Had nothing to do w/ the fact that you were talkin about Steelers *whistles* I agree though- If I had favorite Steelers those would be the two... and Jack LambertI see what you did there, leaving out the second part of my response and all!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Rush Limbaugh and the Rams
- Thread starter Dr. Cheese
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I started to add other non-Steeler high talent/high profile names that keep their noses clean (i.e.Drew Brees, etc.) but because I'm not as up on off-the-field antics of players that aren't wearing the black and yellow, I didn't want to prove myself wrong!Had nothing to do w/ the fact that you were talkin about Steelers *whistles* I agree though- If I had favorite Steelers those would be the two... and Jack Lambert
Interesting quote from Warren Moon answering a question about if the false statements about Rush were enough to block him from partial ownership in the league.
I think this all stems from the McNabb incident. Key statements in his quote to ponder:
He said "racial sensitive", not that they were racist statements, just sensitive. Rush's statements during the McNabb incident, were really about the media not about the capability of black quarterbacks. Rush did not think McNabb was a great quarterback and that the media was overrating him. Of course, later he was proven wrong.
How does Rush saying something 6 years ago tear down the progress of American quarterbacks today if he is allowed to partially own a team? You would think on the field performance is what makes a quarterback successful.
And the last statement. He is judging a man by what may be in his head. How can you do that? How can people judge someone else by what may be in their head? And he ends it with "we don't know".
(We should probably avoid any discussion about the moral character of Warren Moon or this thread may never end.)
I think this all stems from the McNabb incident. Key statements in his quote to ponder:
He said "racial sensitive", not that they were racist statements, just sensitive. Rush's statements during the McNabb incident, were really about the media not about the capability of black quarterbacks. Rush did not think McNabb was a great quarterback and that the media was overrating him. Of course, later he was proven wrong.
How does Rush saying something 6 years ago tear down the progress of American quarterbacks today if he is allowed to partially own a team? You would think on the field performance is what makes a quarterback successful.
And the last statement. He is judging a man by what may be in his head. How can you do that? How can people judge someone else by what may be in their head? And he ends it with "we don't know".
(We should probably avoid any discussion about the moral character of Warren Moon or this thread may never end.)
You are missing my point completely- and by hilarious I mean ridiculous (sorry if I was unclear), so I fixed your quote to better answer your question:
Its ridiculous in my opinion- not because of the outrage of certain players that are truly offended by RL and his comments that he espouses on a regular basis- but rather by the group as a whole that looks beyond their own outrageous behaviour & criminal track record when it serves their own purposes...
Whether you believe that the Rush Limbaugh deserves whatever he deserves or that the NFL is right or wrong isnt my point, but if you believe that the NFLPA should condemn anyone with the track record that they have... well then I guess denial really is a river in Egypt
That is the heart of it. If your point is that NFLPA has so little moral standing that it is ridiculous that they should point out flaws in others, then I think I got your point. I didn't think it was ridiculous. We find different things funny - no big deal.
But I absolutely believe that NFLPA should feel free to condemn anyone with the track record it has. Otherwise, you are advocating for self-censorship. I am not a big fan of self-censorship; neither is Rush, if I am not mistaken.
Okay, If I did not listen to Rush I would give you that one.. But, I listen to him every day during lunch and have for years.
I think you have a skewed understanding of satire and so does a bit of his listening audience. Real satire has a greater intent of fixing a problem, while the method of reaching that cause can be things besides humor, there still is a greater cause for the satire.
What was the reason for his rant about the white kid getting beat up? If it was satire.. than what was he trying to improve?
It may of been 6 years ago. But I saw some clips of his interview on NBC (that was taped within the last couple of weeks)the other day....And he said he believes what he said...and he'll say it again if she wants him to.
I'm not 100% positive it was in the exact context of the McNabb situation....but from what I could tell..it was.
Cheers,
BT
But that's not racism. He thought McNabb was overrated by the press at the time because he was black. It was a criticism of the press, and a criticism of McNabb's ability in 2003. History shows that he was wrong, but not racist.
Since the bit was inherently political I won't discuss the details, but if you heard the part of the setup (which was left out of the YouTube link as was the ending) he was playing off of a particular news story that had a theme and he was taking that theme to it's extreme to illustrate the absurdity of the theme. That is what satire is.
In fairness to the OP I'm not going to discuss further whether Rush is racist or is engaging in satire. The thread is about his petition to be a part owner in an NFL team. If anyone wants to discuss Rush Limbaugh's show we can start another thread.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. That's why he was fired. For saying nothing wrong at all.
Cheers,
BT
No! That would be totally political - against the rules, and would ultimately turn into a hate fest
With a name like Webtroll I would expect something much more inflammatory from you...
I was listening to Rush when he went off on the tirade (took a late lunch), he was speaking about the professor that said all white males are born inherently racist IIRC... Still not sure how that relates to Obama, but I guess that is what some people call "Satire" (har. har.).
Strange, from all of the conversations we had in the Lounge I would have never taken you as a "serious" Rush Limbaugh listener. Do you agree with his methods/Ideology? Or do you subjectively listen to him?
Proof that no matter how clear you try to make it, ppl will still think what they want to think.
I think I see the problem here...yeah, here's the problem for sure:
Eric Perry: "WHAT was I thinking!!!!"
That's what was wrong. Bolded and underlined for clarity.
...Edited for stupidity!
You, stupid? That's unpossible!
I didnt hear his actual comments so correct me if Im wrong, but was he referring to the article in Newsweek a few weeks ago about the question, "Is Your Baby Racist"? I read Newsweek's response to him, and they clearly stated that if he (or anyone) had fully read it, they were not saying baby's are born racist. They stated that scientific research has proven that babies can distinguish color in ppl at an earlier age than ppl think, regardless of what color the child is. I have the issue and will reread it to get details, but at no point did they elude to what he was talking about. They said that Rush just took the title and an assumption and ran with it.
- Status
