As for the thing with McNabb (Cooney, Pacquiao, et all), of course identity politics plays a role in everything. Mirror neurons are a fascinating aspect of life that I've been doing some research about recently. Amazing stuff. Maybe the defining aspect of humanity. But Limbaugh didn't say that black members of the media were hoping McNabb would do well. He was saying the media in general (which is not all that black) wanted McNabb to do well, and were therefore lowering the bar on what counted as a "good" performance. His calling it a "social concern" makes it pretty clear that what he's really doing is trying to make a point about affirmative action. At least to me. And that's what's wrong with it. He's making the jump that because he thinks McNabb isn't that good that the only reason people are calling him good is because they feel bad for him because he's black and are judging him by a different standard.
As for no one making a big deal about it on the set, Tom Jackson at least called not doing that one of the biggest regrets of his career. He knew it was wrong right away. But a show is a show. I don't blame people for not calling people out right in the middle of things on a show because that's not what the show is supposed to be about. I don't think it was a couple of days later that it became an issue either. Granted my memory could be a bit fuzzy but I remember it blowing up pretty much right away, or at least what counted as right away in the Land Before Twitter.
We'll have to wait I guess before some mega controversial liberal tries to buy part of a football team before we can have a true one to one comparison of these things. But it's not like the owners aren't active in fundraising and donations and that there aren't guys active on both sides of the spectrum. Here's a story about it:
I personally just can't see any reason to look at Limbaugh being denied an opportunity to own part of an NFL team as some kind of anti-conservative conspiracy. The guy is a disaster. He offers plenty of downside and no upside. And I don't even think it's fair to blame Goodell personally for denying him. Goodell is the ultimate puppet. I'm sure it was communicated to him by enough of the owners -- who have to approve any ownership change -- that they weren't going to let him get within a hundred miles of owning a team. I disagree about Stern, by the way. I don't think there's any way the owners would sign off on him owning a team. Another guy with plenty of downside and no upside. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
Last edited by TheWalrus; 06-20-2013 at 02:54 PM.
yeah....as soon as I finished typing it I was thinking that Limbaugh is more similar to the Westboro nuts but the point was that just because people have the legal right to do something, that doesn't mean that are not subject to criticism, and I was criticizing goodall (the league) and not saying they should of been forced to let Limbaugh in. Also, I'm not sure I can make the jump that Limbaugh was making a reference to affirmative action. Personally, I think he just meant that certain people were supporting McNabb because they wanted him to succeed as a black man at a position where for decades a negative stereotype toward black football players existed. I might be wrong though. I do agree that Goodall is a puppet though. I believe the sequence of events started with football players saying that they would never play for a team that had Limbaugh as an owner. That rhetoric was than supported by many other players throughout the league. I don't believe for a minute that if a hypothetical left wing Limbaugh tried to gain partial ownership of team, that the players would of come out with the same rhetoric and therefore Goodall wouldn't of had an issue with it. So yes, Im of the opinion that Limbaugh was ostracized due to his controversial reputation as a hyperpartisan republican. Im also of the opinion that the players who spoke out so vehemently against him probably have never listened to his program, couldn't cite one quote by him(minus the McNabb one) and only came to their opinion of him due to what people of their own political leaning have told them. That just doesn't sit well with me.
i don't see any democrats, even elizabeth warren, leading the charge to shrink the size and scope (debt burden) of government. even with the rights desire for a strong military, the left owns endless big government spending. and no doubt, the left is just as much for sale as the right when it comes to the MIC. that's why democrats followed like sheep attacking the original un co-opted tea party. don't touch the government checking account or we're coming after you. i could be wrong, maybe working class democrats do want to pay more taxes. we all missed an opportunity on that one.
i know you don't like rush but i think he would applaud your interest in political events. if you could hold your own on his show, he might send you a case of that tea he's selling or he would get you all worked up over something silly like equal pay for women, then he would cut you off and openly question the educational system in new mexico.
i think he would like spesh enough that he would hold him over thru the break.
That Rush Limbaugh has any popularity is a glowing example of the need for a better education system in the US. When I come to work Im always amazed that people will spout verbatim what one of these talking heads is raving about as the new end of the united states as we know it. Im always encouraged when independents actually gain office so they are not just a puppet extension of their parties beliefs for most part but this independent fraternity is about as common as a Honus Wagner . There are 2 senators listed but in reality they are not true independents