From http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4562338
Limbaugh says he believes he has been made an example by a players' union seeking leverage in talks over a new collective bargaining agreement. And he says he believes what happened to him was an illustration of "Obama's America on full display."
-----
It's amazing that my level of respect for this steaming turd could actually drop, but I think he might have pulled it off. Baby didn't get his toy and now comes yet another tantrum. I can't believe there are people out there who still take him seriously.
mgbfan
10-15-09, 02:05 PM
In related news, Limbaugh stubbed his toe on a coffee table today.
"This is what we're in for, people," Limbaugh told his listeners. "We've let Obama come in and rearrange our furniture, and he's clearly trying to kill all of us. More proof that Obama hates Amercia."
Fortunatly, Limbaugh had a cache of painkillers to deaden the pain and further remove him from reality.
Dr Mabuse
10-15-09, 02:11 PM
I can't believe anyone would care enough about the guy that they would keep up with anything he says or does, much less make a thread about it.
Groucho
10-15-09, 02:14 PM
I can't believe anyone would care enough about the guy that they would keep up with anything he says or does, much less make a thread about it.I agree, but he is the president.
Holysmoker
10-15-09, 02:24 PM
From http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4562338
Limbaugh says he believes he has been made an example by a players' union seeking leverage in talks over a new collective bargaining agreement. And he says he believes what happened to him was an illustration of "Obama's America on full display."
-----
It's amazing that my level of respect for this steaming turd could actually drop, but I think he might have pulled it off. Baby didn't get his toy and now comes yet another tantrum. I can't believe there are people out there who still take him seriously.
You're calling that a tantrum?
General Zod
10-15-09, 02:33 PM
I do find it amusing that the NFL will gladly let back in a guy who tortured and killed dogs and then even lied to the police about it.. but a talk show host who has said controversial things in the past.. THAT'S DRAWING THE LINE!
orangecrush
10-15-09, 03:33 PM
I do find it amusing that the NFL will gladly let back in a guy who tortured and killed dogs and then even lied to the police about it.. but a talk show host who has said controversial things in the past.. THAT'S DRAWING THE LINE!Not to mention killing a person.
Brack
10-15-09, 03:36 PM
don't forget drug addict.
Red Dog
10-15-09, 03:42 PM
I'd trade Dan Snyder for Rush Limbaugh in a heartbeat.
Tommy Ceez
10-15-09, 03:51 PM
Did Rush Limbaugh just blame Obama for his failure to buy the Rams?
I dont Know, you tell me.
orangecrush
10-15-09, 04:13 PM
don't forget drug addict.Are you refering to players now, or Rush?
General Zod
10-15-09, 04:27 PM
Not to mention killing a person.
don't forget drug addict.
Yeah dog killers, people murderers, and drug addicts. All welcome in the NFL. But god forbid a talk show host might get his foot in there! :lol: That would just ruin the outstanding image that is the NFL.
eXcentris
10-15-09, 04:32 PM
Yeah dog killers, people murderers, and drug addicts. All welcome in the NFL. But god forbid a talk show host might get his foot in there! :lol: That would just ruin the outstanding image that is the NFL.
True. If he can make a team, I say let him play. :)
Holysmoker
10-15-09, 04:53 PM
Not Obama directly, but....some advise to the NFL from a (D) government representative
the NFL isn't going to listen to any gov't rep. they'll listen to what makes them money.
BKenn01
10-15-09, 05:10 PM
the NFL isn't going to listen to any gov't rep. they'll listen to what makes them money.
That is obviously BS, they went in lockstep with the Lefties in this case. Limbaugh being an owner wouldnt have cost them any fans or money.
Once again a small but vocal group of people bully to get their way. I dont listen to Limbaugh, his arrogance gets on my nerves. But there was no reason to prevent him from being part of the group buying the Rams.
creekdipper
10-15-09, 05:15 PM
Why would Limbaugh give Obama credit for this? It would contradict Limbaugh's assertion that Obama hasn't done anything since inauguration.
Nugent
10-15-09, 05:49 PM
Not Obama directly, but....some advise to the NFL from a (D) government representative
I find it ironic that Rush would want to get involved with a socialist organization.
orangecrush
10-15-09, 05:57 PM
I find it ironic that Rush would want to get involved with a socialist organization.Many people view sports leagues as single organizations, not markets.
spainlinx0
10-15-09, 05:58 PM
I think it's funny that people think the NFL was bullied into any decision. The NFL does what it feels is best for its pocketbook. The negative press they felt they would receive from Limbaugh, was not worth it to them. Limbaugh doesn't put fans in the seats or increase ratings. Vick does, and that's why he straps on a uniform and plays today even though he killed some dogs.
spainlinx0
10-15-09, 05:58 PM
Many people view sports leagues as single organizations, not markets.
And yet monopolistic.
arminius
10-15-09, 06:43 PM
I think it's funny that people think the NFL was bullied into any decision. The NFL does what it feels is best for its pocketbook. The negative press they felt they would receive from Limbaugh, was not worth it to them. Limbaugh doesn't put fans in the seats or increase ratings. Vick does, and that's why he straps on a uniform and plays today even though he killed some dogs.
And I think that says alot about this country today.
General Zod
10-15-09, 06:53 PM
I think it's funny that people think the NFL was bullied into any decision. The NFL does what it feels is best for its pocketbook. The negative press they felt they would receive from Limbaugh, was not worth it to them. Limbaugh doesn't put fans in the seats or increase ratings. Vick does, and that's why he straps on a uniform and plays today even though he killed some dogs.
You can't tell me the St. Louis Conservatives wouldn't have been an awesome team.
Patman
10-15-09, 07:03 PM
Better known as the St. Louis Cons...
movielib
10-15-09, 07:18 PM
And yet monopolistic.
What monopoly? Anyone is free to start a rival league., In fact, it's been done at least four times.
The All-American Football Conference started in 1946. It was somewhat successful and three of its teams merged with the NFL, most notably the Cleveland Browns. The American Football League started in 1960 and was very successful and all of its teams eventually merged with the NFL. The World Football League started in 1975 and was a flop. The United States Football League started in 1983 and was a flop.
You can start your own league tomorrow if you want.
You are confusing monopoly with success.
BKenn01
10-15-09, 07:18 PM
I find it ironic that Rush would want to get involved with a socialist organization.
No, they are a Capatalist organization that chooses to operate that way. I actually like it the way it is. Under the current system, the best managment wins, not the biggest checkbook.
I am for anything that holds back the Dallas Cowboys.
movielib
10-15-09, 07:22 PM
No, they are a Capatalist organization that chooses to operate that way. I actually like it the way it is. Under the current system, the best managment wins, not the biggest checkbook.
I am for anything that holds back the Dallas Cowboys.
Yes, a nice thing about (true) capitalism is that private organizations or groups of people are free to form associations in any noncoercive manner they want.
The Bus
10-15-09, 07:34 PM
I find it ironic that Rush would want to get involved with a socialist organization.
The NFL, with its unions and salary caps, is socialist. For a free-market equivalent, you'd have to look at the Champions League in Europe.
movielib
10-15-09, 07:38 PM
The NFL, with its unions and salary caps, is socialist. For a free-market equivalent, you'd have to look at the Champions League in Europe.
See Post #28.
wm lopez
10-15-09, 07:48 PM
I do find it amusing that the NFL will gladly let back in a guy who tortured and killed dogs and then even lied to the police about it.. but a talk show host who has said controversial things in the past.. THAT'S DRAWING THE LINE! Just like there are people who protest if Disney releases SONG OF THE SOUTH on dvd, but have let all the rap,gangsta stuff get published and put on the airwaves. That is an o.k. look at the African-American race.:confused:
rw2516
10-15-09, 08:21 PM
What monopoly? Anyone is free to start a rival league., In fact, it's been done at least four times.
The All-American Football Conference started in 1946. It was somewhat successful and three of its teams merged with the NFL, most notably the Cleveland Browns. The American Football League started in 1960 and was very successful and all of its teams eventually merged with the NFL. The World Football League started in 1975 and was a flop. The United States Football League started in 1983 and was a flop.
You can start your own league tomorrow if you want.
You are confusing monopoly with success.
The NFL is an oligopoly. An industry controlled by a select number of companies(franchises in this case) with entrance barriers so high nobody can start a rival company. Just like other sports leagues, automakers, broadcast networks.
movielib
10-15-09, 09:46 PM
The NFL is an oligopoly. An industry controlled by a select number of companies(franchises in this case) with entrance barriers so high nobody can start a rival company. Just like other sports leagues, automakers, broadcast networks.
And yet at least four rival leagues have started, one of them very successful. And if another can't make it it's because the NFL (which includes the old AFL) is super successful. Sorry, I just can't see that as a problem or "market failure" of some sort.
Likewise, automakers (the old "big three") and broadcast networks (the old "big three") have had successful rivals. If there are not legal barriers prohibiting others from entering, there is no "monopoly" or "oligopoly" in truth.
There is nothing wrong with a "monopoly" or "oligopoly" (if you want to call it that) that is earned through honest, noncoercive success.
Venusian
10-15-09, 10:20 PM
XFL gets no love? :(
JasonF
10-15-09, 10:22 PM
And yet at least four rival leagues have started, one of them very successful. And if another can't make it it's because the NFL (which includes the old AFL) is super successful. Sorry, I just can't see that as a problem or "market failure" of some sort.
Likewise, automakers (the old "big three") and broadcast networks (the old "big three") have had successful rivals. If there are not legal barriers prohibiting others from entering, there is no "monopoly" or "oligopoly" in truth.
You are using idiosyncratic definitions of "monopoly" and "oligopoly." By any mainstream economic definition, the NFL is an oligopoly (if you view the individual teams as separate entities) or a monopoly (if you view the league as a whole.
There is nothing wrong with a "monopoly" or "oligopoly" (if you want to call it that) that is earned through honest, noncoercive success.
Monopolies and oligopolies -- even ones that are earned through honest, noncoercive success -- raise prices and reduce output. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it does mean that we shouldn't kid ourselves that they are costless.
eXcentris
10-15-09, 10:36 PM
The NFL is a capitalist monopoly based on socialist practices. :)
BKenn01
10-15-09, 10:42 PM
The NFL is a capitalist monopoly based on socialist practices. :)
And I would be more than happy to see it stay that way.
movielib
10-15-09, 11:12 PM
You are using idiosyncratic definitions of "monopoly" and "oligopoly." By any mainstream economic definition, the NFL is an oligopoly (if you view the individual teams as separate entities) or a monopoly (if you view the league as a whole.
Monopolies and oligopolies -- even ones that are earned through honest, noncoercive success -- raise prices and reduce output. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be illegal, but it does mean that we shouldn't kid ourselves that they are costless.
As long as you agree they shouldn't be illegal I have no problem with semantic differences we may have. And I never said the market always finds the most efficient way in every single case. But overall, and in the long run, I'll take it over any other system.
movielib
10-15-09, 11:13 PM
XFL gets no love? :(
Oh yeah, I entirely forgot about those clowns. :lol:
I did say "at least" to cover my ass. :)
kvrdave
10-15-09, 11:16 PM
If I were the NFL, I wouldn't want Rush to be an owner. He doesn't bring anything but money, and they have lots of money. And they could potentially have to listen to him talk about the NFL in a way that wouldn't be good for them. He isn't worth the risk and the NFL doesn't need him.
However, it is fun to watch liberals get undies up their crack about these kinds of things. The only Limbaugh news I get is from this forum, and it is always outrage at the stupidest shit imagined, where someone has to really stretch something to make it kind of bad. :lol:
kvrdave
10-15-09, 11:18 PM
I find it far more offensive when the Democrats hold all the power but find ways to blame Republicans for the inability to pass legislation. If you are going to be outraged by stupid stuff, watch the Democrats, as they are parading.
But then, they aren't an evil radio talk show host. That is where true rage should be directed, instead of our actual leaders. rotfl
Red Dog
10-16-09, 08:40 AM
"Socialist organization." rotfl
creekdipper
10-16-09, 05:38 PM
xfl gets no love? :(
theyhatehe
General Zod
10-16-09, 05:41 PM
Seems like Rush isn't as bad as some other co-owners.. but the NFL looks the other way for them. Why do you suppose that is?
Yeah dog killers, people murderers, and drug addicts. All welcome in the NFL. But god forbid a talk show host might get his foot in there! :lol: That would just ruin the outstanding image that is the NFL.
I don't care if Rush gets his team. But blaming Obama? Moron.
General Zod
10-16-09, 05:48 PM
I don't care if Rush gets his team. But blaming Obama? Moron.
Obama and his goons haven't gone after Limbaugh for anything outside of Limbaugh's control either.. right? Or is a talk show host expected to operate on a higher level than the president?
mgbfan
10-16-09, 05:51 PM
However, it is fun to watch liberals get undies up their crack about these kinds of things.
"the liberals"
Isn't it just possible somone other than a liberal could find this asinine? I'm the OP and not a liberal. Or better stated, I'm economically conservative, socially liberal.
I just thought the notion that it's Obama's fault to be absurd and worth a post. And I don't despise Rush because he's a conservative. I despise him because he's caustic, abrasive, and purposfully devisive.
But hey, go on stereotyping to your heart's content.
DeputyDave
10-16-09, 06:15 PM
I didn't see how Rush blamed Obama. He said “Obama's America”. Meaning the way America has become since Obama has become president. There is a big difference which I would think the OP should have been able to see, but far be it from me to stop anyone from creating a sensational yet inaccurate thread title.
I'm not saying I agree with Rush but I can see his point of view.
sracer
10-16-09, 06:52 PM
I didn't see how Rush blamed Obama. He said “Obama's America”. Meaning the way America has become since Obama has become president. There is a big difference which I would think the OP should have been able to see, but far be it from me to stop anyone from creating a sensational yet inaccurate thread title.
I'm not saying I agree with Rush but I can see his point of view.
Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?
Rockmjd23
10-16-09, 07:09 PM
Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?
Racist?
crazyronin
10-16-09, 07:37 PM
Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?
Bitter and clingy? :shrug:
BKenn01
10-16-09, 07:38 PM
"the liberals"
Isn't it just possible somone other than a liberal could find this asinine? I'm the OP and not a liberal. Or better stated, I'm economically conservative, socially liberal.
I just thought the notion that it's Obama's fault to be absurd and worth a post. And I don't despise Rush because he's a conservative. I despise him because he's caustic, abrasive, and purposfully devisive.
But hey, go on stereotyping to your heart's content.
It is all about the entertainment factor. He just says that shit to gin up the people on the right that just love to tune in every day for another reason to hate Obama. This is why I dont listen. He and Hannity are the same, they blow shit out of proportion. The problem with that from my point of view is people stay so pissed about everything, they dont know the difference when something happens that should really piss them off. Like this health care proposal for one.
The left has their cronies to, they just arent on talk radio.
kvrdave
10-16-09, 08:18 PM
"the liberals"
Isn't it just possible somone other than a liberal could find this asinine? I'm the OP and not a liberal. Or better stated, I'm economically conservative, socially liberal.
I just thought the notion that it's Obama's fault to be absurd and worth a post. And I don't despise Rush because he's a conservative. I despise him because he's caustic, abrasive, and purposfully devisive.
But hey, go on stereotyping to your heart's content.
Hippies smell bad.
kvrdave
10-16-09, 08:23 PM
I didn't see how Rush blamed Obama. He said “Obama's America”. Meaning the way America has become since Obama has become president. There is a big difference which I would think the OP should have been able to see, but far be it from me to stop anyone from creating a sensational yet inaccurate thread title.
I'm not saying I agree with Rush but I can see his point of view.
Exactly. I don't even listen to Rush, but the liberals seem to love to take things he says, then try to sqeeze them hard to mean something they don't. Or at least something that it takes a major liberal leap to mean what they want it to.
I still don't mind if the NFL keeps him from being an owner. They would probably keep Mark Cuban from being an owner as well. And with whatever the other owners are like, they aren't as public as Rush is, and they can keep anyone out that they want. I have no problem with that.
But again, I do love the liberals trying to see how they can twist his words to fit their needs.
ZOMG! Rush said that he believes the Philly press wants a black quarterback to do well. That means he hates black people. The connection is unmistakable. :lol: Okay, liberals, that's what it means. And wanting Obama to fail means that Rush hates America and wants America to fail, and certainly doesn't mean that he believes Obama's legilative success is bad for America. Okay, liberals, you have it right. :lol:
Dirty hippies.
JasonF
10-16-09, 09:24 PM
Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?
Racist?
It's true. They're already bringing back the ban on interracial marriage.
creekdipper
10-16-09, 10:24 PM
Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?
Open-minded, compassionate, and full of hope?
mgbfan
10-16-09, 11:49 PM
Meaning the way America has become since Obama has become president.
The notion being that if GW Bush was still president, the NFL would have welcomed Rush with open arms?
Please tell me you're not drinking that kool-aid.
mgbfan
10-16-09, 11:51 PM
But again, I do love the liberals trying to see how they can twist his words to fit their needs.
Wow. W-O-W.
BKenn01
10-17-09, 12:10 AM
Open-minded, compassionate, and full of hope?
What America are you living in. There are no open minds in Washington. As for compassion, well the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
eXcentris
10-17-09, 12:57 AM
I didn't see how Rush blamed Obama. He said “Obama's America”. Meaning the way America has become since Obama has become president. There is a big difference which I would think the OP should have been able to see, but far be it from me to stop anyone from creating a sensational yet inaccurate thread title.
"Obama's America" is just a political, not so clever way, of not implicating someone directly. Not that care but I think that arguing that "well it's not the same" deserves a contorsionist of the week award. :lol:
PopcornTreeCt
10-17-09, 01:39 AM
Open-minded, compassionate, and full of hope?
That was sooo 2008. :)
General Zod
10-17-09, 01:41 AM
He was referring to the way racism is thrown around so loosely - and even untruly to pressure people to behave a certain way. It's the way the country is right now.
The Race Card, Football and Me
David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer.
It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.
Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray.
Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "
Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.
I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.
The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.
When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.
Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.
As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.
These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.
I don't listen to Limbaugh since he is on well after I arrive at work but I frequently do agree with him - as I do here.
Hank Ringworm
10-17-09, 02:11 AM
Open-minded, compassionate, and full of hope?
:lol:
Hank Ringworm
10-17-09, 02:16 AM
Most people who are adamant in "not-listening" to Limbaugh have never actually listened to him. I was one of those several months ago. He's entertaining as hell, and some of his arguments are unanswerable. Hence the demonization. Others of his arguments are paranoid and retarded, but some of us are smart enough to separate the cheese from the rind without throwing out the whole wheel.
rw2516
10-17-09, 08:02 AM
Exactly what has America become since Obama became president?
Pretty much the same as when Bush was president. Ask Don Imus.
Jason
10-17-09, 09:46 AM
Most people who are adamant in "not-listening" to Limbaugh have never actually listened to him. I was one of those several months ago. He's entertaining as hell, and some of his arguments are unanswerable. Hence the demonization. Others of his arguments are paranoid and retarded, but some of us are smart enough to separate the cheese from the rind without throwing out the whole wheel.
Horseshit.
I used to listen to the guy all the time back in the 90's. It was either this or the noontime oldies that every other station played. Did I agree with him? For the most part, no, but he was able to present his arguments in an interesting manner and occasionally made good points. Sometimes he was downright entertaining. It may not have changed your mind, but it gave you something to think about.
I've caught him from time to time in the last few years, and he's really gone over the edge. arrogant, spiteful, and downright mean. The worst thing, though, is he's become a cult of personality. Every time I catch him, he's playing some clip of a commentator, celebrity, politician, or whatever dropping his name. It's no longer about arguing about politics, it's about the dissemination of his version of the truth. He doesn't want you to think about what he says, he wants you to accept it as fact without argument.
The idea that everyone will agree with this guy if they just listen to him is ludicrous. Especially now.
General Zod
10-17-09, 10:13 AM
The idea that everyone will agree with this guy if they just listen to him is ludicrous. Especially now.
This is exactly what I think about Obama.
I used to listen to Rush now and then a long long time ago and he was much more reserved and "PC" than he is today. He held back a lot then. Today he's much more open and not afraid to say what he's thinking. To me he makes far more sense than the current administration and the collective members of congress.
All this can't really be a surprise to him though. He had 8 years of the gov't getting off his back while Bush was in office and he knew he would be target of this new administration one way or another. I'm sure eventually they will consider anything anti-Obama racist hate speech and ban it from the air. I'm just counting the days.
sracer
10-17-09, 10:15 AM
Horseshit.
I used to listen to the guy all the time back in the 90's. It was either this or the noontime oldies that every other station played. Did I agree with him? For the most part, no, but he was able to present his arguments in an interesting manner and occasionally made good points. Sometimes he was downright entertaining. It may not have changed your mind, but it gave you something to think about.
I've caught him from time to time in the last few years, and he's really gone over the edge. arrogant, spiteful, and downright mean. The worst thing, though, is he's become a cult of personality. Every time I catch him, he's playing some clip of a commentator, celebrity, politician, or whatever dropping his name. It's no longer about arguing about politics, it's about the dissemination of his version of the truth. He doesn't want you to think about what he says, he wants you to accept it as fact without argument.
The idea that everyone will agree with this guy if they just listen to him is ludicrous. Especially now.
Good observations. Back-in-the-day, Limbaugh had well thought out opinions (IMO anyways) that reasonable people could disagree with but see the rationale behind the opinions. Humor was light, sparse. The elementary school-type poking fun of someone's physical abilities/limitations virtually non-existent.
But with each passing year he felt the need to top himself... resulting in a self-parodying, mean-spirited buffoon.
Nausicaa
10-17-09, 10:26 AM
He was referring to the way racism is thrown around so loosely - and even untruly to pressure people to behave a certain way. It's the way the country is right now.
In fact, based entirely on statements made by Mr. Limbaugh in 2009, one begins to wonder whether he's been a bigger racial demagogue than even Al Sharpton during that period.
At the very least, he's been bandying about the ‘r’ word rather frequently.
Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates? "He's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "He's an angry racist."
Sonja Sotomayor? "She's a bigot. She's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive."
President Obama? He's "the biggest reverse racist in history." On another occasion: "Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism."On a third: "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people." So implicitly Mr. Limbaugh is labeling multiple figures within the administration as racists too.
Democrats generally? "The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign."
Liberals? "You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."
I don't listen to Rush either, because he's a shameless fuck.
Duran
10-17-09, 11:58 AM
Good observations. Back-in-the-day, Limbaugh had well thought out opinions (IMO anyways) that reasonable people could disagree with but see the rationale behind the opinions. Humor was light, sparse. The elementary school-type poking fun of someone's physical abilities/limitations virtually non-existent.
But with each passing year he felt the need to top himself... resulting in a self-parodying, mean-spirited buffoon.
Let's not make him seem like he used to be some sort of paragon of rational debate. He coined "feminazi" for pro-choice organizations in the early 90s.
JasonF
10-17-09, 12:07 PM
He was referring to the way racism is thrown around so loosely - and even untruly to pressure people to behave a certain way.
Well, if anyone would know about the term racism being thrown around loosely, it's Rush Limbaugh.
Rush the Race-Baiter
by Conor Friedersdorf
Limbaugh's fans say unfair charges of racism blocked his bid to become an NFL owner. Could be—but why don't they care when he's the one doing the race-baiting?
Rush Limbaugh maintains that his efforts to buy an NFL football team failed due to the pernicious influence of race-baiters. They are said to include professional demagogue Al Sharpton, the NFL players union, and a left-leaning blogger who falsely attributed a racist comment to the talk radio host, leading to its broadcast on CNN. "I have something in common with Clarence Thomas," Mr. Limbaugh claimed Thursday on his radio program. “I, too, have had my high-tech lynching.”
Mr. Limbaugh’s situation is unworthy of comparison to the ordeal Justice Thomas endured, but he is owed some sympathy. Even a thick-skinned celebrity must recoil when a national television network erroneously attributes a racist remark to their person. What isn't accurate are the broader defenses being offered by Mr. Limbaugh's fans. "It's no coincidence that Democratic Party outlets like CNN had to dredge up fake quotes to make their case," attorney John Hinderaker wrote on the popular conservative blog Power Line. "Nothing Rush actually said would do the trick, even though he's been on the radio three hours a day, five days a week, for more than twenty years."
National Review's Andy McCarthy went farther. "So Much for the Post-Racial America," he wrote. "That's how Rush treats people — in the Martin Luther King aspiration that the content of one's character is what matters, not the color of one's skin. Yet, in the media narrative, he's somehow the one who's got a race issue — and the guys who trade on race, live and breathe it 24/7, are held up as our public conscience."
The error here isn't criticizing "guys who trade on race."
I share a powerful distaste for characters like Al Sharpton, who deliberately play on the racial anxieties of Americans. As one of the most powerful slurs in American life, "racist" is an accusation that ought to be made rarely, after careful deliberation, with incontrovertible evidence, and never merely to score points at the expense of a political adversary. So I join Mr. Hinderaker and Mr. McCarthy in asserting that Mr. Limbaugh has never been proved a racist, and that race-baiting is an awful feature of American public discourse. It damages reputations and undermines our ability to target actual racism. Those who engage in it deserve our ire.
But even a cursory review of Limbaugh’s radio archives reveal the talk radio host to be a frequent race-baiter, one of the guys who obsessively trades on race.
In fact, based entirely on statements made by Mr. Limbaugh in 2009, one begins to wonder whether he's been a bigger racial demagogue than even Al Sharpton during that period.
At the very least, he's been bandying about the ‘r’ word rather frequently.
Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates? "He's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "He's an angry racist."
Sonja Sotomayor? "She's a bigot. She's a racist," Mr. Limbaugh said. "How can a president nominate such a candidate? And how can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive."
President Obama? He's "the biggest reverse racist in history." On another occasion: "Just as he is ACORN, just as he is Van Jones, he is racism."On a third: "How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people." So implicitly Mr. Limbaugh is labeling multiple figures within the administration as racists too.
Democrats generally? "The racism that everybody thinks exists on our side of the aisle has been on full display throughout their primary campaign."
Liberals? "You know, racism in this country is the exclusive province of the left."
The media circa January? "We're witnessing racism all this week that led up to the inauguration. We're being told that we have to hope he succeeds. That we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father's black, because this is the first black president."
Minorities generally? "The days of them not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution. That's what Obama's about, gang. He's angry, he's gonna cut this country down to size, he's gonna make it pay for all the multicultural mistakes that it has made, it's mistreatment of minorities. I know exactly what's going on."
Oh, and don't forget the NFL. As of this week, it is "an outpost of racism and liberalism." (Strange that a league that is supposedly racist against white owner candidates has so many white owners.)
Remember, the foregoing examples are exclusively taken from radio commentary spoken in 2009.
Is there anyone in America who's accused more people of racism this year than Rush Limbaugh?
Of course, every race baiter must also cast someone as the aggrieved victim. There's the GOP: "They're moving to the back of the bus," Mr. Limbaugh said. "They're saying, 'I can't use that drinking fountain? Okay. I can't use that restroom? Okay.' That's the modern day Republican Party. The equivalent of the Old South. The new oppressed minority."
White people are victims, too. "Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,' and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white."
As for matters that only Mr. Limbaugh chooses to make about race, I'll cite only the most egregious: "You let George Bush's Navy gun down three black teenagers out there on the open sea and I guarantee there would be hell to pay..." he said. "If only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young black Muslim teenagers I'm sure he wouldn't have given the order to shoot." Of course, George W. Bush's Navy did shoot at non-white pirates without being accused of racism, and President Obama surely new the pirates of Somalia's coast were minorities, but never mind.
If you're sympathetic to Mr. Limbaugh, but don't often listen to his program, perhaps you're surprised by how often he invokes race, racism, and racial victim-hood. Suffice it to say that knowing his program, it is utterly contradictory to complain about race-baiting and to hold Mr. Limbaugh up as a thought leader.
It is also understandable that a professional sports league wouldn't want to associate itself with someone who so frequently plays the race card. That doesn't mean Mr. Limbaugh is a racist. I take him at his word that he isn't. He is merely a racial provocateur whose ire at being called a racist doesn't prevent him from affixing the label to others with stunning frequency.
Why doesn't that bother his listeners?
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
Edit: Oops -- I see Nausicaa posted a link to the same article. I'm going to leave mine up, since Nausicaa only posted an excerpt.
BKenn01
10-17-09, 01:38 PM
Let's not make him seem like he used to be some sort of paragon of rational debate. He coined "feminazi" for pro-choice organizations in the early 90s.
That actually was pointed toward NOW. And a fairly accurate description of that group based on what I have seen from them.
movielib
10-17-09, 03:52 PM
That actually was pointed toward NOW. And a fairly accurate description of that group based on what I have seen from them.
And "wacko environmentalist" is accurate and timeless.
kvrdave
10-17-09, 06:17 PM
Well, if anyone would know about the term racism being thrown around loosely, it's Rush Limbaugh.
[/i]
rotfl
So do I. It (for me) is an attempt to show most liberals how asinine they sound by calling everything racist. I am willing to bet it is the same for Limbaugh as a "dose of their own medicine."
I have called everything racist lately, because the Democrats and talking heads have. It should appear absurd to most. As it should when the Democrats and talking heads have. Most Democrats don't see it that way, though, because racism is a tool they use to advance their beliefs. And talking to Sharpton and Jessie Jackson about racial issues probably makes sense to Democrats. I find it as stupid as asking David Duke.
Dr Mabuse
10-17-09, 07:47 PM
Racist.
kvrdave
10-17-09, 10:27 PM
In my defense, I, and 45% of the country weren't until the election. And actually, we weren't after that until The Obama didn't get his quick easy deal on Health Care. Which apparently was so bad that it couldn't pass....but needed to in days....and if it had, would be something no one wanted or they would have passed it....but we should trust that they have done it right this time.
Before all that, I was wasn't. :(
sracer
10-17-09, 10:49 PM
Let's not make him seem like he used to be some sort of paragon of rational debate. He coined "feminazi" for pro-choice organizations in the early 90s.
You must not have read what I wrote. I never claimed that he was William Buckley. If you can't see the difference between the earlier Limbaugh and the current one then... oh well.
Duran
10-18-09, 11:00 AM
THe only difference I perceive is that he spends most of his time on his show talking about how liberals are out to get him.
Nugent
10-18-09, 02:06 PM
THe only difference I perceive is that he spends most of his time on his show talking about how liberals are out to get him.
Where on earth would he get such a silly idea!
Jason
10-18-09, 05:21 PM
Where on earth would he get such a silly idea!
It's not like the republicans would ever go after a liberal trying to buy a sports franchise.
"Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)
Somehow I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
Nugent
10-18-09, 06:09 PM
From the article:
"Why should politics have anything to do with who owns the team," Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)
Somehow I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
:lol:
Hank Ringworm
10-18-09, 07:41 PM
Somehow I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.
No, his point still stands. I will say that those Republicans, at least, didn't fabricate quotations and paint Soros as a racist.
mgbfan
10-19-09, 02:41 AM
Most people who are adamant in "not-listening" to Limbaugh have never actually listened to him.
Please provide proof of this fact. Or otherwise, let's just disregard it as non-factual.
wm lopez
10-19-09, 02:42 AM
It's not like the republicans would ever go after a liberal trying to buy a sports franchise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701447_pf.html
They went after Jay-Z and Fergie?:confused:
Brack
10-19-09, 04:27 PM
Yes, a nice thing about (true) capitalism is that private organizations or groups of people are free to form associations in any noncoercive manner they want.
socialism for rich people is still socialism nonetheless.
kvrdave
10-19-09, 04:48 PM
socialism for rich people is still socialism nonetheless.
You are just making it obvious that you have little grasp on what socialism is. Stop now, for your own sake.
Bandoman
10-19-09, 04:50 PM
The decision to boot Rush from the team of buyers was made by Republicans, not left-wing loonies.
Link (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/64683117.html)
Head Strong: Passing on Limbaugh a business decision
The NFL's rejection of the controversial talk show host was based on what owners thought was best for their enterprise.
By Michael Smerconish - Inquirer
Inquirer Currents Columnist
The NFL's rejecting Rush Limbaugh was a bit like the members of the Merion Cricket Club blackballing Thurston Howell III. The owners' objection to Limbaugh wasn't based on his politics - they overwhelmingly share his views. They refused to allow him to join their club in the name of good business.
Consider that over the last 20 years, 78 percent of the approximately $7 million that NFL owners, coaches, players, and their associates have donated to political candidates and committees has gone to Republicans. That's according to figures recently compiled and studied by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) in Washington.
The San Diego Chargers ($2,455,200), Houston Texans ($623,456), Arizona Cardinals ($337,096), Washington Redskins ($323,000), and New York Jets ($261,403) organizations were the NFL's top five political contributors since 1990, the center reported. Four of those teams donated 90 percent or more of their contributions to GOP interests. For the one that didn't, the Redskins, the figure was 75 percent.
Among the owners, the pattern is even more pronounced. Nearly every dime of the $2 million that Chargers owner Alex Spanos - the league's most deep-pocketed contributor - has donated over two decades has gone to the GOP. Texans owner Robert McNair, who has given more than $500,000 since 1990, has contributed almost exclusively to Republicans.
Daniel Snyder (Washington Redskins) and Tom Benson (New Orleans Saints) also are big-time GOP donors. And Robert Johnson, owner of the Jets, raised thousands of dollars for George W. Bush's presidential campaigns.
Interestingly, while the NFL owners have overwhelmingly supported the GOP, there has been a consistent outlier - the same St. Louis Rams that Limbaugh sought to own. No team has donated more to Democratic candidates and causes over the last two decades than the Rams.
Officials associated with the team gave $230,050 to D's - 98 percent of team-associated political giving. (The Los Angeles Rams contributed an additional $47,250 - 90 percent of their total donations - to Democrats before leaving the City of Angels in 1995.)
Current Rams majority owner Chip Rosenbloom has given $13,100 to Democratic candidates over the last decade. His mother, Georgia Frontiere, who owned the team after her husband's death in 1979, donated more than $134,000 to Democratic interests between 1997 and her death in 2008.
There have been a few exceptions. Rosenbloom and his mother each logged a contribution to one Republican presidential candidate during the 2008 cycle - the most moderate in the field. Rosenbloom donated $1,000 to Rudy Giuliani in June 2007. Three months earlier, his mother had given $2,300 to John McCain. Neither candidate was high on Limbaugh's presidential wish list.
One wonders if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's negative assessment of Limbaugh's bid ("I would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL - absolutely not") were predicated on knowledge that his role would ultimately not sit well with Rosenbloom. The NFL itself has had to hedge the bets of its GOP-dominated owners.
"The National Football League - we're talking people who work for the league, who are league leaders, all the way up to the commissioner - the National Football League itself has actually donated more to Democrats than to Republicans," CRP's Dave Levinthal, who wrote the analysis, told me. "It's about a 70/30 split."
Only one owner was prepared to say he would not support the inclusion of Limbaugh. But given that Goodell is their hire, common sense dictates he would not have voiced negativity unless more than one held that view. Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said he wouldn't vote for Limbaugh because of the host's "inappropriate, incendiary, and insensitive" commentary.
But it was the owner of a basketball franchise who came closest to explaining why the Limbaugh role failed. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, whom the NBA has fined almost $2 million for his own verbal and behavioral incidents, blogged that the NFL should be "terrified" not of things Limbaugh has already said, but of "what he might say AFTER he was an approved investor in the St. Louis Rams."
"Given that we will never know what the 'next big issue' in this world that Rush will be discussing on his show is, it's impossible for the NFL to even try to predict or gauge the impact on the NFL's business if something controversial, or even worse yet, something nationally polarizing happens. There is an unquantifiable risk that comes with the size of Rush's audience," Cuban wrote on his blog.
He's right. The substance of the most widely cited Rush-isms - the infamous McNabb quote and his comparison of the NFL to "a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons" - fails to demonstrate any overt racism. And it's doubtful that any of his political leanings would alienate this crowd, given how they themselves have donated.
Instead, the owners determined that it was just bad business to add to their ranks someone who would have kept them in headlines going forward while most choose to fly beneath the radar.
"This is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we're going to have," Limbaugh said last week, casting the debate as some kind of a referendum on capitalism. But he was wrong.
To the contrary, Limbaugh was compromised by the very principles he espouses - the free market. A group of like-minded private businessmen, unfettered by government, made a decision as to what was best for their enterprise.
Brack
10-19-09, 05:05 PM
You are just making it obvious that you have little grasp on what socialism is. Stop now, for your own sake.
if anyone doesn't have a grasp on socialism, it is you.
BKenn01
10-19-09, 05:13 PM
The decision to boot Rush from the team of buyers was made by Republicans, not left-wing loonies.
Link (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/64683117.html)
But they did it because of all the whining from the left. And the whining was pretty sad. A lot of it was just lies. And ESPN and Fox should have did their commentators a favor and told them to shut up and stick to sports because they made themselves look like bafoons by their comments on the subject.
kvrdave
10-19-09, 05:17 PM
if anyone doesn't have a grasp on socialism, it is you.
Nu uh, it's you! Triple stamp!
Dr Mabuse
10-19-09, 05:20 PM
if anyone doesn't have a grasp on socialism, it is you.
Nu uh, it's you! Triple stamp!
Lloyd: You're it.
Harry: You're it.
Lloyd: You're it, quitsies!
Harry: Anti-quitsies, you're it, quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies!
Lloyd: You can't do that!
Harry: Can too!
Lloyd: Cannot, stamp it!
Harry: Can too, double stamp it, no erasies!
Lloyd: Cannot, triple stamp, no erasies, Touch blue make it true.
Harry: No, you can't do that... you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!
Lloyd: [hands over ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA!
Harry: LLOYD! LLOYD! LLOYD!
Brack
10-19-09, 05:21 PM
Nu uh, it's you! Triple stamp!
I figured I'd stick to your tactic for argument. it's good you recognize it.
Dr Mabuse
10-19-09, 05:24 PM
:lol:
Mental: GUYS! GUYS!
Brack
10-19-09, 05:26 PM
But they did it because of all the whining from the left.
Ha, right.
mgbfan
10-20-09, 12:17 PM
The decision to boot Rush from the team of buyers was made by Republicans, not left-wing loonies.
Link (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/64683117.html)
Shut up! It's the liberals, damn it. The LIBERALS! Facts be damned!
kvrdave
10-20-09, 12:49 PM
I've said from the begining that I don't care if the NFL doesn't want Rush. I can see where it would be a headache for them. But this is, in fact, a typical liberal play. Just like Jesse Jackson extorting money out of Toyota and other companies, this is the liberal MO. Go and cry and whine, and if you have to actually lie and attribute lies to someone for the greater good, then their conscience is clear because they have done what is right in their mind. The damage they do to others is justifiable.
In the meantime, they will be on the lookout for anything they can twist to be racist against their enemies. And if they don't figure out how to do that for a few day, that's fine, because they can be outraged days after they weren't and the liberal frenzy will eat it up.
The Bus
10-20-09, 12:58 PM
this is the liberal MO. Go and cry and whine, and if you have to actually lie and attribute lies to someone for the greater good, then their conscience is clear because they have done what is right in their mind.
Wait, I'm confused. I thought Rush Limbaugh wasn't a liberal.
Because the right doesn't cry and whine and lie to get their way?
Gays will rape your children?
The whole fabric of society will crumble?
Teaching abstinence works?
If the republican owners caved due to people whining, than they got what they deserve. They have given the "whiners" their power. Just the same way that kicking Imus and O&A off of terrestrial radio after "complaints" continue to give people like Sharpton and the Catholic league their power. Now terrestrial radio is in shambles with a bunch of stale "zoo" crews and the same cookie cutter format throughout.
As I said, 99.9% of corporations only care about the bottom line when it comes to matters like these, which you may argue is their job, but then you can't really complain when decisions like these get made. You're asking people who don't like the guy not to whine? Why not ask the owners to not be such little bitches, man up, and take the guy's money. Let's not absolve either side here.
spainlinx0
10-20-09, 01:06 PM
Is that the youtube clip where Glenn Beck got molested by some boys at a party or something?
Nausicaa
10-20-09, 01:12 PM
Because the right doesn't cry and whine and lie to get their way?
Oh, and don't forget the townhaller's and teabagger's legitimate displays of patriotism!
DeputyDave
10-20-09, 01:52 PM
Oh, and don't forget the townhaller's and teabagger's legitimate displays of patriotism!
I sense the sarcasm but do not understand it in this case.
kvrdave
10-20-09, 01:54 PM
Because the right doesn't cry and whine and lie to get their way?
Gays will rape your children?
Uhhhhh, link?
Nugent
10-20-09, 02:23 PM
Uhhhhh, link?
I will take this one,
There is no link. Just me tossing bombs so I can continue to call you a racist or homophobe if you have the audacity to question the left.
kvrdave
10-20-09, 02:25 PM
Okay, that is what it felt like.
creekdipper
10-20-09, 02:40 PM
The decision to boot Rush from the team of buyers was made by Republicans, not left-wing loonies.
You mean like the decision to can Van Jones was made by the White House?
Nausicaa
10-20-09, 02:54 PM
I sense the sarcasm but do not understand it in this case.
Really? The point is that whining about bullshit is hardly a 'liberal MO'. An especially rich claim in a thread full of conservatives whining about the liberal boogieman that is increasingly divorced from reality.
spainlinx0
10-20-09, 03:20 PM
Uhhhhh, link?
Well I wasn't really referring to elected officials. I guess in that way I haven't made a valid comparison since the elected officials on the left have been particularly distasteful in this case.
However to defend myself I don't have a "side" in this matter. I don't care if Limbaugh gets a team or not. I don't hate the guy. I just don't listen to his show, since I am not a fan of political talk shows in general. 99% of my political readings come directly from this forum and the articles posted here. I don't even have cable tv anymore! I just get tired of the back and forth, "well your side is worse" bullshit. Both sides are shit, the difference is at any point in time more shit has backed up into the toilet that I consider each party, and that seems to be what people argue over.
DeputyDave
10-20-09, 03:41 PM
Really? The point is that whining about bullshit is hardly a 'liberal MO'. An especially rich claim in a thread full of conservatives whining about the liberal boogieman that is increasingly divorced from reality.I was just saying that I fail to see why you claim that "townhaller's and teabagger's" were not showing "legitimate displays of patriotism".
What exactly makes something "legitimate displays of patriotism" in your eyes and why were they not "legitimate"?
BKenn01
10-20-09, 09:01 PM
What monopoly? Anyone is free to start a rival league., In fact, it's been done at least four times.
The All-American Football Conference started in 1946. It was somewhat successful and three of its teams merged with the NFL, most notably the Cleveland Browns. The American Football League started in 1960 and was very successful and all of its teams eventually merged with the NFL. The World Football League started in 1975 and was a flop. The United States Football League started in 1983 and was a flop.
You can start your own league tomorrow if you want.
USFL v. NFL lawsuit
In another effort to keep themselves afloat while at the same time attacking the more established National Football League, the USFL filed an antitrust lawsuit against the older league, claiming it had established a monopoly with respect to television broadcasting rights, and in some cases, to access of stadium venues.
The USFL claimed that the NFL had bullied ABC, CBS and NBC into not televising USFL games in the fall. It also claimed that the NFL had a specific plan to eliminate the USFL, the "Porter Presentation." In particular, the USFL claimed the NFL conspired to ruin the Invaders and Generals. The USFL sought damages of $567 million, which would have been tripled to $1.7 billion under antitrust law. It hoped to void the NFL's contracts with the three major networks. The USFL proposed two remedies: either force the NFL to negotiate new television contracts with only two networks, or force the NFL to split into two competing 14-team leagues, each limited to a contract with one major network.
Each NFL franchise was named as a co-defendant, with the exception of the then-Los Angeles Raiders; Raiders owner Al Davis was a major witness for the USFL. Howard Cosell was also a key witness for the USFL.
The case went to trial in the spring of 1986 and lasted 42 days. On July 29, a six-person jury handed down a verdict that, while technically a victory for the USFL, in fact devastated the league. The jury declared the NFL a "duly adjudicated illegal monopoly," and found that the NFL had willfully acquired and maintained monopoly status through predatory tactics.
However, it rejected the USFL's other claims. The jury found that the USFL had changed its strategy to a more risky goal of merger with the NFL. Furthermore, the switch to a fall schedule caused the loss of several major markets (Philadelphia, Denver, Detroit, Miami and the Bay Area). It has been established that Donald Trump, owner of the Generals, specifically wanted to force a merger knowing that the majority of teams would be eliminated.
Most importantly, the jury found that the NFL did not attempt to force the USFL off television. In essence, the jury felt that while the USFL was harmed by the NFL's de facto monopolization of pro football in the United States, most of its problems were due to its own mismanagement. It awarded the USFL only one dollar in nominal damages, which was tripled under antitrust law to three dollars. It later emerged that the jury incorrectly assumed that the judge could increase the award.
The verdict was a classic Pyrrhic victory. The USFL had essentially staked its future on the outcome of the suit, and considered the television-related claims to be the heart of its case. Almost immediately upon announcement of the verdict, it announced it was suspending operations for the 1986 season, with the intent of returning in 1987. Players signed to contracts were free to sign with NFL (or other professional teams) immediately. Indeed, the NFL had held a draft in 1984 for teams to acquire the rights to USFL players, in the event of the league (or teams in the league) folding. However, it is unlikely the USFL would have been able to put together a viable product in any case. Many of its players had signed contracts with NFL teams after the 1985 season, and the league was some $160 million in debt. With nearly all of its players under contract to the NFL and Canadian Football League, Usher announced the league would stay shuttered in 1987 as well.
The USFL appealed the award, but it was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1988. This decision ended any chance of the USFL returning to the field, and the league formally dissolved shortly afterward. However, due to a provision of antitrust law which allows an "injured" party in an antitrust action to recover its attorney fees and costs of litigation, the USFL was awarded over $5.5 million in attorney fees and over $62,000 in court costs. That award was appealed by the NFL; it was affirmed on appeal and ultimately allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990, long after the USFL had ceased operations.
The USFL finally received a check for $3.76 in damages in 1990, the additional 76¢ representing interest earned while litigation had continued. Notably, that check has never been cashed.[2]
Woops Movielib, looks like they were right. I had forgot about this
movielib
10-20-09, 09:15 PM
Woops Movielib, looks like they were right. I had forgot about this
What's legal is not always what's right. I think the NFL has the moral right (if not the legal "right") to engage in any practice as long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud or using the threat of force. And yes, I think antitrust laws are bullshit.
JasonF
10-20-09, 09:54 PM
What's legal is not always what's right. I think the NFL has the moral right (if not the "legal" right) to engage in any practice as long as it does not involve initiating force or fraud or using the threat of force. And yes, I think antitrust laws are bullshit.
Thankfully, your view is the distinct minority. Monopolies lead to reduced output and increased prices, thereby creating market inefficiencies. Society is better off as a result of antitrust laws.
movielib
10-20-09, 10:05 PM
Thankfully, your view is the distinct minority. Monopolies lead to reduced output and increased prices, thereby creating market inefficiencies. Society is better off as a result of antitrust laws.
I'm aware we disagree. I'm aware I'm in the minority.
Cheato
10-20-09, 10:29 PM
Thankfully, your view is the distinct minority. Monopolies lead to reduced output and increased prices, thereby creating market inefficiencies. Society is better off as a result of antitrust laws.
I'm aware we disagree. I'm aware I'm in the minority.
JasonF is a racist.
Actually, racism aside, this may be the first time I have agreed with JasonF. I wish antitrust laws were far more strict. When a company's goal shifts from competition to protection, it's ready to be broken up. Strategies designed to limit consumer choices should be illegal. (I reserve the right to exceptions to this opinion, based on any subsequent possible replies to this point that provide valid examples of where it has arguably helped consumers, such as VHS/Beta, Blu-ray/HD-DVD, etc.)
movielib
10-20-09, 11:03 PM
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa021.html
Hank Ringworm
10-21-09, 12:45 AM
Please provide proof of this fact. Or otherwise, let's just disregard it as non-factual.
It's fairly obvious. But you can disregard as much as you want; doesn't bother me.
JasonF
10-21-09, 02:54 AM
Actually, racism aside, this may be the first time I have agreed with JasonF.
Don't worry -- it gets easier every time. ;)
mgbfan
10-22-09, 01:38 PM
It's fairly obvious.
Translation: "I have no proof whatsoever"
Red Dog
10-22-09, 01:46 PM
When it comes to professional sports, I think most would prefer the best players competing in the same league, even if it means some restricted supply (markets and television) on the product. So while the majority may not generally prefer a monopoly for most goods and services, for something like sports entertainment I think they do.
The reason why the AFL succeeded in the 60s was because 1) the NFL was only on one network (making AFL penetration to a competing network viable) and 2) there wasn't nearly enough supply (12 teams, only 2 west of the Mississippi) for the football demand.
creekdipper
10-22-09, 02:01 PM
One positive outcome:
Evidently Oakland was so relieved at Limbaugh's exclusion that they finally showed up for a game.
Maybe Bud Adams should leak a rumor that he's considering selling a major share to Rush.
Buy: