Oh, what the hell, why not?

[Elvado]

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

No. What I'm saying is that Rush was spot on when he called the media on babying McNabb out of a desire to see a black quuarterback succeed. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer leaps to mind as it did not even mention McNabb's Chris Webber moment.

If you'd like to see the same principle on a grander scale right now, watch the three "major"networks covering Barack Obama.

[hoyadad09]

So it's OK to discriminate against certain individuals that you feel would not be good for business just so long as you don't do it to a whole group? It would be great to see Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck try to become an owner and see if they were not met with the same results.

[TC]

Oct 19, 2009 12:10:42 GMT -5 hoyadad09 said:

So it's OK to discriminate against certain individuals that you feel would not be good for business just so long as you don't do it to a whole group? It would be great to see Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck try to become an owner and see if they were not met with the same results.

Oh, I hope they would be nixed too. But that's not discrimination against Republicans or conservatives, as most owners are probably both. It's discriminating against controversy - and Keith Olbermann or Randi Rhodes would get the same treatment.

[Elvado]

Oct 19, 2009 12:18:59 GMT -5 TC said:

Oct 19, 2009 12:10:42 GMT -5 hoyadad09 said:

So it's OK to discriminate against certain individuals that you feel would not be good for business just so long as you don't do it to a whole group? It would be great to see Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck try to become an owner and see if they were not met with the same results.

Oh, I hope they would be nixed too. But that's not discrimination against Republicans or conservatives, as most owners are probably both. It's discriminating against controversy - and Keith Olbermann or Randi Rhodes would get the same treatment.

Yet the NFL happily allows a hate-monger like Olbermann to anchor its signature show. Curious.

[hoyadad09]

Oct 19, 2009 12:18:59 GMT -5 TC said:

Yet the NFL happily allows a hate-monger like Olbermann to anchor its signature show. Curious.

You beat me to it. That is exactly the case. Olberman is the most hate filled TV personality I've ever heard. Forget his politics. He's just so negative and critical making blatant personal attacks against anyone he disagrees with.

[SFHoya99]

Oct 19, 2009 12:18:59 GMT -5 TC said:

Oct 19, 2009 12:10:42 GMT -5 hoyadad09 said:

So it's OK to discriminate against certain individuals that you feel would not be good for business just so long as you don't do it to a whole group? It would be great to see Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck try to become an owner and see if they were not met with the same results.

Oh, I hope they would be nixed too. But that's not discrimination against Republicans or conservatives, as most owners are probably both. It's discriminating against controversy - and Keith Olbermann or Randi Rhodes would get the same treatment.

Hoyadad,

Are you suggesting that government should force people to enter into a business relationship with anyone who wants, regardless of whatever reason they may have to exclude the person?

Or that government should continually get involved with what reason is legit and what isn't?

Most state governments have determined that refusing employment (I'm not sure about partnerships/ownership) based on race, gender, religion and sometimes sexual preference should not be allowed. I don't even think there are laws against the ownership discrimination, but regardless it is a really defined line.

If restaurants can hire based on looks, the NFL can exclude someone who could be a PR and internal boondoggle, even if it isn't definitive such a problem would occur.

[TC]

And yet both Limbaugh and Dennis Miller hosted MNF. What's your point?

[kchoya]

Oct 19, 2009 12:58:02 GMT -5 TC said:

And yet both Limbaugh and Dennis Miller hosted MNF. What's your point?

I must have missed Limbaugh being on MNF. What year was that?

[hoya95]

Oct 19, 2009 12:05:05 GMT -5 Elvado said:

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

No. What I'm saying is that Rush was spot on when he called the media on babying McNabb out of a desire to see a black quuarterback succeed. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer leaps to mind as it did not even mention McNabb's Chris Webber moment.

If you'd like to see the same principle on a grander scale right now, watch the three "major"networks covering Barack Obama.

My God, what is wrong with you? Neither you nor Limbaugh can point to a single example where any media member "overpraised" McNabb because they wanted a black quarterback to succeed. Let alone the "media" as a whole. It's just something that makes you feel good to say, so you say it. (You want to see someone overpraised? Have you heard of Tim Tebow? Tyler Hansbrough?)

When Limbaugh made his idiotic statement, McNabb had been leading his team to multiple NFC Championship games without much of a supporting cast. By pretty much any defintion, that makes him a good quarterback. But after they'd lost two games, Limbaugh declared that McNabb had never been that good. The "media" had just been saying so out of some affirmative action desire. That belittled his accomplishments and was seen by many people as offensive. And if you've ever read a Philly paper or listened to WIP, the notion that McNabb was "babied" is one of the dumbest opinions ever offered on sports.

Limbaugh has made a fortune selling nastiness to a certain segment of the population. The problem for him is when he tries to leave his bunker every few years, he runs into lots of people who justifably can't stand him. He's made his bed; he can afford to lie in it.

[Boz]

If people want to make an argument about things Rush Limbaugh has said (the real stuff, not the made up stuff), I am OK with that. I disagree, but I am OK with it.

But to include the Donovan McNabb "incident" in that is, to me, ridiculous. Limbaugh made a comment that included a racial component. It was not a "racist" comment. ESPN was cowardly in getting rid of him for this conversation. And they did it based on pressure from the same people who exerted pressure here.

This is the actual conversation. Please note the lack of outrage by anyone, including Tom Jackson and Michael Irvin, to whom Rush was talking:



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I've been listening to all of you guys, actually, and I think the sum total of what you're all saying is that Donovan McNabb is regressing, is going backwards --

TOM JACKSON: Mmm-hmm. (Nodding)

RUSH: -- and my... I'm sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

TOM JACKSON: Mmm-hmm. (Nodding)

MICHAEL IRVIN: (Nodding)

RUSH: I think there is a lot of hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't really deserve. The defense carried this team, I think.

TOM JACKSON: But Rush -- But Rush somebody went to those championship games.

RUSH: Oh, they "went."

TOM JACKSON: Somebody made those plays that I saw running down the field, doing it with his legs, doing it with his arm. He has been a very effective quarterback for this football team over the last two or three years –

RUSH: Yeah, but you take –

TOM JACKSON: -- and they didn't have any more talent then than they do now.

RUSH: Oh yes they did: on defense. On defense, they did.

MICHAEL IRVIN: (Nodding)

TOM JACKSON: (Nodding) Oh, on defense they did. I'm talking on the offense side of the ball.

RUSH: Well, that's what I'm saying. I think he got a lot of credit for the defensive side of the ball winning games for this team.

STEVE YOUNG: But I'll tell you what. I'll say it even more strongly, Tom. When they're winning, nobody makes more plays --

TOM JACKSON: Right.

STEVE YOUNG: -- with his arm than Donnvan McNabb. That guy is one of the best in the league at making plays, BUT making plays does not win championships. Running the offense does. So at some point --

TOM JACKSON: Gotta run the offense.

STEVE YOUNG: -- I think that Koy Detmer looks like a better option because he'll go in there, drop back, and throw the ball correctly.

CHRIS BERMAN: Isn't it odd that last year with the broken leg – I know it was Arizona – but the one time he was in the pocket he looked great. Right?

STEVE YOUNG: He had to run that offense.

TOM JACKSON: So Rush, once you make that investment though – once you make that investment in him, that's a done deal.

RUSH: I'm saying it's a good investment. Don't misunderstand. I just don't think he's as good as everybody says he has been.

MICHAEL IRVIN: Rush has a point.

STEVE YOUNG: Well, he (McNabb) certainly hasn't matured.

MICHAEL IRVIN: Rush has a point.

[Buckets]

Oct 19, 2009 12:05:05 GMT -5 Elvado said:

No. What I'm saying is that Rush was spot on when he called the media on babying McNabb out of a desire to see a black quuarterback succeed. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer leaps to mind as it did not even mention McNabb's Chris Webber moment.

I just read the article in question and you're out of your mind if you think that article is babying McNabb. It was a five-yard penalty in the first half and a rather common penalty. I saw the play live and it was a boneheaded mistake. Does it merit inclusion in a postgame summary? Probably not.

Olbermann was given a chance on Football Night in America because he has a wealth of sports broadcasting experience and to my knowledge, he's done a good job and hasn't said anything controversial on the show. Dennis Miller failed on MNF because nobody knew what he was talking about.

Rush was pushed out of Sunday Night Countdown because he brought race into a discussion that really wasn't about race at all (and one of his longer-tenured deskmates threatened to quit if he stayed on). The guy found a way to weave in the media's opinion of black coaches into a discussion of whether Philadelphia's offense or defense deserved more credit for their success.

If someone on ESPN had said that "I don't think Steve Nash has been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern on the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that white players do well do well. We're interested in white players like Nash doing well. I think there is a little hope invested in Nash, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't really deserve," there would sure be a controversy on that side, too.

[Boz]

Oct 19, 2009 13:42:37 GMT -5 Buckets said:

Oct 19, 2009 12:05:05 GMT -5 Elvado said:

No. What I'm saying is that Rush was spot on when he called the media on babying McNabb out of a desire to see a black quuarterback succeed. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer leaps to mind as it did not even mention McNabb's Chris Webber moment.

I just read the article in question and you're out of your mind if you think that article is babying McNabb. It was a five-yard penalty in the first half and a rather common penalty. I saw the play live and it was a boneheaded mistake. Does it merit inclusion in a postgame summary? Probably not.

Olbermann was given a chance on Football Night in America because he has a wealth of sports broadcasting experience and to my knowledge, he's done a good job and hasn't said anything controversial on the show. Dennis Miller failed on MNF because nobody knew what he was talking about.

Rush was pushed out of Sunday Night Countdown because he brought race into a discussion that really wasn't about race at all (and one of his longer-tenured deskmates threatened to quit if he stayed on). The guy found a way to weave in the media's opinion of black coaches into a discussion of whether Philadelphia's offense or defense deserved more credit for their success.

If someone on ESPN had said that "I don't think Steve Nash has been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern on the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that white players do well do well. We're interested in white players like Nash doing well. I think there is a little hope invested in Nash, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't really deserve," there would sure be a controversy on that side, too.

Ummmm, actually Isiah Thomas (and Dennis Rodman) basically said exactly that, just not about that particular player, about Larry Bird. Sure, there was a bit of a dust-up, but no one ever said that Isiah shouldn't be able to be an NBA coach or a general manager or run the CBA into bakruptcy or -- Oh my GOD, be a college basketball coach: what about the children? -- because of it.

(EDIT: People did, of course, say that Isiah shouldn't be these things, but I think that's primarily because he completely sucks at all of them, not because he said something about a white basketball player)

If the NFL owners wanted to vote down a bid that included Limbaugh, that's fine. As I've said before, he does not have a RIGHT to own a team. They do have every right to reject his bid.

But let them vote on it. To my knowledge, only one owner actually came out and said he wouldn't vote for Limbaugh.

The truth is, they probably would have voted yes. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are not idiots. They didn't want it to ever get to that point. And Roger Goodell and the Checketts group folded like a Frenchman when faced with a little bit of pressure.

[TC]

Oct 19, 2009 13:39:19 GMT -5 Boz said:

This is the actual conversation. Please note the lack of outrage by anyone, including Tom Jackson and Michael Irvin, to whom Rush was talking:

So your gauge on whether something's kosher or not is whether Michael Irvin takes the race-bait? It's a football show, they're supposed to be professionals and move on, just like when Ernie Anastos' colleagues don't say anything when he suggests they violate a rooster.

Do we really need Harry Connick Jr. in the booth at the moment to be the line judge on whether something is okay or not?

[Cambridge]

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

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.

Are you serious? You are equating discrimination against an individual based presumably on his addiction to controversy to discrimination against an entire group of people based on their gender. You realize those two scenarios are not the same at all, right?

[hoyadad09]

quote author=tc board=offtopic thread=20305 post=330957 time=1255972739]

Hoyadad,

Are you suggesting that government should force people to enter into a business relationship with anyone who wants, regardless of whatever reason they may have to exclude the person?

Or that government should continually get involved with what reason is legit and what isn't?

Most state governments have determined that refusing employment (I'm not sure about partnerships/ownership) based on race, gender, religion and sometimes sexual preference should not be allowed. I don't even think there are laws against the ownership discrimination, but regardless it is a really defined line.

If restaurants can hire based on looks, the NFL can exclude someone who could be a PR and internal boondoggle, even if it isn't definitive such a problem would occur.[/quote]

No. I made no statement about including the government. I think the government should stay out of the mix in my business and in my personal life. My point was that if me and my buddies setup a company and voted on who we wanted to let run franchises based soley on our opinions and our opinion was that we did not want women because their views are different than ours, we'd probably be sued and the government, if they got involved would most likely not supportive our actions. It is purely my speculation about how the government would react.

[Buckets]

Oct 19, 2009 13:55:41 GMT -5 Boz said:

Ummmm, actually Isiah Thomas (and Dennis Rodman) basically said exactly that, just not about that particular player, about Larry Bird. Sure, there was a bit of a dust-up, but no one ever said that Isiah shouldn't be able to be an NBA coach or a general manager or run the CBA into bakruptcy or -- Oh my GOD, be a college basketball coach: what about the children? -- because of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard for what is said in a studio show is generally higher than what is said in a locker room after you've just had your season ended. Not to mention that this happened over two decades ago.

[Elvado]

"I just read the article in question and you're out of your mind if you think that article is babying McNabb. It was a five-yard penalty in the first half and a rather common penalty. I saw the play live and it was a boneheaded mistake. Does it merit inclusion in a postgame summary? Probably not."

When that quarterback is the "franchise player" and has admittedly not known the NFL overtime rules as recently as last November, it sure does merit a mention.

As for a common penalty, where? 7th grade midget ball. A pro quarterback has a few responsibilities that are non-delegable, such as knowing if you have a timeout.

If that had been Eli Manning, the jokes would have already been flying about his "deer in the headlights" look and inability to control a game. And Eli has won the Big One.

Tubby got a free pass because the media is afraid to call him stupid. I don't know if he is stupid, but the question needs to be asked based upon those incidents.

[jerseyhoya34]

Asking whether Donovan McNabb is stupid is not the same inquiry as saying he simply gets a free pass in any event on the basis of one's perception of how society/media is treating him on the basis of his race.

I don't see much basis for thinking that the NFL or broadcasting company should protect the latter for a variety of reasons - sound business, wanting sports to be sports as opposed to a forum for social diatribes, NIMBY, etc.

[Boz]

Oct 19, 2009 14:38:41 GMT -5 Buckets said:

Oct 19, 2009 13:55:41 GMT -5 Boz said:

Ummmm, actually Isiah Thomas (and Dennis Rodman) basically said exactly that, just not about that particular player, about Larry Bird. Sure, there was a bit of a dust-up, but no one ever said that Isiah shouldn't be able to be an NBA coach or a general manager or run the CBA into bakruptcy or -- Oh my GOD, be a college basketball coach: what about the children? -- because of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard for what is said in a studio show is generally higher than what is said in a locker room after you've just had your season ended. Not to mention that this happened over two decades ago.

Oh, please. Fine. It was only two years ago that Isiah said that he didn't really have a problem with black men calling a black woman a bitch or a ho. It was only a problem if white men did it.

And he was in a courtroom, not a locker room. And once again, there was controversy to be sure, but no one said he couldn't be FUI's coach today because of it.

Al Sharpton definitely came out against those comments, but I don't remember Al Sharpton saying that he should be fired or that FIU couldn't hire him.

[TBird41]

And, let's be honest here--Rush was talking about a Syracuse graduate. A SYRACUSE GRADUATE. Shouldn't he get SOME lee way because of that?

;D