Comments for Rush to Judgment? at http://www.18to88.com , comment 1 to 57 out of 20 comments http://www.18to88.com Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:11:53 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1802 sb, I agree, we all should embrace adult education. Like Woody Allen said in Annie Hall, "adult education's a wonderful thing. You meet a lot of interesting professors. You know, it's stimulating." DZ, your point is obvious (and correct, for what its worth) to anyone bothering to listen. Not sure how you can make it any clearer. - IanSB Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:01:42 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1801 DZ, The private actions of Hollywood producers were not govt actions. Nice try, but really weak. [and freedom of association trumping the antitrust issues of a group boycott? I'm sure the Hollywood blacklists, or all manner of discrimination cases could be "defended" as freedom of association. While you may feel there is nothing more American, it has no chance of holding up in a courtroom.] IanSB, Good luck with that inability to keep up. You might check out a local adult education agency for help with that. I don't see the point in flogging this any further. The arguments are getting strained and the logic is fraying. It's curious that anyone would try to convince Rush's listeners that they don't understand what he says on his show. Those who listen regularly have a much better understanding of what he says than those who don't. - sb Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:23:11 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1800 sb, Thank god you weren't Marvin's lawyer or he'd be doing 20 to life right now. You're flying through so many arguments it's hard ot keep up. Can this bye week end soon so we have something to talk about? - IanSB Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:58:08 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1798 No, I asked for examples WORSE than Democrats use. "..calling anyone a Nazi who isn't a Nazi is abusive by definition" Charlie Rangel (Dem, NY), commenting on Newt Gingrich's Contract with America: [b]"Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things."[/b] Would the NFL want to have anything to do with the abusive Rangel? Think he'd be denied a seat with the owners? They'd be so frightened of the "racist" label they'd pay him to join the club. - Pausk Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:28:25 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1797 Agree with you on a couple of things there. For the rest I will just respect you as a decent person with a different opinion. - coltsfanawalt Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:50:23 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1793 @Coltsfanawalt I've never excused his slanderers. What they did was wrong. They aren't applying to own an NFL team, however, so there isn't much point in discussing them. There's no evidence that Rush was booted for his conservative politics. The issue was a series of quotes that had racial overtones. Some were phony, some were no big deal (the McNabb quote), and some were rightly offensive (take the bone out of your nose, bloods and crips). My point with Dungy was that he was attacked for expressing a deeply held religious conviction in a civil, calm way. That worries me. That's NOT what happened to Rush at all. Rush is a guy who tries to make people mad and then acts surprised that people are mad at the things he says. I have no sympathy for that. I was proud of Irsay for having an opinion. I don't personally care about Rush AT ALL. I don't care if the NFL approved his bid or not. I spend precious little of my time worrying about Rush Limbaugh (except for this week). I was proud of Irsay for expressing an opinion he believed in. I personally don't agree or disagree with it. My entire point in the whole debate is that the NFL is totally justified for wanting nothing to do with Rush. I agree with my brother that his being a racist isn't the best justification for that position, but that Rush has given the NFL dozens of other reasons to not associate with him. - DZ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:03:30 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1792 Attacking the ideas of others is one thing. Attacking them as people is reprehensible and I deplore people who do it. The fact that you think it's normal and acceptable is disturbing. For the record, I have zero respect for MSNBC and would never be caught dead watching it. My opinion of Congress isn't much higher. As for specific quotes by Rush, I would say that among his classics: Feminazi (calling anyone a Nazi who isn't a Nazi is abusive by definition) His quotes about Michael J Fox were utterly indefensible. There was also this quote: [b]“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people - I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do - let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work”[/b] The list goes on and on. Rush says things to be funny or to make a point or whatever, but I don't think he's funny or interesting. I don't blame the NFL for not wanting to have anything do with him. Rush isn't a racist but that doesn't mean he's not an abusive bully. He tries to make people mad, not to make people think. He's right about many things, but sullies the ideas he champions with his bravado and condescension. That makes money, and it wins him a lot of fans. I'm just not one of them. - DZ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:53:59 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1791 But they all deal with consistency problems. Why is anything Limbaugh says a big deal, but "oh well" about his slanderers? I'd say that the lies are a huge deal. Is Rush controversial? Yes. Is Olbermann controversial? Yes. Sharpton better never ask for any part of a team. I don't think that controversial talk is what kept Rush out. I think it was being well known for conservative politics. That's incredible. What was the big deal with him having a piece of ownership in an NFL team? That is bogus, plain and simple. And it is concerning. I obviously don't agree with Irsay's view, so I am disappointed in it. And it will bring bad feelings to many fans. Bringing up the Dungy thing is different to me.People were publicizing his views that were spoken away from the NFL and stirring it up. Irsay got vocal on this controversy front and center. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that last assessment, let me make this one. It's easy to be all proud of Dungy's position and Irsay's stance, when you agree personally with both. I wonder how proud some would be of Irsay speaking his mind had he spoken up in strong defense of Rush getting a shot here. Still an admirable owner full of conviction and guts? I am disappointed in his position personally. To each their own, I guess. - coltsfanawalt Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:41:06 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1790 "I'm not sure what you want from me.....I don't waste a lot of tears weeping for multi-millionaires who routinely abuse other people with their words." Just an example of how Limbaugh "abuses other people with his words" that differentiates him from anyone else in politics. Attacking others and their ideas with words is all that politics is, and has been about for hundreds of years. Ever see MSNBC or the floor of Congress? - Pausk Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:30:14 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1785 I know they are lying. I never said the weren't. This entire post was based on the concept that the accusations that Rush is racist are untrue. I'm not sure what you want from me. I don't like Rush because of the way he presents his ideas. I strongly agree with some of his thoughts, and wildly disagree with others. Mostly, I don't like what he's done to contribute to the destruction of honest discourse in America. He's not my cup of tea. Do I wish people wouldn't lie? Sure, I do. But I don't waste a lot of tears weeping for multi-millionaires who routinely abuse other people with their words. - DZ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:52:25 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1784 "There are enough things he HAS said that make me dislike him and not lament his predicament. Why do people have to make up lies about him? Beats me. Maybe because they want to hurt him because he spends so much time insulting and belittling people." As opposed to all the people who spend so much time insulting and belittling Limbaugh? Why they would use phony quotes beats you? Here's a thought--they are lying? Guilt by anonymous accusation is not only un-American, it's potentially dangerous to everyone. - Pausk Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:23:45 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1780 1. Don't twist history. The Hollywood blacklist was directly connected to the government hearings. The two things were directly connected: "[b]Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy toward the American Communist Party, involvement in liberal or humanitarian political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and/or refusal to assist federal investigations into Communist Party activities; some were blacklisted merely because their names came up at the wrong place and time. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of American artists, often made betrayal of friendship (not to mention principle) the price for a livelihood, and promoted ideological censorship across the entire industry. The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities."[/b] 2. Olbermann is in a pregame studio show...NOT the official game broadcast. He does the exact same job Rush used to have, just on a different network. There is a massive difference between that and owning an NFL team. - DZ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:18:08 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1777 DZ, I didn't bring up any official government hearings. (insert snark about keeping up) I brought up the Hollywood blacklist. That was a group of business owners who decided to ban certain people from working in their industry because of their political beliefs. Rush has been banned by a group of business owners because they don't like the political beliefs he has expressed. And if NFL owners were offended by Olbermann, he'd be gone from NBC's Sunday night broadcast in a heartbeat. I don't know the details of the broadcast contract in terms of their approval rights, but the practical reality is they'd have no trouble getting rid of him if they wanted. Of course, Irsay and company would likely have been in violation of antitrust law if they had actually boycotted Rush. So don't confuse legal rights and actual power to influence. The owners could can Olbermann in a heartbeat. He serves as a face of the league. In fact, I'm pretty sure that NFL broadcasts often end with an announcer saying "thank you for watching this presentation of the National Football League". Apparently the NFL wants viewers to see those presenting the telecasts as representatives of the league. - sb Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:11:39 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1772 No, SB...you try to keep up: 1. Is it wrong people printed untrue things about Rush? Sure. That's not why and how this whole thing feel apart. There are enough things he HAS said that make me dislike him and not lament his predicament. Why do people have to make up lies about him? Beats me. Maybe because they want to hurt him because he spends so much time insulting and belittling people. That issue is 100% separate from this discussion. It has nothing to do with anything. Rush shouldn't be lied about. He should be judged by what he actually says and does. What he actually says and does is enough for the NFL to say, "Thanks, but no thanks". The whole point of this column was to point out that there were OTHER reasons to disapprove of Rush apart from the whole "he's a racist" card. We've said he isn't. 2. Conservatives and liberals both engage in the same tactics. Don't act like one side does it more than the other. Bringing up the McCarthy hearings is ridiculous. This isn't compulsory government testimony without due legal process. If anything, it's a test of one's right to freedom of association. What could be more American? 3. There is a HUGE gulf between Olbermann's role on an NFL pregame show and Rush owning a team. I think Olberman is awful (in both his jobs), but he is not an "approved official face of the NFL". That's just silly. He's an approved official face of NBC. Chris Berman isn't a 'face of the NFL'. No one working a pregame show is. Rush used to be one of those guys. He was bad at it, and eventually got fired for saying something that he KNEW would make people mad. I image the same thing will happen to Olberman eventually. The NFL does not hire studio hosts or announcers. Olberman does not work for the NFL. - DZ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:29:14 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1771 If Limbaugh is "constantly saying inflammatory and racist things on the radio", why did his attackers have to invent phony quotes? Wouldn't it be more effective to use all those real ones? - Pausk Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:57:28 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1770 IanSB, Try real hard to keep up here. I didn't say that anyone should support Rush's ideology. They should stand up for the principle that lies and slander are wrong. Rush was the target of deliberate lies. There is no question about that. He was targeted for blatantly political purposes. That ought to scare the living crap out of every American citizen who cares about the future of this country. If people think it was wrong for Hollywood to blacklist writers because they were members of the Communist Party, consistency requires that they think it wrong for Rush to be blacklisted by the NFL because of his political opinions. Especially since the "opinions" he supposedly held were lies! And the idea that Rush's "controversial" style makes him unfit to associate with the NFL is rather curious in view of the fact that a nasty, vicious hatemonger like Olbermann is one of the approved official faces of the NFL on television. Apparently the nastiness of his style doesn't matter, even though he is far nastier than Rush has ever been. It should be obvious to anyone that a minority owner in a franchise is nowhere close to representing the league image as much as a tv commentator who is hired to serve as the face and voice of the league. Yet, Olbermann, nasty as he is, doesn't cause anyone to question his association with the NFL?! The reason is obvious -- vicious liberals are OK because their politics are approved. The lesson here is readily apparent -- Conservatives need not apply and making up the most horrific lies about them is considered an acceptable way to eliminate their involvement. I can't imagine anyone not having a problem with that. - sb Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:53:27 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1769 I agree 100% with everything DZ has said. (And I'd be more than happy tell you if I didn't.) I listen to Rush for about 10 minutes every day at lunch. I find him funny at times, and I often agree with his view on the role of government. But he is inflammatory, and he has no one to blame but himself for how non-listeners view him. His behavior has made him a billionaire, but there are going to be tradeoffs. Not being able to own a pro-sports team is merely one of them. Does he deserve to be called a racist? I don't think so, but he obviously can't be surprised that some are taking that route. - DemondSanders Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:06:14 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1766 @ SB...First off, Rush Limbaugh does not stand for "truth". He stands for a political ideology that he sells by being as controversial and insulting as possible. It's not his ideas that are in question, it's his method of expressing them in as condescending and insulting a way as possible so as to infuriate others and stir up controversy. I stand up for truth on a daily basis, but I don't get my truth from talk radio. I think I've found a slightly more dependable source. Tony Dungy got criticized for what he believed. That troubles me deeply. Rush on the other hand is getting heat for the way he chooses to express his opinions. That does not trouble me. If you want to be a loud mouthed jerk, you can't whine when people say, "I want nothing to do with you". It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with attitude. Rush got rich by being an a-hole. Good for him. Jim Irsay finds him offensive and wants nothing to do with him. Good for him too. This isn't a question of dogma, it's a question of propriety. Rush has none. It has cost him a chance to own an NFL team. Them's the breaks. @TN Interesting argument, but there is a difference between Rush/Vick: Vick, Little, ect have had to change their behavior in order to stay in the league. I think that if Rush was going to stop his radio show to own an NFL team, people might feel differently. Instead, every time he says anything controversial, the NFL would feel like it had to comment, approve, disapprove whatever. Who wants that headache? Rush isn't a racist, but he is an inflammatory and derogatory person. I have no problem with people who would see him as a liability to a league that doesn't want/need more controversy. - DZ Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:17:39 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1764 The main thing here we have to look at is that he was only going to be a minority owner. What does him being racitst(though I don't think that he is) have anything to do with whether or not he can be part owner in a team. This is the same league that let Leonard Little back in the league after killing someone in a drunk driving accident and the same league that let Vick back in the league after his dog fighting. Whitlock gets on my nerves more than any other sports writer. Rush has just as much right to own a team as any other celebrity (Williams sisters, J Lo). The only reason why this is a big deal is because people think that he is a racist. Being a minority owner what does a racist have to do with it. Its not like he will have the authority to create an all white team. Give me a break, Right wing left wing, republican democrat, conservative liberal none of that matters. And Jesse Jackson knows nothing about football nor its owners. When the word racist comes up he is involved. - TNCOLTSFAN Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:52:53 +0100 http://www.18to88.com/2009-archives/october/rush-to-judgment.html#comment-1763 DZ, You should give a crap about what happened to Rush. If you encourage people to share strong opinions, you should care when vicious slander and libel (thanks ianSB, but I'm a lawyer and I'm well aware of the difference) are used to deny them business opportunities. You should stand up for truth. You should care deeply when society allows people with the "wrong" beliefs to be treated as second class citizens. When a certain segment of society comes to believe that their political affiliation gives them license to mistreat and abuse those with whom they disagree, the fabric of society gets frayed and torn. Conservatives observing what happened to Rush understand that he got the same treatment as the black guy in St Louis who was beaten by union thugs at a tea party rally. The union thugs still haven't been charged. When your politics aren't acceptable, you're fair game to be abused by your political "betters". People with the wrong attitudes "deserve" what they get. - sb Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:21:56 +0100