What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rush Limbaugh to Join ESPN NFL Countdown (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fellas,Can't we all just get along?? Fox has the best pregame show anyway. Injuries, weather, and other things you should know are constantly scrolling at the bottom of the screen, plus you get Jillian to stare at every 15 minutes! Terry and those guys are horrible, but who is listening to them anyway. Have your friends come over early. Go buy beer. Try tailgaiting. My point is, Rush on ESPN should not take up 3 pages on a Fantasy football message board. Who cares??!!?? IF these producers wanted to put a guy on that the fans could relate to, why not one of us? Anyone of us knows more about football than any "personality" they throw up there. That should be the real argument here! :football:
I think that maybe this thread points-out what ESPN was trying to take advantage of...Football fans who are also Rush fans will watch because they know he'll be great at what he's been hired for.Non-football fans who are Rush fans will watch just to see Rush (Even if it's only once or twice).Football fans who don't know Rush (Or don't care about politics) will still watch because he will do a great job.Football fans who don't like Rush will watch because they're football fans.Football fans who hate Rush will watch out of morbid curiosity.Non-football fans who hate Rush will watch out of morbid curiosity.Football fans who are Rush fans who HATE liberals will be happy watching the liberals squeel about someting else.It's a win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win.
 
Rush has always defended his many lies and inaccuracies by claiming not to be a journalist, but an entertainer.
Please clarify this. Give us one, just ONE example of the many lies you have heard him tell. Any of you pinkos are free to add to this list of lies. :rolleyes:
 
Why don't we all reserve judgement until we watch at least one show?
I can't stand him the times I've seen or heard his show, even though I agree with some of his thoughts, but I'll still see what he does. If I don't like him on ESPN, I won't watch anymore. Very simple.
 
Please clarify this. Give us one, just ONE example of the many lies you have heard him tell. Any of you pinkos are free to add to this list of lies. :rolleyes:
Do you really want to get into this? I have already said I'm willing to give old draft-dodging Rush a chance. Do you really want me to post the volumes that are available to support my statement?Why don't we just leave it at a difference of opinion? As I said, as long as Rush doesn't try to drag his politics into his commentary, I don't really care about him being on ESPN. I reiterate that I don't think football needs to be politicized. Why start that here?
 
Why don't we all reserve judgement until we watch at least one show?
I don't know...I recently sent an email to that Infone service that's hit the airwaves lately. I told them that even though their service looks very interesting and I'm their target market (I'm too lazy to use a phone book AND I travel a lot) that I will NOT use their service for one simple reason...They've got James Carville as their spokesman. (Note to you Leftists: Carville is AT LEAST as bad as Rush, and you KNOW it if you're honest with yourselves)...So, I'm trying to not be a hypocrite here. I've not told anyone to NOT "Boycott" ESPN over this (Even though I don't think it will make any difference even if they DO boycott it) because I tend to speak with my money as well.That being said...It's a WHOLE lot easier to "Boycott" this Infone service than it would be ESPN. And a whole lot more effective too, since ESPN doesn't care unless you're a Neilson Family, but Infone needs ALL the business they can get right now.Just my thoughts on the subject...
 
Do you really want to get into this? I have already said I'm willing to give old draft-dodging Rush a chance. Do you really want me to post the volumes that are available to support my statement?
I want you to_Only because it's all bitter partisan propaganda that won't stand-up to any type of logical review.Oh, and be sure to include "Context" with all your propaganda. Just to keep things fair.And just so you know...I've been listening to Rush since day one and it's common for hateful leftists to lie about him.
 
