TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 19, 2009 16:44:02 GMT -5
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. The fact that he took a coaching job at FIU after being both GM and Coach of the Knicks kinda knocks your argument over - if he interviewed at any halfway decent major conference school, it would have definitely blocked him. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh. I doubt that the Arena Football League or whatever dinky pretender Mr. Pelosi is sinking his money into would have a problem with his ownership. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 19, 2009 16:50:42 GMT -5
No, to knock my argument over, you'd have to show me that Isiah was fired from the Knicks for the things he said, not for gross incompetence. Did the Knicks can him after this incident? No. Did Al Sharpton demand his resignation? No. Your assumption that he would have been blocked from any decent school is just that -- an assumption. I think you are completely wrong. If he wins a lot at FIU, he will be able to get a job somewhere else. But I would be perfectly fine if Rush Limbaugh got a vote on his ownership and, if approved, for Bart Scott or DeMaurice Smith to send him a strongly worded letter about race relations. Yeah, this is pretty equivalent.  |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 19, 2009 18:23:17 GMT -5
What is the argument here? I'm unclear.
Basically, I don't understand why the issue is being clouded with all these references to other people who may or may not be offensive and their respective involvement with pro or NCAA programs. What does that have to do with the situation we are discussing?
I thought the central point was it is the owners's prerogative to determine they don't want to deal with the drama (I think we can all admit it would become an even bigger media circus if Rush kept his name in the hat) of an ownership bid by a group that includes Rush when his presence is fairly immaterial/unnecessary to the bid in question. It's not like Rush was the social lynchpin, executive whizkid, or the financial kingpin that was going to make or break this deal. In all reality he was just a flashy name that would garner publicity for the group and help them paper over any financial shortcomings in their bid.
Everything else in this thread is a boondoggle. Things may have been threatened, but in the end Rush withdrew voluntarily. The government didn't step in. The league didn't reject a bid. Nobody boycotted anybody. What we witnessed was capitalism and the strength of a market place. Consumers expressed their dissatisfaction and businessmen reacted to better themselves financially. No regulation occurred.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Oct 19, 2009 21:17:45 GMT -5
What is the argument here? I'm unclear. Basically, I don't understand why the issue is being clouded with all these references to other people who may or may not be offensive and their respective involvement with pro or NCAA programs. What does that have to do with the situation we are discussing? I thought the central point was it is the owners's prerogative to determine they don't want to deal with the drama (I think we can all admit it would become an even bigger media circus if Rush kept his name in the hat) of an ownership bid by a group that includes Rush when his presence is fairly immaterial/unnecessary to the bid in question. It's not like Rush was the social lynchpin, executive whizkid, or the financial kingpin that was going to make or break this deal. In all reality he was just a flashy name that would garner publicity for the group and help them paper over any financial shortcomings in their bid. Everything else in this thread is a boondoggle. Things may have been threatened, but in the end Rush withdrew voluntarily. The government didn't step in. The league didn't reject a bid. Nobody boycotted anybody. What we witnessed was capitalism and the strength of a market place. Consumers expressed their dissatisfaction and businessmen reacted to better themselves financially. No regulation occurred. No, you see, when something bad happens to a right-wing junkie crackpot who makes a living by dividing people, that can't possibly be the free market. It must be a vast left-wing conspiracy driven by liberals and "the media." The free market isn't allowed to work in a way that's bad for people like Rush. When poor minorities challenge something that happens because of the free market, they want a "hand out." But when Rush is hurt by the free market, he's a victim. It's all very simple if you understand the hypocrisy and culture of feigned victimization that absolutely dominates the worst part of the right. |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Oct 19, 2009 21:24:16 GMT -5
All this being said, I think Rush would be welcomed with open arms if he wanted to buy the Redskins. Anyone's better than Snyder at this point.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2009 8:14:19 GMT -5
Yes, the right in this country are the ones who have mastered victimization politics. Ha! That's a good one. You should go on tour with that material. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 20, 2009 10:31:24 GMT -5
Yes, the right in this country are the ones who have mastered victimization politics. Ha! That's a good one. You should go on tour with that material. Both sides of the aisle are very good at playing the victim, it's the only thing either is really good at. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 20, 2009 10:50:40 GMT -5
What is the argument here? I'm unclear. Basically, I don't understand why the issue is being clouded with all these references to other people who may or may not be offensive and their respective involvement with pro or NCAA programs. What does that have to do with the situation we are discussing? I thought the central point was it is the owners's prerogative to determine they don't want to deal with the drama (I think we can all admit it would become an even bigger media circus if Rush kept his name in the hat) of an ownership bid by a group that includes Rush when his presence is fairly immaterial/unnecessary to the bid in question. It's not like Rush was the social lynchpin, executive whizkid, or the financial kingpin that was going to make or break this deal. In all reality he was just a flashy name that would garner publicity for the group and help them paper over any financial shortcomings in their bid. Everything else in this thread is a boondoggle. Things may have been threatened, but in the end Rush withdrew voluntarily. The government didn't step in. The league didn't reject a bid. Nobody boycotted anybody. What we witnessed was capitalism and the strength of a market place. Consumers expressed their dissatisfaction and businessmen reacted to better themselves financially. No regulation occurred. No, you see, when something bad happens to a right-wing junkie crackpot who makes a living by dividing people, that can't possibly be the free market. It must be a vast left-wing conspiracy driven by liberals and "the media." The free market isn't allowed to work in a way that's bad for people like Rush. When poor minorities challenge something that happens because of the free market, they want a "hand out." But when Rush is hurt by the free market, he's a victim. It's all very simple if you understand the hypocrisy and culture of feigned victimization that absolutely dominates the worst part of the right. From my lunatic fringe right-wing vantage point, the only thing wrong with what happened to Rush is that the NFL, in typical cowardly fashion, won't own up to its motivation. If Roger Goodell had said we don't want him because it's bad business, he'd be honest. Rather, he spun it into a discussion of "unfortunate comments" which is a load of horse manure. |
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,489
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Oct 20, 2009 12:29:44 GMT -5
If Roger Goodell had said we don't want him because it's bad business, he'd be honest. Rather, he spun it into a discussion of "unfortunate comments" which is a load of horse manure. And "it's bad business" because of what? |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 20, 2009 13:14:38 GMT -5
If Roger Goodell had said we don't want him because it's bad business, he'd be honest. Rather, he spun it into a discussion of "unfortunate comments" which is a load of horse manure. And "it's bad business" because of what? Don't know because Roger didn't have the stones to say. Is it not equally bad business to employ recidivist criminals (see Jones, Adam) and/or animal killers (see Vick, Michael)? Perhaps not so long as they don't offend the left or any minority. Rest assured, their antics offend the majority of decent humans. Roger should just come out and say that he and the owners are afraid to be pilloried by the mainstream media which lists far to the left. We've come full circle to Boz's question as to why Keith Olbermann's "unfortunate comments" are okay and Limbaugh's opinions are not. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2009 13:47:22 GMT -5
The one "group" I'm surprised doesn't make more of a stink about Olbermann being on NBC is feminists.
Politics aside for a moment, the guy seems like an utter pig. And it's not just conservatives who say so.
Mika Brzkznjnkkjhkgkckzski really should be on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 20, 2009 15:31:40 GMT -5
Well, evidently there is some outcry over Olbermann. Bush 41 appears to have taken some umbrage to Olbermann's treatment of the Dim Son. [/snark]
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 20, 2009 15:55:10 GMT -5
Boz,
I think the five pages of this thread stand as the answer to the question you posed in the title.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Oct 20, 2009 15:59:02 GMT -5
Boz, I think the five pages of this thread stand as the answer to the question you posed in the title. HA! Post of the thread, if not the week, month or year! ;D Just wait though. I got an even better one to start tomorrow..... |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Oct 20, 2009 23:09:26 GMT -5
This week's 30 for 30 was on the USFL. I don't think it was all that great (you could have probably done 2 hours on the USFL and not done it justice), but one thing was clear that's kinda analogous to this discussion - the NFL did not want Donald Trump as an owner.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 21, 2009 8:55:03 GMT -5
and the movie's theme was that he single-handedly destroyed the USFL...so the NFL owners were right.
|
|
