Black NFL players won’t play for Rush

October 9, 2009

So basically almost all of the NFL is against this dude.  I, personally, cannot stand Rush Limbaugh and don’t want him anywhere near a sport which I love.  His political views are so absurd, that no intelligent person I know could possibly agree with them.  Free speech is great, but the city of St. Louis, already dealing with the fact that their football team may be the worst in the NFL, should do well to steer clear of this man who chooses to exercise that speech a little too freely.  My guess is that as NFL players continue to step forward voicing their concerns with Rush and his BLATANTLY RACIST views towards black people, and more specifically athletes (he hates black QB’s, for example) we may be able to avoid having to deal with him as an NFL owner.  Here is an article I read today about the matter.

It’s not hard to find proof of exactly how big of a stupid bigot Limbaugh is.  here are some quotes to demonstrate:

1. I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in the country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing.  Quite the opposite: slavery built the South.  I’m not saying we should bring it back, I’m just saying it had its merits.  For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

2. You know who deserves a posthumous medal of honor?  James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of MLK].  We miss you, James.  Godspeed.

3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

4. Look, let me put it this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.  There, I said it.

5. The NAACP should have riot rehearsal.  They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

6. Why should blacks be heard? They’re 12 percent of the population.  Who the hell cares?

7. Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.

8. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  They’re very interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.  I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.

9. They oughta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it.

10. The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe.

Rush: you’re predictable.  We get it.  Only rich, male, God-fearing,  descendants of former slave-owners are worthy of making political decisions, or even being heard.  And drugs are bad, unless they are prescription pain meds taken for recreational purposes because your life as messiah to the moronic masses is SO difficult.  Please stay the hell out of the NFL.  Thank you.

18 Responses to “Black NFL players won’t play for Rush”

  1. David said

    But I guess it’s ok for blacks to be racist, huh? I bet if those NFL players you mention had a chance to sit down with Rush and listen to what he says in context, they’d leave laughing with him.

    Those things you attribute to Rush, though, have a ring of truth to them. “Poor” in America is a lot different than poor anywhere else. And sports in general is getting to look like recreation for ex-gang members. Witness the advertising on the arms, wearing diamonds in their ears on the field (maybe because someone might steal them if they were loose in the locker room), there’s a lot of truth to what he says. The sarcasm, we can do without.

  2. Erik said

    David: there seem to be a few problems with your train of logic. I’m not sure where in my post you inferred that racism is acceptable in any circumstance, whether it be employed by whites or blacks. The problem here is that Rush simply IS A RACIST. how does one interpret his support of slavery or James Earl Ray in a different context? Even the statements you defend as having “a ring of truth” prove hollow on closer examination.
    While it may be true (for the purpose of allowing you to have AN argument) that “poor” takes on different meanings based on geographic location, generally “poorest” implies the absolute level of destitution. But even further, Rush was comparing the POOREST Americans to those living in the mainstream over in Europe. That is simply insulting to those living well below the poverty line here in the States.

    While it may also be true that there are certain NFL players who have had some run-ins with the law, the percentages aren’t even comparable to the general population at large. And even a smaller percentage of those criminal activities had ANYTHING to do with gangs. That’s just another ridiculous racial stereotype (“pull that bone out of your nose…”). Perhaps it’s just me, but I also fail to see how wearing expensive jewelery (something almost EVERYONE with money does) somehow implies proclivity to gang activity. maybe it’s just me…

    • Steve said

      Erik,

      It isn’t you, since the players association has come out to voice dissatisfaction with Rush as well. As for David, the fact that he can’t see why Rush is labeled a racist shows he can be part of the problem. He just brings up a bunch of non-sequitors to this post that have nothing to do with the central tenet, which is Rush is a racist. You can argue the point, and disagree with it, but bring facts.

  3. David said

    It’s funny how you make comments about something I never said, Steve. Makes me wonder about both of you, which would be racism to lump you two together, I guess, but still…You both attribute meaning that I didn’t impy to things that I said. You do the same to him. He never said or implied that he supported slavery, just a truth that slavery had benefits. It did, to those who owned the slaves.

    I don’t subscribe to Rush’s use of irony, precisely because of how overly sensitive people are to what is said. I don’t support him in any way, for that matter-don’t listen, don’t subscribe, don’t follow. His comments are rather un-Christian.

    • Steve said

      See David, why I question your reading comprehension skills? I don’t think that you actually read the comments. Every time you attempt to defend what Rush says (like “Oh, what he says has some truth to them”) is another example of you drinking the well of Rush. What does wearing an earring have to do with gangs? (Especially when Rush uses that EXACT metaphor in regards to the NFL, a league he wants to buy into, that just happens to be about 65% black)

      Are you defending his use of the remove the bone from your nose comment he made in regards to a black female caller? Where is the truth to that?

      So, if is un-Christian, okay to ignore, but discussions of race okay to race-bait? We just use your words as the stem to comment. ONLY YOU are attempting to use Rush and his saying as correct.

      BTW, why mention that slavery was beneficial? Even conceding that argument in a debate, what the hell does that get Rush or what point does it prove? Yes, whites who owned slaves benefited from their work. Rush is saying it as part of his metaphor of get over slavery. Plus, he is using if for his implied argument about the “streets were safer” as code for enslave the black folks so we rich whiteys can be safe.

      But, he has said way worse. The James Earl Ray comment has reserved him a special place to fry….

  4. Steve said

    Also, David,

    How are the players being racist for saying that they would not play for a racist? Kudos for them for standing up for something, since they are usually just for the money…

  5. David said

    See, you don’t even know what racism is. Racism is attributing any characteristic to a group based on incomplete evidence. Me lumping you with Erik is racism because my comment was based only on your two comments. Players saying they wouldn’t play for him based on what they think they know about him is racist. In turn, saying things like “Take the bone out of your nose and call me back” is racist. The caveman Geico commercials are racist, too.
    Why would I say slavery was beneficial? Because it was. A lot of benefits are not benefits for some, but benefits for others. Government assistance to poor people is only beneficial to some, it’s detrimental to others, financially.
    You committed a racist remark when you said I was defending Rush. I haven’t defended him at all.

    By the way, do you think Jesse Jackson, all things (money and ability)equal, should be allowed to own an NFL franchise? He’s just as racist as Rush. Would those same players who said they wouldn’t play for Rush play for Jesse?

  6. Steve said

    People who are in positions of power don’t suffer from racism in the same way people on the bottom do. But, your example is trash. PLAYERS NOW PLAY FOR WHITE OWNERS and do not have a problem with it. If Rush was a race, then not playing for him would be racist.

    At best, players not wanting to play for him is ignorant, or based on incomplete evidence, but racism? Child please….

    Sitting here talking about benefits of slavery is offensive to some and just the highlight of speakers stupidity to others. There is a benefit to Charles Manson followers killing Sharon Tate and others, but why phrase it like that? (The people doing the killing got closer to Charles Manson and their quest to rule) There is a benefit to everything, but it does more harm then good. Sure, slavery meant whites could sit on their ass and not do a damn thing, but do you really think that benefit outweighed the harm?

    That is why Rush is offensive, that is why some black players would not play for him and he should not own a team.

    The worst part is that you agree with the fact that Rush has said racist things, and those are things that he has never apologized for.

    If Jessie has said some racist things, then he shouldn’t own a team either.

  7. David said

    The people who play for those ‘white owners’ don’t know very much about most of them. People who say they would not work for Rush, if they had the same (lack of)knowledge, would act the same. But the fact is that Rush’s public persona is not the same as his off-air persona.

    You say sitting here talking about the benefits of slavery is offensive, well, so is talking about some aspects of history. It just depends what side you’re on, doesn’t it. Regarding benefits of slavery in the US, one of those benefits was to take people out of tribal Africa and give them safe haven in the US. Granted that some were subhumanely treated, and granted that the concept of slavery is wrong, but having someone to work your farm wasn’t the only good thing that came of slavery. Of course it is never right to do something intrinsically evil in order for some good to come of it, but facts are facts. There was slavery. It had good aspects to it, it had bad aspects to it. We eventually broke the chain.

    Jesse Jackson did say very racist things, but was mostly excused for them because he’s black. And that, my friend, is the epitome of the definition of racism.

  8. Steve said

    The first paragraph of what you say proves our point. If the current owners had a public persona like Rush, the players would be boycotting. BUT YOU DON’T HEAR THE OWNERS! Maybe it is for their own good. But, when you are polarizing (the entire purpose of Erik’s post) you are going to lose out on opportunities, and Rush did.

    I don’t care if Rush is the nicest human after the show, but the things that he says riles up people who ACTUALLY believe them (even though I think that Rush believes it too)and he gets them motivated. You have already conceded that he has said racist things, so I don’t get the purpose of keeping this one going.

    Your statements are bordering on patently ridiculous and offensive. Slaves got safe haven to America? Tribal Africa was fine for them. I guess you consider what was done for the indigenous populations when Europeans COLONIZED (not discovered, but forcibly took and rape and pillaged) was beneficial too? We taught them how to drink fire water and how to learn a language while preventing you from speaking your own.

    Lets end with YOUR words….
    Of course it is never right to do something intrinsically evil in order for some good to come of it.

    So, why are you defending slavery as good again? As a member of the HUMAN race, profiting from FORCED LABOR and the vile act of OWNERSHIP of PEOPLE can never be considered good, in any context. Slavery was intrinsically evil and hearing you defend it makes you seem like you don’t belong amongst most members of society.

  9. David said

    “So, why are you defending slavery as good again? As a member of the HUMAN race, profiting from FORCED LABOR and the vile act of OWNERSHIP of PEOPLE can never be considered good, in any context. Slavery was intrinsically evil and hearing you defend it makes you seem like you don’t belong amongst most members of society.”

    BECAUSE IT”S A FACT. IT HAPPENED. DEAL WITH IT.

    You’re the one being stupid. I said nothing of safe haven TO America. I said they were better off here than as prisoners of war in Africa. You’re showing your liberality, because there’s no place on earth that wasn’t inhabited previously by somebody. All nationhood was forcibly taken. And forcibly kept. You also show your liberal-ness like all the other European/Christian-hating liberals. It wasn’t Europeans that were taking Africans as prisoners of war and selling them, it was other Africans. And those poor, peaceful indigenous people…who raped and pillaged their fellow indigenous people when they wanted the land the other one had. Those lovers of the land and respecters of animals…who drove whole herds of buffalo over cliffs to have meat to eat, leaving what they could not finish to rot.

    All you are proving is that humans are humans, no matter what color or continent. If you didn’t know that a long time ago, I’m sorry you missed out on your education.

  10. Steve said

    David,

    You are a clown. I have actually resisted my total expression, but give me a break.

    Did slavery happen? Yes. Was slavery good? No. The inherent act of human ownership is so vile, it can never be justified, yet, you are being an assclown attempting to justify it again, or claim that it had some benefit. (the only benefit was to the oppressors. They have had enough and admitting that slavery was vile is not that hard)

    The Africans who were a part of the slave trade are vile and despicable as well, but that doesn’t excuse those who profited from it, white or black.

    Do us all a favor David, feel free to keep coming here, but please stop commenting. We are all dumber for having to read what you wrote. The sad thing is that you can recognize racism, but justify it’s use. (i.e. slavery, since it was Africans by definition would be racist, which they can be as well)

    Africa during the slave trade was not a war torn country and we were not giving them amnesty. THEY WERE SLAVES! El Salvadoreans during the 80’s left a war torn country to come here. Africans were forcibly taken. They were human property to be used and disposed of. They were raped, beaten and in some cases starved. Even if you claim that there were benevolent slave owners, they STILL OWNED PEOPLE! That is like the joke, “He was a good master, because we didn’t get beat on the Lords day.

    So, would you also say that it was a good thing that we stripped them of their culture, forced them to practice Christianity and name Anglo names?

    As shocked as I am to say this, spend less time here and more time picking up a history book. Those who were killing herds of buffalo and leaving the meat to rot was whitey. Indigenous Populations practiced sustainable hunting and farming. Again thank whitey for the dust bowl and over farming. But hey, thank you Al Gore for the internet so dumbasses can express an absolute butchering of History.

    According to Wiki…(which isnt the best source always, but this is footnoted with other valuable sources)

    Extenuating circumstances demanding exploration are the tremendous efforts European officials in Africa used to install rulers agreeable to their interests. They would actively favor one African group against another to deliberately ignite chaos and continue their slaving activities.[3].

    “Slavery”, as it is often referred to by people, in African cultures was generally more like indentured servitude: “slaves” were not made to be chattel of other men, nor enslaved for life. African “slaves” were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. They often bought their own freedom and could then achieve social promotion -just as freedman in ancient Rome- some even rose to the status of kings (e.g. Jaja of Opobo and Sunni Ali Ber).

    Thanks for being worried about my education, but it’s all good. Not only do I have one, unlike you, but now you are in my wheelhouse, since my graduate courses were in history.

  11. David said

    First, I haven’t justified slavery and have said that it is vile. But it did have benefit, even to those blacks who came here. Nor did I excuse those who took part in it.

    Africa was war-torn, it was constantly in-fighting between tribes. I said nothing of amnesty. (See how you put words in my mouth? No, I will not let you!) It is true that some were brutalized, and that the very act of keeping them as chattel was brutal. Regarding the extent of the brutality, you probably believe that Catholic priests tortured Muslims and Jews to great numbers in the Inquisition.

    You should pick up a history book, Steve, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There were no white people not so long ago in this continent, and they were driving buffalo over cliffs, and into manmade fenced in killing traps and butchered. Much of the meat rotted. They also contributed to the extinction of the wooly mammoth and the mastodon, not to mention sabre tooth tigers. Did a lot of whale hunting too, out on the west coast. Weren’t any “whitey” then (talk about racist!).

    Take care, steve, keep drinking that fermented kool-aid.

  12. David said

    FWIW, Rush says he never made those comments. So if you’re quoting him as saying them, you might want to back them up with evidence or retract them…

  13. Steve said

    David, or should we just call you Rush

    Last time. Read, do not comment. You have worn out your welcome here. It’s too tiring arguing with someone so blind or myopic that it is not worth my time.

    Your argument was the slavery was beneficial, and you are using the fact that it was war torn as the justification for slavery.

    It’s called research…it really isnt that hard wit the internet and all…

    # “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

    # “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

    Rush Limbaugh acknowledged making these statements in a 1990 Newsday article (although the latter, at least, occurred not on Limbaugh’s now-familiar talk and political commentary radio program, but at the beginning of his broadcast career back in the early 1970s when he was hosting a Top 40 music show under the name “Jeff Christie” on either WIXZ or KQV in Pittsburgh):
    For all his bravado, however, Limbaugh is immensely sensitive to charges of insensitivity. When asked about the racist they-all-look-alike connotation of a statement like “Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” this professional talker from a family of lawyers pleads total innocence.

    “You may interpret it as that, but I, no, honest-to-God, that’s not how I intended it at all. Gee, don’t get me in this one. I am the least racist host you’ll ever find.” Recalling a stint as an “insult-radio” DJ in Pittsburgh, he admits feeling guilty about, for example, telling a black listener he could not understand to “take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

    # “I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn’t deserve.”

    Rush Limbaugh made this statement about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb during a September 2003 broadcast of ESPN television’s Sunday NFL Countdown program. The controversy generated by the remark prompted Limbaugh’s resignation from his position as a commentator on that show.

    Last updated: 13 October 2009

    The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp

  14. David said

    Yawn. I’m sorry, there’s no racism in his comments. It’s a poor attempt at humor. The comment about Donovan McNabb was and is true. In fact, it’s true about nearly any quarterback. Trent Dilfer, Neil O’Donnell, et al. They get too much credit and the rest of the team not enough. But the media wanted McNabb to be successful and trumpeted his every move. Limbaugh even said that Donovan is a good QB. Just over hyped.

    My point is that every owner of every NFL team is no saint. All of them have made similar if not worse mistakes, and NFL players play for them. You folks like to look at 1% of a person’s characted and flush the whole person. Just remember, when you point the finger at someone, there’s 4 fingers pointed back at yourself.

  15. Steve said

    David,

    I say racist things all the time, usually about my own race, sometimes about other races. I know those things are going to come back if I attempted to be more a public figure. The point is
    1) Rush has said some racist things
    2) His “appeal” and divisiveness cost him the chance to be an owner. The worst part is that he got what he wanted, the ability to claim that he was harmed in some way.

  16. David said

    Well, I don’t, and I don’t like people who do, whether it’s about your own race or another. Lumping large groups of people together is wrong.

    What has Rush actually said that’s racist? Date and show would be nice, if you can prove it.

    I contend that Rush’s personal integrity is better than most owners in pro sports. Better than Al Davis, better than Dan Snyder in DC, better than Mark Cuban, better than Jerry Jones. He would have been a minority owner at best, anyway. What cost him the chance was libel and slander by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and the lack of backbone of the NFL and the group that would have used his money to buy the team.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: