home

Limbaugh

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:35:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I figure people want to talk about it. But it was so obvious that to me the only thing worth discussing is what was a sharp guy like Dave Checketts thinking?

Checketts ran NBA teams. He knew what having Limbaugh would mean to his bid didn't he? Pretty surprising given the fact Checketts was really a very good executive in the NBA.

As for the whinefest over Limbaugh, well, there is nothing of merit to even address. The idea that the NFL would want Limbaugh associated with them was insane. It was a business decision. And an obvious one. Last I heard, businesses are allowed to make good business decisions.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Friday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Limbaugh | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I would not have a problem... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:42:12 PM EST
    ... with Limbaugh buying into a team purely on the basis of his politics, and I don't think the NFL would, either, although they probably wouldn't love it (they haven't stopped Olbermann from working their games). But Limbaugh's been saying racially divisive things for twenty years, and there is zero percent chance he would stop now. The league would have to be profoundly stupid to walk into that PR hit voluntarily. It's not like they need the guy.

    true steve. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    I'm sure it couldn't have been nearly as bad as "We're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."

    but then, the dixie chicks aren't trying to buy into an NFL franchise.

    i really don't know what mr. limbaugh is complaining about, surely this gives him sufficient "victimhood" material for the next several years. that has to be good for a fluffy new contract.

    I am just wondering (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    what Mr. Limbaugh's position might have been on the Dixie Chicks.  I'm guessing it probably had something to do with people's inalienable right to do business or not do business with whomever they choose.

    Parent
    he accused them (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:59:25 AM EST
    of lip synching, and faking orgasms.



    Parent

    and i have no clue (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:00:05 AM EST
    what happened to my link.

    Parent
    Nice reframe (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    The Dixie Chicks weren't trying to buy a sports team and major media didn't spend three days attacking them.

    Parent
    the one thing i will point out (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:42:07 AM EST
    is the likelihood that all the african american players that spoke out against rush, i'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest they were bush -- and possibly mccain -- voters based strictly on income tax issues alone.

    is it enough to just to say the nfl acted out of strict self-interest?  sure.  that's obvious.  good that in our society self-interest and racial justice intersects at least on some level.

    but i have still found in some situations that it is quite simply impossible to have a rational discussion about something.  in my view, before rush said what he said, I did actually believe -- thinking rationally, looking at the numbers, analyzing the games --  donovan mcnabb was overrated.  of course it never occured to me to consider the motives of those who did overrate donovan mcnabb, i believed what i believed nonetheless.

    but then rush said what he said and then it became impossible to for me to make what I believed was then a rational assessment of donovan mcnabb without in turn sounding like rush limbaugh, and thus risk being called racist.

    so at some point i just stopped having an opinion about donavan mcnabb one way or the other.

    it wasn't worth the trouble.

    i guess the main point above is that Rush is PR poison to any kind of entertainment that relies on -- or enjoys -- catering to and winning the devotion of all kinds of people regardless of race, religion what have you.

    politics -- most especially race politics -- and sports don't mix.

    yep.  i know michael vick is now teaching kids how to be kind to animals.  so maybe i guess if rush apologized and started calling nutso conservative protesters racist, then he could THEN get back in the ownership mix.

    Not going to happen.  So here we are.

    Progress.

    The NFL didn't "act" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:25:15 AM EST
    The group Limbaugh was to be a partner in to buy the Rams tossed him out of their bid.

    Don't know what the NFL (ie, the other team owners, who get to vote to approve new owners) would have done about it if his partners hadn't thrown him under the bus, but they didn't get the chance.

    Parent

    I don't know G... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:58:14 PM EST
    if you read between the lines of the commish's statement, he all but said if Limbaugh is in the bid is cooked.  Irsay said flat out he'd vote against.  The writing was on the wall in the league's handwriting.

    Parent
    one thing (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by pitachips on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:27:05 AM EST
    "going out on a limb" = "im about to make sh1t up"

    Parent
    I would disagree (none / 0) (#32)
    by nyjets on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:40:51 AM EST
    '...I did actually believe -- thinking rationally, looking at the numbers, analyzing the games --  donovan mcnabb was overrated.'

