black guy . . .  or a woman . . .   or a Jew, would you still say it was perfectly okay for the owners to exclude whomever they wish?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from IndianaPatsFan. Show IndianaPatsFan's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    I'm with Rush. I'm a huge fan of his work and a staunch conservative, but I'm not going to take the political route.

    The fact is, the country is esentially divided into people that either like him or hate him, right or wrong. Most people who hate him get their information second-hand, but that's beside the point. Thye point IS, evryone seems to have a take on the guy, and that makes him inherently divisive. I think he has every right to invest in an NFL team, but the NFL has a good thing going, and if they can avoid controversy, they will. For this reason, Rush doesn't have a chance of being a part of this deal. It's already being reported that his investment team is trying to ditch him.

    P.S. Childish name-calling of ANYONE, Rush or whomever, on this forum accomplishes nothing. In the eyes of all rational people, this makes you irrelevant- kind of like people who say "expecially".
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    My wife used to say "supposably" when she meant "supposedly."

    I married her anyway.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from djbosox2004. Show djbosox2004's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    That looks pretty accurate to me. Irony. Hmmmm . . . well done. Feel better now? Let me ask y'all this: If Rush was a black guy . . .  or a woman . . .   or a Jew, would you still say it was perfectly okay for the owners to exclude whomever they wish?
    Posted by prairiemike


    Good point. These same exact people would be jumping up and down screaming racism. Hmmm kinda reminds me of the Rooney rule. These same people that deny Rush a chance at ownership,are the same hypocrites that says a team HAS to interview a black candidate for a coaching position.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    Let me ask y'all this: If Rush was a black guy . . .  or a woman . . .   or a Jew, would you still say it was perfectly okay for the owners to exclude whomever they wish?
    Posted by prairiemike


    Of course not.  What do you think I am, a racist?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Calmy. Show Calmy's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    but once you begin thinking it's okay to excommunicate anyone who doesn't see the world from your perspective, it's a short goose-step to . . . well . . . I'm not gonna say it.
    Posted by prairiemike


    Right, but they are not "excommunicating" Rush b/c he doesn't see the world from their perspective, it is a financial/business decision.  Rush has made a very successful career of going to great lengths to try and offend/irritate about 50% of the population.  So if a private enterprise decides they don't want to be affiliated with him, he really only has himself to blame.    You are not going to convince me that Rush makes the Rams more marketable to fans or players.

    Again, I think Rush was well aware this wasn't going to actually happen from the jump, all he wanted were some headlines, b/c headlines = ratings and ratings = $$$.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    The NFL is the same boys club as the NHL (a poorly run league I might add) and they can exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want. I don't like it (adjusts monocle, furrows brow), but that's the way it is.....woe to all those billionaires that don't own a sports franchise.....?

    This is an example of billionaire that DID NOT get a sports franchise:



    http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009/09/07/sp-nhl-coyotes-balsillie.html

    242M is alot for a franchise that is losing money.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPKilla2009. Show MVPKilla2009's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Pmike you are right as a king i would rule with a iron fist. No one would be able to make heads or tails of any of my rulings because they would all be based on what I want and or need. Sorry but i dont feel like being fair or having a debate. He is a D bag and guys like him get no help from me. He is not a fair person so he doesnt deserve a fair chance.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : Good point. These same exact people would be jumping up and down screaming racism. Hmmm kinda reminds me of the Rooney rule. These same people that deny Rush a chance at ownership,are the same hypocrites that says a team HAS to interview a black candidate for a coaching position.
    Posted by djbosox2004


    both the comment and response are correct. As to the NFL it should look into implimenting a quota system for the minorities. [Whites,Chinese,Hispanic, etc.] and appoint Jackson & Sharpton as Quota Czars
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Word is that Rush is withdrawing from the bid, or being dropped:
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Not full transcripts, but progress:
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    First, you've got to take anything from Media Matters for America with a huge grain of salt. They do not have a good track record at all when it comes to context.
    Besides, Rush Limbaugh provided to the Washington Post the full transcripts to those quotes yesterday (some of those quotes weren't even him, by the way). The Washington Post's response? "I'd still hate to know what he really thinks." Just shows that you can't trust the media, either.

    But I wonder how many that were upset with the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being a 10% owner of a team are upset that George Soros is trying to be a 10% owner of the Rams. Yeah, that's right, George Soros (the largest financial contributor to the Democrate party and related organizations) is one of the other partners. Yet I haven't heard one peep from the Rush-bashers about it.
     
    And nobody has mentioned (that I know of) that the Executive Director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, who has been perhaps the harshest critic of Rush being a part owner of the Rams, was part of President Obama's "transition team" and was a financial contributor to Mr. Obama and the Democrat party. Nobody has said a word about the conflict of interest or the obvious political game that was played by Mr. Smith and the NFLPA. Not one word.

    And for those who keep insisting that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, despite the fact that it has been proven otherwise, you should know that the first logical fallacy one turns to when they don't have a real arguement is name-calling. Yes, the logical fallacy is someone attempting to drag someone else through the mud to discredit them, instead of argueing facts. So when you say "Rush is a racist" (or any of the other language used on this board), it says much more about the person saying that than the person it is being said about.

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

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    First, you've got to take anything from Media Matters for America with a huge grain of salt. They do not have a good track record at all when it comes to context. Besides, Rush Limbaugh provided to the Washington Post the full transcripts to those quotes yesterday (some of those quotes weren't even him, by the way). The Washington Post's response? "I'd still hate to know what he really thinks." Just shows that you can't trust the media, either. But I wonder how many that were upset with the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being a 10% owner of a team are upset that George Soros is trying to be a 10% owner of the Rams. Yeah, that's right, George Soros (the largest financial contributor to the Democrate party and related organizations) is one of the other partners. Yet I haven't heard one peep from the Rush-bashers about it.   And nobody has mentioned (that I know of) that the Executive Director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, who has been perhaps the harshest critic of Rush being a part owner of the Rams, was part of President Obama's "transition team" and was a financial contributor to Mr. Obama and the Democrat party. Nobody has said a word about the conflict of interest or the obvious political game that was played by Mr. Smith and the NFLPA. Not one word. And for those who keep insisting that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, despite the fact that it has been proven otherwise, you should know that the first logical fallacy one turns to when they don't have a real arguement is name-calling. Yes, the logical fallacy is someone attempting to drag someone else through the mud to discredit them, instead of argueing facts. So when you say "Rush is a racist" (or any of the other language used on this board), it says much more about the person saying that than the person it is being said about.
    Posted by Ritchie_az


    Ritchie--- Your comments are both insightful and correct but don't  expect Calmy or MightyPatriot to comprehend them as they are both confused by facts.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from IndianaPatsFan. Show IndianaPatsFan's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    First, you've got to take anything from Media Matters for America with a huge grain of salt. They do not have a good track record at all when it comes to context. Besides, Rush Limbaugh provided to the Washington Post the full transcripts to those quotes yesterday (some of those quotes weren't even him, by the way). The Washington Post's response? "I'd still hate to know what he really thinks." Just shows that you can't trust the media, either. But I wonder how many that were upset with the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being a 10% owner of a team are upset that George Soros is trying to be a 10% owner of the Rams. Yeah, that's right, George Soros (the largest financial contributor to the Democrate party and related organizations) is one of the other partners. Yet I haven't heard one peep from the Rush-bashers about it.   And nobody has mentioned (that I know of) that the Executive Director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, who has been perhaps the harshest critic of Rush being a part owner of the Rams, was part of President Obama's "transition team" and was a financial contributor to Mr. Obama and the Democrat party. Nobody has said a word about the conflict of interest or the obvious political game that was played by Mr. Smith and the NFLPA. Not one word. And for those who keep insisting that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, despite the fact that it has been proven otherwise, you should know that the first logical fallacy one turns to when they don't have a real arguement is name-calling. Yes, the logical fallacy is someone attempting to drag someone else through the mud to discredit them, instead of argueing facts. So when you say "Rush is a racist" (or any of the other language used on this board), it says much more about the person saying that than the person it is being said about.
    Posted by Ritchie_az


    Brilliant post, Ritchie! Rush-bashing tends to fall apart when well-researched facts are presented and heresay is ignored!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    First, you've got to take anything from Media Matters for America with a huge grain of salt. They do not have a good track record at all when it comes to context. Besides, Rush Limbaugh provided to the Washington Post the full transcripts to those quotes yesterday (some of those quotes weren't even him, by the way). The Washington Post's response? "I'd still hate to know what he really thinks." Just shows that you can't trust the media, either. But I wonder how many that were upset with the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being a 10% owner of a team are upset that George Soros is trying to be a 10% owner of the Rams. Yeah, that's right, George Soros (the largest financial contributor to the Democrate party and related organizations) is one of the other partners. Yet I haven't heard one peep from the Rush-bashers about it.   And nobody has mentioned (that I know of) that the Executive Director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, who has been perhaps the harshest critic of Rush being a part owner of the Rams, was part of President Obama's "transition team" and was a financial contributor to Mr. Obama and the Democrat party. Nobody has said a word about the conflict of interest or the obvious political game that was played by Mr. Smith and the NFLPA. Not one word. And for those who keep insisting that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, despite the fact that it has been proven otherwise, you should know that the first logical fallacy one turns to when they don't have a real arguement is name-calling. Yes, the logical fallacy is someone attempting to drag someone else through the mud to discredit them, instead of argueing facts. So when you say "Rush is a racist" (or any of the other language used on this board), it says much more about the person saying that than the person it is being said about.
    Posted by Ritchie_az


    Seriously, what the hell does this have to do with the Pats? Jump on a political forum if you want to spout this sh*t.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment : If that's true, why are they mandated to interview a minority candidate as part of the hiring process, but not mandated to hire a white candidate?
    Posted by Encinitas

    Because they voted to make it a rule.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    In Response to Re: Rush to Judgment:
    First, you've got to take anything from Media Matters for America with a huge grain of salt. They do not have a good track record at all when it comes to context. Besides, Rush Limbaugh provided to the Washington Post the full transcripts to those quotes yesterday (some of those quotes weren't even him, by the way). The Washington Post's response? "I'd still hate to know what he really thinks." Just shows that you can't trust the media, either. But I wonder how many that were upset with the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being a 10% owner of a team are upset that George Soros is trying to be a 10% owner of the Rams. Yeah, that's right, George Soros (the largest financial contributor to the Democrate party and related organizations) is one of the other partners. Yet I haven't heard one peep from the Rush-bashers about it.   And nobody has mentioned (that I know of) that the Executive Director of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, who has been perhaps the harshest critic of Rush being a part owner of the Rams, was part of President Obama's "transition team" and was a financial contributor to Mr. Obama and the Democrat party. Nobody has said a word about the conflict of interest or the obvious political game that was played by Mr. Smith and the NFLPA. Not one word. And for those who keep insisting that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, despite the fact that it has been proven otherwise, you should know that the first logical fallacy one turns to when they don't have a real arguement is name-calling. Yes, the logical fallacy is someone attempting to drag someone else through the mud to discredit them, instead of argueing facts. So when you say "Rush is a racist" (or any of the other language used on this board), it says much more about the person saying that than the person it is being said about.
    Posted by Ritchie_az

    Where has it been "proven" that Rush is not a racist? That he and others denied it? There really doesn't seem to be much proof either way except for his commentary which Rush says is inaccurately attributed to him. As he tends to hyperbolize "facts" that help his points and tends to not include that might disprove them, I tend not to believe what he has to say. He made his money doing that. If he made the decision to be fair instead of bombastic, people would make more of an effort to believe him.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil? You can pretend all you want but the only question is whether a racist like Limbaugh is bad for the NFL. He certainly is. But it isn't up to us to decide except as to whether we buy tickets and merchandise.

    In any event, the NFL seems to have said "no" to having a racist for an owner.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: Rush to Judgment

    "Where has it been "proven" that Rush is not a racist?"

    Uh, his best friend is black. We've been over this over and over again.

    But the premise is wrong. You want me to prove he is not a racist. Yet no one here has proved that he is a racist. In fact, that accusation was pretty easily knocked down.

    How about this: Enoch, you are a racist. And until you can prove you are not, you are labelled a racist.

    That, my friend, is your illogical argument.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share