Rush's failed bid for the Rams

[Axxon]

Interesting wiki about the race card. I'm thinking that the second definition is what Rush was doing but I can see maybe if you squint real hard and power up your rose colored glasses that he was simply bringing up an issue for no racial reasons. I dunno though, I don't buy it for a second. Not from the guy who opined that slavery wasn't all bad. Kinda doesn't ring true, know what I mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card

[Axxon]

An interesting ( hopefully ) tangent. I didn't want Rush to buy into the NFL. I wouldn't support Sharpton either or anybody who would be bigger than the sport. I want sunday to be a day of rest not a day of fighting each other which would happen. I found myself wondering though if I'd have felt AS BAD if Sharpton had gotten the team as opposed to Rush and I realized I wouldn't.

Hmm, maybe there's something there. There is but it's not what I thought. It's because in all my days I've never ran into a Sharpton fan. Hell, I lived in Greenville SC and never found a Jesse Jackson fan.

I found people who liked some of their ideas, maybe even most of them, but there were no worshippers and most really wished that they'd tone it down a little. You know, rational folks.

I HAVE met several Rush Limbaugh supporters who really are just as or more over the top in their adolation of him than the supposed Obama worshippers I also have never met. With Rush though, these people do exist. I talk to them. I deal with them. They truly don't come off as rational in this belief. It's creepy.

The only person I can think of that I'd compare it to is Howard Stern fans.

Now, I'm not saying this is gospel or anything but that's been my experience with people.

Makes me wonder though just how deep the white angst is in this country when otherwise sane people can shed off their normal personas and put that much faith in anything. ( yeah, yeah, just like religion I know and there IMHO fear of death and the afterlife is the catalyst. )

I'm wondering if things are getting that much better like was suggested or if social civility forces people to act a certain way and they're bottling up their fears, hatreds ect and one day the lid is going to come off the pot. Scary, but I could see it happening.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So wait, saying someone isn't talented and the only reason people say that they are is because of their race isn't playing the race card? What bizarro world do you live on? Anyone implying that something is simply because of race is playing the race card no matter how good the point is. It's the person stating explicitly that something occurred that would not have occurred if the person is of another race. How can that possibly not be playing the race card? Rush denigrated a mans achievements and played them off as being a product of someone elses racial preferences. Damn. That's textbook son.

I can see where your coming from, but does that mean anyone who takes advantage of affirmative action policies is playing the race card? And his argument was with the media, not McNabb. In light of the other quotes by him, yeah, I'm changing my views on what he meant by the comments, I just thought the statement was on the mild side for playing the race card compared to other plays I've seen. I think I've said it elsewhere, but it's been used heavily around here a lot to attack folks who dislike the school board policies in an effort to squash all the facts being presented against it, and I've seen it used in a similar manner around the country, so my definition is spun a bit more towards the "shut down intelligent debate" definition I presented earlier.

But yes, he brought race into the discussion, no doubt. If you guys want to call that "playing the race card", fine, I just felt like what he said could have been debated / discussed and no one wanted to.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Interesting wiki about the race card. I'm thinking that the second definition is what Rush was doing but I can see maybe if you squint real hard and power up your rose colored glasses that he was simply bringing up an issue for no racial reasons. I dunno though, I don't buy it for a second. Not from the guy who opined that slavery wasn't all bad. Kinda doesn't ring true, know what I mean?

Race card - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I was just looking at that myself. I honestly was going off my own feelings, had never really seen a definition of it, so went to go look that up. The definition they present certainly fits the bill of everyone else here, while their examples are much closer to what I've experienced, especially #1 (which is what my definition fits).

I think the key to tying in the second example there is Rush's history, and honestly I tuned him out after Clinton went out of office and hadn't heard most of the other quotes. I think when you take the comments in isolation, they don't meet #2, but when you put them together with all the other quotes presented here, yes they do.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I can see where your coming from, but does that mean anyone who takes advantage of affirmative action policies is playing the race card? And his argument was with the media, not McNabb. In light of the other quotes by him, yeah, I'm changing my views on what he meant by the comments, I just thought the statement was on the mild side for playing the race card compared to other plays I've seen. I think I've said it elsewhere, but it's been used heavily around here a lot to attack folks who dislike the school board policies in an effort to squash all the facts being presented against it, and I've seen it used in a similar manner around the country, so my definition is spun a bit more towards the "shut down intelligent debate" definition I presented earlier.

But yes, he brought race into the discussion, no doubt. If you guys want to call that "playing the race card", fine, I just felt like what he said could have been debated / discussed and no one wanted to.

If it helps you out at all, his comments shut down intelligent football debate. Koy Detmer just as good as Donovan McNabb? Really?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I can see where your coming from, but does that mean anyone who takes advantage of affirmative action policies is playing the race card? And his argument was with the media, not McNabb. In light of the other quotes by him, yeah, I'm changing my views on what he meant by the comments, I just thought the statement was on the mild side for playing the race card compared to other plays I've seen. I think I've said it elsewhere, but it's been used heavily around here a lot to attack folks who dislike the school board policies in an effort to squash all the facts being presented against it, and I've seen it used in a similar manner around the country, so my definition is spun a bit more towards the "shut down intelligent debate" definition I presented earlier.

But yes, he brought race into the discussion, no doubt. If you guys want to call that "playing the race card", fine, I just felt like what he said could have been debated / discussed and no one wanted to.

Looking at the first sentence of the wiki "Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to the act of bringing the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter."

Someone taking advantage of affirmative action isn't attempting to obfuscate anything. That obfuscation, if there is any, has already been done and this person is merely taking advantage of what that brought about legally, kinda like the republican states taking stimulus money.

Rush, in bringing in race was obfuscating the issue of McNabb's ability by using the racial strawman argument. To me, that's the difference there. I don't believe he was making some indictment of the media and if he was, again, sunday football isn't the time or place for that.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yeah, I was just looking at that myself. I honestly was going off my own feelings, had never really seen a definition of it, so went to go look that up. The definition they present certainly fits the bill of everyone else here, while their examples are much closer to what I've experienced, especially #1 (which is what my definition fits).

I think the key to tying in the second example there is Rush's history, and honestly I tuned him out after Clinton went out of office and hadn't heard most of the other quotes. I think when you take the comments in isolation, they don't meet #2, but when you put them together with all the other quotes presented here, yes they do.

Hey, I'll admit to going off my own definition too that's why I looked it up as well.

I don't think people here are trying to obfuscate the issue. Remember Marge Schott?? Not a good owner, not good for the sport, had to move on. Why would football, which isn't hurting for money, even risk this?? It'd make no sense.
The fact is the guy who has used racially questionable arguments is trying to buy himself into a position where 70% of his employees are of the denigrated race. Politics aside, there's just no reason to do this. If it were just his politics I'd be annoyed by the negativity about him being an owner ( though I doubt he'd get that much ) and frankly I dislike him immensely but holding a political position shouldn't disqualify you from owning a team. Being a divisive figure that is going to bring negativity to your organization should.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

If it helps you out at all, his comments shut down intelligent football debate. Koy Detmer just as good as Donovan McNabb? Really?

It's funny. It's been how long and still all that's remembered is how stupid it was that he said it not his analysis of the qb position, McNabb or the media. That's telling too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It's funny. It's been how long and still all that's remembered is how stupid it was that he said it not his analysis of the qb position, McNabb or the media. That's telling too.

But again, more telling about those doing the remembering than about what he said.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But again, more telling about those doing the remembering than about what he said.

I'd say that was a given. What he said was invalid racial tripe. What's left to tell about that? Only folks reaction to it and that's what I was pointing out.

Do you really feel compelled to discuss how Detmer is better than McNabb???

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

What he said was invalid racial tripe.

The sad fact that so many people are too blind, too in denial, or simply too fucking stupid to see the validity of it is "what's left to tell about it".

But what would be the point? As Rush discovered, speaking plain truths is about as welcome in today's society as trying to teach pigs to read. It did him no good & annoyed the pig.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The sad fact that so many people are too blind, too in denial, or simply too fucking stupid to see the validity of it is "what's left to tell about it".

But what would be the point? As Rush discovered, speaking plain truths is about as welcome in today's society as trying to teach pigs to read. It did him no good & annoyed the pig.

See, you seem to feel that 1) it's a valid point and 2) that no one has considered it.

I heard it, considered it, dismissed it, then turned my attention to him. All the discussion in the world isn't going to convince me that Detmer is better than McNabb or that McNabb is a bad qb.

