Oh, what the hell, why not?

[Elvado]

Oct 16, 2009 14:44:06 GMT -5 Bando said:

Oct 16, 2009 12:32:25 GMT -5 Elvado said:

While I am busy being wildly misconstrued, let me note that I am all for the NFL running its league any way it wants within the law. I simply find it funny that Limbaugh is shunned for his words while Vick,et al are welcomed back after vile deeds. Most precious is Al Sharpton weighing in after his antics in the Brawley case and his "white interlopers" comment about the store in Harlem.

It boggles my mind that you can hate Al Sharpton so and yet embrace Rush Limbaugh, who is just as a big a race baiter. I venture that Rush has called more people racist this year than anyone associated with Obama.

I don't embrace Limbaugh. I loathe hypocrisy.

[rosslynhoya]

Oct 16, 2009 14:32:24 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Of course, this is a message board so vagary ensues. I suspect you recognize that my comments were with respect to racial insensitivity, not other forms, but, to the extent that was unclear, oh well. We'll continue to debate an argument that one could not reasonably be making in the service of hiding Limbaugh's pattern of racially insensitive remarks.

I was hoping to steer the conversation to a more neutral discussion of the notion that racism, if it has any meaning, must be something more than that which provokes hurt feelings on the part of a listener.

For example, I think affirmative action as currently practiced should be abolished or drastically scaled back. Is that sufficient to qualify as racist? Obviously not KKK-racist, but good enough to be little-racist? I think most EEO allegations are probably bogus. Is that sufficient? I think that voters in federal elections should be required to show photo ID and that it should be okay for the local police to provide security for polling places? Is that sufficient in itself? Am I just toeing the line or have I graduated to KKK-racist by a pattern of insensitivity to the feelings of blacks?

[jerseyhoya34]

I think my distinction between Limbaugh and Imus, based on intent, is what I would throw in. Something like affirmative action is not intended to be insensitive to whites, even if the results could be argued as insensitive in some way.

[TC]

Oct 16, 2009 14:22:18 GMT -5 Boz said:

With that, I don't think I have any debating left in me. I'm off to stare at Meghan McCain's boobs, read the Friday Fun Thread and see if I can find a tauntaun sleeping bag.

Excuse me, a Licensed Lucasfilm^TM Collectible Tauntaun Sleeping Bag.

Don't forget the Glade plugins! Those things smell bad on the inside and the outside!

[TC]

Oct 16, 2009 8:56:51 GMT -5 Boz said:

I look forward to George Soros being expelled from the Checketts consortium as well.

Yup. Should happen aaaaannnnyyyy day now.....

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701447.html

"Major League Baseball hasn't narrowed the list of the eight bidders seeking to buy the Washington Nationals and some Republicans on Capitol Hill already are hinting at revoking the league's antitrust exemption if billionaire financier George Soros , an ardent critic of President Bush and supporter of liberal causes, buys the team.

"It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government." "

[EasyEd]

"However, Limbaugh has a history of walking a fine line when there is simply no compelling social reason to do so other than to demonstrate "free country." Just like the accusations he is a racist because we say so.

Once again, an accusation that is impossible to defend against.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh quite often, unlike most of you who don't but feel free to critique him. I will admit I agree with most, but not all, positions he takes. However, Rush is an entertainer, in addition to being a political commentator. He uses the tools of entertainment to foster his positions. Sometimes he chooses tools that I think are suspect but his batting average is pretty good (in my opinion).

Your two instances of where you think Rush crossed the line were the Donovan McNabb episode and the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing. I agree with you on the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing and I cringed whenever he used it. The McNabb thing is another story as he was not taking off on McNabb but rather the press. What he said was the press wanted a black quarterback to be a star and they inflated the capabilities of McNabb because he was black. To me this is similar to the press slobbering over Obama at least partially because he is black.

[SFHoya99]

On the McNabb thing, I agree that Rush was intending to attack the press. However, the manner in which he stated was either intentionally imflammtory (in-?) or really bungled. Now, I also wonder about his motivations in bringing it up, and what underlies his belief (I personally don't believe McNabb is particularly overrated and I've heard plenty of criticism), but I don't think his actual point was racist in any way.

The few times I've listened to him, like most radio announcers, his liberal use of the facts drives me away.

