Controversial? Sure. Racist? No. (AP)
I'm a believer in the free-market and private businesses should be able to hire and fire whoever they want. However, do you really believe Rush Limbaugh was denied the right to bid on the St. Louis Rams because of the league's "high standards"?
Please.
Just to give some background: Radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, was part of a group of investors attempting to bid on the St. Louis Rams football team. Outrage was expressed over the deal by some NFL players, one owner (Indianapolis owner Robert Irsay) and many commentators. The reason being that Limbaugh was too "divisive".
Apparently not divisive enough on his own, however. Both CNN and MSNBC had news programs that repeated statements he did not make. Liberal commentator Rachel Maddow also repeated a racist comment; again, apparently made up. Many of these quotes apparently came from a fake Wikipedia page. It begs the question (I know I'm using that phrase incorrectly), if Limbaugh is such a racist, can't they prove it without making stuff up?
Now, I don't listen to Limbaugh all that often, but it became pretty obvious to me that people making these statements didn't know the context of what he was saying at all.
But maybe the NFL is right; maybe they just want to avoid people who make controversial statements.
Uh...except when they don't.
Apparently, liberal talk show host Keith Olbermann isn't too controversial for them: He does NBC's Football Night in America. A guy not shy to controversy.
Oh, and what about the new partial-owner of the Miami Dolphins? That would be Stacy Ferguson, better known as "Fergie" of the Black Eyed Peas. She was voted in on Tuesday without a single peep of opposition. Controversy? Divisive? Try:
"I have had lesbian experiences in the past. I won't say how many men I've had sex with – but I am a very sexual person."
or
"A war is goin' on but the reasons undercover.
"The truth is kept secret, it's swept under the rug."
or even in song
"I'ma get get get get you drunk.
"Get you love drunk off my hump.
"My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
"My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps".
Nope, not a whiff of controversy in there at all.
"We're held to a higher standard here," Commissioner Roger Goddell said.
Right.
Comments
Fergie statements don't disrespect other people, Rush's do.
And as far as the alleged statements, only one statement can't be proven and that is the one about MLK's assassin. The rest came from transcripts.
Here are his disparaging remarks about the NFL:
Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.
I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.
The NFL is 70% African American. I would never work for an employer who was blatantly sexist, and, as an example, if a franchise a majority female staff I would expect them not to hire a blatanly sexist store manager.
The "crips and bloods" statement is not racial. And many people agree with that statement.
The second statement is absolutely true, and one's that many liberal commentators have made.
So...you took two statements that aren't bad at all; much less "blatantly" racist. Hence why commentators had to use statements he didn't say at all.
Anyways, my main point isn't that I disagree with Fergie being an owner; just that this isn't about controversial comments. It's about politics.
Rush's alleged slavery remarks were fabricated.
You people are pathetic.
Limbaugh didn't get tossed from the ownership opportunity by the liberal media any more than he got tossed by the NFL. He got tossed by Dave Checketts, the owner of the St. Louis Blues and leader of the group attempting to purchase the Rams. Checketts said "It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions." (Dave Checketts is hardly a flaming liberal.)
Rush Limbaugh has no business being an owner of any football team (or any other team, for that matter). He has made dozens of remarks that are racially charged (if not outright racist) and antagonistic to black and other races (e.g. the "injuns" as he likes to call American Indians).
The two quotes below are small potatoes compared to some of the other things he's said, which you'll find here at Media Matters, who spent time reviewing tapes of the show, not simply passing along rumors:
//tinyurl.com/ygbfg2b
I'm not much of a fan of Keith Olbermann anymore, since he's a little too far out there for me. But he's a relative saint compared to Limbaugh. And as Kim points out, Fergie isn't in the business of disrespecting blacks, whites, or anyone else. Provocotive? Yes. Jerk? No.
Good argument. Rush isn't a racist. He's just stupid, just as stupid as Keith Olberman. I'm not sure why anyone would care if someone was a drunk and "sexual person" however.
Whoever wrote this needs to get laid without cash changing hands.
Lighten up you pocket protecting nerd
JOURNALISM FAIL
Jarret, I wasn't pointing out his most heinous comments, just the ones about the NFL.
The Cripps and Bloods statement wasn't racist? Fine, I'll bite. What was he trying to say? They're violent? There are plenty of other analogies he could have used that wouldn't have illicted to mind black gangsters.
It's not about politics, most NFL owners are quite conservative. It's about making money and cutting someone off who can hurt your profits.
Smoking Blunts - personal attacks aren't acceptable. Come up with a credible argument.
Dave, first of all Rush isn't stupid, he has found a way to pander to a very gullible audience who thrive in his misogynistic, racist comments. Someone who is not a misogynist, or a racist would never repeatedly make the comments this man does. If you hang out in Rome long enough, you're sure enough going to become a Roman.
I'm surely not calling on the government to step in and right this injustice, and it's hard feeling bad for a mutli-millionaire. My point is that there is some level of politics to it. I understand the point; Rush is much more high profile than Fergie.
I'm not going to go through all the Media Matters stuff. However, they were way wrong about him over the "phony soldiers" comment and they are either wrong, or don't understand humor for most of those.
The NFL didn't get the nick-name "No Fun League" for nothing. Anyways, this rates about a 2 on the list of politically important things. Just a fun column with my opinion.
<<I'm not going to go through all the Media Matters stuff. However, they were way wrong about him over the "phony soldiers" comment and they are either wrong, or don't understand humor for most of those.>>
It's not clear they were wrong on the phony soldiers comment. It's just not clear that they were right, as to whether he was indeed responding to the caller's statement about soldiers who talk to the media ("what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media") or was speaking of Jesse MacBeth (the war critic who lied about his military record).
Regardless, I fail to see much if any humor in any of his comments as documented on Media Matters. I see a pompous, antagonistic, berating, hot air balloon who is full of racially charged statements and proud of it ("There, I said it!")
Well of course! He's a radio talk show host. I actually heard the "phony soldiers" conversation when it happened and MM is dead wrong on that one (at least their initial report). He wasn't talking about soldiers against the war, sorry, nobody hearing the whole thing thought that.
Second, I'm not sure the crips and bloods thing has anything to do with race; it has to do with "thuggery". I'm sure Limbaugh hates "gangstas"...I doubt it's a racial thing.
Jarrett, you're fixating on the wrong things, but I'm not surprised. You deflect back to the BS that we've already agreed doesn't mean much, and then you ignore the rest that does. No problem, you're wrong again.
Let's just say that
1) Yes, as a talk show host, he's entitled to be as abrasive as he can get away with. But one might easily expect that same abrasiveness to stand in the way of a football team ownership, considering that it is so often directed toward people who have the skin color shared by 70% of the league's players, and is so often seemingly due to that very skin color and behavior he accuses those sharing that skin color of performing.
2) You're ignoring or blowing off as "humor" all the other things MM has proven Limbaugh has said, on the basis of the "phony soldier" bit where it's inconclusive what he was talking about, regardless how conclusive you claim it to be.
3) His "bloods and crips" is similarly inconclusive, but similarly irrelevant next to his other comments.
4) Yes, Keith Olbermann is also abrasive and controversial, and yet co-hosts NBC's "Football Night in America". But his abrasiveness is never directed toward blacks, "Injuns", or any other race.
Um, actually he doesn't "often" direct towards minorities. He's on radio for 3 hours a day for the last 20 years...and the two most outrageous things liberals have found have turned out to be made up.
Second, anyone who actually listens to him regularly understands he's not a racist. Here are links to two liberals columnists who understand that:
//news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19930219&id=fnAVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=juoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1816,3899587
//nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/10/15/limbaugh-couldnt-get-over-the-humps/
And there are a lot of controversial things said on controversial topics for many owners. The above-mentioned Fergie, the Rooney family who owns the Steelers campaigning for Obama, and Mark Cuban, the highly controversial, anti-war owner of the Dallas Mavericks.
My point is simply that this was politics. And it's irrelevant whether Olbermann says controversial things about racial groups...or George W. Bush.
1) If he make racially questionable statements once or twice a year for 20 years, it's way too often for me, and clearly way too often for a lot of people.
2) It is about money, far more than about politics. The league owners are by and large rich Republicans, making money off a black-majority league, and with a large number of fans (black and otherwise) who are offended by Limbaughs's remarks. Most of the owners probably even agree with a lot of what Limbaugh says (when he isn't talking race).
3) There is a HUGE, MONUMENTAL difference between being controversial about race versus doing the same about politics.
Give me one comment that is "racially insensitive". One. You've yet to do so.