    I would have to disagree with that statement.
    Look at the offensive talent on that team. For most of donovan mcnabb's career, he has had very little talent to work with. Other than Westbrook, he has not had a great running game to work with. And Westbrook is not an everydown back.
    He has never had great WR to throw to, except for Owens, and if you notice McNabb had great numbers during that one year.
    Also, if you look at post season success, donovan mcnabb has a very very good record. 5 conference championship appearances speak for itself. Yes he lost 4 of them, but those losses were not all donovan mcnabb fault. I always felt the lack of offensive talent merely caught up with the Eagles.
    For all of these reasons, I thought Rush was completly off the mark when evaluating McNabb. I always considered him close to the second best QB in the league. (Tom Brady is the best and as a Jet fan it disgusts me to have to type that :))

    Parent

    The issue wasn't (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:11:36 AM EST
    McNabb's abilities. It was Limbaugh's note that the media had him over rated because they wanted a black QB to succeed.

    And he was right. Just as the media wanted black coaches, black policemen, black pilots, etc., etc. all the way up to a black President.

    Nothing wrong with any of that so why deny it? Why not admit that we pull for the disadvantaged and want them to succeed?? Why, I think some colleges and universities have who programs devoted to that....

    Parent

    First of all McNabb isnt (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    overrated and if he were, Ried probobly wouldnt start him and McNabb wouldnt have lead them to a Super Bowl and the playoffs numerous times.

    But Rush just had to make it all fit into his Affirmative Action, Liberal media conspiracy theory that he trys to use in order to play one disenfranchised class against another and distract attention from him and his rich butt buddies.

    Look around, Jim. There really are programs for people like you, too. But first you have to want to be helped.

    Parent

    Learn how to read and not play the race (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:42:38 PM EST
    card.

    I never said McNabb was overrated. I said the issue was Limbaugh's comments about the media.

    And Limbaugh, as I noted, was correct.

    It is sad that you can't divorce your bias from the situation.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Oh, I see (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 04:39:11 PM EST
    Limbaugh was saying the media had him overrated, but Limbaugh WASNT saying McNabb was overrated. Just that the liberal, affirmative action pushing media had him overrated.

    It's sad that any time a conservative sacred cow, (or in this case pig), is under the microscope, you swing into action like a flustered mother hen defending it's brood. Speaking of biases.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Selective amnesia (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:16:58 AM EST
    I don't like to think about Steinbrenner being the owner of the Yankees. I consider him to be a very strange fellow with bizarre political inclinations. But I don't think of him at all when I watch a Yankees game.

    Compared to Limbaugh, he is a shrinking violet, however. I don't think I could bear to watch anything with which Limbaugh is associated.

    Too bad... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:19:59 AM EST
    I was really looking forward to buying a team once I make the big score...all my knuckleheaded comments over the years killed that idea.

    There is always the NBA...if they'll let a Russian billionaire buy a team they'll take all comers.

    I'm almost to the bottom of the comments (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    but no one yet has mentioned Michael Vick.  Why?  Must an opera afficiando be the one?  What is he doing for the NFL brand?

    Parent
    If he plays at a high level... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    that is the NFL brand, or should be...the best football players on the planet.

    Parent
    But wait Kdog (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 07:36:46 AM EST
    I thought the issue is the political position and away from football comments........

    Parent
    Poor Rush (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:30:50 AM EST
    He'd probably be disappointed to learn how little attention he gets in Left Blogostan. With the exception of MediaMatters' constant vigilance, and the attention paid to this NFL development, I see mercifully little discussion of Rush. and that's the way I like it.

    But what about Amendment XXVIII? (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 07:52:38 PM EST
    The right of the blowholes to have an NFL franchise shall not be infringed.

    I couldn't figure out the Checketts (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    deal either.

    Sadly, there are not enough (none / 0) (#4)
    by downtownted on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:18:42 PM EST
    small towns and cities in the United States to which the NFL could award a franchise for this amendment to fulfill its destiny. The U.S. Census counted 25,375 places in 2000. Maybe it could be amended to allow 50 or 100 or 10,000 to share.

