Rush limbaugh trying to buy the rams

[los yankees]

Originally Posted by DubA169

you have selective eyes. You disregard the main bulk of my response, to argue about whether players complain which was irrelevant to begin with but you brought it up.So here it is for you again

who the hell are you to say that kiwunuka would play for rush if he was offered more money? Some people put principles over money. especially if they are living to a comfortable point already. It's not "ironic" that he defended the slavery comments, it's spin control so the transaction can go through as he pleases.
\

No I dont have "selective eyes", because my comment only made my argument more concrete. If Kiwunuka is a FA and is offered 8 million to stay withNYG and offered 15 million to go to STL, I guarantee he would sign the dotted line especially with your theory of why player holds out for more money. You candefend "principles over money" all you want, but at the end of the day money talks and he has family to feed, homey.

Until you listen to the clip in its entirety, don't even respond back.

 

[duba169]

it's all relative. He's not a poor man. 8 mil being comfortable in your own skin> 15 mil playing for rush

unless he is latrell sprewell, he'll be able to feed his family just fine with that 8 mil.

 

[100proof]

[h1]Colts' Irsay pans Limbaugh ownership involvement[/h1]
Posted by Tom Curran on October 13, 2009 1:03 PM ET

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said this afternoon that the divisive rhetoric of prospective Rams minority owner Rush Limbaugh makes him unappealing.

"I myself couldn't even think of voting for him," said Irsay speaking from the NFL's Fall Owner's Meetings in Boston.

Asked if he'd spoken to other owners about Limbaugh's candidacy, Irsay said, "I haven't and I don't think I would even go to the point of talking to Tony Dungy, Jim Caldwell, Dwight Freeney, talking to those men and seeing what their positions are. I'm very sensitive to know there are scars out there. I think as a nation we need to stop it. Our words do damage and it's something that we don't need. We need to get to a higher level of humanity and we have.

"I come from a different era where Marvin Gaye and John Lennon were speaking about [certain things] and we've been doing a slow crawl to some of the things they talked about. We don't need to go the other way," Irsay added. "We can't go the other way where there isn't forgiveness and understanding but we gotta watch our words in this world and our thoughts because they can do damage."

Another name to a growing list

 

[duba169]

I think it's about over. Only way he will be an owner is in secret. I'm glad some players and now an owner have expressed their views on this and notkept quiet until after a vote.

 

[dmbrhs]

At least Rush would never move the Rams to a different city overnight and not tell anyone.

 

[jch3]

Yeah, this won't be happening.

The talk around St. Louis is that this group isn't even one of the frontrunners for the sale.

 

[100proof]

[h1]
[/h1]

[h1]Goodell on Rush: "Divisive comments are not what NFL's about"[/h1]
Posted by Tom Curran on October 13, 2009 2:20 PM ET

This afternoon in Boston, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell chipped in with a "fat friggin' chance" when asked about Rush Limbaugh's prospects of being part of an ownership group trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams.

Speaking in a press conference in a South Boston hotel, Goodell first referred to the purchase process saying it was still in the preliminary stages.

"At this point in time we'll continue our process which is to allow the Rams to decide if they're going to sell and who they'll sell to," Goodell said. "And then at some point, the NFL will be engaged and we'll [examine] whatever ownership group is put forth through our process [of vetting the group]."

Asked if he had any response to the surge in player opposition to Limbaugh's potentially becoming an owner, Goodell said, "The comments that Rush made about Donovan [McNabb] I disagree with very strongly. [They were] polarizing comments that we don't think reflect accurately on the NFL or our players and I obviously do not believe that those comments are positive and are divisive. I disagree with those comments very strongly and I've told the players that."

Goodell was asked what his reaction would be if a present owner aired commentary like Limbaugh's. Would he then have an issue?

"We're all held to a high standard here and divisive comments are not what the NFL's all about," said Goodell. "I would not want to see those kind of comments from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL, no. Absolutely not."

Well, theres the nail in the coffin. Good job goodell

 

[dmbrhs]

And yet he let criminals play on a weekly basis. Good job Goodell.

 

[doublejs07]

Kinda wishing Rush would buy the Skins....this would give me a good reason to become a Ravens fan.


















jk

 

[jsindaa]

I pray I don't get sniped but Los Yankees....you are a pathetic man. Pathetic in every sense of the word. NO context makes the comments he's madeacceptable. Also you clearly don't know what irony is...because nothing is ironic about the link you posted

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by JsindaA

NO context makes the comments he's made acceptable.

In what context was Michael Vick's treatment of dogs deemed acceptable? Or Pacman Jones' actions deemed acceptable? You cannot have thisboth ways. If you're going to let criminals play in your league, you can't say some dude who says mildly off-color things can't be a partial ownerof a team.

 

[corporatejp]

The real shock here is that the Rams are worth nearly $1 Billion USD.

Who figured?

 

[sirius lee handsome]

I find this character vile and despicable, but this is a capitalist system where the person who has the means can do just about anything. The NFL is also aprivate entity. A person has as much a right to enter into business dealings with the NFL and use their money how they want as much as anyone else. Youcan't deny someone that opportunity because you don't agree with their politics.

I would venture to guess that a large part of the heavyweight owners in the NFL are people whose politics tend to side with that of a person like Rush moreoften than not, but since they play the background they're not subject to this same backlash

 

[DownByLaw]

dmbrhs wrote:

---

And yet he let criminals play on a weekly basis. Good job Goodell.
Awww don't me mad Goodell won't let your boy in.

 

[duba169]

Originally Posted by SIRIUS LEE HANDSOME

I find this character vile and despicable, but this is a capitalist system where the person who has the means can do just about anything. The NFL is also a private entity. A person has as much a right to enter into business dealings with the NFL and use their money how they want as much as anyone else. You can't deny someone that opportunity because you don't agree with their politics.

I would venture to guess that a large part of the heavyweight owners in the NFL are people whose politics tend to side with that of a person like Rush more often than not, but since they play the background they're not subject to this same backlash

you're 100 percent right rush has the right to have the OPPORTUNITY to buy the rams. But the players also have the right to use whateverleverage they have to not play for someone who they don't respect and have ethical issues dealing with.

we aren't talking about politics imo. This isn't like "oh he was a bush supporter so i'm not playing for him". It's not"he's for a tax cut for the rich and doesn't wana reform healthcare" . This is more along the lines of "I won't play for him becauseeither a bigot or just pretends to be one to make money but plants seeds in the heads of his listeners that it's okay to be a bigot" big difference

 

[jch3]

Originally Posted by DubA169

Originally Posted by SIRIUS LEE HANDSOME

I find this character vile and despicable, but this is a capitalist system where the person who has the means can do just about anything. The NFL is also a private entity. A person has as much a right to enter into business dealings with the NFL and use their money how they want as much as anyone else. You can't deny someone that opportunity because you don't agree with their politics.

I would venture to guess that a large part of the heavyweight owners in the NFL are people whose politics tend to side with that of a person like Rush more often than not, but since they play the background they're not subject to this same backlash

you're 100 percent right rush has the right to have the OPPORTUNITY to buy the rams. But the players also have the right to use whatever leverage they have to not play for someone who they don't respect and have ethical issues dealing with.

we aren't talking about politics imo. This isn't like "oh he was a bush supporter so i'm not playing for him". It's not "he's for a tax cut for the rich and doesn't wana reform healthcare" . This is more along the lines of "I won't play for him because either a bigot or just pretends to be one to make money but plants seeds in the heads of his listeners that it's okay to be a bigot" big difference

I agree on both accounts here. Some of the better posts in this thread. This is exactly what I have been saying.


For some of you at work or bored, here is 2 audio clips from a sports talk show here in St. Louis. They have a lot of good discussion on the subject.

http://www.insidestlaudio.com/ITD_Audio/101409-2RushStuff.mp3

http://www.insidestlaudio.com/ITD_Audio/101409-3MoreRush.mp3

 

[retro7sz10]

In the end the owners will not vote him in.
The worst part is now they make Rush come out to look like the victim so he can now spew his hatred to sympathetic ears.
Instead of Rush coming in and driving up the price for potential owners this backfired on the rams or the nfl for that matter.

 

[jsindaa]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by JsindaA

NO context makes the comments he's made acceptable.

In what context was Michael Vick's treatment of dogs deemed acceptable? Or Pacman Jones' actions deemed acceptable? You cannot have this both ways. If you're going to let criminals play in your league, you can't say some dude who says mildly off-color things can't be a partial owner of a team.

Find me one post of mine where I said what they did was
EDIT Also how in the blue hell do you compare vick to rush? Seriously do you understand how stupid that is? The situations are completely different. Then yousay Rush says "midly off color" things........smh

 

[jch3]

Originally Posted by retro7sz10

In the end the owners will not vote him in.
The worst part is now they make Rush come out to look like the victim so he can now spew his hatred to sympathetic ears.
Instead of Rush coming in and driving up the price for potential owners this backfired on the rams or the nfl for that matter.

The Rams or the NFL had nothing to do with this story breaking. Rush was part of a group that was interested in making a bid for the Rams.

Fun Facts people don't know because they hear Rush's name and are quick to the chase:
1) Rush is supposedly on a team of investors in the bid for the Rams
2) The team is not officially for sale
3) This group of investors is not generally viewed as a serious contender for the Rams, just a possibility

 

[corporatejp]

This gets funner by the day.

 

[dmxfury]

This won't happen, no reason to get riled up about it. Roger being smart by being firm yet PC, he doesn't want to find himself in any trouble either

 

[deuce king]

I can't believe people in here are trying to defend Rush and his comments, truly sad.

 

[jch3]

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I can't believe people in here are trying to defend Rush and his comments, truly sad.

I will NOT defend some of Rush's comments, although some of them are still unconfirmed.

But I will always defend somebody's right to ownership, especially since his group wants the team to stay in St. Louis.

 

[gunna get it]

Originally Posted by JCH3

Originally Posted by Deuce King

I can't believe people in here are trying to defend Rush and his comments, truly sad.

I will NOT defend some of Rush's comments, although some of them are still unconfirmed.

heres the problem, if Rush didnt say those things, where's his libel lawsuit.
the list was printed in a reputable media source attributing the statements to Rush.

But I will always defend somebody's right to ownership, especially since his group wants the team to stay in St. Louis.
He has the right to try and buy the Rams. He does not have the right of owning them. it is a private business which requires an approval vote fromthe owners and the league. so in essence, not just ANYONE can buy a NFL franchise. it is NOT a right.

 

[DownByLaw]

GUNNA GET IT wrote:

But I will always defend somebody's right to ownership, especially since his group wants the team to stay in St. Louis.
He has the right to try and buy the Rams. He does not have the right to owneing them. it is a private business which requires an approval vote from the owners and the league. so in essence, not just ANYONE can buy a NFL franchise. it is NOT a right.


I completely agree.