Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have 406,586 members! Join today to learn, network, laugh, and share with nurses.
| No. 60 | 
Oct 16, 2009, 10:49 AM
 re: Rush Limbaugh http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-z..._b_323529.html As the media has now endlessly dissected, Rush was thwarted this week in his efforts to buy the National Football League's St. Louis Rams. His ownership group, led by St. Louis Blues boss Dave Checketts, dumped Rush without ceremony or pity. Checketts issued a statement saying, "It has become clear that his involvement in our group has become a complication and a distraction to our intentions; endangering our bid to keep the team in St. Louis. As such, we have decided to move forward without him and hope it will eventually lead us to a successful conclusion."
His comments came the day after Rush insisted on his show that they would fight this to the bitter end. But Checketts, like most owners a long time donor to right wing causes, had no desire to link arms with Limbaugh for a public crusade. You might think Rush would have gone on the air to slam Checketts's absence of a spine. You might think he would have called out the hypocrisy of NFL owners who give prodigiously to right wing candidates and causes, but insist on doing it in the shadows. You might think he would rail against those who see their conservative support as something sordid and best done behind closed doors. You might think Rush would howl at the moon at those who think that being an open, unreconstructed right winger, actually hurts the almighty bottom line. You might think he would say that the right wing has failed a major test by refusing to back him. Or maybe you might think he would take a different tack and accept personal responsibility for why a group of billionaires wouldn't want his presence affecting their bottom line.
But no. Rush instead had this to say about why his defeat occurred: "This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have.....This is the latest assault on people who believe in rugged individualism and liberty and freedom who threaten the whole notion of state control tyranny and central authority which is typified by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-z..._b_323529.html
So it's Obama's fault. It wasn't a business decision, it was an assault on personal freedom, liberty and the right to own a football team. It's because of those pesky liberals that Limbaugh didn't get what he wanted. (Funny, I don't recall anyone being bent out of shape when George W. Bush owned a baseball team, except when Sammy Sousa was traded...)
It's disingenuous for Limbaugh to preach personal responsibility and then blame the Democrats and the Obama administration for a business decision made by the group wanting to buy the Rams to drop Limbaugh because he was a distraction and an impediment to their goal.
 | | No. 61 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:03 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh Originally Posted by Spidey's mom  He has never let people think he was a racist and he has always fought this. Always. I've listened for 21 years.
steph
do you have any sources for this (that he has always fought this?)?
he is one of the most outspoken people in america, yet i'm not recalling anything remotely comparable to rush challenging anyone.
help us out with this allegation, please?
i found an article from 1994, re limbaugh's credibility.
as i said, his reputation precedes him. The Way Things Aren't www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
and just another, typical rant about limbaugh's so-called "racist" attitudes. Limbaugh's "color-blind" history of racially charged comments http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049
and finally, IF limbaugh has challenged the racist allegations, why hasn't he sued for libel?
he certainly is intelligent enough to know when blatant lies are being written.
so yeah, any citations showing limbaugh "fighting" against these accusations, would indeed, be most helpful.
thanks, steph.
leslie
| | No. 64 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:12 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh Originally Posted by Pierrette Before now, he hasn't been able to show damages. But now he can. It will be interesting to see if he sues.
i don't understand, peri.
show damages?
isn't writing lies about someone, illegal?
leslie
| | No. 65 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:25 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh Originally Posted by leslie :-D i don't understand, peri.
show damages?
isn't writing lies about someone, illegal?
leslie
He's a public figure and as such has limited ability to sue for libel. See Jerry Falwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler...ine_v._Falwell
Apparently, Hustler Magazine, a favorite of all of ours, wrote something about Falwell having sex with his mother. Falwell sued, but his suit was found without legal merit. Upon appeal,
" The Fourth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Flynt's argument that the actual-malice standard of New York Times Company v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) applied in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff was a public figure, as Falwell concededly was."
The case eventually wound its way to the Supreme Court, where Falwell lost. From what I understand, a public figure must show actual damages before being successful at suing for libel.
| | No. 66 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:29 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh Originally Posted by Moogie http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-z..._b_323529.html
So it's Obama's fault. It wasn't a business decision, it was an assault on personal freedom, liberty and the right to own a football team. It's because of those pesky liberals that Limbaugh didn't get what he wanted. (Funny, I don't recall anyone being bent out of shape when George W. Bush owned a baseball team, except when Sammy Sousa was traded...)
It's disingenuous for Limbaugh to preach personal responsibility and then blame the Democrats and the Obama administration for a business decision made by the group wanting to buy the Rams to drop Limbaugh because he was a distraction and an impediment to their goal.
Rush said he warned them all ahead of time that it would be controversial and he was told over and over that it was ok - they had it handled. THEY came to him with the offer.
There is more to the story . ..
He isn't blaming Obama himself . . just the policies that Obama is supporting. "This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have.....This is the latest assault on people who believe in rugged individualism and liberty and freedom who threaten the whole notion of state control tyranny and central authority which is typified by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party."
And Tony Dungy's comments:
"You know, I guess it bothered a lot of people, it really didn't bother me. I think anybody should have the right to pursue whatever they want, they should go through the process just like anyone else and there would be 28 owners that would vote and I think the process should be able to go forth. I don't like it when people say "because of this he shouldn't be allowed to do that." We don't have any minority ownership in the NFL right now, and I think, you know, that just strikes me as the same thing, because of the way this guy looks, because of the way he sounds, because of his political bent, that he shouldn't be allowed to own a team, I think that's something that the 28 owners should decide and not the general public."
| | No. 67 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:30 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh
If he knew his reputation all along, then that just proves my point. You say he has tried to refute it ... in 21 years I've never heard word one from him about that ... and now he's all over the place! So, if he indeed tried, he didn't try very hard. Nor did he moderate his vitriol or offensive parodies.
And btw, I'm not drawing my opinions from what other people claim he said ... I'm drawing it from what I heard him say with my very own ears.
"But you don't listen to him any more", you say. This is true ... neither do most people. Y'see, I'm talking about reputation ... perceptions of him by people who don't know him.
The bottom line, to me, is that Limbaugh's own behavior lead to his current reputation.
His business partners decided not to risk their money on that reputation and the fallout it might cause on the team or among the fan base.
Much as it might hurt to find out that someone doesn't want his money, Rush is just going to have to get used to it. There's no provision in the Constitution that guarantees the right to buy a sports team or belong to a private investor group.
And as for the definition of racism ... maybe I should have said "common usage".
In my reading here and there, I repeatedly see negative opinions of the dominant culture - or positive opinions of one's own, a la Sotomayor - on the part of a minority person characterized as "racism".
Whereas the same behavior from white folks is - what? Patriotism? Clear-eyed realism? Satire? A fearless statement of ________ values (fill in the social philosophy of your choice)? And to top it all off, when a white racist is named a racist, there's a dogpile of white folks hollering "the racism card !!!" or deriding the opinion as "PC".
All of it carefully geared to protect white folks from the unpleasant chore of taking personal responsibility for their own attitudes and behavior.
We're gonna hafta agree to disagree ... I've given my analysis of the term in another thread. When I find it, I'll post the link rather than waste everyone's time in this thread.
| | No. 68 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:32 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh Originally Posted by Spidey's mom
And Tony Dungy's comments:
"You know, I guess it bothered a lot of people, it really didn't bother me. I think anybody should have the right to pursue whatever they want, they should go through the process just like anyone else and there would be 28 owners that would vote and I think the process should be able to go forth. I don't like it when people say "because of this he shouldn't be allowed to do that." We don't have any minority ownership in the NFL right now, and I think, you know, that just strikes me as the same thing, because of the way this guy looks, because of the way he sounds, because of his political bent, that he shouldn't be allowed to own a team, I think that's something that the 28 owners should decide and not the general public."
I love you, Steph! Tony Dungy sounds like what my dad would have said.
| | No. 69 |
Oct 16, 2009, 11:33 AM
re: Rush Limbaugh Originally Posted by leslie :-D do you have any sources for this (that he has always fought this?)?
he is one of the most outspoken people in america, yet i'm not recalling anything remotely comparable to rush challenging anyone.
help us out with this allegation, please?
i found an article from 1994, re limbaugh's credibility.
as i said, his reputation precedes him. The Way Things Aren't www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
and just another, typical rant about limbaugh's so-called "racist" attitudes. Limbaugh's "color-blind" history of racially charged comments http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049
and finally, IF limbaugh has challenged the racist allegations, why hasn't he sued for libel?
he certainly is intelligent enough to know when blatant lies are being written.
so yeah, any citations showing limbaugh "fighting" against these accusations, would indeed, be most helpful.
thanks, steph.
leslie
He fights them by what he says on his show, in his writings, at the speeches he gives.
And good grief he would be tied up in court for a bazillion years if he went after every person who libeled him.
He never had the attitude of "I'm gonna sue". Most of the time he just laughs. There is no way to fight this except to keep on saying what you believe.
There is no "research" to link you to - just life experience, his show, his writings, his speeches.
steph
|
| 499 members
4,757 guests 5,256
|
World News & Politics