I don't know...I recently sent an email to that Infone service that's hit the airwaves lately. I told them that even though their service looks very interesting and I'm their target market (I'm too lazy to use a phone book AND I travel a lot) that I will NOT use their service for one simple reason...They've got James Carville as their spokesman. (Note to you Leftists: Carville is AT LEAST as bad as Rush, and you KNOW it if you're honest with yourselves)...So, I'm trying to not be a hypocrite here. I've not told anyone to NOT "Boycott" ESPN over this (Even though I don't think it will make any difference even if they DO boycott it) because I tend to speak with my money as well.That being said...It's a WHOLE lot easier to "Boycott" this Infone service than it would be ESPN. And a whole lot more effective too, since ESPN doesn't care unless you're a Neilson Family, but Infone needs ALL the business they can get right now.Just my thoughts on the subject...
Don't strain your hammy doin' the goosestep! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
 
Do you really want to get into this? I have already said I'm willing to give old draft-dodging Rush a chance. Do you really want me to post the volumes that are available to support my statement?Why don't we just leave it at a difference of opinion? As I said, as long as Rush doesn't try to drag his politics into his commentary, I don't really care about him being on ESPN. I reiterate that I don't think football needs to be politicized. Why start that here?
Rush is as honest as the day is long. You do not have ANY factual evidence to support calling him a liar, much less volumes. Besides all I asked for is ONE lie that you heard him say, but you took more time typing about how you could respond instead of responding. Nice bluff, but it aint gonna work here.
 
I don't know...I recently sent an email to that Infone service that's hit the airwaves lately. I told them that even though their service looks very interesting and I'm their target market (I'm too lazy to use a phone book AND I travel a lot) that I will NOT use their service for one simple reason...They've got James Carville as their spokesman. (Note to you Leftists: Carville is AT LEAST as bad as Rush, and you KNOW it if you're honest with yourselves)...So, I'm trying to not be a hypocrite here. I've not told anyone to NOT "Boycott" ESPN over this (Even though I don't think it will make any difference even if they DO boycott it) because I tend to speak with my money as well.That being said...It's a WHOLE lot easier to "Boycott" this Infone service than it would be ESPN. And a whole lot more effective too, since ESPN doesn't care unless you're a Neilson Family, but Infone needs ALL the business they can get right now.Just my thoughts on the subject...
Don't strain your hammy doin' the goosestep! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
You see what I mean about "SCREETCHING Leftist Harpies" that do harm to REAL cases of racism or fascism by over-use of the words???Can you even DEFINE the word "Fascist"? (No fair going to Dictionary.com).And in case you feel froggy, why don't you share with the class what's so "Nazi" about that post of mine?
 
Rush will be a great addition to Sunday Countdown! :thumbup: Only a fool would think he would blur his political world into his football world .This is simply a test run before he moves to Monday Night Football,where he should have been chosen over Dennis Miller originally! IMO This is abc's way of saying they made a mistake!

 
1) I've yet to hear a Limbaugh fan repond to my posting of his comments concerning those "socialists", the New England Patriots. I ask again, is this the kind of commentary we can expect from him on ESPN? 2) To those Limbaugh fans asking non-fans to give him a chance because of his football "expertise", let me throw out this hypothetical: what if ESPN hired, oh let's say Jesse Jackson to be a special Countdown commentator. Assuming Jackson promised to stick strictly to football and demonstrated penetrating insight into the game we love, would you conservatives have any problem with Jackson's presence on the show?

 
1) I've yet to hear a Limbaugh fan repond to my posting of his comments concerning those "socialists", the New England Patriots. I ask again, is this the kind of commentary we can expect from him on ESPN? 2) To those Limbaugh fans asking non-fans to give him a chance because of his football "expertise", let me throw out this hypothetical: what if ESPN hired, oh let's say Jesse Jackson to be a special Countdown commentator. Assuming Jackson promised to stick strictly to football and demonstrated penetrating insight into the game we love, would you conservatives have any problem with Jackson's presence on the show?
1) I've addressed the Patriots thing. I said I've never heard of it but if it's true, he was just kidding in order to make a larger point. I'm sure Rush repects that kind of team work.2) Jessee Jackson is a mush-mouthed mumbling fool. He communicates about as well as one of my farts. That's why I wouldn't want him taking Rush's spot.3) Personally I think he's a Race-Baiting Poverty Pimp. But I supose that has nothing to do with the fact that he'd be a horrible NFL commentator.4) I've not said you guys can't complain or even boycott the show. All I've said is that Rush will do an outstanding job based on his proven track record of being a great (And more importantly, PROFITABLE) communicator.
 
1) I've yet to hear a Limbaugh fan repond to my posting of his comments concerning those "socialists", the New England Patriots. I ask again, is this the kind of commentary we can expect from him on ESPN?
If you cannot see that this comment has been made in jest, then I fear you have problems with keeping a level head when dealing with people you disagree with. He's not an evil person just because you don't like his political views, he can joke around just the same as the next guy.... :no:
 
2) To those Limbaugh fans asking non-fans to give him a chance because of his football "expertise", let me throw out this hypothetical: what if ESPN hired, oh let's say Jesse Jackson to be a special Countdown commentator. Assuming Jackson promised to stick strictly to football and demonstrated penetrating insight into the game we love, would you conservatives have any problem with Jackson's presence on the show?
Let's just make it clear that you don't have to be a "Rush fan" to not want to see this hypocritical fool on television at any time... :thumbdown:
 
All I've said is that Rush will do an outstanding job based on his proven track record of being a great (And more importantly, PROFITABLE) communicator.
based on this logic Howard Stern would be a nice addition as well. His radio show ratings put RL under the table in most markets and his (all-important) book sales are much more lucrative. He had a movie too. btw check out amazons seller ratings for RL, they are pathetic. His best book seller is at 81,219. Funny how "RL is a big fat idiot" is selling at 4,878. Maybe Al Franken would make a good host too. Seriously, RL may end up being a good football commentator, but this is a shameless ploy by Disney (call them ABC or ESPN if you want) to sell their product in an already saturated market. It will fail just like the "dennis miller plan" failed. whether it is despite RL or because of him is yet to be determined.
 
based on this logic Howard Stern would be a nice addition as well. His radio show ratings put RL under the table in most markets and his (all-important) book sales are much more lucrative. He had a movie too. btw check out amazons seller ratings for RL, they are pathetic. His best book seller is at 81,219. Funny how "RL is a big fat idiot" is selling at 4,878. Maybe Al Franken would make a good host too. Seriously, RL may end up being a good football commentator, but this is a shameless ploy by Disney (call them ABC or ESPN if you want) to sell their product in an already saturated market. It will fail just like the "dennis miller plan" failed. whether it is despite RL or because of him is yet to be determined.
If someone things Howard would be profitable (He wouldn't) for them, more power to them...And to point-out what's basically wrong with your argument is the simple fact that Rush is a PROVEN success (Like Stern) in communication, but he's ALSO very proficient in football knowledge.As for your book sales comments. You're making youself out to be a bit of a fool...Rush hasn't had a book out for YEARS. Well before the Buck-Toothed Moron's book. Rush has had two books published. The first one stayed in the top 10 for almost a complete year? (The Way things ought to be) And I think it sold at least a couple of million (Take THAT Hildabeast). His second book (See, I told you so) had the LARGEST first printing on any non-fiction book EVER! That's EVER! And the only reason it didn't stay on the best sellers list as long as the first one is because it sold so many copies right out of the gate...10 weeks if I'm not mistaken. It too sold over two million copies.Al Frankin? PLEASE!! :lol: He's not even in Rush's LEAGUE! Not even CLOSE!! To state anything different is simple FOOLISHNESS! (Thank you for the ammo!) And the ONLY reason he did so well with his book is because he included Rush's name and called him an idiot in the title.NOTE: I ***Think*** Rush sold over 2 million on each of his books but I might be mistaken, that might be a total for both. But I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
 
1) I've yet to hear a Limbaugh fan repond to my posting of his comments concerning those "socialists", the New England Patriots. I ask again, is this the kind of commentary we can expect from him on ESPN? 2) To those Limbaugh fans asking non-fans to give him a chance because of his football "expertise", let me throw out this hypothetical: what if ESPN hired, oh let's say Jesse Jackson to be a special Countdown commentator. Assuming Jackson promised to stick strictly to football and demonstrated penetrating insight into the game we love, would you conservatives have any problem with Jackson's presence on the show?
As long as they ran subtitles under Jesse, I'm OK with it. Especially if he knows anything about football!
 
Gar,

my argument is not that Stern, Franken et al would be better, or anyone for that matter, it is merely to point out that SIMPLY because someone has a track record of selling opinion books and radio advertising (and happens to be a big football fan with a decent amount of knowledge) that person is not automatically qualified to be a sports commentator. I would just as soon listen to Michael Irvin (I cant believe I am saying that) because at least he played the game.

I apologize if I misrepresented RL's book sales, I have never questioned the mans ability to make a buck. But my point remains the same. RL belongs in the same class as sideline reporters who are only there because they are pretty (though he is obviously not pretty). He is being used for his popularity to attempt a ratings boost (in, like I pointed out before, a saturated market). They are merely whoring themselves to boost their own appeal.

One of us could bring the same football knowledge to the table and offer just as much keen insight as Rush will undoubtedly offer. But because people who align with him politically will watch the show, he has appeal. Remind me again what this has to do with football?

It will be absolutely impossible for anyone to filter out what Rush represents, even if he isnt spouting political opinion. I would get as much from Jerry Springer (former mayor) reporting than I would from RL, in fact they both garner similar demographic support. I wonder if Disney will give Jerry a call when Rush fails to draw the ratings.

 
Do you really want to get into this? I have already said I'm willing to give old draft-dodging Rush a chance. Do you really want me to post the volumes that are available to support my statement?Why don't we just leave it at a difference of opinion? As I said, as long as Rush doesn't try to drag his politics into his commentary, I don't really care about him being on ESPN. I reiterate that I don't think football needs to be politicized. Why start that here?
Rush is as honest as the day is long. You do not have ANY factual evidence to support calling him a liar, much less volumes. Besides all I asked for is ONE lie that you heard him say, but you took more time typing about how you could respond instead of responding. Nice bluff, but it aint gonna work here.
See, this is what happens when someone tries to take the high road with fundamentalist ditto-heads. I tried to be civil. I tried to be a gentleman about it, but delusion has it's price.You asked for it, you got it.A mere sampling of Limbaugh's lies and distortions (because you couldn't be big about it):Limbaugh vs. RealityLIMBAUGH: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94) REALITY: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job (L.A. Times, 5/1/94). LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93) REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured. LIMBAUGH: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth." (Ought to Be, p. 70) REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84) REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States") LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243) REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985. LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708. LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Every first year law student knows there is. LIMBAUGH: "Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion.... You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn't it amazing?" (Radio show, 6/28/93) REALITY: Amazingly wrong. Genesis 41 is about the wisdom of instituting taxes, not cutting them. After Pharaoh had a dream that prophesied seven fat years to be followed by seven lean years, Joseph advised him to "appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years...and lay up corn under the hands of Pharaoh." In other words, a 20 percent tax on the grain harvest would put aside food for use during the famine. Pharaoh took Joseph's advice, and Egypt avoided hunger during the famine. LIMBAUGH: Quotes President James Madison: "We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." (Told You So, p. 73) REALITY: "We didn't find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent to us," David B. Mattern, the associate editor of The Madison Papers, told the Kansas City Star (1/16/94). "In addition, the idea is entirely inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government." LIMBAUGH: "And it was only 4,000 votes that--had they gone another way in Chicago--Richard Nixon would have been elected in 1960." (TV show, 4/28/94) REALITY:Kennedy won the 1960 election with 303 electoral votes to 219 for Nixon. Without Illinois' 27 electoral votes, Kennedy would still have won, 276-246. LIMBAUGH: On how to stop riots: "Richard Daley, in 1968, in the Democratic National Convention, issued an order--where there were rumors of riots--he issued a shoot-to-kill order. And there were no riots and there was no civil disobedience and no shots were fired and nobody was hurt. And that's what ought to happen." (TV show, 6/10/93) REALITY: Mayor Daley's shoot-to-kill order was issued not at the Democratic Convention, but following the