# Rush Limbaugh



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I can't believe the whiny weepy politically-correct "outrage" being directed at Rush Limbaugh right now. And all for what? Because he expressed an opinion that upset some people. 

Whatever happened to free speech in this country? Whatever happened to the second amendment? And whatever happened to telling the truth? It seems you can state your opinion only if it doesn't offend the wrong people.

Liberals are especially outraged, which is ironic, since it is they who love to pontificate about the sanctity of free speech. During the Iraq war, Tim Robbins gave a solemn speech to the National Press Club in which he warned about "a chill wind" sweeping the country against all who dared to speak out against the war. His God-given American right to speak his mind was being trampled on, he warned.

Yet I haven't heard Robbins defending Rush Limbaugh in the last couple of days against the "chill wind" that is blowing him over. Why not? Well, it seems if you use your freedom of speech to say the "wrong" things, liberals like Robbins want to see you shut up.

The fact is, Limbaugh said nothing very surprising. He claimed that the media has an interest in seeing a black quarterback become an MVP. I think that's very possible. But even if Limbaugh is wrong, so what? Why the ruckus? Are we so scared of even mentioning this kind of thing that all discussion must be squashed before it can even get started?

I've heard black comedians on HBO say things like white people can't dance, white people have no sense of style, white people just don't get it, etc. All rather offensive comments, but I support their right to say it. So how come Limbaugh gets raked over the coals for something like this? There's clearly a double standard at work, and it is being pushed by the PC crowd. Bollocks, I say!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think if you are in the mainstream media and you stick your neck out too far (in any direction), you're bound to get it chopped off.

Rush has made a lot of people jealous and angry with his success, and it's no surprise that as soon as he said anything that he could be attacked over, he would be.

It's too bad... not because I agree with what he said (I, quite frankly, don't know why McNabb is/was so overrated...) but because as we marginalize people's opinions (like Mark Cuban, Jeremy Shockey, as call-backs to earlier this Summer in the sports arena) in the public eye things will be less interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

He got pushed out because ESPN was afraid of supporting comments that might make them look bad. It was a business decision whether you agree or not. 
I would contend that Rush has drummed up lots of support to slam groups who express their opinion just to help his ratings. I disagree with his comments simply because he probably said it to stir up a debate. He probably didn't think it would draw this much attention and force him to leave. IMO he is a one trick pony, so I won't miss him.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I can't believe the whiny weepy politically-correct "outrage" being directed at Rush Limbaugh right now. And all for what? Because he expressed an opinion that upset some people.
> 
> Whatever happened to free speech in this country? Whatever happened to the second amendment? And whatever happened to telling the truth? It seems you can state your opinion only if it doesn't offend the wrong people.
> ...


Dude, don't turn this into to a politcal issue because it is most certainly not one. Hmmm...

Black COMEDIANS (you know, the people who make JOKES) vs. Commentator on nationally broadcasted football show. Do you think these two people should be held to the same standard? Of course not. I hate when people get so political about these issues. This has nothing to do with politics. Rush Limbaugh said something stupid, and he payed for it. Besides, Rush chose to quit. ESPN actually defended his statement. Rush was very suspect to begin with as far as his view on minorities. This only made it worse. The guy is obviously prejudiced and has always been. Instead of turning this into a political issue, you need to place blame where it belongs; squarely on Mr. Limbaugh's shoulders.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

It's kinda funny..

There's a poster up for some frat at PSU, advertising a party. On it, someone has scribbled "Rich white pigs"..

Now, had that said something in the same insulting vain about Black people (or hispanics, or gays, or asians, or any other group) people would have pinched a loaf, called for that persons removal from the school, and or jail time. It would have been labeled a "hate crime", and everyone would have gone on about how stupid, ignorant, racist, homophobic etc that guy would have been.

Since it was not that, no one probably has even noticed, or cared. Hell, *I* don't care.

In regards to Rush, I actually thought what he said was odd in the sense that he's ripping on the media, and how they jump on the bandwagon of a player (sometimes in the manner he's talking about) and sometimes jump off a players bandwagon for the same reason. I bet there a lot of people who feel that the media likes to ripp to shreds a black athlete for doing something stupid, but glosses over when a white athlete does something stupid. 

Obviously off the top of my head I can't think of any scenarios where this is valid, but I'm sure it seems that way to a lot of people.

I didn't take what he said to be the least bit racist, just hypocritical for the media. Thats all I took it as. It sounded like Rush was just saying that the Media is in such a hurry to proclaim a black QB is so great, that thats the reason why people think he's great, and infact, in his own opinion, he's (McNabb) overrated.

Had he said the same thing about Jeff Garcia, no one would have cared. Had Jim Rome said it, no one would have cared. Had the guy who's name escapes me who was arguing with Rush at the time said it (or something about Jeff Garcia) would anyone have cared?

Hell no.

Because a white conservative male who supports the president (and has said bone head things before) said it, people are going nuts. Jesus, even Starr Jones had a comment on it. If that doesn't show how ludicris this whole thing is, I don't know what is.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> Because a white conservative male who supports the president (and has said bone head things before) said it, people are going nuts. Jesus, even Starr Jones had a comment on it. If that doesn't show how ludicris this whole thing is, I don't know what is.


Give it a rest. Everyone wants to pull the reverse discrimination card, and it's just a reflection of the still biased society we live in. What Rush said was stupid. There is no way around it. And this is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about - someone who has been questioned about being prejudiced before. Why the hell did Rush even feel like he needed to make this comment in the first place? The fact that he said he thought about the comment the night before tells me that comment had more to do with his political agenda than football. How could he not know a comment like that would have people up in arms? Of course he knew. This isn't a case of "poor conservative white male". This is the case of an ignorant and biased person. It seems whenever something borderline racist is said, conservative politicians and their followers want to immediately point fingers at everyone but themselves. "Well, if someone said that about a white person, no one would care." That's always the typical excuse, even though it's not true. You and Rush need to realize something: there is still racism in this country and minorities still carry scars over things that have happened. You can't just dismiss that. You can't tell a race that was enslaved for two-hundred and fifty years that they are always being "too sensitive". There is a pecking order in this country, and agree or not, white, conservative males are at the very top of that pecking order and always have been. Until that faction of society decides to admit that it has been the main perpetrator of racism in society and that it still holds some bias, guys like Rush aren't going to get any breaks. I'm not saying everyone white, conservative male is bias or racist but that group definitely has a track record. Rush needs to take responsibility and people like you need to place the responsibility on his shoulders. You just don't forget the past. You don't say, "hey, it's not the 50s or 60s anymore". You realize that damage has been done, is still being done, and go from there. Again, this isn't a case of "poor white conservative male". No, it's "you made a prepondered, stupid and biased comment", and you leave it at that. Politics should never be used as a defense against this.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

What Rush said was totally stupid. Have you seen McNabb's stats and passer ratings the last four years?

Al Franken was right - Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

So Rush has been accused of something before? Does this mean that he hit the magic number so the accusations must magically be true?

And also: Rush Limbaugh took a *political* angle on a football comment? I'm shocked, and I'm sure that the people at ESPN are... unless they listened to any of his radio shows in any of its 650 markets.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> This has nothing to do with politics. Rush Limbaugh said something stupid, and he payed for it.


This has EVERYTHING to do with politics. People say stupid things on TV all the time. Reporters get facts wrong, attribute quotes to the wrong people, etc. Somebody says a certain CEO will resign the next day and he doesn't. Somebody else says the economy is coming out of recession in a month, and is dead wrong. I've heard commentators offer questionable opinions on all manner of things (why the president did this or that, what interest group he's pandering to, what favor he's paying back, etc.) It's all speculation, and much of it is eventually proven wrong. 

Here's the point. Rush Limbaugh said something that offended the political left. They don't like him, so they're getting payback.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> This has EVERYTHING to do with politics. People say stupid things on TV all the time. Reporters get facts wrong, attribute quotes to the wrong people, etc. Somebody says a certain CEO will resign the next day and he doesn't. Somebody else says the economy is coming out of recession in a month, and is dead wrong. I've heard commentators offer questionable opinions on all manner of things (why the president did this or that, what interest group he's pandering to, what favor he's paying back, etc.) It's all speculation, and much of it is eventually proven wrong.
> ...


Oh, so you don't think Rush is, in any way, a biased person? This all has to do with those crazy liberals. Of course Rush can't do anything wrong. May I ask what race you are?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RoddneyThaRippa</b>!
> 
> 
> Give it a rest. Everyone wants to pull the reverse discrimination card,


woah hold on a second there..I didn't pull the "reverse discrimination card" here. If I did, I would have said something about how Rush's "people" or something along those lines. All I'm saying is that in a more liberal crowd, Rush saying anything thats deemed slightly racist, biggoted, or ignorant is going to garner much more attention than say, Dusty Baker saying idiotic statements during this last season.