I don't need any mainstream liberal media, I have eyes, I've used them. If you believe that Detmer is more talented than McNabb then I have no reason to respect your opinion about this subject because we're not only not on the same field, we're not even playing the same game.

Personally, I'd say anyone who falls in line with skewed beliefs by someone who has an army of "dittoheads" even in the face of evidence to the contrary is much more likely to be too blind, too in denial, or simply too fucking stupid to see that this guy doesn't walk on water and occasionally makes mistakes and this is one of them than the guy who realizes that Rush's football talent evaluation is totally off ( and that's being kind and giving him the benefit of the doubt about his motives ).

[Passacaglia]

Oh FTR, it wasn't Rush who said that about how maybe Detmer is just as good as McNabb. Steve Young said that in response to Rush.

[Passacaglia]

But then again, since I remember what was actually said, I guess there's supposed to be something telling about me in this. Maybe it's that *I* think Detmer is better than McNabb? I dunno.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Oh FTR, it wasn't Rush who said that about how maybe Detmer is just as good as McNabb. Steve Young said that in response to Rush.

Well then, Steve Young is the idiot. I knew it when he left Tampa for San Francisco. Loser.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Axxon

holding a political position shouldn't disqualify you from owning a team. Being a divisive figure that is going to bring negativity to your organization should.

By that standard, Steinbrenner would have had to divest himself from the Yankees, no way Mark Cuban can own the Mavericks, and Dan Snyder should be forced to sell the Redskins (after they change their name to the Native Americans).

You really think that the only people who should be able to be a part of an ownership group of a sports team are people who give us the warm fuzzies? And if being a divisive figure is enough to prevent you from owning a team, should it be enough to prevent you playing in the league?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By that standard, Steinbrenner would have had to divest himself from the Yankees, no way Mark Cuban can own the Mavericks, and Dan Snyder should be forced to sell the Redskins (after they change their name to the Native Americans).

You really think that the only people who should be able to be a part of an ownership group of a sports team are people who give us the warm fuzzies? And if being a divisive figure is enough to prevent you from owning a team, should it be enough to prevent you playing in the league?

I don't really find any of those men divisive. I have met Steinbrenner several times as a kid so I'll admit a bias there but what's divisive about Cuban? He's vocal and outspoken but not in a way that divided people against themselves and Snyder just wants to win. What's his divisive controversy? I honestly don't know of one.

Being a jerk does not equal being divisive.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By that standard, Steinbrenner would have had to divest himself from the Yankees, no way Mark Cuban can own the Mavericks, and Dan Snyder should be forced to sell the Redskins (after they change their name to the Native Americans).

You really think that the only people who should be able to be a part of an ownership group of a sports team are people who give us the warm fuzzies? And if being a divisive figure is enough to prevent you from owning a team, should it be enough to prevent you playing in the league?

So you think that NFL owners should be forced to tie their own hands on this one and let Rush own a team? Really?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By that standard, Steinbrenner would have had to divest himself from the Yankees, no way Mark Cuban can own the Mavericks, and Dan Snyder should be forced to sell the Redskins (after they change their name to the Native Americans).

The first two are completely different sports that aren't doing nearly as good as the NFL. They are also sports that rely more on personalities than teams. Dan Snyder is hardly a divisive figure like Limbaugh, unless you count spending a lot of money on players to be divisive.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You really think that the only people who should be able to be a part of an ownership group of a sports team are people who give us the warm fuzzies? And if being a divisive figure is enough to prevent you from owning a team, should it be enough to prevent you playing in the league?

It's not about whether an owner gives warm fuzzies or not. It's about business. The owners feel he would be bad for their business. That's capitalism.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So you think that NFL owners should be forced to tie their own hands on this one and let Rush own a team? Really?

Well, to be fair, the NFL never got the chance to decide one way or the other. It's quite possible that they would have. Not likely but possible. Only one owner spoke out against him.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The first two are completely different sports that aren't doing nearly as good as the NFL. They are also sports that rely more on personalities than teams. Dan Snyder is hardly a divisive figure like Limbaugh, unless you count spending a lot of money on players to be divisive.

You apparently don't listen to a lot of D.C. area sports talk radio.

It's not about whether an owner gives warm fuzzies or not. It's about business. The owners feel he would be bad for their business. That's capitalism.[/quote]

And that's a fine argument to make, but it wasn't the one that Axxon was making. Axxon said divisive people should not be allowed to own sports teams. Maybe I was wrong in pointing to Steinbrenner, Cuban, and Snyder. How about this instead: Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are as divisive as Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is as divisive as Limbaugh. Should they not be allowed to own a sports team?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You apparently don't listen to a lot of D.C. area sports talk radio.

I don't, but I still don't see how him and Rush are in the same sentence. Can you give me some examples of divisive comments that Snyder has made?

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And that's a fine argument to make, but it wasn't the one that Axxon was making. Axxon said divisive people should not be allowed to own sports teams. Maybe I was wrong in pointing to Steinbrenner, Cuban, and Snyder. How about this instead: Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are as divisive as Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is as divisive as Limbaugh. Should they not be allowed to own a sports team?

I don't agree that divisive people should not be allowed to own a team. I believe it's up to the leagues and their owners to decide if it's good or bad.

I made a thread the other day about this topic and said I thought it would be fun to see him own a team. There aren't enough "villians" in football these days. But I certainly don't blame the NFL owners for not wanting him and would have to say that if I was in a position as an owner, there isn't a chance in hell I take that risk on him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Instapundit » Blog Archive » LIMBAUGH FANS STARTING A punt the NFL campaign? “I have cancelled my DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket pack… - Instapundit supports a boycott of the NFL. Hilarious.

The Blackbook Legal Blog: The NFL and Rush Limbaugh

In other words, activist judges need to force the NFL to have a team.

The outrage that a mega-millionaire is not allowed to spend millions on an NFL franchise. Next we can boycott some city for not allowing some millionaire the ability to dock their yacht.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You apparently don't listen to a lot of D.C. area sports talk radio.

It's not about whether an owner gives warm fuzzies or not. It's about business. The owners feel he would be bad for their business. That's capitalism.
And that's a fine argument to make, but it wasn't the one that Axxon was making. Axxon said divisive people should not be allowed to own sports teams. Maybe I was wrong in pointing to Steinbrenner, Cuban, and Snyder. How about this instead: Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are as divisive as Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is as divisive as Limbaugh. Should they not be allowed to own a sports team?

I was already on record saying I'd not be for any of them owning a football team.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't, but I still don't see how him and Rush are in the same sentence. Can you give me some examples of divisive comments that Snyder has made?



I don't agree that divisive people should not be allowed to own a team. I believe it's up to the leagues and their owners to decide if it's good or bad.

I made a thread the other day about this topic and said I thought it would be fun to see him own a team. There aren't enough "villians" in football these days. But I certainly don't blame the NFL owners for not wanting him and would have to say that if I was in a position as an owner, there isn't a chance in hell I take that risk on him.

I have a real problem thinking about Rush as a "villain". That's a role someone like a Snyder or Steinbrenner. They're good at it and they get their fans involved defending them and their team which is all good. Fans may gripe about these guys but let an outsider comment and watch them circle the wagons.

People with issues that make it hard for people to root for their own team are a different story. That's the kind of reaction that a divisive character would get and it isn't fair to put your own fans into that situation.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By that standard, Steinbrenner would have had to divest himself from the Yankees, no way Mark Cuban can own the Mavericks, and Dan Snyder should be forced to sell the Redskins (after they change their name to the Native Americans).

Actually one of the quotes about this sale involved the NFL not wanting to have a Mark Cuban owning a team...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I can't believe this thread is three pages.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't really find any of those men divisive. I have met Steinbrenner several times as a kid so I'll admit a bias there but what's divisive about Cuban? He's vocal and outspoken but not in a way that divided people against themselves and Snyder just wants to win. What's his divisive controversy? I honestly don't know of one.

Being a jerk does not equal being divisive.

And Steinbrenner, while a huge dick publically, is probably a top 5 philanthropist in New York City and does it anonymously.

Wouldn't the better comparison be Marge Schott?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Logan

And Steinbrenner, while a huge dick publically, is probably a top 5 philanthropist in New York City and does it anonymously.

Wouldn't the better comparison be Marge Schott?

You're asking me? I already brought up Schott. Excellent example of why he'd be bad for the sport.

Like I said, I've met George and it was because of his philanthropy in Tampa. No way I'd think a bad thing about him personally but I understand how he comes off publicly.

[Logan]

Sorry, I was agreeing with you and referring back to who you were responding to (think it was Cam?). And my bad on missing your reference.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By that standard, Steinbrenner would have had to divest himself from the Yankees, no way Mark Cuban can own the Mavericks, and Dan Snyder should be forced to sell the Redskins (after they change their name to the Native Americans).

You really think that the only people who should be able to be a part of an ownership group of a sports team are people who give us the warm fuzzies? And if being a divisive figure is enough to prevent you from owning a team, should it be enough to prevent you playing in the league?

I see that someone already brought up Marge Schott who was forced out as owner for making racist statements.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Radii

I voted for some combo of both. I think he sincerely would like to be in a part ownership situation, but knew the odds were long but that he'd get some good material out of it if it didn't work out.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think what makes Rush look really bad though is that later on he defended Rex Grossman saying that the media was dumping on him only because he's a white Quarterback.

Which just underlined the fact that while Rush clearly likes watching football, he's never been a very astute analyst of it. This is a guy, after all, who a few years back launched into a solid defense of Mike Martz, characterizing him as a guy who won a Super Bowl for St. Louis as Head Coach. Him reducing his analysis of McNabb & Grossman to a discussion of their race really just showed that he didn't have the analytical chops (or just plain desire) to measure all their merits and problems.

But then again, that's the way Limbaugh works. He reduces any issue or argument to black-and-white (no pun intended) terms that wholly exist on his own turf. Why ESPN thought they were going to get anything different is beyond me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I heard it, considered it, dismissed it, then turned my attention to him.

And just ftr, at that point I don't much care which of the three aforementioned categories you fall into.

I don't need any mainstream liberal media, I have eyes, I've used them. If you believe that Detmer is more talented than McNabb then I have no reason to respect your opinion about this subject because we're not only not on the same field, we're not even playing the same game.

We largely agree. I remember looking at it pretty closely at the time of the comments. I wouldn't have taken that McNabb on "my team", regardless of my QB situation, if he had played for free.

And aside from all that, the point he made really wasn't about McNabb's performance or Detmer's nor how the two compared nor what the future of either QB was. It was about how race influenced how the situation would be discussed publicly, perceived, and handled.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I have a real problem thinking about Rush as a "villain". That's a role someone like a Snyder or Steinbrenner. They're good at it and they get their fans involved defending them and their team which is all good. Fans may gripe about these guys but let an outsider comment and watch them circle the wagons.

People with issues that make it hard for people to root for their own team are a different story. That's the kind of reaction that a divisive character would get and it isn't fair to put your own fans into that situation.

I just don't see those guys as villians. I mean I guess you could call Steinbrenner one, but it's mainly because he spends a lot of money on his team. I don't know if a guy can be a villian if most teams in the league would love to have him as their owner.

Snyder on the other hand is more a villian to his own fans. I'm sure the guy would get a standing ovation from the opposing teams in the NFC East.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And aside from all that, the point he made really wasn't about McNabb's performance or Detmer's nor how the two compared nor what the future of either QB was. It was about how race influenced how the situation would be discussed publicly, perceived, and handled.

But he created a racial issue out of something that wasn't there. Now while McNabb was the one he talked about on TV, he also mentioned Rex Grossman a lot. He felt that Rex was unfairly destroyed in the media because he was white. As a Bears fan who watched Grossman play for a number of years, I can tell you he flat out sucks.

If he had some evidence to backup his statements, fans would look into it. But he didn't. When you throw race into the discussion, I think the person should have something to back it up. He didn't and it played out like race-baiting.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like the Rams finally have an owner..........

Rams will be sold to Illinois businessman Shahid Khan - STLtoday.com

[Glengoyne]

For the record. Pre Rush comments. I pretty well agreed with Rush that McNabb's was seemingly overrated compared to what he had actually accomplished on the field.

Since Rush's comments, I've actually come to respect McNabb's ability and recognize that he is a top flight QB, or at worst just a cut below the top flight performers.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Looks like the Rams finally have an owner..........

Rams will be sold to Illinois businessman Shahid Khan - STLtoday.com