[Boz]

I wasn't aware of that and actually, I am disappointed to hear it. I was being sarcastic [in case it wasn't patently obvious or you don't have a Professor Frink Sarcasm Detector].

Both George Soros AND Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to have their bids (or their groups' bids) judged on merits not related to political affiliation or controversy.

Do I like George Soros? Absolutely not. But I certainly don't think he's going to change the name of the team to The Washington Maoists if he gets to be part of the group that owns them.

Frankly, both the Rams and the Natinals could use some help.

Republicans should not do this. It's petty and small. (Not that both Republicans and Democrats are not eminently capable of being petty and small.)

Now, if Rush gets pressured out and Soros doesn't, yeah, I have a problem with the double standard. But my solution is to let both of them bid, not to pressure both of them out. That's just dumb.


As for baseball's antitrust exemption, well that's a whoooooollle 'nother thread.

[Cambridge]

Ed the whole point is that in business, perception is reality. If people think he's a racist (for the record I don't believe he is, I think he's just an opportunistic provocateur) that's enough of a reason to not take him into the league. I know that I wouldn't bring somebody in with baggage, real or imagined. I would not try to get Soros in either, for similar reasons. The point is you want bland, boring, individuals to make a deal work.

[Boz]

Oct 16, 2009 16:00:08 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

On the McNabb thing, I agree that Rush was intending to attack the press. However, the manner in which he stated was either intentionally imflammtory (in-?) or really bungled. Now, I also wonder about his motivations in bringing it up, and what underlies his belief (I personally don't believe McNabb is particularly overrated and I've heard plenty of criticism).

I do think McNabb is overrated, but I also think Brett Favre was overrated for most of his career.

So, I am both a racist and a bumpkin hater.

[jerseyhoya34]

Oct 16, 2009 15:56:21 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"However, Limbaugh has a history of walking a fine line when there is simply no compelling social reason to do so other than to demonstrate "free country." Just like the accusations he is a racist because we say so.

Once again, an accusation that is impossible to defend against.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh quite often, unlike most of you who don't but feel free to critique him. I will admit I agree with most, but not all, positions he takes. However, Rush is an entertainer, in addition to being a political commentator. He uses the tools of entertainment to foster his positions. Sometimes he chooses tools that I think are suspect but his batting average is pretty good (in my opinion).

Your two instances of where you think Rush crossed the line were the Donovan McNabb episode and the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing. I agree with you on the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing and I cringed whenever he used it. The McNabb thing is another story as he was not taking off on McNabb but rather the press. What he said was the press wanted a black quarterback to be a star and they inflated the capabilities of McNabb because he was black. To me this is similar to the press slobbering over Obama at least partially because he is black.

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. It is possible to defend against the accusation. The easiest way to do it is not to walk the fine line that Limbaugh does. Bill Clinton said some inartful things in SC that were racially insensitive in some eyes. What was attempted, perhaps futilely? Take Bill off the trail or send him to podunk towns where the press would not show up. You can bet he was told to back off, which I think he did at least as far as his racial comments were concerned. In other words, Rush's best bet IMO is simply to avoid playing Barack the Magic Negro on his radio show, avoid calling for segregated busing, and the like. I suspect not much will be lost from a social point of view from taking this rather easy action, unless there is something that I've missed in these proposals.

2. I would argue that the universe of people considered or suspected of being racist now with any sense of genuine controversy is comparatively small, although maybe the universe should expand. There are occasional, stand-alone suggestions that X or Y is racist, but nothing near what could have been said 50 years ago. That's a positive development. It suggests that many people have figured #1 out. Better to avoid the line than to walk it day after day even while avoiding something like the racial epithet used knowingly by George Allen in the Senate campaign a few years ago. The George Allens will continue to be criticized, and I think the only issue there is one of degree - whether the criticism should have been more or less, not whether he should have been criticized in the first place.

3. Another reason for why one cannot defend against some things is that they are simply indefensible. That may or may not be in play in some Limbaugh situations, but I think it applies unquestionable to the Barack The Magic Negro song that Limbaugh aired.

[EasyEd]

"Better to avoid the line than to walk it day after day even while avoiding something like the racial epithet used knowingly by George Allen in the Senate campaign a few years ago."

Amazing that you know George Allen knowingly used a racial epithet. What other psychic powers do you possess?

[jerseyhoya34]

One of the key points on that is that the term was used by Francophone colonialists in Africa to refer to natives. Allen's mother, as has been reported, is of French Tunisian descent. Allen's defense: He simply made the word up, and this produced the 1/165,000,000 (approx) random result that he picked the term that he used, which coincidentally happened to be very offensive. Given the available evidence, I will err on the side that it is more likely that he used the term knowing what it meant, even if it was used in the supposed heat of the moment.

[EasyEd]

Let's see. The gentleman of Indian descent had been following the Allen campaign to its many stops. He was known to be from the Webb campaign. Allen had observed him at other stops. Allen was running for reelection to the Senate and probably the favorite for the Republican nomination for President. Knowing all this, in my opinion, there is a 1/165,000,000 chance he would have willingly said the gentleman's name was "macaca, or whatever the name is", knowing the meaning of the word was equivalent to calling him the "n" word. Given the available evidence, I will err on the side that it is more likely he would not have used the equivalent of the "n" word in an open forum while running for office.

[Buckets]

Oct 16, 2009 16:00:19 GMT -5 Boz said:

I wasn't aware of that and actually, I am disappointed to hear it. I was being sarcastic [in case it wasn't patently obvious or you don't have a Professor Frink Sarcasm Detector].

Both George Soros AND Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to have their bids (or their groups' bids) judged on merits not related to political affiliation or controversy.

Do I like George Soros? Absolutely not. But I certainly don't think he's going to change the name of the team to The Washington Maoists if he gets to be part of the group that owns them.

Frankly, both the Rams and the Natinals could use some help.

Republicans should not do this. It's petty and small. (Not that both Republicans and Democrats are not eminently capable of being petty and small.)

Now, if Rush gets pressured out and Soros doesn't, yeah, I have a problem with the double standard. But my solution is to let both of them bid, not to pressure both of them out. That's just dumb.


As for baseball's antitrust exemption, well that's a whoooooollle 'nother thread.

I think there's an important distinction to be made between being rich and famous and having people listen to your opinions because of this, and having people listen to your opinions and being rich and famous because of this. As Wilbon said, there are some NFL owners who may even consider Rush to be liberal, but they haven't made a living telling people what they think.

There's also an important distinction between NFL owners voting someone down, and Congressmen making vague threats to baseball's antitrust exemption based on someone's potential ownership interest. You wanna talk expanding government's role...

[Elvado]

In a realted and hysterical development. Donovan McNabb lsot the ability to count to three and called a timeout he did not have at the end of the first half yesterday. Last year, he did not grasp the overtime rules. Somewhere, a disgruntled would-be Ram owner is laughing his fat backside off.

[TBird41]

Oct 19, 2009 10:10:14 GMT -5 Elvado said:

In a realted and hysterical development. Donovan McNabb lsot the ability to count to three and called a timeout he did not have at the end of the first half yesterday. Last year, he did not grasp the overtime rules. Somewhere, a disgruntled would-be Ram owner is laughing his fat backside off.

*cough* Syracuse Alumni *cough*

[TC]

Oct 19, 2009 10:10:14 GMT -5 Elvado said:

In a realted and hysterical development. Donovan McNabb lsot the ability to count to three and called a timeout he did not have at the end of the first half yesterday. Last year, he did not grasp the overtime rules. Somewhere, a disgruntled would-be Ram owner is laughing his fat backside off.

So you're saying that Rush Limbaugh is very desirous to see black people fail?

[hoyadad09]

Here's the bottom line on this. Me and a few of my buddies are starting a health club up in different cities in the US. It's going to be widely popular and both men and women will flock to it. It's going to be a huge success. Oh I forgot to tell you, we're not going to allow women to purchase franchises or to manage them either. You know, it's a guy thing, and me and my buddies thought it wouldn't be good for business. Women are sensitive and caring, and we just don't beleive in that sort of thing. We took a vote and that's what we decided.

Would that be legal and would the government be OK with that? That's basically what they did to Rush. Forget the racist stuff even if it was true. Racisim isn't illegal. This was a bunch of owners who didn't think Rush would be good for business so they banned him from participating.

[TC]

Oct 19, 2009 11:50:53 GMT -5 hoyadad09 said:

Would that be legal and would the government be OK with that?

The government didn't get involved last time I checked, and the NFL didn't decide to discriminate against an entire protected class like in your example. So it's pretty much not anything like that.