> and it's just a reflection of the still biased society we live in. What Rush said was stupid. There is no way around it. And this is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about - someone who has been questioned about being prejudiced before. Why the hell did Rush even feel like he needed to make this comment in the first place?


who knows, but so what? He's entitled to make those comments, and the fact that people say he's made those bonehead comments in the past, almost cements that they're jumping the gun now.



> The fact that he said he thought about the comment the night before tells me that comment had more to do with his political agenda than football.


what, you don't think those guys think about what they're going to say? They don't want to come off as an idiot, so they think about what they say. Doesn't prove anything. Had he said it out of the blue, or blurted it out, thats different, and would be more proof that he's what people say he is. 



> How could he not know a comment like that would have people up in arms? Of course he knew. This isn't a case of "poor conservative white male"


never said it was. 


> This is the case of an ignorant and biased person. It seems whenever something borderline racist is said, conservative politicians and their followers want to immediately point fingers at everyone but themselves. "Well, if someone said that about a white person, no one would care."


well, it's true. Why do you think no one cares when someone says something about white people? 


> That's always the typical excuse, even though it's not true. You and Rush need to realize something: there is still racism in this country and minorities still carry scars over things that have happened.



maybe what you need to realize is that I wasn't defending what rush said. I don't *AGREE* with what Rush said. Infact, I *HATE* Rush Limbaugh. Instead of hearing what I had said, you wanted to assume that I'm just some "ditto head", who is trying to play the "wah, look at me, I'm a white guy who's being picked on". 

Well, newsflash, I'm not that guy. If I was that guy, don't you think I'd CARE that there was a sign making fun of white guys in a frat? I don't care, I just notice the hypocricy, thats all. 



> You can't just dismiss that. You can't tell a race that was enslaved for two-hundred and fifty years that they are always being "too sensitive". There is a pecking order in this country, and agree or not, white, conservative males are at the very top of that pecking order and always have been.


who said that blacks can't be too sensative? Surely you're not suggesting I said that, are you? Thats borderline insulting for you to say that (and a nice stereotype you dropped in there btw). 

Why would I like having white conservative males being in control? I ain't one.




> Until that faction of society decides to admit that it has been the main perpetrator of racism in society and that it still holds some bias, guys like Rush aren't going to get any breaks.


what exactly did Rush say that was racist btw? He said that the media is in such a hurry to proclaim a black player as great, that McNabb might be overrated because of that. It's not like he went Jimmy the Greek on us here.



> "During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid–that's where it all started."


that is much worse than Rush's statement that McNabb is being praised by the media because they want so badly to have a black guy be good, and that McNabb was overrated. 



> I'm not saying everyone white, conservative male is bias or racist but that group definitely has a track record.


another nice stereotype..


> Rush needs to take responsibility and people like you need to place the responsibility on his shoulders.


so nice that you decide to assume I'm "one of those people".



> You just don't forget the past. You don't say, "hey, it's not the 50s or 60s anymore". You realize that damage has been done, is still being done, and go from there. Again, this isn't a case of "poor white conservative male". No, it's "you made a prepondered, stupid and biased comment", and you leave it at that. Politics should never be used as a defense against this.


what was racist about it? If anything, it's a conspiracy nutjob statement, implying that the media is the reaso for McNabb being as popular, as highly touted, and as good as he is.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

i posted this...look at week one. i think he made some comments that weren't really to smart... I wonder if they listened to week 1.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html 

not a fan...just trying to get to the facts


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

*What Rush said was absolutely true*

We all know it. Mcnabb is way overrated.

another one bytes the dust for saying the truth.

This stinks.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Here's the point. Rush Limbaugh said something that offended the political left. They don't like him, so they're getting payback.


You may be right, but really who cares. Rush has complained about those same people for years and it has made him rich. Good for him. I won't cry for a rich talk show host losing his job.
If a liberal in the press said anti-god or pro-gay comments, Rush would slam him and if that person lost his job, he wouldn't say he was sorry. That is his act.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> Whatever happened to free speech in this country? Whatever happened to the second amendment? And whatever happened to telling the truth? It seems you can state your opinion only if it doesn't offend the wrong people.


Second amendment isn't in question here. Rush Limbaugh still has the right to bear arms. Though I'd like to do away with that one, its not really on topic here.

No one ever said Rush Limbaugh couldn't say what he said. He didn't get arrested for it. If he got fired, it would have been ok too. ESPN gives him a forum to say what he wants, but if they think what he says is going to make them lose viewers, then they can take that forum away from him. Limbaugh didn't get fired though, he resigned. I'm sure there was significant pressure for him to resign, but if he was so outraged over the outrage, he should have made them fire him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hm..let's go over my post critically here...



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> It's kinda funny..
> 
> There's a poster up for some frat at PSU, advertising a party. On it, someone has scribbled "Rich white pigs"..
> ...


as much as people want to say "nice excuse", it's just a truth about our country. I dare any of you to write something along those lines about a black college group, or club. You'd be tarred and feathered immediately.


> Since it was not that, no one probably has even noticed, or cared. Hell, *I* don't care.


me saying I didn't care about white guys being made fun of..blasphemy! I can't be saying that, I'm one of "them"!



> In regards to Rush, I actually thought what he said was odd in the sense that he's ripping on the media, and how they jump on the bandwagon of a player (sometimes in the manner he's talking about) and sometimes jump off a players bandwagon for the same reason. I bet there a lot of people who feel that the media likes to ripp to shreds a black athlete for doing something stupid, but glosses over when a white athlete does something stupid.


hold on a second..would someone who's supporting Rush's statement (or a dittohead) actually say that the media glosses over a lot of what white athletes do that is stupid?

hm..me thinks not....wouldn't I then try to claim that those poor white athletes are misstreated, since I obviously think a conservative was treated unfairly? I mean, thats how it has to be, I'm a conservative.



> Obviously off the top of my head I can't think of any scenarios where this is valid, but I'm sure it seems that way to a lot of people.


this is about the only thing that I could see making it seem like I'm mocking something. But it's not. I'm saying that while I can't think of any examples, I'm sure it seems that way to a lot of people. (would a conservative admit something like this? that a lot of people feel they've been hosed in the past, or that a particular group feels they've beel slighted by the media while another has been excused by same media? hm...me thinks not)


> I didn't take what he said to be the least bit racist, just hypocritical for the media. Thats all I took it as. It sounded like Rush was just saying that the Media is in such a hurry to proclaim a black QB is so great, that thats the reason why people think he's great, and infact, in his own opinion, he's (McNabb) overrated.
> 
> Had he said the same thing about Jeff Garcia, no one would have cared. Had Jim Rome said it, no one would have cared. Had the guy who's name escapes me who was arguing with Rush at the time said it (or something about Jeff Garcia) would anyone have cared?
> 
> ...


I don't see how anyone who read my post without letting their emotions get the best of them, would have gathered that I was defending Rush's statement (not his RIGHT to say it, his actual statement) or that I agree'd with his statement.

sorry for the rant, I just hate it when people missinterpret what I say, and imply I mean something totally different from my beliefs, or ideology.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

good thing you aren't running for office


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> good thing you aren't running for office


good thing who isn't?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't follow the NFL much anymore, but aren't we at least 15 years removed from really caring whether the quarterback is black or not? 

I don't think what he said was racist, but it seemed kind of stupid, dated and irrelevant. Quarterbacks often get too much credit for winning teams regardless of race. It's why they make the bucks. 

Also, forget the "freedom of speech" nonsense. Nobody is talking about throwing Rush in jail. 

As far as I can tell, this is just a case of a journalist being held accountable for a rather ridiculous statement. Of all the absurd things he's said, though, it seems odd to me that this is the one everybody gets excited about.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I can't believe the whiny weepy politically-correct "outrage" being directed at Rush Limbaugh right now. And all for what? Because he expressed an opinion that upset some people.


Fascinating. And were you blasting the "whiny weepy politically-correct" *conservatives* when Bill Mahr's Politically Incorrect was essentially pushed off ABC because he "expressed an opinion that upset some people"?

How about when the Dixie Chicks were pushed off mainstream radio for a while by the "whiny weepy politically-correct" conservative radio stations because they "expressed an opinion that upset some people"?

Of course you weren't. When it's an opinion you agree with, it's weepy and whiny to oppose it. When it's one you happen to disagree with, I'll bet it's our *duty* to oppose it!



> Whatever happened to free speech in this country?


Whatever happened to people who understood free speech? It doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and nothing bad can be said about you and no action can be taken by anyone against you.

Limbaugh has the right to say what he did. I don't believe he was arrested. Free speech *only* applies to government action. Viewers can protest his comments and pressure ESPN to remove him. You know why? Because that's *their* freedom of speech. Why are you so quick to protect Limbaugh's "freedom of speech" (assuming that were even at play here) but blast everyone else using *their* freedom of speech to get him removed from a program they don't want him on?



> Whatever happened to the second amendment?


It's still there. Limbaugh can bear arms if he wants. Happy? 



> There's clearly a double standard at work, and it is being pushed by the PC crowd. Bollocks, I say!


Yes, and you're the one with that double-standard. Freedom of speech is important for Rush, but if anyone else uses theirs to criticize him or get him removed from a show they like, they're "whiny" and "weepy." Bollocks, indeed! Remove your double-standard, I agree!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Rush Limbaugh*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Fascinating. And were you blasting the "whiny weepy politically-correct" *conservatives* when Bill Mahr's Politically Incorrect was essentially pushed off ABC because he "expressed an opinion that upset some people"?


while I know you aren't talking to me... thats something that pissed me off. I really liked Bill's show.


> How about when the Dixie Chicks were pushed off mainstream radio for a while by the "whiny weepy politically-correct" conservative radio stations because they "expressed an opinion that upset some people"?


that was just silly uber patriotic nutsos.


> Of course you weren't. When it's an opinion you agree with, it's weepy and whiny to oppose it. When it's one you happen to disagree with, I'll bet it's our *duty* to oppose it!


name me a political affiliate who doesn't do the exact same thing?

oh my god, I said uber. somebody shoot me.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Rush Limbaugh*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> while I know you aren't talking to me... thats something that pissed me off. I really liked Bill's show.
> ...
> that was just silly uber patriotic nutsos.


This is *why* I wasn't talking to you.  I don't believe you're using a double standard or being hypocritical.



> name me a political affiliate who doesn't do the exact same thing?


No doubt. And when they do it, they're being hypocritical. And the poster I was addressing was also being hypocritical. As he didn't create angry threads about Bill Mahr and The Dixie Chicks, but he did about Rush Limbaugh, he's clearly adjusting his principles based on his party affiliation, rather than holding consistent principles, where something is right or wrong no matter which political persuasion the person is.



> oh my god, I said uber. somebody shoot me.


Well, it's more exotic than "ultra."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: What Rush said was absolutely true*



> Originally posted by <b>benfica</b>!
> We all know it. Mcnabb is way overrated.
> 
> another one bytes the dust for saying the truth.
> ...


I agree that McNabb is overrated, but Rush knows the rules, and whether the rules are fair or not (to the outspoken generally, or of one persuasion politically) Rush has done quite well by playing the game.

He should have known the potential consequences (compare this to the Washington DC aid who was forced to resign for using the word "niggardly"...). Maybe he *did* know the consequences, and thought that he'd be himself as long as ESPN could stand the heat, and then he'd bow out more of a hero to his followers than he was before.

*shrug*

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

All of this was entirely predictable. How else could Rush's tenure at ESPN have ended? Of course he was going to say something stupid and have to leave. That's what Rush does. Without a doubt ESPN figured this would happen when they hired him. Got them some publicity, I guess they thought that was useful.

I understand Al Sharpton will replace him.

barfo


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: What Rush said was absolutely true*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> He should have known the potential consequences (compare this to the Washington DC aid who was forced to resign for using the word "niggardly"...). Maybe he *did* know the consequences, and thought that he'd be himself as long as ESPN could stand the heat, and then he'd bow out more of a hero to his followers than he was before.


*****rdly isn't OK to use? But I learned it from reading Jane Austin novels.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

EH! Don't censor me! How come Ed O. got to say it?  

What if I want to say the new management is *****rdly? (we should have paid Gary Payton).


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

"Its all them Politically correct politically correct politically correctblahblahblah"

So when is it ok to be held responsible for what one says without being labeled "hypersensitive" or "politically correct"??

Give me a break.

I think the lot of you are giving Rush way too much credit. Lets be honest, given his history, we all know what he was getting at.

Stuart


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> <snip>
> I think the lot of you are giving Rush way too much credit. Lets be honest, given his history, we all know what he was getting at.
> 
> Stuart


Unbelievable. Rush Limbaugh is a radio talk show host, and a political commentator. He happens to hold right wing views (some of which I agree with, and some I do not).

But why on earth does that suggest that "given his history" Rush Limbaugh is really an evil racist devil?

All he said was that the media was racist. NEWSFLASH! It is. 

I don't care about football, and I don't know McNabb. But why on earth should anyone hang for pointing a finger and saying "the media is racist here"? 

By this logic, every Democrat who uses the "race card" by calling Republicans racist are themselves racist and should be forced to step down.

Everyone suffers for this. If we cannot even clearly understand the difference between acting as a racist and identifying racism in others, then we are a sorry, pathetic lot.

Lastly, the word "*****rdly" is of Scandinavian origin, and predates the "N" word by 130 years. There is no connection whatsoever, except to those who choose to remain uninformed.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> <snip> Lastly, the word "*****rdly" is of Scandinavian origin, and predates the "N" word by 130 years. There is no connection whatsoever, except to those who choose to remain uninformed.


Which I guess include the moderators. :sigh:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Great post, Iwatas! You've seen the real issue here. As for this quote,



> Limbaugh has the right to say what he did. I don't believe he was arrested. Free speech only applies to government action.


I realize that "free speech" in the US is protected from government censure, but I'm using the term in a broader context. The same context that Tim Robbins was using when he complained about his free speech being suppressed by his enemies. People who really believe in free speech don't want people removed from office or position because of opinions they offer. And for he record, I did NOT want Bill Maher to be removed from his program.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> Lastly, the word "*****rdly" is of Scandinavian origin, and predates the "N" word by 130 years. There is no connection whatsoever, except to those who choose to remain uninformed.


No doubt (although I didn't know what region the word originated from). That's why I brought it up in the first place. Getting heat for what Limbaugh said was predictable; getting heat for using "niggardly" is not... or at least WAS not before that ridiculous incident in '99.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> 
> Which I guess include the moderators. :sigh:


I can't speak for the mother mods, but I didn't censor it, because I know the word isn't the same as the "n" word.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Anyone remember a certain quote about Larry Bird by a certain idiot? Seems about the same to me - although obviously without the same ramifications.

Not sure what my point was though - only that the same thing has been said before and in a less politically correct time there were much smaller penalties - public outcry and nothing more.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if this was exactly what Rush intended. This type of thing will only build credibility with his followers and give more crap to rant about.

It was a way to get some much needed PR time to hopefully rejuvenate a pretty tired act.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> I can't speak for the mother mods, but I didn't censor it, because I know the word isn't the same as the "n" word.


It's automatically censored because it contains a poor spelling of a certain bad word. It's not the doing of a moderator (as much as I'd like to pin some blame on Hap  ).

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I agree...

I don't see why everyone feels so sorry for the guy. It was a premeditated controversial comment intended to get under people's skin. You should be happy for him, he got what he wanted, now he gets to be a martyr for racists...

Comparing it to the "*****rdly" issue is not accurate. That was a case of someone using a completely innocent vocabulary word, not a personality who thrives on controvery trying to get attention.

I personally agree with Al Franken, but hey, if you guys like him...


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

> Lastly, the word "*****rdly" is of Scandinavian origin, and predates the "N" word by 130 years. There is no connection whatsoever, except to those who choose to remain uninformed.


You guys could work around the whole censorship thing if you could spell the word correctly.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: What Rush said was absolutely true*



> Originally posted by <b>benfica</b>!
> We all know it. Mcnabb is way overrated.
> 
> another one bytes the dust for saying the truth.
> ...


I agree that McNabb is overrated. So are Garcia, Warner. Brees, Brady and Maddox. However are they overrated because of their race?


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Unbelievable. Rush Limbaugh is a radio talk show host, and a political commentator. He happens to hold right wing views (some of which I agree with, and some I do not).
> But why on earth does that suggest that "given his history" Rush Limbaugh is really an evil racist devil?


I don't remember calling him an "evil racist devil" Please don't put words in my mouth. And you mean to suggest that he was just commenting on some passing thought about the media? 




> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> All he said was that the media was racist. NEWSFLASH! It is.


Newsflash!? Golly, that really turned the light bulb on in my head! So when you say NEWSFLASH, you mean its common knowledge? Really? How so? You have any links or proof? Or is it simply true because you and Rush say so?




> I don't care about football, and I don't know McNabb. But why on earth should anyone hang for pointing a finger and saying "the media is racist here"?


This goes back to my saying, when should someone be held accountable then? 



> By this logic, every Democrat who uses the "race card" by calling Republicans racist are themselves racist and should be forced to step down.


I would like to believe everyone would have better sense than to say one is only getting credit because of their race. Especially someone like Donavan McNabb who has been successful for the Eagles. I really don't care what their political affiliation, I don't vote on political lines when it comes to stupidity.



> Everyone suffers for this. If we cannot even clearly understand the difference between acting as a racist and identifying racism in others, then we are a sorry, pathetic lot.


No, we actually win with getting Rush off the air, if this is what he is truly thinking then he should stick to his radio show.



> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> Lastly, the word "*****rdly" is of Scandinavian origin, and predates the "N" word by 130 years. There is no connection whatsoever, except to those who choose to remain uninformed.


Let me explain to you sometihng about vbulletin boards, you censor that word, the word itself (or its misspelling) will be censored whether you use it alone, or use it within another word. Doesn't mean anyone is uninformed.

Stuart

edited for spelling and rephrasing


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> People who really believe in free speech don't want people removed from office or position because of opinions they offer.


Oh, really? So you vote Republican for reasons other than the opinions that Democrats hold on the issues? Right.

If an employer said that he didn't believe black people should be allowed to hold paid employment, it would be a "free speech infringement" in your "wider context" for the owner of the business fire him for that opinion?

It seems to me, your "wider context" of "free speech" means being able to say anything, no matter how stupid or dangerous, and not having to be responsible for what you say.



> And for he record, I did NOT want Bill Maher to be removed from his program.


Where was your angry off-topic thread on this forum about it, calling the conservative elements who made it happen "weepy and whiny"?

Should we take it as a coincidence that the person you choose to champion was a conservative voice, allowing you to blast *liberals* as "weepy and whiny"? 

You're not an advocate of "free speech" in any context. You're an advocate of, "Since I'm a conservative, let conservatives say anything they damn well please, and if you have a problem with it, you're a whiner."


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> You're not an advocate of "free speech" in any context. You're an advocate of, "Since I'm a conservative, let conservatives say anything they damn well please, and if you have a problem with it, you're a whiner."


Thats what it seems like, doesn't it? It sure does to me. 

They say liberals were waiting with baited breath for Rush to fall flat on his face or say anything that would give liberals a chance to jump on him at the first slip-up, when in fact, it seems as if the conservatives are waiting for anyone to speak out against anything on the right. 

The auto-defense-response for any controversial remark made by a conservative is "all you bleeding heart politically correct (<- my 'favorite' term brought out whenever something like this occurs) blah blah liberal-controlled media, you guys talk free-speech, what about now... overly-sensitive whining crybabies..."

I won't defend someone who makes "insensitive" (word used by EPSN) comments disparaging the accomplishments of an athlete simply because of the athlete's skin colour. It could have been Michael Moore, Bill Maher, or a bevy of other left-leaners and you would still have me speaking out against them.

Like I said, I am not partisan whatsoever, and even less so when it comes to idiotic statements.

Stuart


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>s a b a s 11</b>!
> 
> I won't defend someone who makes "insensitive" (word used by EPSN) comments disparaging the accomplishments of an athlete simply because of the athlete's skin colour. It could have been Michael Moore, Bill Maher, or a bevy of other left-leaners and you would still have me speaking out against them.
> 
> Like I said, I am not partisan whatsoever, and even less so when it comes to idiotic statements.


You're *certainly* entitled to your opinion on Rush's statement, but I think that you might be missing (or ignoring) the distinction between these two statements:

"Donovan McNabb, as a black man, cannot be a top QB in the NFL."

and 

"Donovan McNabb, as a black NFL QB, has been overrated by the media."

The former statement is clearly, to me, unacceptable. The latter, which is closer to what Rush said IMO, seems perfectly reasonable as an argument to make... whether it's correct or not.

If the media DOES overrate certain players (black or white) based on their skin color, does commenting on that bias mean that the person is necessarily making an idiotic statement?

If they do NOT, how are we ever going to know if no one is allowed to call them on it without getting attacked (Thomas) or forced out (Rush)?

It seems reasonable to me to disagree with his basic assertion without thinking that there's no room for him to make the statement.

Ed O.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The former statement is clearly, to me, unacceptable. The latter, which is closer to what Rush said IMO, seems perfectly reasonable as an argument to make... whether it's correct or not.


In a vacuum, Ed, you're right. On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh has never been noted for being very racially sensitive. It's *possible* (though I consider it unlikely) that he meant it with absolutely no prejudiced intent, but the context of the person making a certain comment matters.



> If the media DOES overrate certain players (black or white) based on their skin color, does commenting on that bias mean that the person is necessarily making an idiotic statement?


Has Limaugh been a media watchdog for whites being overrated and for really any media wrong-doing in terms of the perceptions of blacks and whites?

Or did he select this one time to jump on the media for overrating someone due to race? And, if so, was his choice of *which* single time to jump into that issue merely coincidental or convenient?

These are all questions that *prove* nothing about his intent but, then, intent is almost never provable. Consistency and balance are good indicators, though.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> "Donovan McNabb, as a black man, cannot be a top QB in the NFL."
> 
> and
> ...


I understand what you are getting at Ed O, and i'll say again, I think many are giving him too much leeway. This isn't exactly Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela saying this, its Rush Limbaugh. 

As I said before, I don't believe it was a fleeting thought that came and went, I believe its firmly embedded in Rush's idealogy.

Am I to be the end-all judge on that? Probably not. 

Will I anyways? Yes. 

Will others give him the benefit of the doubt? Most certainly.

Who really knows what he truly meant? Rush Limbaugh.

Anyways, his "apology" said all I needed to hear.

Unfortunately, its guilty until proven innocent with me on this one. Had it been three years down the line with him on the microphone without nary a controversy, then I would have said "well, maybe he has something" but to paraphrase Minstrel, this didn't happen in a vacuum.

Stuart


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Or did he select this one time to jump on the media for overrating someone due to race? And, if so, was his choice of *which* single time to jump into that issue merely coincidental or convenient?
> 
> These are all questions that *prove* nothing about his intent but, then, intent is almost never provable. Consistency and balance are good indicators, though.


Hrm... I don't know if he said anything about Jason Sehorn, who has been oft-criticized (on ESPN, iirc) for being overrated because he's a handsome white man.

I think you're right that intent is almost certainly impossible to tell, especially when a professional speaker (as Rush is) is talking... spinning stuff and obfuscating intentions is critical to many types of public speaking. I don't think that intent really matters, though, because on its face it's a legitimate opinion and considering it's his first that even touches on race, I don't see how a pattern has been established except by those who have negative perceptions of his value system and use his outside-of-football opinions (or perception of such) as a foundation.

I haven't seen much of Rush on ESPN; I tend not to watch ANY football pre-games Sunday before diving into all that DirectTicket has to offer at 10:00, but I saw one show where he went off on the media's fascination with Bill Parcells and how he could go 0-16 and the media would still be kissing his butt. I bring this up not to show that he's made a McNabb-like statement before, but that he has been willing to criticize players and coaches by sharing his disdain for the media--who don't always choose whom to hype and whom to bash very objectively.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i don't agree with what rush said but I dont think it was racist. Racist means you think whites are better than blacks (or blacks are better than whites...whatever) AND you are attempting to deny a persons rights by your words and actions. 

Rush didn't try to deny anyones rights or imply that whites were better than blacks. He said that he thought the media (vague large target) overhyped McNabb because he was black. That's not racist, its not something I agree with personally, but its not racist.

there's an article on Slate.com by a writer that agrees with Rush's accusation by the way, HERE it is 


I think you could easily refute Rush's argument by pointing out the media also hyped guys like Troy Aikman, Boomer Esiason and Phil Simms who took their teams to Super Bowls and benefitted from having great defenses but meanwhile never had great numbers as QB's (ohh...and they were white). I think the media hypes a lot of folks for the wrong reasons, I don't know why but they do. The media probably hypes McNabb if anything cuz he's a handsome guy.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> there's an article on Slate.com by a writer that agrees with Rush's accusation by the way, HERE it is


wow...how long before this guy is crucified for daring to say that?


----------



## Maybeso (Jan 29, 2003)

*I don't know if this helps or hurts...*

But more information is usually better than less.

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a racist. His producer, Mr. Snerdly (I don't know his real name), is a black man and Rush thinks very highly of him.

I think Rush was right in what he said, and stupid for saying it. Why burn the bridges with such an unimportant issue?

If you watch the best damn sports show or listen to Jim Rome or other sports entertainment shows, you'll hear a lot worse.

Most commentators would be fired for saying what Charles Barkley gets away with all the time.

So, the uproar is not fair, and I think Limbaugh picked the wrong hill to die on. He should do better.

Who knows? Perhaps he wanted to go back to his radio show anyway and now he leaves with more publicity than ever.

Much depends on how cynical you are in your world view.

Back to lurking....


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't like Rush, but his comments were not at all out of line seeing as the NFL just fined the Lions 500,000 for not interviewing a black coach (even though they tried and were turned down)


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Oh, really? So you vote Republican for reasons other than the opinions that Democrats hold on the issues? Right."


I'll make you a deal, Minstrel. Don't presume to know who I vote for, and I'll refrain from doing the same to you. Whomever I vote for, I do so because of their policies and agenda. Naturally, people of different political persuasions will vote for different kinds of public leaders. I'm no different.



> "If an employer said that he didn't believe black people should be allowed to hold paid employment, it would be a "free speech infringement" in your "wider context" for the owner of the business fire him for that opinion?"


I subscribe to the "obvious harm" theory. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there's no fire, and the ensuing stampede kills someone, you have harmed that person through your speech. That is an example of where free speech reaches its limits. The example you cite is too vague for me to know if this theory applies. Who does the employer make this remark to? His wife? A co-worker? A reporter? His boss? Does he say this, but actually hire blacks anyway? In other words, what are the practical ramifications of his statement?

But let me ask you a question. If an employer told someone he liked to hire women with big breasts, should he be fired for that? Does his hiring preference "harm" women with small breasts? Where do you draw the line between an outrageous statement and a "policy" that actually hurts someone? In Limbaugh's case, I don't think he was hurting anyone. Donovan McNabb is not going to lose his job or his millions because of what Rush said. Neither are any other black atheletes, or any reporters, for that matter.



> "It seems to me, your "wider context" of "free speech" means being able to say anything, no matter how stupid or dangerous, and not having to be responsible for what you say."


Now you're putting words in my mouth. As you can see from the above example, I do believe in taking responsibility for what you say. You seem to enjoy taking my arguments to the extreme just to make your point.



> "Where was your angry off-topic thread on this forum about [Bill Maher losing his show], calling the conservative elements who made it happen "weepy and whiny"?


It's not my job to make sure I respond to every apparent violation of free speech in this country. Like everyone else, I respond when something grabs my attention. I'm interested in the race issue, and Maher's situation didn't have anything to do with race. Rush's comments did, so I responded. 



> "You're not an advocate of "free speech" in any context. You're an advocate of, "Since I'm a conservative, let conservatives say anything they damn well please, and if you have a problem with it, you're a whiner."


How arrogant of you to presume to know what I advocate. I defend everyone's right to speak their mind, and have done so many times.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, what Limbaugh said was absolutely the truth in the general sense that there are those in the media that "root for" black QBs (and other blacks) to succeed. Hell, here in DC, Michael Wilbon said he explicitly agreed with that statement on John Thompson's radio show. Thompson more or less agreed as well.

If that isn't about as straight from the horse's mouth, I don't know what is.

Where the whole thing goes wrong is:
1) having a political commentator in a sporting venue in the first place. There are sports casters who can do politics (Howard Cosell and Keith Oberman have had some succcess) and political pundits who can talk knowledgeably about sports without politicizing it (George Will comes to mind), but injecting a 100% dose of politics into sports was a stupid idea.

2) (which is really a corrolary of one) Limbaugh clearly had no idea what he was talking about. McNabb is pretty legitimately a superstar QB. There are probably not 10 players in the league I'd take over him. So even if he was right in some sense, as is typical of most political discourse, it was poorly thought out and his appetite far exceeded his stomach.

3) The argument is somewhat equally appliable to every "great white hope" that comes along. Just as Wilbon will admit to rooting for his own to some extent, there's probably plenty of white dudes out there rooting for their own.

4) Despite it being an incomplete and stupidly supported statement, the furor over it is ridiculous and equally, if not more stupidly supported and ridiculous. And pathetic... unthinking, unknowing, knee-jerk, and intolerant... exactly what the unthinking, unknowing, knee-jerk and intolerant purport to oppose.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> 
> I'll make you a deal, Minstrel. Don't presume to know who I vote for, and I'll refrain from doing the same to you. Whomever I vote for, I do so because of their policies and agenda. Naturally, people of different political persuasions will vote for different kinds of public leaders. I'm no different.


It doesn't matter who you vote for. The point is, *of course* opinions dictate whether people hold public office or don't. Policies and agenda are all based on opinion.

So your contention that nobody should lose political office due to their opinions is clearly off-base.



> I subscribe to the "obvious harm" theory. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there's no fire, and the ensuing stampede kills someone, you have harmed that person through your speech. That is an example of where free speech reaches its limits.


That's a limit of *real* freedom of speech, i.e. the Consitutionally-protected right.

Limbaugh has the *right* to say what he wants. And people have the *right* to say he's an idiot.

Why is Limbaugh's right to speech important, but his critics' right to speech is "whiny and weepy" and shouldn't happen?



> But let me ask you a question. If an employer told someone he liked to hire women with big breasts, should he be fired for that? Does his hiring preference "harm" women with small breasts?


Of course he should be fired for that. A hiring preference based on something unrelated to job qualifications, like appearance (unless appearance is part of the job), is discriminatory practice. I don't really see the relevance, though.



> In Limbaugh's case, I don't think he was hurting anyone. Donovan McNabb is not going to lose his job or his millions because of what Rush said. Neither are any other black atheletes, or any reporters, for that matter.


Rush isn't going to lose his millions or his radio program due to people saying he's an idiot, or a racist. Therefore, why are you railing at the people criticizing him? Don't they have every right to say what they want as long as they don't steal his millions of dollars?



> Now you're putting words in my mouth. As you can see from the above example, I do believe in taking responsibility for what you say. You seem to enjoy taking my arguments to the extreme just to make your point.


I don't think so, since you don't seem to like Rush Limbaugh having to take responsibility for what he says. In fact, the people who are making him take responsibility are "whiny and weepy" to you. 

So where's the consistency? Why don't you feel Limbaugh should take any responsibility?



> How arrogant of you to presume to know what I advocate. I defend everyone's right to speak their mind, and have done so many times.


You're not defending Limbaugh's critics' right to speak their minds. You're insulting them for doing so, in fact.


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Well, what Limbaugh said was absolutely the truth in the general sense that there are those in the media that "root for" black QBs (and other blacks) to succeed. Hell, here in DC, Michael Wilbon said he explicitly agreed with that statement on John Thompson's radio show. Thompson more or less agreed as well.


True Mikedc, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. 

But for one to understand why there is such an issue, one must have to put it together with...



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 2) (which is really a corrolary of one) Limbaugh clearly had no idea what he was talking about. McNabb is pretty legitimately a superstar QB. There are probably not 10 players in the league I'd take over him. So even if he was right in some sense, as is typical of most political discourse, it was poorly thought out and his appetite far exceeded his stomach.


Thus, we have what we have now. My belief is that Limbaugh has been wanting to throw this thought out there for some time and Donavon McNabb was just the sacrficial lamb.

Stuart


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 2) (which is really a corrolary of one) Limbaugh clearly had no idea what he was talking about. McNabb is pretty legitimately a superstar QB. There are probably not 10 players in the league I'd take over him. So even if he was right in some sense, as is typical of most political discourse, it was poorly thought out and his appetite far exceeded his stomach.


Really? I think this guy is right.

"Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage.

In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I find it interesting that some people criticize Rush for being terribly wrong about McNabb being overrated (while agreeing that there's a possible bias in the media) and some people criticize Rush for being wrong about the media bias (while agreeing that McNabb is possibly overrated)... but because Rush put the two together, and based on who Rush is perceived as being, he's (in the mind of many) deserving of the flak he's getting.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

well Ed, my spin is he was wrong on both counts (McNabb is a stud IMO and the media has proven to hype white QB's just as much if not more than black QB's) but I don't think he was racist for saying it. I think he was stupid for saying it. I actually would have preferred he keep his job and have to answer the critics this Sunday, that would have been good entertainment.


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

*Mcnabb is not even*

an average good QB. He has been hyped so much since coming into the league. The same is happening with Vick who hasn't
done anything yet and is already being hyped as the best QB in the league.

The best black QB was James Harris, but he wasn't a runner and was more of a thrower. He was under rated and still is. But
he as good.

And I can say that Jason Sehorn was hyped by the white media since he played CB, rare position for a white guy. The black sports media felt he was being hyped because he was white, yet
many never lost their jobs.

Same with George Cooney, who sucked as a white heavy weight boxer, being hyped by the media beause of his color.

I'd like to see a Portuguese/brazilian football player get hyped a bit myself for his nationality.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Epadfield</b>!
> 
> 
> Really? I think this guy is right.
> ...


Well to some extent, I'd disagree with that assessment because I don't think stats tell the full story. Would you really prefer Johnson to McNabb if you were a GM? Also, I don't think the statistical comparison you put out there is completely on the mark. A couple of qualms: 

* Note that you compared yards gained running to times sacked. Yes, McNabb is sacked more often, but it would be more fair to compare the yards lost in thos sacks. McNabb has lost 986 sack yards, Johnson has lost 1055. If you take the net of Run yards - sack yards, you find that <b>McNabb has a net 1054 and Johnson has a net -588.</b> If you look at it that way... the difference widens, not negates the rushing advantage.

* Second, you're comparing an older QB with more experience to a younger one. As QBs age, they get better. The fact alone that they were willing to throw McNabb out there for significant time as a rookie says something. But for the sake of argument, let's look at McNabb and Johnson over their first four seasons... that seams to be a consistent comparison:

Johnson- 34 Games, 21 Starts. 61.8% Comp, 5716 yards, 37 TDs, 24 Ints, 1 Rushing TD, -88 run/sack net yardage.

McNabb- 71 Games, 51 Starts. 56.9% Comp, 9835 yards, 71 TDs, 38 Ints, 14 Rushing TDs, +979 run/sack net yardage.

Put in that context, it's still true that Johnson is more accurate, but most McNabb's relative advantages become much more apparent.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

*Re: Mcnabb is not even*



> Originally posted by <b>benfica</b>!
> an average good QB. He has been hyped so much since coming into the league. The same is happening with Vick who hasn't
> done anything yet and is already being hyped as the best QB in the league.


I liken Vick to someone like Amare Stoudamire. He's shown amazing glimpses of what his potential can be, once he gets refined in the finer points of his position. For instance, Vick has the feet and savvy to be a great NFL quarterback, but lacks the experience and arm as of now. Amare has the athleticism and natural instincts to be a great power forward, but lacks a refined knowledge of the game and other fundamentals. 

Right now, they are rather good players, but what they can be is amazing.


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

*Mcnabb is a*

hyprocrit, he likes to play the race card when saying if he was white QB he would get paid more. What a joke. Calling Rush a racists when he is one himself.

Jesse Jackson, and some of the disgruntled black players and coaches started this race issue. Now, unless a team interviews a black coach for a vacancy they will be fined. Thanks to flimflam artist Jesse "Racists" Jackson the NFL is nothing but a big
joke. 

Kellen "another Racists" Winslow is now playing the race card while sending his son to an all black college.

Mcnabb, currently ranked near the bottom NFL QBs should be lucky to be a starting QB. There are 20 better white QBs sitting
on the bench in the NFL.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Guess you're smarter than the entire Philadelphia organization...

Last I checked they haven't been hurting for wins with McNabb starting. Do you think that defenses spend as much time preparing to defend Brad Johnson as they do McNabb?

Since when does the "liberal media" dominate the sports scene? I guess all these former NFL players and coaches that call the games are whiney, weepy liberals for thinking that McNabb is any good? How does one explain the treatment that Kordell Stewart has had? Everyone pretty much agreed that he was crappy, regardless of race...

The NFL on Fox guys were right on today in saying that if you want to make the claim that McNabb is overrated, fine... that is a claim that one can make. But to say that it is because he is black puts you on very shaky footing and opens you up to questions on your character. 

Since it was not a comment made in the heat of the moment, and he's not a complete idiot, I think it's clear that he was banking on a big reaction. Well, yay for him, he got it and now everybody is talking about him.

I don't know why everyone is whining and weeping for him, this is exactly what he was shooting for...


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> 
> The NFL on Fox guys were right on today in saying that if you want to make the claim that McNabb is overrated, fine... that is a claim that one can make. But to say that it is because he is black puts you on very shaky footing and opens you up to questions on your character.


that's the problem right there, his words got people in such an uproar they didn't hear what he actually said

*



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

Click to expand...

 *

what he said was the MEDIA wanted a black QB to do well so they hyped him. He didn't say that he was overrated because he was black. There is a difference.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hmmm... so he was overhyped because he was black? 

I guess I don't see much difference between overhyping and overrating... if you're getting too much hype it means that you aren't good enough to receive the attention, therefore overrated. The media plays a huge part in rating players, in the NBA they get to help decide who wins the MVP and other awards...

Anyway, I think everyone heard what he said and he knew exactly what he was doing. I don't think he anticipated being forced to step down, but that's what he gets for trying to stir the pot...

What is the "liberal media" anyhow, and how much say do they have in who gets to be a top quarterback? Was it the "conservative media" that overrated Aikman and trashed Kordell? Is there an "independent media" that I can vote for?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't recall this "liberal media" overhyping Randall Cunningham and Warren Moon, when they were playing. In fact, the sports media was often quite critical of both, claiming Cunningham was a gimmick because he was a gifted athlete and scrambler but not so great a passer and that Moon ran a gimmick offense that over-inflated his statistics.

Why weren't the liberals in the sports media going into overdrive over those fellows, who existed in a league that was much whiter, in terms of its quarterbacks?

Now, you have Rodney Peete (who you had in the '90s, too), Kordell Stewart, Daunte Culpepper, Donavan McNabb, Michael Vick, Quincy Carter...there's hardly a need to "overhype" a guy just because he's black. The barrier has been broken to a much greater extent.

I think Limbaugh's contention was incredibly shaky and, if made by someone else, I probably would have dismissed it as a sincere, if poorly thought-out, contention. Since it *is* Limbaugh, I suspect an agenda at work. I could be wrong and I recognize that possibility. But I *do* consider comments made in the context of the history of the person making them.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I would just like to thank Donovan Mcnabb for getting the job done against the Redskins tonight thus giving the Cowboys sole lead of the NFC East. Take that Rush!

Go Cowboys!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> I would just like to thank Donovan Mcnabb for getting the job done against the Redskins tonight thus giving the Cowboys sole lead of the NFC East. Take that Rush!
> 
> Go Cowboys!


Yeah... in spite of being the highest-paid player in the NFL, with a far superior defense, he managed to avoid overtime to a second-year QB... AT HOME!

Heck of a job by McNabb. No way he's overrated.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Crazy...

In the game I was watching the Eagles were playing the entire Redskins team.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Moon was questioned more because he was coming from Canada...more than his color.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I think Limbaugh's contention was incredibly shaky and, if made by someone else, I probably would have dismissed it as a sincere, if poorly thought-out, contention. Since it is Limbaugh, I suspect an agenda at work."


What's the agenda?


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> I can't believe the whiny weepy politically-correct "outrage" being directed at Rush Limbaugh right now. And all for what? Because he expressed an opinion that upset some people.
> 
> Whatever happened to free speech in this country? Whatever happened to the second amendment? And whatever happened to telling the truth? It seems you can state your opinion only if it doesn't offend the wrong people.
> ...


you said it yourself "black comedians" they';re friggan comedians, tehy dont mean what the say. plus they're right most white people cant dance. Yuo cant compare that to limbaugh cuz comedians make fun of everyone including themselves, limbaugh made a statement about 1 race, and last i checked NFL countdown isnt' a comdey program.  comments like this are not allowed  Aren't you offended by that statement? well i guess the amendment allows me to say that, but am i right? of course not. just so you know i didnt mean it, just trying to get a point across.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> What's the agenda?


The part of his agenda that applies most here is that the "liberal" media and liberals in society in general give blacks chances that whites wouldn't get, give them positive press that they don't deserve just to ease their "oppression."

Essentially, I felt that this was a very politically softened attack on things like affirmative action or social programs to help the underpriviledged, who are mostly black in this country. Obviously, he couldn't come right out and say *that* on a football show, so he created a "football example" of it, of the liberal press trying to build up a black man more than he deserves, to help him. Affirmative action for black quarterbacks, in his mind.

Whether there was also any racist intent, I have no idea. But I feel pretty sure that there was a hardcore, right-wing agenda that he was trying to infuse into a non-partisan football show, to further his attacks on programs for disadvantaged people, many of whom happen to be black or latino.

As I said, I could be wrong. Maybe Rush wasn't thinking politics at all and wasn't trying to push a conservative agenda. If it were someone else, maybe I buy that. With Rush, I doubt it.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> ....If it were someone else, maybe I buy that.


Like Sean Hannity, perhaps? :laugh:


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> <snip>
> ...


Wow. Your politics aren't even mildly moderate. Last time I checked, some 65% of people in the US below the pverty line are *white*. True, a higher percentage of blacks (33%) than white (14%) are below that line, but this is not what you said.

And calling Rush "hard core right wing" shows you don't get out much. He is pretty much down the middle for the Republican party, which is not that right wing. 

As far as I am concerned, the vast majority of Americans want America to be colour blind (lots of polling data backs this assertion). The fringes of society are defined by their explicit racism. On the right, this includes isolationists like Buchanan, neo-nazis, etc. On the left this includes liberals who want to use laws and coercion to force "positive" discrimination. Both are racist, and wrong. 

When the question of a colour blind society comes up, Americans tend to be for it (at least before serious lobbying by status quo interests come into play). It is painting by colour which is so reprehensible.

To relate this to the main thread: Rush was labelling some behavior as racist. He may be right, or he may be wrong. I'd prefer that Rush had been race blind, and just said that McNabb was orerrated, without bringing colour into it. But his statement was surely within the reasonable middle ground of the political spectrum.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Essentially, I felt that this was a very politically softened attack on things like affirmative action


To quote Martin Luther King's Dream speech:

"children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color
of their skin, but by the content of their character."

It seems that Rush and MLK are on the same page....

iWatas


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Man, i always thought Portland was very liberal


----------



## s a b a s 11 (Dec 31, 2002)

*This baby's still going... ?*

I'm sure there are still some in the media that would like to hype Donavon McNabb simply because he is black. BUt you can't say there aren't those out there that are waiting to hype up Peyton Manning when he finally wins something. I wouldn't say there are more one way or the other. 

With the past successes of Warren Moon and Randall Cunningham, the fact that there are 10 black quarterbacks in the league now, 4 of which (McNabb, Vick, McNair, and Culpepper) would go top 10 in almost anyone's fantasy league.

It's like saying the media that follows the NBA is trying to hype the Euro because they are European. The era in which we thought no one could play basketball except Americans is over, we all know that Euros can play in NBA, and it has been proven over and over and over again. 

And thats where I see the Limbaugh statement

The time has passed, there have been many successful Black QBs in the league. This isn't Yao Ming and the NBA, its been done. Black QBs can be successful in the NFL. If Rush has said this 10 years ago, he might have a stronger case, if he even had one at all to begin with.

Maybe time doesn't move as quick as reality on his talkshow. 

Stuart


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Iwatas</b>!
> 
> Wow. Your politics aren't even mildly moderate. Last time I checked, some 65% of people in the US below the pverty line are *white*. True, a higher percentage of blacks (33%) than white (14%) are below that line, but this is not what you said.


I always mean by percentage, sorry I wasn't clearer. Since populations aren't equal, it's rarely meaningful to go by raw totals.

And "my politics aren't moderate"? I'm a liberal. I don't claim to be a centrist. However, I don't think my views are radical. It's not like I call Republicans "the party of racists" or other extreme rhetoric. I try to be fair, but *obviously* what I think is filtered by what I believe and what I believe is what makes me liberal. It's the same for everyone...their thinking is filtered by what they believe.



> And calling Rush "hard core right wing" shows you don't get out much. He is pretty much down the middle for the Republican party, which is not that right wing.


Actually, it is. I think it's you that doesn't get out much if you think the Republican party, and the entire political spectrum, hasn't been moving right-ward. Democrats used to be *liberals*. These days, they're centrists. Al Gore gets painted as an extreme liberal when his positions aren't very different from mainstream Democrats back in the '60s and '70s. A President so concerned with big business concerns that he cancelled laws restricting the amount of arsenic in drinking water because it hindered ease of strip mining would have been considered an extremely hardcore right-winger a decade or two or three ago. Now, he bills himself as a "compassionate conservative" and close to the middle and a little less than half the country buys it.

And then, Rush Limbaugh is still to the right of *that*. If you think Limbaugh would be even a half-way electable Republican, you're deluding yourself. He's viewed as so extreme and polarizing, he'd never have a shot.



> On the left this includes liberals who want to use laws and coercion to force "positive" discrimination. Both are racist, and wrong.


No, the reason for things like Affirmative Action are to counter the Affirmative Action whites *already* receive from white executives and other white people of power who are more likely to hire whites than people of colour. Not *all* whites in power, obviously, but a large amount of them.

The biggest fallacy is that Affirmative Action is something to help people of colour on an otherwise-level playing field. That's ridiculous. The playing field is already tilted towards whites due to the power structure in this country and plenty of implicit racism that still exists. Affirmative Action is meant to counter that, not give people of colour some extra benefit.



> But his statement was surely within the reasonable middle ground of the political spectrum.


It might have been. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, he didn't mean it that way, based on all his other views.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> ". . . the underpriviledged, who are mostly black in this country."


Hard to see how you meant this any other way, Minstrel. If whites make up 65% of the poor in this country, I have to believe that hispanics make up at least 15%, since they are now a larger minority than blacks. So that leaves maybe 20% of the poor to be divided between blacks and any others. This is a far cry from your original statement.



> "Since populations aren't equal, it's rarely meaningful to go by raw totals."


Well, gosh, the raw totals in this case paint a very different picture than the one you were trying to present. If 65% of the poor are white, that puts a serious dent in the argument that poverty is linked to race. Conservatives like to argue that anyone who is willing to work hard and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps can succeed in this country. And a growing black middle class is proving that to be true. Not to mention the fact that asians and other minorities have been able to achieve great success in this country simply by working their butts off.



> "Whether there was also any racist intent, I have no idea. But I feel pretty sure that there was a hardcore, right-wing agenda that he was trying to infuse into a non-partisan football show."


I find it interesting that, to you, anyone who has the balls to point out that race may be playing a role in the media's treatment of a black athlete is automatically "hardcore, right-wing." Think about it.



> "Democrats used to be liberals. These days, they're centrists"


I wouldn't call Hillary Clinton a centrist. She wants to socialize medicine, have communities raise children instead of parents (It takes a village), and enlarge the role of the federal government. In college she supported the radical black panthers, and in the 1980s she chaired the New World Foundation (NWF) when it gave grants to communist groups in El Salvador. She is basically a Marxist in disguise, and yet she is considered by many Democrats to be the party's leading contender for president.



> "The playing field is already tilted towards whites due to the power structure in this country and plenty of implicit racism that still exists. Affirmative Action is meant to counter that, not give people of colour some extra benefit."


You're ignoring the facts. When you give a preference to a minority business on a government contract, you're hurting the owners of white businesses who may have a better product and deserve the contract more. And when you insist on a quota system for hiring minorities, you automatically reject non-minorities who might deserve the job more. This obvious flaw in affirmative action is why so many people are against it. You don't correct a wrong by committing another wrong.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> Well, gosh, the raw totals in this case paint a very different picture than the one you were trying to present.


That's because the raw totals are worthless. There are so many more whites than blacks, that of course there are more poor whites than poor blacks. There are more raw numbers of whites in everything. That means nothing. The percentages of blacks that are poor are far higher than the percentage of whites that are poor.



> I find it interesting that, to you, anyone who has the balls to point out that race may be playing a role in the media's treatment of a black athlete is automatically "hardcore, right-wing." Think about it.


You simply don't know how to read, that's all. That's not what I said. I said if Rush's comment had come from someone else, I'd be more willing to believe that it was meant without agenda. Rush is not "hardcore right-wing" because he said this racially-motivated thing. He's *already* known as hardcore right-wing, long before he made this comment.



> I wouldn't call Hillary Clinton a centrist. She wants to socialize medicine, have communities raise children instead of parents (It takes a village), and enlarge the role of the federal government. In college she supported the radical black panthers, and in the 1980s she chaired the New World Foundation (NWF) when it gave grants to communist groups in El Salvador. She is basically a Marxist in disguise, and yet she is considered by many Democrats to be the party's leading contender for president.


Obviously you have no concept of logic, if you think a single example refutes a statement like, "The Democratic party is centrist these days." Obviously, one or two people may be liberal...those are called "outliers."

The last successful Democrat, Bill Clinton, was a centrist. Current leading Democrats like Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt are all centrists, as is the *majority* of the party. Heck, John McCain may be more liberal than these people (and yes, McCain is what we call a Republican "outlier").



> You're ignoring the facts. When you give a preference to a minority business on a government contract, you're hurting the owners of white businesses who may have a better product and deserve the contract more. And when you insist on a quota system for hiring minorities, you automatically reject non-minorities who might deserve the job more.


And how about the minority businesses passed over because a white CEO chooses a largely white business due to his own prejudices, or the deserving black candidates for a job that get passed over for a white candidate due to prejudice?

Further, unqualified minorities are not given jobs by AA. Affirmative Action requires that *qualified* minority hires be made, in preference to qualified white candidates, to balance out the above mentioned inequality that's already there.



> This obvious flaw in affirmative action is why so many people are against it. You don't correct a wrong by committing another wrong.


No, but balancing out one unequality with another sure beats *only* having the first inequality, which is racism among many white people in power.

It's very convenient for the majority to say, "Until we find a perfect solution, we'll just keep enjoying our advantage." It's slightly to their benefit to never find that "perfect solution" and keep saying, "No, this one has a flaw. Sorry, keep working from a disadvantage until you find something better."


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i'm curious Minstrel if you've ever been the loser because of Affirmative Action? I doubt it.


I have.

its easy to talk about how great it is and it keeps the white man from abusing his "power" if you've never been touched by the system.

you might not be so strongly in favor of it if it directly kept you from a job you were qualified for because you are a young white male, not black, not mexican, not a female.

Affirmative action changed my life at a young age. I'll never ever ever agree with it, ever no matter what you think or say. It is just wrong not to give the most qualified person the job.

either way, jobs for minorities in America (and whites for that matter) are being replaced by low cost labor from India and China anyhow.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Perhaps, tommyboy. And have you ever been the victim of outright racism? Friends of mine have.

It's fairly obvious when you and *all* your black co-workers have been passed over for promotions time and time again, despite an equally good or better record, in favour of white employees.

And they are scarred by it every bit as much as you feel scarred by AA.

In that vein, yes, Affirmative Action may not be perfect. But, as long as the normal playing field is tilted due to racism as in the example I gave above, I'd rather have programs that favour blacks and latinos (I am neither) to even out that tilt.

I'd rather we *did* live in a colour-blind society, where merits were *all* that mattered and skin colour mattered not one iota. But you're fooling yourself if you think that removing all quota and AA-type programs would achieve that. Then, *you*, personally, may not lose a job, but plenty of blacks and other minorities would and there would be no counter-balancing factor.

Taking yourself out of it, do you feel that's fair?

And do you think it's fair to remove AA and, while we as a society debate about how best to solve this problem, blacks and other minorities continue to get screwed?

And if no "perfect" solution is ever found, shall we just let blacks and other minorities continue to get screwed forevermore, with nothing to counter-balance it?



> *Originally posted by tommyboy*
> i'm curious Minstrel if you've ever been the loser because of Affirmative Action? I doubt it.


I may well have lost out on college acceptances to quotas...there's no way to know, except that I was qualified, not a minority that gets this type of aid and failed to get into some places.

If I did, so be it. Sometimes the concerns of the society are more important. Like getting everyone to equal footing, such that their skin colour is not a determining factor (either negatively *or* positively). We are not there, with or without AA. Without AA, though, all the bias goes only *one direction*.

That's not acceptable.

I'm sure I won't convince you, but consider how you felt to be passed over, and remember that that's what many, many qualified black people experience with or without government programs.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i've got news for you Minstrel, perfectly good white people are passed over all the time for less qualified white people too. Its called corporate politics/beaurocracy and it is real. I work for a fortune 500 company and I am stunned at the amount of complete incompetence that gets passed up the ladder of promotion. I work with a suspected murderer who was transferred to our unit that has no experience whatsoever in what our unit does, yet he is supposedly some whiz kid. 

you know, the AA thing is a joke. Its just a way to shield minorities from reality. Reality is all kinds of numbskulls and incompetents get promoted while more qualified people get passed over because they don't kiss enough butt.

get real. The sooner we get rid of AA the faster the racial undertones in this country will disappear. AA just allows them to simmer right along and gives hardcore whites a reason to resent minorities. I am not one of those that resents minorities and I see the intent of AA as a noble thing. But it was implemented 30+ years ago and has become social welfare. Meanwhile this country has diversified completely and the generation I'm a part of has very little racism compared to previous generations. Undoubtedly the next generations will have even less racism embedded in them, and at what point does the justification for AA continue to exist? I don't think it has much merit today, and even less tomorrow.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Sometimes the concerns of the society are more important. Like getting everyone to equal footing . . . "


This is a classic liberal fallacy. You can't create a society that gives everyone equal footing. No laws will ever make it happen, and the laws that liberals pass to "even out" the playing field only create resentment and anger.

Consider this: 

In the job market, good looking people will always have an advantage over average-looking or ugly people. Does that mean we should pass a law requiring employers to hire a certain number of ugly people?

Studies show that tall men have an advantage over shorter men when it comes to getting a job. Should we pass a law that requires companies to hire a certain number of short men, to balance out the scales for that "disadvantaged" group?

Grossly overweight people are also at a disadvantage when it comes to getting a job. Does that mean we should force employers to hire a few obese people just to "even out" the playing field a little?

People from Ivy League colleges (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.) have an easier time getting a job than people from non-Ivy league colleges. Should we pass a law that makes all employers hire a few guys and gals from Ohio State and Case Western?

Let's face it. Life is unfair, in lots of ways. And laws can't always change that. 

The best way to succeed in life is to make yourself the best qualified person you can be, so that your talents overwhelm any inherent disadvantages you may have. A big way to do that is through an education. Unfortunately, many blacks hurt themselves in this area by dropping out of high school or college. Studies show that their drop-out rates are much higher than other minorities.

In my business, advertising, there are very few blacks. But not because agencies don't want to hire them: it's because there are very few black applicants. The qualified ones that show up often get the job, because their talents are obvious. The best affirmative action is personal affirmative action!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Man, i always thought Portland was very liberal


None of the posters in this thread (at least as far back as I looked) hail from Portland at present (except me). So maybe that explains it.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> 
> 
> None of the posters in this thread (at least as far back as I looked) hail from Portland at present (except me). So maybe that explains it.
> ...


um...you might want to re-think that just a bit...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Man, i always thought Portland was very liberal



Portland has a reputation for being liberal, because of all the protesters and hippies that live in the area, but thats not an accurate description of the majority of the city. 

at one time, you could say most were forward thinking, and to a degree thats still true.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> um...you might want to re-think that just a bit...


Um... ok. Sorry to be dense, but whaddya mean?

barfo


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

he means there are several Portland area posters on this thread. I'm one, Hap is another, I guess I could do a thread search for you and list all of them, but your post was wrong was his point.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> he means there are several Portland area posters on this thread. I'm one, Hap is another, I guess I could do a thread search for you and list all of them, but your post was wrong was his point.


Ok, well, if you are from Portland then I was wrong. Your profile says Tigard, which is most certainly not Portland. (Note I, and the poster I responded to, said "Portland" not "Portland area". I don't think anyone in his right mind would say "Gee, I thought Tigard was a hotbed of liberals". ) As for Hap, I didn't see any posts from him 'as far back as I looked', but I don't doubt you that he does have some posts in this thread. 

But gee, if you guys think my post was wrong after reading it carefully, then hey, what can I say...

barfo


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

i consider Portland to encompass everything from Hillsboro to Tualatin to Oregon City to Parkrose/Gresham to Delta Park. That's about 1.5 to 2 million people, that's Portland. That's where the majority of the states votes are.

I have lived in LO, Beaverton, 30th and Holgate, 37th and Hawthorne and now Tigard. I consider myself from Portland even if my current address is Tigard. I have lived here all my life. If you meant Portland proper you certainly excluded a huge amount of people arbitrarily.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I come from Portland, though I have lived in the UK for some time.

And yes, I consider myself very forward thinking. The AA stuff is the status quo and the past, not the future. Racism is not something I look forward to.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> you know, the AA thing is a joke. Its just a way to shield minorities from reality. Reality is all kinds of numbskulls and incompetents get promoted while more qualified people get passed over because they don't kiss enough butt.


That's not the point. The point is whether is happens systemically due to something like skin colour or gender.

If it happens due to simple managerial incompetence or because he wants to be stroked, that affects everyone equally, being random.

Racism, or sexism, affects a specific group only. That's the difference.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Talkhard</b>!
> 
> This is a classic liberal fallacy. You can't create a society that gives everyone equal footing.


Every group, is what I mean, whether that be minorities, the majority, men, or women. Overweight people or unattractive people are not generally considered "groups" and they are scattered through the groups pretty randomly.



> No laws will ever make it happen, and the laws that liberals pass to "even out" the playing field only create resentment and anger.


That's sure convenient for you, isn't it? "We'll never level the playing field out until we're good and ready to do it ourselves, so blacks should just accept being marginalized until then."


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "Every group, is what I mean, whether that be minorities, the majority, men, or women. Overweight people or unattractive people are not generally considered "groups" and they are scattered through the groups pretty randomly."


But that's just the point. Liberals have created various "groups" that they are pleading for. If you're going to defend the rights of the "disadvantaged," you better include all the groups I mentioned. Each of them is "disadvantaged" in a different way. 



> "That's sure convenient for you, isn't it? "We'll never level the playing field out until we're good and ready to do it ourselves, so blacks should just accept being marginalized until then."


Why is it convenient for me? I don't want blacks to be marginalized any more than you do. (You better watch out--your stereotypes are showing!)


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

hearing a lib say it, you get the impression the poor black man isn't good enough or smart enough to get what they want without the help of the benevolent white man that tosses AA around like its some kind of social lifesaver. That's pretty condescending attitude towards minorities IMO.


you'd have to prove to me that today in 2003 there exists a systematic racial discrimination against blacks, women, mexicans, asians and all other non-white, non-male minority groups. It doesn't exist. Its a leftover from the civil rights era that the libs have held on to like a sacred cow to keep minorities convinced they need to vote Democrat, nothing more...nothing less.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> hearing a lib say it, you get the impression the poor black man isn't good enough or smart enough to get what they want without the help of the benevolent white man that tosses AA around like its some kind of social lifesaver. That's pretty condescending attitude towards minorities IMO.


That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with being good enough or smart enough when a fair amount of biased managers and executives pass blacks over for less-qualified whites.

Are you saying the only way you can get a job is on a playing field tilted your direction, and a level playing field would mean unemployment for you? That's a pretty condescending attitude to have towards yourself, IMO.

Obviously, you're not saying that, just as I am not saying that blacks and other minorities can't succeed on a level playing field. I just disagree that the playing field is level, with or without AA. But at least with AA, blacks and minorities have some edge to counter the edge whites have built-in.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I didn't really want to get into a political argument, like debating the merits of AA, so I'm going to end my involvement in it. Those who have argued with me can feel free to get their last words in...I'm not trying to freeze this on *my* final post.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I didn't really want to get into a political argument, like debating the merits of AA, so I'm going to end my involvement in it. Those who have argued with me can feel free to get their last words in...I'm not trying to freeze this on *my* final post.



i respect your opinion and appreciate the discussion. It is always good to hear different opinions.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>!
> 
> i respect your opinion and appreciate the discussion. It is always good to hear different opinions.


Likewise, tommyboy. I respect your viewpoint and understand why you feel the way you do. Civil difference of opinion is worthwhile.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Same for me. I enjoy hearing different points of view. It's a good way to challenge your own thinking.


----------