Your "Making money off of" statement shows an utter lack of understanding of economics or the free market. You sound like a communist (profits are 'stolen', etc.). Those minorities players aren't free to play? Where is your proof that the majority of owners are Republicans? Even if it's true...is it relevant? No.
Sure I did. I sent you the link but you didn't take the time to read it, apparently, and instead fixated on the inconclusive phony soldier quote that isn't even on that link.
How in the world do you make the leap from my statement about NFL owners making money off a black majority league that I don't understand the free market and must be a communist? You're believing what you want to believe, apparently.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with them making money. More power to them. My point is, they do want to make money, and the the majority of their players are black, a number of whom expressed concern about Limbaugh becoming part owner. Plenty of fans can't stand the likes of Limbaugh either. Their decision was monetarily based, more so than politically, and in a free market system, they had every right to tell him to take a hike.
And besides, it was his own partner who dumped him, not the league, not the media, not Obama, nor anyone else Limbaugh whines about.
As for the relevance of the owners being mostly conservatives/Republicans, of course it's relevant. It means they're more likely to be sympathetic to Limbaugh's thoughts (at least where race is not concerned, although for some of them perhaps even race).
As for proof: it's been a pretty well-known fact, for one. But it's also backed up by campaign contributions.
//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574471140412107038.html
As for racially insensitive quotes, take your pick from the following:
"he's an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he's angry; I think his wife is angry." (he's got a secret agenda, because he's BLACK ... and ANGRY ...)
"[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering." (implication: it's now open season on whites, and Obama's all for it)
"What they don't know is that Obama's entire economic program is reparations." (right, his entire program is a secret agenda to take from whites and give to blacks ... he couldn't possibly have a fair, just, bone in his body, because he's BLACK ... and ANGRY)
Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot." (implication: he's motivated by his BLACK AFRICAN heritage more than by morals, ethics, common sense, education)
or these:
"Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry." Limbaugh then said: " 'As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,' Obama said."
"It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
The way to "get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people."
"He just wants us to have the same health care and plan that he had in Kenya." (By the way, Rush, although he's visited, Obama never lived in Kenya)
"Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman when he doesn't know the facts of the case." (Obama's comments couldn't possibly have been motivated by defending a friend, no. He's a BLACK man trying to destroy a WHITE man.)
or these:
"if only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young, black Muslim teenagers, I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot."
('cause those ANGRY BLACKS stick up for one another)
"The government's been taking care of them their whole lives."
The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry; he's going to cut this country down to size. He's going to make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made -- its mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on here."
"They're members of the minority. Don't ever forget that this is the case. Minorities, victims, members of groups, are allowed to do anything to address their grievances and to get noticed, because ... they're so oppressed."
or these:
On August 23, 2006, Limbaugh suggested that the competition in a season of CBS' Survivor, in which contestants were reportedly divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, "is not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events." In support of this assertion, he cited a March 2, 2006, HealthDay article reporting that "young blacks -- especially males -- are much more likely to drown in pools than whites." He later added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." On his September 29, 2006, show, Limbaugh claimed "[t]here can only be one reason" Survivor scrapped "segregated" competition after two episodes -- "the white tribe had to be winning."
All Democrats "had to do was nominate an African-American and [they've] got Colin Powell."
Last but not least:
"So, in your mind, they're simply trying to duplicate the actions taken by the American INJUNS, and get themselves set up so they have casinos over there?" (He's used the term INJUN several times on the air, it's clearly not just a slip of the tongue)
First, your statement "making money off of" is an economically illiterate statement. In a free market, we are free to choose or not choose to take part in activities. Your statement is as stupid as saying the players "make money off the backs of owners" or "fans" or "announcers" or anyone. Owners choose to hire, players choose to play, fans choose to go. It's like saying CEOs "make money off the back" of customers. Then I suppose customers get products "off the backs" of CEOs.
OK, first off, the owner thing is "irrelevant" because they have had nothing to do with this. One owner (a Democrat) spoke out about this issue. Then the commissioner. If you really wanted to know what owners thought, they would have put it to a vote.
Anyways, I'm not a liberal; I don't want this corrected by some overreaching power. Only progressives want government to step in and correct every wrong they perceive to happen. I'm very happy to let the market work this out (which is what's happening).
Now, on to these statements. First of all, the onus is on you to provide context.
"he's an angry black guy. I do believe that about the president. I do believe he's angry; I think his wife is angry." (he's got a secret agenda, because he's BLACK ... and ANGRY ...)
He says nothing about "secret agenda". You added that.
"[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering." (implication: it's now open season on whites, and Obama's all for it)
Wrong. This was in reference to a TIME magazine story suggesting racism was in-bred in whites. Try giving us the context next time.
"What they don't know is that Obama's entire economic program is reparations." (right, his entire program is a secret agenda to take from whites and give to blacks ... he couldn't possibly have a fair, just, bone in his body, because he's BLACK ... and ANGRY)
This was in a conversation about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Try giving the context next time.
Obama is "more African in his roots than he is American" and is "behaving like an African colonial despot." (implication: he's motivated by his BLACK AFRICAN heritage more than by morals, ethics, common sense, education)
Wrong. This was in a conversation discussing why the media hammers on his race all the time; considering he is half-white, raised by a white mother and white grandparents. Basically, why did he grab onto that "culture"?
"Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican-American actress Halle Berry." Limbaugh then said: " 'As a Halfrican-American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,' Obama said."
"It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side."
See above statement.
The way to "get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people."
In reference to Sonia Sotomayor and Van Jones making racially insensitive statements about whites. Also, he's obviously joking here: Not everyone in the admin gets promoted for this; he's just pointing out the statements people in his admin are making.
On August 23, 2006, Limbaugh suggested that the competition in a season of CBS' Survivor, in which contestants were reportedly divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity, "is not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events." In support of this assertion, he cited a March 2, 2006, HealthDay article reporting that "young blacks -- especially males -- are much more likely to drown in pools than whites." He later added that Hispanics have "probably shown the most survival tactics," that they "have shown a remarkable ability to cross borders," and that they can "do it without water for a long time, they don't get apprehended, and they will do things other people won't do." On his September 29, 2006, show, Limbaugh claimed "[t]here can only be one reason" Survivor scrapped "segregated" competition after two episodes -- "the white tribe had to be winning."
Sigh...clearly joking.
All Democrats "had to do was nominate an African-American and [they've] got Colin Powell."
???
I can sum up your statements in two sentences: You take things out of context (even out of MM's context, which already took him out of context). And you don't understand jokes very well.
I'll give everyone some advice: You're not a victim. And as long as you think you are, you won't get anywhere. If you see yourself as a victim, you are handicapping yourself. Everyone has problems, all these problems are different, and some are oppressed more than others. Ignore it. Work hard, move on, judge everyone by their merits.
Jarrett, first, I didn't say anything about anyone making money "off the backs" of anyone. I said the owners make money off a black majority league. Your quibbling over the phrase "make money off" is as ridiculous as quibbling over the meaning of the word "is".
But just to humor you, all I meant (and I think it's pretty clear if you'll take off your blinders of obstinacy) was, the owners expect to make money from owning and running their teams in a black majority league. They were doing far more to protect their wallets by hinting to Dave Checketts that they were not happy with him having an extremely racially abrasive individual (and that's being kind) as a part of his bid for the team, then they were to make any sort of political statement. Your claims to the contrary are more than a little naive.
The owner thing is not not the whole story, but is hardly irrelevant. They are part of the process of accepting other owners. You only know about the public expression of distaste for Limbaugh by one owner and by Roger Goodell. Who knows how many others expressed the same privately. Regardless, if Dave Checketts felt comfortable that the owners, players, and fans would accept Limbaugh, he wouldn't have removed him. Apparently, he had heard enough objections from enough interested parties to remove him.
Jarrett, your attempts to defend or marginalize Limbaugh's racially caustic, abrasive, insensitive remarks as being taken out of context or as mere jokes are just silly. The context of speaking about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or responding to a Time article don't change the fact that his words are an undeserved slap in the face of blacks and other races (e.g. the Injuns).
Anyone with an open mind can see his pattern of accusing blacks, Obama, etc with being angry, having a selfish, self-serving agenda, hating whites, etc etc etc.
And he gets away with by saying "I'm not racist, I'm just calling it like I see it. They're the racists ... they're angry, they hate whites, their playing the victim card, bla bla bla".
I know quite a few blacks, and I can tell you that none of them play the victim, hate whites, have a secret agenda, or any of the other crap Limbaugh (and apparently you) believe of them.
Check out Snopes.com on Limbaugh quotes.
www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!