Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Rush Limbaugh - 2.17.21 R.I.P.


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Fortunately they saw the error in their bigotry and embrace equality.  Your party remains bigoted on this issue. 

And your party remains the party of commie pigs.  Do you want to put your grown man pants on and have a real discussion?  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

And your party remains the party of commie pigs.  Do you want to put your grown man pants on and have a real discussion?  

Happy to discuss economics after you own the bigotry codified in your party’s platform.  You’re good with the GOP’s stated position on gay marriage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tommyGunZ said:

Happy to discuss economics after you own the bigotry codified in your party’s platform.  You’re good with the GOP’s stated position on gay marriage?

I am aware that party platforms are written by party activists.  If you total up the Democratic platform you would have over one hundred trillion dollars of new spending.  Do you support government spending several times larger than the natiin's GDP?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

And your party remains the party of commie pigs.  Do you want to put your grown man pants on and have a real discussion?  

Ugh.

Do you really expect a serious discussion after that appalling characterization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I am aware that party platforms are written by party activists.  If you total up the Democratic platform you would have over one hundred trillion dollars of new spending.  Do you support government spending several times larger than the natiin's GDP?  

I don’t think you answered his question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I don’t think you answered his question. 

It was irrelevant to the discussoon.  I despise the shaming from either side.  Ideally the government would not be involved, but as it is the Supreme Court was correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Fortunately they saw the error in their bigotry and embrace equality.  Your party remains bigoted on this issue. 

 

Direct Headline: Limbaugh Secretly Donated $100,000 to Children’s Hospital: Country Star John Rich

By Samuel Allegri  February 19, 2021

https://www.theepochtimes.com/limbaugh-secretly-donated-100000-to-childrens-hospital-country-star-john-rich_3703562.html

https://twitter.com/johnrich/status/1362093694145470465

 

*****

The money Limbaugh gave helped everyone at that hospital. Rich, poor, white, black, Latino, Asian, boy, girl, didn't matter.

The money Limbaugh gave was more than equal opportunity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I am aware that party platforms are written by party activists.  If you total up the Democratic platform you would have over one hundred trillion dollars of new spending.  Do you support government spending several times larger than the natiin's GDP?  

You know that gov't spending leads to neither communism nor swine, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tommyGunZ said:

Fortunately they saw the error in their bigotry and embrace equality.  Your party remains bigoted on this issue. 

"...saw the error in their bigotry"?   :lol:

This is absurd.  That was not more than 5-10 years ago AT MOST and, in reality, that's not someone seeing "the error in their bigotry" - that's someone who saw it as politically convenient for votes.

The Democratic Party is almost as bigoted now as it was 100-160-years ago when it started the KKK and enacted Jim Crowe and fought to keep slavery.  Hell, even back in 2016 when their emails were hacked and released you could see it when they thought nobody was watching.

And we won't even get into their "keep'em poor for votes" policies.  LBJ had it right.  You certainly got black people voting for you.  But, hey, it's the "other guys" who are bigots. 

DNC bigotry is behind closed doors but make no mistake - it's still there.  Your whole party was built on it.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

"...saw the error in their bigotry"?   :lol:

This is absurd.  That was not more than 5-10 years ago AT MOST and, in reality, that's not someone seeing "the error in their bigotry" - that's someone who saw it as politically convenient.

The Democratic Party is almost as bigoted now as it was 100-160-years ago when it started the KKK and enacted Jim Crowe and fought to keep slavery.  Hell, even back in 2016 when their emails were hacked and released you could see it when they thought nobody was watching.

And we won't even get into their "keep'em poor for votes" policies.  LBJ had it right.  You certainly got black people voting for you.  But, hey, it's the "other guys" who are bigots.  DNC bigotry is behind closed doors but make no mistake - it's still there.

Please.  Your whole party was built on bigotry.

Can I note the irony of this post coming in a thread about a man who was fired from ESPN for his comments about a black quarterback without severe backlash for being insensitive or would that be too soon? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The Democratic Party is almost as bigoted now as it was 100-160-years ago when it started the KKK and enacted Jim Crowe and fought to keep slavery.  Hell, even back in 2016 when their emails were hacked and released you could see it when they thought nobody was watching.

Almost as bigoted now as it was 100-160 years ago? :rolleyes:

And no, The Democratic Party did not start the KKK.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-democratic-party-did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/

Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War

Quote

Historians agree that although factions of the Democratic Party did majorly contribute to the Civil War's start and the KKK's founding, it is inaccurate to say the party is responsible for either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I'm shocked this thread has gone off the rails. Shocked.

Two of the largest demographic groups, especially online, are: (1) people who are kind of angry about stuff, and (2) other people who are also kind of angry about stuff.

When you put those two groups together in the same discussion, it has the potential to get quarrelsome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, squistion said:

Almost as bigoted now as it was 100-160 years ago? :rolleyes:

And no, The Democratic Party did not start the KKK.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-democratic-party-did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/

Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War

 

Woah woah woah - this is not fair at all, and that article was garbage. Not to derail this train wreck of a thread, but in the interest of promoting honesty and historical accuracy - the KKK was very much indeed founded by Democrats.  That’s just a fact.  If you want to split hairs and say it wasn’t the Democratic “Party” that founded it - have at it.  But you are missing the forest through the trees and not arguing in good faith.  There are many ties between the Party and the KKK early on.  For one, the Democratic Party honored the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan when he spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

Edited by ekbeats
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Are we really comparing 1868 to today? And if we are, 83% of ethnic and racial minorities in congress are democrats. That seems like a more important stat than what party had more KKK members 150 years ago

Agreed. A more appropriate debate would be how each party today views racial equality and how to get there.  A fairly good argument can be made that the Left’s hyper focus on identity politics is a de facto form of racism itself.

Edited by ekbeats
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Agreed. A more appropriate debate would be how each party today views racial equality and how to get there.  A fairly good argument can be made that the Left’s hyper focus on identity politics is a de facto form of racism itself.

It’s an argument. Not a good one. 

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

It’s an argument. Not a good one. 

Depends how you define racism.  If you define it as it exists in the dictionary - “Discrimination or prejudice based on race” then the Left’s current approach is de facto racism.  It’s an entirely separate debate as to what is the most effective way to right past wrongs and bring blacks into parity with whites.  On that issue I think you and I are in agreement. 

Edited by ekbeats
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ekbeats said:

Agreed. A more appropriate debate would be how each party today views racial equality and how to get there.  A fairly good argument can be made that the Left’s hyper focus on identity politics is a de facto form of racism itself.

"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality starts feeling like oppression". 

  • Like 2
  • Love 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, massraider said:

"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality starts feeling like oppression". 

Not sure I agree with that statement.  I believe most people want to see equality.  And I also believe that most Americans would support affirmative action policies if they were explained honestly.  Don’t try to tell people it’s not reverse discrimination - it is - by definition. Just acknowledge that it’s necessary for a period of time to right old wrongs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, General Malaise said:

Can I note the irony of this post coming in a thread about a man who was fired from ESPN for his comments about a black quarterback without severe backlash for being insensitive or would that be too soon? 

yea, he called out McNabb for not being that good, but mainly called out the media for fawning over a QB when it was the defense they should have been fawning over.   You probably don't care but here is what he said:

https://www.sportscasting.com/what-did-rush-limbaugh-say-about-donovan-mcnabb-that-cost-him-his-job/

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

Not sure I agree with that statement.  I believe most people want to see equality.  And I also believe that most Americans would support affirmative action policies if they were explained honestly.  Don’t try to tell people it’s not reverse discrimination - it is - by definition. Just acknowledge that it’s necessary for a period of time to right old wrongs.  

Not sure the rest of the post matters a ton.   If this place is an accurate reflection of opinions, it seems like most/all want the idea of equality is principle, but its a mix of:  1.  thinking there isn't anything to correct, and there hasn't been for some time,  2.  like the idea as long as it doesn't effect them or their kids, and 3.  seem to be ok with affirmative action policies and the like.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, shadrap said:
9 hours ago, General Malaise said:

Can I note the irony of this post coming in a thread about a man who was fired from ESPN for his comments about a black quarterback without severe backlash for being insensitive or would that be too soon? 

yea, he called out McNabb for not being that good, but mainly called out the media for fawning over a QB when it was the defense they should have been fawning over.   You probably don't care but here is what he said:

https://www.sportscasting.com/what-did-rush-limbaugh-say-about-donovan-mcnabb-that-cost-him-his-job/

You omitted the crux of Limbaugh's argument, which was that "the media" only promoted McNabb because he was black. Not because he'd made 3 Pro Bowls, or because he'd won playoff games 3 years in a row, or because he was a top-5 fantasy player. Nooooo, none of those things mattered in the mind of Rush Limbaugh. In his worldview, there had to be a deeper reason for McNabb's popularity, and he concluded that it was due to the color of McNabb's skin.

You know, because the media never promoted white quarterbacks from defense-oriented contenders (cough cough Trent Dilfer).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 2:35 PM, beer 30 said:

And here we are, all the better for it :suds:

I was never a listener of Rush, a couple times a week I would flip him on during the ride to & from home for lunch (4 miles to give you an idea of my listening time) and catch the talking point of the day but nothing past that. He had his audience and was a trailblazer in the field, RIP.

Who's the English guy that fills in for him? Mark something? I always enjoyed his style, guess I won't be hearing from him any longer either.

Conservative talk radio host from Milwaukee Mark Belling sat in for him often. But I don't think he's English. I never listened to Rush so I don't know if there was another Mark or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

You omitted the crux of Limbaugh's argument, which was that "the media" only promoted McNabb because he was black. Not because he'd made 3 Pro Bowls, or because he'd won playoff games 3 years in a row, or because he was a top-5 fantasy player. Nooooo, none of those things mattered in the mind of Rush Limbaugh. In his worldview, there had to be a deeper reason for McNabb's popularity, and he concluded that it was due to the color of McNabb's skin.

You know, because the media never promoted white quarterbacks from defense-oriented contenders (cough cough Trent Dilfer).

 

The kind of marketing you get depends on your Q Score ( Also your E Score in modern times, but we are talking a different era here)

Your Q Score will factor your race into the equation.

Reggie Bush was very marketable because he appealed to women and he was considered good looking in general. Grant Hill, in his prime, was insanely popular all across the board.  Joey Harrington appealed highly to ....not women. Matt LeBlanc of Friends also tested highly to ... not women, which is why storylines kept him from an actual long term relationship with a woman on the show.

Height, age, religious background, married or not, kids or not, championship or not, the list goes on forever. You think they just do this for insurance formulas?

Limbaugh was not "right"

However, Limbaugh did have a "point" that shouldn't have been so easily discarded and ignored.

The NFL wants to anchor it's marketing to at least super star per team. But, in a pinch, they do what they can. A few times, the 49ers had their league marketing built around Julian Peterson, a linebacker. They were beaten up for talent and that's what they had to offer. It's not like the McNabb Eagles years had rosters like the 1995 Cowboys or the 1989 49ers.

Limbaugh could only see things from his perspective of the media market. There's quite a bit more complexity to it compared to Rush's take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mr.Pack said:

Conservative talk radio host from Milwaukee Mark Belling sat in for him often. But I don't think he's English. I never listened to Rush so I don't know if there was another Mark or not.

Mark Steyn is the English guy who used to fill in for Rush.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

The kind of marketing you get depends on your Q Score ( Also your E Score in modern times, but we are talking a different era here)

Your Q Score will factor your race into the equation.

Reggie Bush was very marketable because he appealed to women and he was considered good looking in general. Grant Hill, in his prime, was insanely popular all across the board.  Joey Harrington appealed highly to ....not women. Matt LeBlanc of Friends also tested highly to ... not women, which is why storylines kept him from an actual long term relationship with a woman on the show.

Height, age, religious background, married or not, kids or not, championship or not, the list goes on forever. You think they just do this for insurance formulas?

Limbaugh was not "right"

However, Limbaugh did have a "point" that shouldn't have been so easily discarded and ignored.

The NFL wants to anchor it's marketing to at least super star per team. But, in a pinch, they do what they can. A few times, the 49ers had their league marketing built around Julian Peterson, a linebacker. They were beaten up for talent and that's what they had to offer. It's not like the McNabb Eagles years had rosters like the 1995 Cowboys or the 1989 49ers.

Limbaugh could only see things from his perspective of the media market. There's quite a bit more complexity to it compared to Rush's take.

I watched the Rush McNabb comment as it happened.  None of the panel voiced any contrary opinion about it at the time.

 

Until the next day.

I remember Tom Jackson in particular being outraged by the racial insensitivity of Rush's take. 

Just took him 24 hours to get there.

Lol.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to Sirius today and they played "Back to Ohio" by the Pretenders that is also the theme song to The Rush Limbaugh show. Then had a short clip with Chrisse Hynde on why would an anti-establishment, PETA person like herself allow her song to be Rush`s intro.    It was pretty funny..Chrissie  said my managers wanted me to sue Rush to get my song off his show as he never asked permission to use it.  I told my parents and they both loved his show and they said everyday we listen to his show we hear your song..so don`t make him take it off.   

Ended up that she let Rush keep the song as an intro and Rush donated money to the charity of Chrissie`s choice.  

Edited by Da Guru
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 8:24 AM, dawgtrails said:

Are we really comparing 1868 to today? And if we are, 83% of ethnic and racial minorities in congress are democrats. That seems like a more important stat than what party had more KKK members 150 years ago

The left loooooves to live in the past and get folks riled up about it....it's kind of their thing.....only stuff that fits the narrative though

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Manster said:
On 2/21/2021 at 10:24 AM, dawgtrails said:

Are we really comparing 1868 to today? And if we are, 83% of ethnic and racial minorities in congress are democrats. That seems like a more important stat than what party had more KKK members 150 years ago

The left loooooves to live in the past and get folks riled up about it....it's kind of their thing.....only stuff that fits the narrative though

I have no idea what this means.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 5:21 PM, Sea Duck said:

You omitted the crux of Limbaugh's argument, which was that "the media" only promoted McNabb because he was black. Not because he'd made 3 Pro Bowls, or because he'd won playoff games 3 years in a row, or because he was a top-5 fantasy player. Nooooo, none of those things mattered in the mind of Rush Limbaugh. In his worldview, there had to be a deeper reason for McNabb's popularity, and he concluded that it was due to the color of McNabb's skin.

You know, because the media never promoted white quarterbacks from defense-oriented contenders (cough cough Trent Dilfer).

The media never promoted Trent Dilfer as a good quarterback. You weren't watching football if you believe that they did. They always knocked him, to the point people wondered why he got a job in media assessing QB skill. This is just inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Manster said:

The left loooooves to live in the past and get folks riled up about it....it's kind of their thing.....only stuff that fits the narrative though

They dooooooo? I would think that is more of a conservative trait.  :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 8:21 PM, Sea Duck said:

You omitted the crux of Limbaugh's argument, which was that "the media" only promoted McNabb because he was black. Not because he'd made 3 Pro Bowls, or because he'd won playoff games 3 years in a row, or because he was a top-5 fantasy player. Nooooo, none of those things mattered in the mind of Rush Limbaugh. In his worldview, there had to be a deeper reason for McNabb's popularity, and he concluded that it was due to the color of McNabb's skin.

You know, because the media never promoted white quarterbacks from defense-oriented contenders (cough cough Trent Dilfer).

Trent Dilfer?  Bad example, I never heard the media be kind to Dilfer.   Uusally it was the worst QB to even win a SB.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

They dooooooo? I would think that is more of a conservative trait.  :coffee:

Isn't that kind of the definition of conservatism? 

I also noticed no exampke of how lefties are living in the past, just the usual blanket statement.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Isn't that kind of the definition of conservatism? 

I also noticed no exampke of how lefties are living in the past, just the usual blanket statement.  

And we have seem both Bill and Hillary  brought up on this board recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

Isn't that kind of the definition of conservatism? 

I also noticed no example of how lefties are living in the past, just the usual blanket statement.  

Yeah, and trying to change the consequences of the past is hardly living in it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Manster said:
1 hour ago, squistion said:

They dooooooo? I would think that is more of a conservative trait.  :coffee:

Let me re-phrase.....they love to dig up the past to rule up the masses

Yo shouldr re-phrase again. Maybe with some examples so we can decipher your lingo.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

LOL.  You'll be talking about Trump for 20 more years or longer.  2000 times as often as Hillary is brought up. 

It will probably take at least 20 years for this country to recover from all the damage Trump did to it. 

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...