    Whatever Rush may have said (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 08:42:32 PM EST
    I'm sure it couldn't have been nearly as bad as "We're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas."

    I thought that was a gross (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:37:19 PM EST
    mis-statement, as I was ashamed he was from any of the 50. They were far too kind for my taste.

    Parent
    I never knew before this week that he said (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:00:51 PM EST
    James Earl Ray should be given a medal.

    Rush has a reservation in Hell when his time is up.

    There do appear to be some (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:20:20 AM EST
    particularly outrageous quotes floating around out there, like the one you cite, that were totally made up.  Limbaugh is loathesome, but he's not stupid.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure he never said that. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:15:36 PM EST
    Limbaugh's said plenty of insensitive and inflammatory things. But the worst things that have recently been attributed to him have been made up.

    Parent
    That depends (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:21:21 PM EST
    on which ones you consider the worst, I guess.  But the real ones are so bad it makes you wonder why anyone felt the need to embellish.

    Parent
    What are the real ones?? (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:09:34 PM EST
    I'm no fan of The Big Guy, but this is pure racial nonsense. Provide some links.

    Parent
    Do your own research (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:12:04 PM EST
    I'm sure you wouldn't see anything racist about the real quotes anyway.

    Parent
    You don't really have anything (none / 0) (#16)
    by prittfumes on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:47:28 PM EST
    except what you have "heard" do ya?

    Parent
    The irony is palpable (none / 0) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    you "heard" they're all fake eh?  I love it!

    Parent
    Didn't say they're ALL fake. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by prittfumes on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:36:58 AM EST
    I have never had a problem forming my own opinion and doing my own thinking and deciding. I would assume you don't believe everything you "hear". I certaily don't.

    However, "Do your own research" seemed a bit evasive.

    Researching the alleged public utterances of any controversial public figure (not just Limbaugh) will reveal that what he/she actually said and the often-enhanced version(s) people come to believe via repetition by a variety of "news" sources, are not necessarily one and the same.

    The degree and the direction of the spin are dependent on nothing more than which side the "reporters" are on.

    Parent

    And your opinion of Limbaiugh is? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:01:27 PM EST


    Parent
    My comment as to my opinion (none / 0) (#79)
    by prittfumes on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:01:15 PM EST
    was in response to this:
    you "heard" [can't determine for yourself] they're all fake eh?
    The best answer I can give you is: as far as I'm concerned, inaccurate quotes, outright untruths and spin don't change based on whom they are about, nor on my personal opinion of a particular individual -- whether that person is an Olbermann, a Limbaugh, or somewhere inbetween.

    Parent
    And you opinion of Limbaugh is? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:02:44 PM EST

    I thought I would ask again since you did not answer it the first time.

    Maybe you were just blowing off some steam.

    Parent

    He is an ultra-right-wing (none / 0) (#81)
    by prittfumes on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:16:55 PM EST
    talk show personality who receives far more attention than he deserves. That do it?

    Parent
    Does it for you? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:26:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#83)
    by prittfumes on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:37:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 05:41:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Burden on proof (none / 0) (#56)
    by Samuel on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    on the person purporting that Rush is racist and evidence exists.  That's just how it works brah.  

    Parent
    Listen to his show, Hayek (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    "Barak Hussein Obama ..mmm..mmm..mm" (think yazza boss, or sho' nuff)

    If he's not a racist, he's definatly pandering to them.

    Parent

    Sure. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Samuel on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    Whatever you say.

    Nonetheless, burden of proof is the responsibility of the proposer.  

    Parent

    You made the claim (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:20:11 AM EST
    So being a fair and balanced type I am sure you have dozens of links from credible sources.

    Oh. You don't?

    Parent

    Post some (none / 0) (#33)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:09:45 AM EST


    Parent
    He can't. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:20:36 AM EST


    Parent
    It's funny (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    that quite obviously, neither of you has even tried to check out the matter yourself.

    Parent
    You made the claim. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    So obviously you have the responsibility to prove the claim.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    I have no obligation to waste my time providing a bunch of quotes and links just because some yahoo shows up in a thread and demands that I do so.

    If you choose to believe that Limbaugh never said any of those things, I find it kind of sad and you could certainly educate yourself in about 5 seconds with Google, but reality does not change based on whether I provide you with a link or not.

    Reality is that the guy said the NFL was like the Bloods and Crips without the weapons, and quotes like that are why he's too toxic to be considered as an NFL owner, even by an ownership group that makes 70% of their donations to the GOP.  If you would prefer to believe that it's all a fabricated leftist smear campaign, then you know what, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I supplied a link that upset your precious little apple cart.

    If you're interested in knowing whether it's true or false, you'll check it out yourself.  If you're not interested, then I'm even happier that I didn't waste my time serving as your research monkey.

    Parent

    First of all, the charge is racism (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    It is not that he has made outrageous statements.

    But nice try at a reframe.

    Parent

    You can't (none / 0) (#91)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 05:50:26 AM EST
    find any can you?  Too lazy to look.  You make statements you can't back up.  

    Parent
    According to Snopes (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:14:12 PM EST
    there is no validation that Limbaugh ever said that.

    Parent
    So--it's settled then? Where's (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:21:31 PM EST
    your link though?

    Parent
    C'mon. Google: snopes limbaugh james earl ray (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:25:36 PM EST
    ok, here.

    (Can't seem to cut 'n paste the info from the snopes site...)

    Parent

    I thought you might be being sarcastic. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 11:29:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry. True blue. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:18:52 AM EST
    There's no verification that he ever said it.

    Parent
    No stranger to controversy, a fellow Divo speaks! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ellie on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:30:07 PM EST
    What say you, Marc Cuban?

    ... its [sic] impossible for the NFL to even try to predict or gauge the impact on the NFL's business if something controversial, or even worse yet, something nationally polarizing happens. There is an unquantifiable risk that comes with the size of Rush's audience.  ...

    Thats [sic] a huge risk that is not commensurate with the value a minority investment in a franchise brings.

    This isnt about Free Speech. Its about the NFL protecting their business. There is no reason to put it at risk.

    'kay.

    Segue sports: guarantee no Dodgers (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 09:47:25 PM EST
    cares one bit tonight about Manny's drug use.

    I mean if the NFL (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:03:40 AM EST
    which recently christened a stadium where cheerleaders can dance...in an already commericially familiar fashion, let's say, doesn't want Limbaugh around, well, damn, what does that say?

    Full disclosure:  GO EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    if you really think about it, (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:06:59 AM EST
    what does rush limbaugh actually bring to the NFL table, aside from a few million losers, who could never afford to attend a game?

    i'm guessing the majority of his listeners are more NASCAR types, than NFL types anyway, based on his demographics.

    add to that negative, the adverse publicity he'll constantly bring, and he becomes a financial liability for the entire league.

    yep, just the guy i want to bring on board!

    a few million losers? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by star on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    wow ! and i thought name calling was a previlige of the right wing nuts!!
    IMO people who really love the sport wont care too hoots about who is sitting up in the box, but root for their players and team out in the field playing their best.. all this hoopla is nothing but political theater.
    Rush is a radio commentator and nothing more. I dont know why bloggers and media is building him up to be anything more significant than that... is really not worth the time of anyone other than his FANS(if there are any) to worry about anythign he does or says.


    Parent
    Read what Lanny Davis had to (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    say about name calling.

    Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:
    • "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

    • "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

    • On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

    • "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

    • "Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot" (by "greenskeeper," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

    And these are some of the nicer examples
    .

    So I would say that both sides do it regularly and very well. Limbaugh, the Chicks, etc. are but two examples.

    WSJ Link


    Parent

    I would say (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:19:12 AM EST
    there that there is a HUGE difference in the sphere of influence between a commenter on (not even an owner of) a blog and say... Rush Limbaugh.

    That article was bogus then and it's bogus now.

    Parent

    The point made was that only "right wing (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    nut jobs" say ugly things. Many in blogs do. Davis was pointing out that many on left wing blogs also do. If you want to claim no influence, check the hits on KOS, Huffington, MoveOn, etc.

    You also fail to note the SNL skit that was totally inaccurate on Palin. Then we have the CBS bogus memo re Bush that, thankfully, got some people fired.

    And then we have the non stop attacks from Olblermann and friends on MSNBC.

    So there is plenty of evidence that Limbaugh is not alone in influence or saying things that you may find outrageous.

    I am sure the Repubs appreciate the Left stirring up their base.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:44:57 AM EST
    If you want to claim no influence, check the hits on KOS, Huffington, MoveOn, etc.

    ...there is a big difference between a commenter and an owner (or front pager).  Do you honestly believe that you or I have as much "influence" as BTD in politics or Jeralyn in legal matters?

    And as much as Davis pretended it that he was pointing out left-wing blogs say ugly things, all he was really ended up saying is that commenters on left-wing blogs said mean things about his long-time friend, Joe Lieberman.

    Not saying you don't necessarily have a point (although frankly, I'm not sure what it is).  Just saying that your link doesn't prove it.  That particular article was bogus then and it's boguus now.

    Parent

    If the Left wing blogs have (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    no influence then why do the politicians rush to the yearly shindig??

    And are you claiming that the blogs ONLY speak ill of Leberman. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    Davis was demonstrating that the Left attacks just as the Right attacks. You know that. I know that. So why the dancing?

    Parent

    nope, not in that article (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:18:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Quit avoiding the truth (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:47:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Palin never said (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    you can see Russia from her front porch.

    And yes,  you can see Russia from an island in AK.

    Parent

    It's a comedy show (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:37:54 PM EST
    Satire.  Of course it's not "accurate".  That's the whole point.  There was also no proposed pie fight during the real presidential debates.

    Parent
    Why should Limbaugh have to bring (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    anything to the "NFL table?" If Soros decides to buy one will you demand he give up his far left agenda?

    The "publicity" you speak of was generated by political opponents.

    Can we hear some thoughts about NBC, MSNBC??

    Parent

    Limbaugh's statement (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    re black quarterbacks was accurate.

    And here is the Denver Post article re the convention. No need to cherry pick, read the whole article.

    I started my comments in this post with a note that I am not a fan of Limbaugh. I have often noted in this blog and elsewhere that he is an "entertainer" and will be gone when his audience is gone.

    He is also heavy into satire and makes outrageous comments from time to time. But the issue raised about him is that he is a racist. Numerous false quotes have been reported and the Left has united against him because they hate him and don't believe in free speech.

    You should be congratulated on getting what you have wanted. When the Left's turn comes I hope they agree with the Righties that some Gollywood entertainer should not have the right to do "whatever" the entertainer wants to do.

    But I won't hold my breath.


    Parent

    Not for nothing... (none / 0) (#71)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    ...but Charlie Brown in as big a tool as Rush.  And there were plenty--and I mean plenty--of local Repubs who agreed about the riots.  

    And no, Jimmie, I'm not going to provide links for you.  So save your whining for someone who cares.

    Parent

    By "whatever" (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    of course you mean publicly criticize wingnut policy; NOT do anything they want to do.

    And nobody buys that "just an entertainer" crap any more: just an entertainer is a way for morons to spread the word about birth certificates and jihadist Presidents to the knuckle draggers in the hinterlands while the GOP machine slime machine maintains  plausible deniability.

    You need to stop assuming everyone here are as dumb as the people you're speakin' at on your blog.

    Parent

    It is pretty simple. (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 07:34:04 AM EST
    The Left has declared Limbaugh to be a racist.

    They have not.... You have not.... provided any proof.

    What the Left has done, and will regret, proven that any criticism of Obama is tagged as racist.

    But we knew that was going to happen when he demanded to not be called by his middle name and the Right knuckled under.

    Parent

    The issue was stated that Limbaugh is a (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:48:47 PM EST
    racist.

    Show me some facts.

    Parent

    If Limbaugh were black, (none / 0) (#98)
    by prittfumes on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    or if he had referenced white gangs or gangs of some other ethnicity, I doubt you would have seen the remarks you have cited as racist.

    Parent
    This African American (none / 0) (#100)
    by prittfumes on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    grew up in the segregated South. My parents made certain that I and my siblings grew up knowing we could be proud of our ethnic heritage. While I am very much aware that African Americans of the Uncle Ruckus variety (an extreme, exaggerated example) do exist, be assured I am not one of them.

    Nor am I someone who is ready to label every white person a racist over his/her choice to use references that include "people of color". I do not see any of your examples as "inject[ing] race into situations where it isn't called for." No more than I agree that Bill Clinton's comments re South Carolina were "racist".

    In order to satisfy the word police in our current environment, Limbaugh (and everybody else in the public arena) would need to submit their comments in advance for approval.

    We're never going to be entirely comfortable around one another until we somehow find a way to get beyond this cr*p.

    Parent

    This is a waste of time and Jeralyn's bandwith. (none / 0) (#102)
    by prittfumes on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 11:26:37 PM EST
    Over and out.

    Parent
    With apologies to (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 11:47:02 PM EST
    Humpty Dumpty

    And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

    `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

    `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'




    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:21:46 PM EST
    Do you have any concept of what was done to Limbaugh?

    No?

    That is what I thought.

    Parent

    NFL Types v. NASCAR Types? (none / 0) (#45)
    by coast on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    Is there really a difference?  Rush has a "few million" listeners?  Yes I guess 15+ million is only a few in some people's opinion.  But isn't that about 5% of the US population?  Seems rather larger compared to other opinion shows.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    My parents (especially my dad) watch both the NFL and NASCAR. Guess who they voted for in the last election?  My brother-in-law was raised in an evangelical home and loves NASCAR - guess who he voted for in the last election?

    *HINT:  It wasn't John McCain.

    Parent

    Business Sense (none / 0) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 08:11:52 AM EST
    The NFL (like all professional sports) has it's hands full just dealing with the problems of the players. They've got billions of dollars invested in their "brand". They have every right to try and protect their interests.

    Limbaugh would be a lose cannon. He's amassed his fortune by being controversial. How long would it be before he would say something that would put the league in the middle? Why even chance it? They don't need him or his money.

    If you owned a business that relied on the masses for business, would you hire someone that was as much of a lightning rod as Limbaugh?

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:29:23 AM EST
    Have you been in contact with MSNBC's management???

    Parent
    Marc Cuban was denied the chance to buy the Cubs (none / 0) (#46)
    by of1000Kings on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    because MLB didn't want him owning a team...

    these are businesses...they have the right to make what they think are proper business decisions (whether they are right or wrong)...

    it's no news, but unfortunately Rush will make it news as I'm sure he'll throw a fit on his radio program (he's already started bringing "Obama's America" into the mix somehow....I guess an America run by a black man is different than any America that was before)

    So it's OK to bring back (none / 0) (#63)
    by itscookin on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    the blacklists as long as it's conservatives who are getting blacklisted? "Are you or have you ever been a member of the right wing of the Republican party?" to replace "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Limbaugh's prospective business partners have a right not to take his money, but all of this hullabaloo about people not wanting the NFL "tainted" by Rush is showing the lefties up for what they really are.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 12:33:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Do you really think these folks are (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    worth addressing?

    Honestly, they rantings are so absurd that I do not think they are worthy of response.

    Parent

    Couldn't resist the personal attack (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:51:27 PM EST
    could you.

    Parent
    Limbaugh and the Rams (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 02:11:36 PM EST
    would've been a perfect marriage of mediocrities.

    Made in heavan.

    And I would've loved to have seen how that 75% black team would've reacted once they heard a tape of "joke" Limbaugh told about the Coretta Scott King funeral.

    Parent

    Well, the Left has prevented (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:50:39 PM EST
    that happening... So we will never know.

    And you are afraid to.

    Parent

    It's all a big ACORN (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    conspiracy. Sarah's next, then Joe the Plumber, then you.

    Parent
    So you agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 11:52:34 PM EST
    that it is okay to black list??

    Parent
    Being denied the opportunity (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 12:08:20 AM EST
    to do something because of false statements is blacklisting.

    Parent
    Uh, hate to pop your bubble (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:20:19 PM EST
    but you had nothing to do with the actual events.

    Parent
    Limbaugh | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment