ESPN reports Rush to be dropped from the bid

Yes, this is political since it was brought up on the House floor (at least that's what I heard from a caller on the Hannity radio show) and we know the true reason they are opposing it is due to Rush's political stance. But Rush's political opposition has won. It just isn't right.

sports.espn.go.com...


Here's the proof that House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee did use her floor time on Tuesday to "urge" the NFL not to allow Rush to buy the Rams.

thehill.com...

But Jackson Lee, citing Limbaugh's controversial remarks about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb in 2003, said the right-leaning radio host is "divisive."

While stressing that she is a firm believer in the First Amendment and acknowledging the matter is not a government issue, Jackson Lee said in a floor speech, "I know he is not the kind of owner the NFL needs." She called on the NFL to "do the right thing" and "have some integrity" by rebuffing Limbaugh.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by willow1d]

This was brought up on the House floor?

Somebody needs to be smacked. Over and over and over.

The current owner(s) can sell to whoever they want to and whoever can afford to buy in should be free to make an offer.

This couldnt possibly have less to do with politics or government.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The current owner(s) can sell to whoever they want to and whoever can afford to buy in should be free to make an offer.

Umm, no they can't.

BOSTON (AP) -- Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into opposition within the NFL on Tuesday, when Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider.

"I, myself, couldn't even consider voting for him," Irsay said at an owners meetings. "When there are comments that have been made that are inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive ... our words do damage, and it's something that we don't need."

Prospective owners must be approved by 24 of the league's 32 teams.

sportsillustrated.cnn.com...

reply to post by Aggie Man


I wish I hadnt learned that. Knowing that the owners are part of some sort of "good 'ol boys" club makes me more than a little nauseous.

I dont think I can ever watch a game in the same way again.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

I wish I hadnt learned that. Knowing that the owners are part of some sort of "good 'ol boys" club makes me more than a little nauseous.

I dont think I can ever watch a game in the same way again.

Sad!!! The NFL is losing a fan Imagine how many they would lose if Rush's bid was accepted. I think they are better off this way. It makes business sense.

EDIT: Rush IS the spokesman and leader of the "good 'ol boys"

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

If the owners association ever did approve this, it would do nothing but lend credence to their short memories; wasn't Rush the one a few years back who said that Donovan McNabb had been coddled in the press because he was black? Don't think that kind of belief structure belongs anywhere near a professional sports organization that relies so heavily on multi-culturalism... 'sides, has he ever seen an Eagles game? "Coddled" isn't exactly the word I would use to classify how their fans treat their quarterback...

Bottom line is that someone so politically divisive has no business in professional sports, IMO...

Originally posted by Legion2112
If the owners association ever did approve this, it would do nothing but lend credence to their short memories; wasn't Rush the one a few years back who said that Donovan McNabb had been coddled in the press because he was black? Don't think that kind of belief structure belongs anywhere near a professional sports organization that relies so heavily on multi-culturalism... 'sides, has he ever seen an Eagles game? "Coddled" isn't exactly the word I would use to classify how their fans treat their quarterback...

Bottom line is that someone so politically divisive has no business in professional sports, IMO...

Yes. Here are a couple of Rush quotes from the article.

"The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Originally posted by Aggie Man It makes business sense.

Since you brought that up does blocking this individual from partially owning a team make more or less business sense than signing a felon and animal torturing quarterback to your team?

I wonder what football fans abhor more: some radio host or a guy who tortured and killed dozens of animals for fun? Lord knows Vick didnt need the profit although that was there too.

All of the felon players and scumbag worship pushed me away from basketball.

Soon enough all that will be left is curling.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Aggie Man It makes business sense.

Since you brought that up does blocking this individual from partially owning a team make more or less business sense than signing a felon and animal torturing quarterback to your team?

I wonder what football fans abhor more: some radio host or a guy who tortured and killed dozens of animals for fun? Lord knows Vick didnt need the profit although that was there too.

All of the felon players and scumbag worship pushed me away from basketball.

Soon enough all that will be left is curling.

No matter what the venue, bottom line is talent has value and will be pursued, regardless of past mistakes. In this case, Vick had talent to bring to the Eagles. Rush has no redeeming qualities to bring to the table as owner.

EDIT: Not to mention that many NFL players have spoke out on this issue and said they would not play for the team if Rush was owner. That in and of itself would add an additional layer of adversity against a team that is already in the dumps.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

There also might be clause that prohibits junkies from being franchise owners.
Any normal person caught with the amount of "hillbilly heroin" that Rush was, would still be in the joint.

Isn't it the conservatives that say people need to be responsible for their actions past and present? well.........

www.cnn.com...

I can't wait to hear Rush on the Radio whining about this and blaming it on the Libs.

Man up Rush, you lisping, &#^%^&, with talent on loan from GOD!!





[edit on 14-10-2009 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


I've been seeing a surge lately in the leftist startegy to use the constitution to destroy the constitution, use the bible to destroy the bible, and you just summed it up here in using standards to destroy standards. Thank you. I mean nobody can maintain standards so whats the point of trying? Woo HOO! Lets party!

Originally posted by TreadUpon
reply to post by whaaa

 

I've been seeing a surge lately in the leftist startegy to use the constitution to destroy the constitution, use the bible to destroy the bible, and you just summed it up here in using standards to destroy standards. Thank you. I mean nobody can maintain standards so whats the point of trying? Woo HOO! Lets party!

Apparently Rush decided to party hardy with Oxy, while he condemed other folks who used recreational drugs. Did Rush maintain any standards with his hypocracy? Pot/Kettle anyone.

www.opednews.com...

Please don't lecture me about standards. I make no "holier than thou" claims.

All parties are guilty of hypocracy; but remind me which one is it that claims to be the party of "family Values". Don't you find it ironic that the defacto leader of the GOP is a junky?







[edit on 15-10-2009 by whaaa]

The NFL, being a private organization, can accept or deny an ownership bid for most any reason. That said, I think its a little hypocritical. Aside from whatever skeletons are in the closets of the other NFL owners, some of the guys the NFL allows on the field make Rush Limbaugh look like a model citizen by comparison.

There is a lot of opposition to Rush owning it because of racial statements Rush has made in the past. It was the reason he was kicked off the NFL show on Sunday's many moons ago.

Many players have already admitted that if Rush bought the team, they will never join it.

The franchise is already hurting. They don't need Rush hurting it more.

reply to post by nixie_nox


No there was a lot of opposition because of bigots like Al Sharpton opening their mouth.

If you honestly believe players would leave multi million dollar contracts because of Rush being an owner then you are more gullible then they are stupid.

The only harm done to the NFL over this was the fact that the race card was played and won.

reply to post by nixie_nox


They may say that, but practically all of them will sign with the team that offers them the most money, regardless of who signs the check. Wave $30 million in front of a 25 year old's face and they're not going to care as long as its the highest offer. Rush's money spends as well as anyone else's, after all.

Originally posted by Legion2112
If the owners association ever did approve this, it would do nothing but lend credence to their short memories; wasn't Rush the one a few years back who said that Donovan McNabb had been coddled in the press because he was black? Don't think that kind of belief structure belongs anywhere near a professional sports organization that relies so heavily on multi-culturalism... 'sides, has he ever seen an Eagles game? "Coddled" isn't exactly the word I would use to classify how their fans treat their quarterback...

Bottom line is that someone so politically divisive has no business in professional sports, IMO...

Get your facts straight before you make judgments. Here is what he actually said:

McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well."

"There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

www.slate.com...

His comment was about the media being desirous, the MEDIA WANTING a black quarterback to do well.

Rush was trashing the media with this comment - he in NO WAY said anything about Donovan McNabb with regard to his being black.

He DID say that McNabb was a poor quarterback and he was right.

So please, UNDERSTAND what you're commenting on before you make judgments. It's YOUR OWN IGNORANCE like this that perpetuates hate, sir, not Limbaugh himself.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Aggie Man It makes business sense.

Since you brought that up does blocking this individual from partially owning a team make more or less business sense than signing a felon and animal torturing quarterback to your team?

I wonder what football fans abhor more: some radio host or a guy who tortured and killed dozens of animals for fun? Lord knows Vick didnt need the profit although that was there too.

All of the felon players and scumbag worship pushed me away from basketball.

well, Vick went to jail for the dogs...rush didn't go to jail for drug dealing and use.

Soon enough all that will be left is curling.

Originally posted by willow1d
... and we know the true reason they are opposing it is due to Rush's political stance.

Why? Because football and sports in general are historically driven and supported by the left?

This is a racial issue. Limbaugh has spouted his racist crap one too many times and it's come back to bite him on the ass. Of course he's going to blame it on the left. That's what he does best.