April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King assassination. Daley wasn't reacting to "rumors of riots" since riots had already broken out. The shoot-to-kill order hardly put an end to unrest--since four months after Daley's order, protestors flocked to Chicago's Democratic Convention and engaged in riotous civil disobedience. Protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching." Except for Rush Limbaugh. LIMBAUGH: In an attack on Spike Lee, director of Malcolm X, for being fast and loose with the facts, Limbaugh introduced a video clip of Malcolm X's "daughter named Betty Shabazz." (TV show, 11/17/92) REALITY: Betty Shabazz is Malcolm X's widow. LIMBAUGH: "Those gas lines were a direct result of the foreign oil powers playing tough with us because they didn't fear Jimmy Carter." (Told You So, p. 112) REALITY: The first--and most serious--gas lines occurred in late 1973/early 1974, during the administration of Limbaugh hero Richard Nixon. LIMBAUGH: On Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh: "This Walsh story basically is, we just spent seven years and $40 million looking for any criminal activity on the part of anybody in the Reagan administration, and guess what? We couldn't find any. These guys didn't do anything, but we wish they had so that we could nail them. So instead, we're just going to say, 'Gosh, these are rotten guys.' They have absolutely no evidence. There is not one indictment. There is not one charge." (TV show, 1/19/94) REALITY:Walsh won indictments against 14 people in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal including leading Reagan administration officials like former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former national security advisers Robert McFarlane and John Poindexter. Of the 14, 11 were convicted or pleaded guilty. (Two convictions were later overturned on technicalities--including that of occasional Limbaugh substitute Oliver North.) LIMBAUGH: Explaining why the Democrats wanted to "sabotage" President Bush with the 1990 budget deal: "Now, here is my point. In 1990, George Bush was president and was enjoying a 90 percent plus approval rating on the strength of our victories in the Persian Gulf War and Cold War." (Told You So, p. 304) REALITY: In October 1990, when the budget deal was concluded the Gulf War had not yet been fought. LIMBAUGH: On the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." (TV show, 4/18/94) REALITY: Both houses of Congress voted to authorize the U.S. to use force against Iraq. LIMBAUGH: On Bosnia: "For the first time in military history, U.S. military personnel are not under the command of United States generals." (TV show, 4/18/94) REALITY: That's news to the Pentagon. "How far back do you want to go?" asked Commander Joe Gradisher, a Pentagon spokesperson. "Americans served under Lafayette in the Revolutionary war." Gradisher pointed out several famous foreign commanders of U.S. troops, including France's Marshall Foch, in overall command of U.S. troops in World War I. In World War II, Britain's General Montgomery led U.S. troops in Europe and North Africa, while another British General, Lord Mountbatten, commanded the China-Burma-India theatre. LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn't make personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?" (Radio show, 2/18/94) REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice--pictured on the cover of Time magazine--was really Sally Jesse Raphael: "This is just what Sally Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!" MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old. LIMBAUGH: Assailing a journalist who had criticized Nixon: "Michael Gartner, portraying himself as a balanced, objective journalist with years and years of experience faking events, and then reporting them as news--and doing so with the express hope of destroying General Motors in one case and destroying businesses that cut down trees, the timber industry, in another." (TV show, 4/27/94) REALITY: Gartner, the NBC News president who resigned in the wake of the GM truck explosion episode on NBC's Dateline, had no hands-on role in it--nor had he expressed a hope of destroying any company. LIMBAUGH: Equally accurate when denouncing a fellow conservative, he said of right-wing journalist Cliff Kincaid: "He's written all kinds of pieces about how I don't go make speeches for free, for the cause.... He's just one more of these little gnats out there trying to sink a Boeing 747 that's leaving him in a cloud of dust." (Radio show, 11/19/93) REALITY: Kincaid's only published piece on whether Limbaugh does speeches "for the cause" was in Human Events (7/27/91): "He does his bit for conservatives when the movement calls. He waived his fees, for instance, when he emceed at roasts for Oliver North and Paul Weyrich and addressed the National Right to Life convention." That enough for you? I've got more. TONS more. Now, your job is to refute each and every one of those claims. Make sure to cite your sources, just as I have done. If you cannot do that, then you lose. You defined the rules, not me. Don't pull a Limbaugh and change the rules because you can't win.
 
Summing up the liberals objections to RL - He is a liar and a big fat idiot.That's what passes for intellectual discourse in the liberal world...name-calling & baseless accusations. I personally find his show boring, but I don't think he's a liar.Sometimes liberals have difficulty discerning between a mistake & a lie, so probably they're counting an error as a lie.I'd like to see 1 (one) documented incident of RL having lied. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

 
Summing up the liberals objections to RL - He is a liar and a big fat idiot.That's what passes for intellectual discourse in the liberal world...name-calling & baseless accusations. I personally find his show boring, but I don't think he's a liar.Sometimes liberals have difficulty discerning between a mistake & a lie, so probably they're counting an error as a lie.I'd like to see 1 (one) documented incident of RL having lied. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.
You could have held your breath. It wouldn't have taken long. Just see above. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gar,

my argument is not that Stern, Franken et al would be better, or anyone for that matter, it is merely to point out that SIMPLY because someone has a track record of selling opinion books and radio advertising (and happens to be a big football fan with a decent amount of knowledge) that person is not automatically qualified to be a sports commentator. I would just as soon listen to Michael Irvin (I cant believe I am saying that) because at least he played the game.

I apologize if I misrepresented RL's book sales, I have never questioned the mans ability to make a buck. But my point remains the same. RL belongs in the same class as sideline reporters who are only there because they are pretty (though he is obviously not pretty). He is being used for his popularity to attempt a ratings boost (in, like I pointed out before, a saturated market). They are merely whoring themselves to boost their own appeal.

One of us could bring the same football knowledge to the table and offer just as much keen insight as Rush will undoubtedly offer. But because people who align with him politically will watch the show, he has appeal. Remind me again what this has to do with football?

It will be absolutely impossible for anyone to filter out what Rush represents, even if he isnt spouting political opinion. I would get as much from Jerry Springer (former mayor) reporting than I would from RL, in fact they both garner similar demographic support. I wonder if Disney will give Jerry a call when Rush fails to draw the ratings.
OK...Let me try this again....1) Rush will do great because he's a proven "Communicator" of the highest order. He KNOWS how to get points across (You and I couldn't do that. Not even close). He DESTROYS his competition in this area.

2) Rush will do great because he's shown a very in-depth understanding of the game on his radio show. Probably a lot better than you and I.

3) Rush will do great because he's a proven "Profitable" success in the media.

4) Rush will do great because he's been talking to these guys for over 10 years about a postition like this. I can ONLY assume the people who he's talking too know their stuff.

5) Rush will do well because he's already got a following (I guess this is where your "Whore" comments have a bit of merit).

And here is the only part where I'm giving nothing but opinon...

6) Rush will do well becuase I think he'll represent the "Average Fan" as good, or better, than anyone I can think of.

Oh...And nice try with the Rush supporters = Jerry Spinger supporters. But it only makes you look like a partisan fool because it's not even close. And if I wanted to be crude, I could make a MUCH better case of liberals = Jerry Springer fans based on welfare participants ALONE!

 
That enough for you? I've got more. TONS more. Now, your job is to refute each and every one of those claims. Make sure to cite your sources, just as I have done. If you cannot do that, then you lose. You defined the rules, not me. Don't pull a Limbaugh and change the rules because you can't win.
You didn't "Cite" anything yourself. You just copy and pasted a bunch of crap put out by some partisan leftist group, I'm sure. Because of that, it's not worth reading because none of it is in context...Not even CLOSE.Let me guess, that came from "FAIR" (A FAR Leftist group that has the NERVE to call themselves "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting"). Isn't it funny how they never seem to "Check the accuracy" of the Liberal Media??? In other words, the place is a joke and not to be trusted.And if it is from FAIR, Rush produced a rebuttal that's about 100 pages long...Literally. Go find it if you're so interested. I don't need to, I actually listen to him every day.
 
LAKE CITY GAR,I am anxiously waiting for the response to SAGAN's post on Limbaughs "lies"! :boxing:
I am, as well. Of course, there has already been the caveat of "a mistake is not the same as a lie", so I'm sure someone will figure out a way to avoid Rush having to be accountable for his actual words.Personal responsibility for everybody except the far-right -- it's the Republican way. :rolleyes:
 
That enough for you? I've got more. TONS more. Now, your job is to refute each and every one of those claims. Make sure to cite your sources, just as I have done. If you cannot do that, then you lose. You defined the rules, not me. Don't pull a Limbaugh and change the rules because you can't win.
You didn't "Cite" anything yourself. You just copy and pasted a bunch of crap put out by some partisan leftist group, I'm sure. Because of that, it's not worth reading because none of it is in context...Not even CLOSE.Let me guess, that came from "FAIR" (A FAR Leftist group that has the NERVE to call themselves "Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting"). Isn't it funny how they never seem to "Check the accuracy" of the Liberal Media??? In other words, the place is a joke and not to be trusted.And if it is from FAIR, Rush produced a rebuttal that's about 100 pages long...Literally. Go find it if you're so interested. I don't need to, I actually listen to him every day.
AKA, I can't refute the message, so I'll shoot the messenger.
 
LAKE CITY GAR,I am anxiously waiting for the response to SAGAN's post on Limbaughs "lies"! :boxing:
I am, as well. Of course, there has already been the caveat of "a mistake is not the same as a lie", so I'm sure someone will figure out a way to avoid Rush having to be accountable for his actual words.Personal responsibility for everybody except the far-right -- it's the Republican way. :rolleyes:
Like I've already said, Rush has prepared a 100 page rebuttal to all you have listed. Unlike you, I won't go searching for it and copy and pasting it here.
 
And if it is from FAIR, Rush produced a rebuttal that's about 100 pages long...Literally. Go find it if you're so interested. I don't need to, I actually listen to him every day.
And since we're having so much fun here, I did a Google search on "Limbaugh lies" (34,000 pages found :) ) and found this gem from someone who did a little research on one of the rebuttal itemsRebuttal of Limbaugh's rebuttal

I don't know how any impartial observer can avoid the conclusion that RL severely distorted the data to make his point. Not technically a "lie", but false logic, and deliberately so.

 
Do you really want to get into this? I have already said I'm willing to give old draft-dodging Rush a chance...See, this is what happens when someone tries to take the high road with fundamentalist ditto-heads...
LOL at that being the "high road".
 
LAKE CITY GAR,I am anxiously waiting for the response to SAGAN's post on Limbaughs "lies"! :boxing:
I am, as well. Of course, there has already been the caveat of "a mistake is not the same as a lie", so I'm sure someone will figure out a way to avoid Rush having to be accountable for his actual words.Personal responsibility for everybody except the far-right -- it's the Republican way. :rolleyes:
Like I've already said, Rush has prepared a 100 page rebuttal to all you have listed. Unlike you, I won't go searching for it and copy and pasting it here.
Not my job. It's YOUR job. I was asked to prove that Limbaugh lied once. Just once. I posted documented sources. I know about that rebuttal and as the previous poster has mentioned, his rebuttal was thoroughly trashed and discredited.Do your own work. I'm not going to help you maintain your delusional faith-based political views. That would just make me an enabler. Like with a drug addict.
 
Do you really want to get into this?  I have already said I'm willing to give old draft-dodging Rush a chance...See, this is what happens when someone tries to take the high road with fundamentalist ditto-heads...
LOL at that being the "high road".
Higher than it became or is now or will soon be, that's for sure. :)Hey, I tried.
 
I know about that rebuttal and as the previous poster has mentioned, his rebuttal was thoroughly trashed and discredited.
OK, I'll play...I know about "FAIR"'s report on Limbaugh. It's been thoroughly trashed and discredited.In other words:I know you are, but what am I??
 
OK, I'll play...I know about "FAIR"'s report on Limbaugh. It's been thoroughly trashed and discredited.In other words:I know you are, but what am I??
I'm pretty accustomed to that level of discourse from those who believe Rush is a font of knowledge... :lol:
 
He didn't make one. Apparently, he claimed that he doesn't want to get involved in going back and forth on this... :ph34r:

 
Thanks, abrecher. I'm perfectly content to let the issue drop.I think that's about said it all.To repeat, just for the sake of graciousness, I think Limbaugh will do fine with sports commentary. As long as he leave politics out of it. Football doesn't need to be politicized. Really, no sports need that.

 
But where's the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal? :wall:
Gar,You forgot some of your favorite catch phrases in that response... Where's the word propoganda or leftist?Seems weird that you could respond without putting those in there... Kudos :thumbup:
 
Limbaugh was not joking concerning his statements about the Patriots being socialists for not allowing individual introductions. In fact when Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor to stand up for and praise the team (and I'm not defending the Senator's use of the Super Bowl for political purposes either), Limbaugh reiterated and expounded on his criticisms. He was no doubt extra pissed that Kennedy's home team won the big one. As Limbaugh even has fans in the liberal northeast (who let him know in no uncertain terms how they felt about his trashing of their beloved team), he eventually apologized for his stupid comments.The addition of Limbaugh seems unlikely to add any viewers. Quite the reverse. I'm guessing ESPN's audience skews pretty conservative already and football fans who like Limbaugh's radio show probably already watch Countdown. However, those who despise Limbaugh and already watch Countdown may now decide to boycott the show. This was probably behind ABC's decision to pick Dennis Miller over Rush for MNF. While much of his material over the years has been political, Miller was not as overtly identified with a political ideology as Limbaugh (Miller twice supported Perot for president). That's changed recently of course. Personally, I find all the pregame shows a waste of time. The ratio of useful information to overall content is pretty low. I'd rather read this board before gametime as the FBGs do a great job of posting and e-mailing in a timely fashion any latebreaking news.

 
To repeat, just for the sake of graciousness, I think Limbaugh will do fine with sports commentary. As long as he leave politics out of it. Football doesn't need to be politicized. Really, no sports need that.
I thought we all agreed that he won't do that on the first page??? :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
 
To repeat, just for the sake of graciousness, I think Limbaugh will do fine with sports commentary. As long as he leave politics out of it. Football doesn't need to be politicized. Really, no sports need that.
I thought we all agreed that he won't do that on the first page??? :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Show me your badge, forum cop... :D I was just saying, is all... yeesh...
 
A little help here... I just want to know what fear-inducing nouns and verbs I can apply to the far left. Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya has the conservatives wearing "jackboots" and "goosestepping"... what can I do to invoke the primal fear and distrust that I think we all have for anything Nazi? Hmmmm.... maybe something Stalinist... or something Mao? Nope not having any luck.And, for all of you guys who think Ann Coulter is crazy... I won't say she isn't out there... but I WILL say that she is dead on re: the basis for argument for any liberal. That basis is, simply, conservatives are evil. That way, Nazi imagery applied in the context of a message board seems perfectly normal because, after all, why shouldn't we compare conservatives with Nazis (or, on page 1 of this post, al-Qa'ida terrorists). I mean, they're all evil, right?(Edited to correct Yah_Shoor_Yoobetchya's name.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top