Okay, so my brother called me this morning and told me this, knowing I'm a big Rams fan. Apparently Rush Limbaugh has teamed with the owner of the St. Louis Blues, the Denver Nuggets, and Real Salt Lake (all one guy fyi) and has made a bid to buy the Rams. So putting the guys politics aside, do you think that this is good for the Rams, or would having someone who is an avowed fan of the Redskins and Steelers owning the Rams be a bad idea?
It won't be good for the St. Louis fans. Rumor is that Limbaugh and his group may move the team back to L.A..
|
Rush is a pretty loyal follower of the Steelers, but he's also a huge NFL fan. I seriously doubt that he would undercut his own team (if he owned one) simply because he wanted someone elses team to win. In fact, if he did own the team, I would imagine that it would become his team and he would want them to win and bring in high profits (though I would guess he'll always be a Steelers fan).
Probably wouldn't move the team.
Rush's partner owns the St. Louis Blues hockey team and the NFL has a rule that a majority owner can only own another sports team if it's in the same market.
Plus Rush is a native of Missouri and he and Checketts have expressed they would keep the team in St. Louis.
Not saying it couldn't happen, but it would take some work.
Thanks for the thoughts guys. Way to keep it civil.
|
Ok..so for those who have no clue what their talking about...
Rush is working with the owner of the St. Louis Blues to buy the Rams. His group is one of 6 groups currently in talks to buy the Rams. If his group does indeed get the winning bid they have stated they will KEEP the team in St. Louis. Rush is from Missouri. He will not want to move the team.
Rush also will be nothing more than a minority owner. Dave Checketts will be the major player along with current majority owner Stan Kronke who owns the Colorado Avalanche and Nuggets/Pepsi Center.
Also, I skimmed this thread, but I don't even wanna hear politics brought up here. Sick of reading them already on the STL Post Dispatch website. Who cares what Rush believes in. He wants to help the team and I'm all for that.
Ok..so for those who have no clue what their talking about...
That's why I said it was a rumor.
Wow, way to jump in with both feet in your mouth.
You may want to do more than skim the thread.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
So far nobody has mentioned politics. I hope it stays that way.
Also, I skimmed this thread, but I don't even wanna hear politics brought up here. Sick of reading them already on the STL Post Dispatch website. Who cares what Rush believes in. He wants to help the team and I'm all for that.
If Rush's partners do win the bid, I imagine it will become much harder for people to separate the two topics, especially in St. Louis. Anytime someone in the political sphere, especially someone as outspoken as Limbaugh, does anything, pundits, critics and analysts dissect it for any dirt or insight they can. I don't see this being any different.
That said, as a Chiefs fan, I wouldn't mind seeing the Rams move back to L.A. There should really only be one Missouri football team, anyway, and we all know which one it should be. Also, L.A. is the second largest city in the nation. How does it not have a team, much less two?
That said, as a Chiefs fan, I wouldn't mind seeing the Rams move back to L.A. There should really only be one Missouri football team, anyway, and we all know which one it should be. Also, L.A. is the second largest city in the nation. How does it not have a team, much less two?
The same could be asked about Las Vegas. Of course it could have something about a little scandle a few years back that stopped betting on college sports in Vegas.
|
That said, as a Chiefs fan, I wouldn't mind seeing the Rams move back to L.A. There should really only be one Missouri football team, anyway, and we all know which one it should be. Also, L.A. is the second largest city in the nation. How does it not have a team, much less two?
I don't think they'd move the Rams back to LA. They're more likely to end up gaining a new team when the time comes. St. Louis offers enough encentives to keep the Rams around.
On an aside, I'm a St. Louis local. There are quite a few die-hard fans of football around here, but I've met more people concerned with our local Classical music station (KFUO) being bought. ::Shrug::
Point of clarification: Kroenke owns 40%, he is not the majority owner. Otherwise there would be a conflict with him owning another franchise not it the same market. The Frontiere children own 60%.
As for Limbaugh/Checketts ownership, there was an interesting opinion made by an ESPN commentator on whether it is better to have a hands-on fan of the game as an owner, or an owner who stays in the background and lets a GM handle things.
He was for the latter, sighting teams such as the NY Giants as a no-name owner team, and teams like the Redskins(Daniel Snyder), the Cowboys(Jerry Jones), and the Raiders(Al Davis)as teams with hands-on owners.
I think one thing you might see if they became owners, is a tendency to go for big name free agents. I don't know if this would be any better for the team or not, but let's face it, this is the Rams we are talking about, and there is no way they can be any worse than they are right now. They are at rock bottom.
|
As a Lions fan, trust me, it can ALWAYS get worse.... I don't know if this would be any better for the team or not, but let's face it, this is the Rams we are talking about, and there is no way they can be any worse than they are right now. They are at rock bottom.
It was even worse watching the Niners fall from best to worst in just four or five seasons.
|
|
It was even worse watching the Niners fall from best to worst in just four or five seasons.As a Lions fan, trust me, it can ALWAYS get worse.... I don't know if this would be any better for the team or not, but let's face it, this is the Rams we are talking about, and there is no way they can be any worse than they are right now. They are at rock bottom.
See, now you could have saved yourself a few years of heartache by just hiring Matt Millen. He could have done it in only 1 or 2 years.
As a Browns fan, our motto is 'Thank God we're not Detroit.'
But it looks like it might be going that way "Mr. 0-4" :D
MWhahahahahahahaha!!! We won one game!! W00T!!!!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As a Browns fan, our motto is 'Thank God we're not Detroit.'But it looks like it might be going that way "Mr. 0-4" :D
MWhahahahahahahaha!!! We won one game!! W00T!!!!
What was the headline? Washington bails out detroit, again.
Q When the Bengals play the Steelers who do the Browns fans root for?
A The meteor.
As a Browns fan, our motto is 'Thank God we're not Detroit.'But it looks like it might be going that way "Mr. 0-4" :D
MWhahahahahahahaha!!! We won one game!! W00T!!!!
What was the headline? Washington bails out detroit, again.
Q When the Bengals play the Steelers who do the Browns fans root for?
A The meteor.
Despite being a Steeler fan, that one had me LMAO!
Well played.
Truely spoken like someone who has never listened to Rush Limbagh. He has denied that he ever said the slavery comment and many of the media outlets that reported that he did have offered retractions based on their inability to source the so called quotes.
Truely spoken like someone who has never listened to Rush Limbagh. He has denied that he ever said the slavery comment and many of the media outlets that reported that he did have offered retractions based on their inability to source the so called quotes.
Everyone needs to realize that the Rush Limbaugh you know or think you know is a character. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He plays a character named Rush Limbaugh. The character Rush Limbaugh is a tool Rush Limbaugh uses to motivate people to pay attention to him, because when people pay attention to him advertisers are willing to pay a lot of money to advertise on the show, and Rush Limbaugh makes zillions of dollars. People seem to have a hard time understanding this because the Rush Limbaugh character talks about current events, rather than warp drives or something else obviously fictional (although, as the title of Leonard Nimoy's 'I Am Not Spock' shows, even actors who play characters like that encounter this confusion). Would I be surprised to learn that Rush Limbaugh is a liberal Democrat? Yes. I am confident that there are elements of Rush Limbaugh in the Rush Limbaugh character. Do I think that the real Rush Limbaugh is just like the character you hear on the radio?
Of course not. It's naive to think that way, and I think that many people who do are simply looking for reasons to feel angry and offended.
Truely spoken like someone who has never listened to Rush Limbagh.Spoken like a guy who can't understand why the Kool-Aid didn't work on everyone.
Here you are. Tell you what: since there isn't a vid that I can find of that one quote, (and hey, fair enough if you insist on video for proof. No problem with that)here's four minutes and change of things that are arguably worse or at least on a par to what I'd consider reasonable human beings. Bon Appetit.
So you acuse me of drinking the Rush Limbaugh kool ad and then present me with Keith Olbermann as a rebuttal? Sounds like you really enjoy kool aid. Rush has been broadater for over two decades, andin that time anyone is sure to have said things that, hen taken out of context, can look damning. That is waht I meant by you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh. Instead you accept wat people like Olbermann, who is a left wing version of Rush Limbaugh, to tell you who Rush is and what he believes. You drink Olbermann's kool aid, rather than doing the heavy lifting yourself and taking time to ind out for yourself who Rush is and what he believes. And by thay Olbermann s racist.
|
|
No problem with that)here's four minutes and change of things that are arguably worse or at least on a par to what I'd consider reasonable human beings. Bon Appetit.
So as a daily Rush listener I'm interested in knowing what the "worst" of Limbaugh is. So I listen... And I'm very dissapointed. There's hardly any meat to any of those quotes and snippets.
20+ years on the radio and thats the worst of his quotes his enemies can find without having to resort to making things up. He's doing well.
Oh, yes indeed, but one has a much, much looser acquaintance with facts and journalism.
Oh, come on now. Ease up on Olbermann. ;)
|
|
Different standards, I guess. Enjoy yours.So as a daily Rush listener I'm interested in knowing what the "worst" of Limbaugh is. So I listen... And I'm very dissapointed. There's hardly any meat to any of those quotes and snippets.
20+ years on the radio and thats the worst of his quotes his enemies can find without having to resort to making things up. He's doing well.
Alright. I will. :)
In the interest of diaologue and genuine understanding though, I am curious which of those snippets you found the worst? Most of them struck me as really, really tame as far as commentary goes. Though maybe its only because I heard almost every single one of those as he made them on air and knew the context of the discussion.
I told that rat bastard he'd regret messing with me during Bill's Presidency.
|
|
In the interest of diaologue and genuine understanding though, I am curious which of those snippets you found the worst? Most of them struck me as really, really tame as far as commentary goes. Though maybe its only because I heard almost every single one of those as he made them on air and knew the context of the discussion.Maybe it has something to do with the fact that if you 'take it in the ear' that frequently it begins to feel perfectly reasonable after a while.:)
I'm one of those who enjoy listening to Rush because I find that more often than not he agrees with me. Not the other way round.
So specifics? Half the clip is Republicans and Conservatives saying they admire Rush. As a member of the vast right wing conspiracy myself, I fail to find that offensive. Nor should I. Rush admits he was a drug addict. Not offensive - it takes a lot of guts to publically admit wrongdoing and own up to it. Stating that the democratic party is needs the support of african americans. Not offensive. Its a statement of fact. Holding the opinion that he thinks its shameful to not take medication in order to play up your illness before making a commercial. A debatable opinion but as an opinion not all that offensive. Making fun of the La Times and Al Sharpton with the Barrack song. To me its funny as I think the viewpoint put forward by the La Times was silly. I know that some think the term feminazi is offensive but generally its because they hear it and react without listening to the explanation for it. Its not a term I would use myself but I understand the purpose for him using it. That leaves the comment about women and cats. Which I actually disagree with. My wife said she found it mildly offputting but not anything to be outraged about. I've heard many men with similar life experiences to Rush make similar comments. I think it shows a need for some relationship counseling but I don't think its offensive enough to make a huge issue of.
I find the whole episode with Rush and the NFL a bit sad in that it shows there are people who think that because a man has political opinions contrary to yours he should be punished for those opinions.
As a member of the vast right wing conspiracy myself.....
You're going on my list buddy. Oh yes, you're going near the top.....
I don't think it's a bad thing, in general, for a fan to be a team owner, but when they insist on meddling too much, it can be bad for the team. George Steinbrenner is an example of the best and worst of this. But I'd rather an owner like Steinbrenner who lives and dies with the team, than a faceless person to whom the team is just a business investment.
I don't particularly like Rush, since I am one of the 'Northeastern' conservatives he criticizes for suggesting the Republicans should focus more on fiscal rather than moral matters. He also lampoons third parties as worse than useless and traitorous to the conservative 'Cause', something I find very offensive.
That being said, the issue of him owning a team or not isn't the disturbing thing here, the disturbing thing is how many 'journalists' took some unchecked quotes off the Internet and ran with them all the way. If we start MAKING UP stuff to demonize those we disagree with then it's all over. We might as well stop talking to each other and just assume the worst of people we disagree with. These are dangerous waters we sail in.
I did hear a funny quote about this on a local show. Conservative writer Mark Steyn (who I believe sits in for Rush on occasion) asked: "Would it be OK for Rush to buy an interest in the Rams if Roman Polanski was his frontman?".
Those who chuckle about this incident, beware. If you think liberal commentators and politicians will be exempt from wikismearing and spurious Internet quotes, you are wrong. Yellow journalism can run both ways. This incident was shamefull, and the only real victim was the truth. Remember this when Chris Matthews is defending himself because of something a rogue wikihead inserted into his entry.
|
|
I don't particularly like Rush, since I am one of the 'Northeastern' conservatives he criticizes for suggesting the Republicans should focus more on fiscal rather than moral matters. He also lampoons third parties as worse than useless and traitorous to the conservative 'Cause', something I find very offensive.
That being said, the issue of him owning a team or not isn't the disturbing thing here, the disturbing thing is how many 'journalists' took some unchecked quotes off the Internet and ran with them all the way. If we start MAKING UP stuff to demonize those we disagree with then it's all over. We might as well stop talking to each other and just assume the worst of people we disagree with. These are dangerous waters we sail in.
I did hear a funny quote about this on a local show. Conservative writer Mark Steyn (who I believe sits in for Rush on occasion) asked: "Would it be OK for Rush to buy an interest in the Rams if Roman Polanski was his frontman?".
Those who chuckle about this incident, beware. If you think liberal commentators and politicians will be exempt from wikismearing and spurious Internet quotes, you are wrong. Yellow journalism can run both ways. This incident was shamefull, and the only real victim was the truth. Remember this when Chris Matthews is defending himself because of something a rogue wikihead inserted into his entry.
Well said Patrick. I don't really feel one way or the other about Rush. I'm pretty conservative on many issues, but I don't listen to the man (or any talk radio). Still, I find the behavior by much of the media to be reprehensible, although not very suprising anymore. I've already seen some legal experts urging Limbaugh to consider a libel suit, and I would hope that he does, if only to try and nip this sort of "reporting" in the bud.
|
|
Well said Patrick. I don't really feel one way or the other about Rush. I'm pretty conservative on many issues, but I don't listen to the man (or any talk radio). Still, I find the behavior by much of the media to be reprehensible, although not very suprising anymore. I've already seen some legal experts urging Limbaugh to consider a libel suit, and I would hope that he does, if only to try and nip this sort of "reporting" in the bud.I don't particularly like Rush, since I am one of the 'Northeastern' conservatives he criticizes for suggesting the Republicans should focus more on fiscal rather than moral matters. He also lampoons third parties as worse than useless and traitorous to the conservative 'Cause', something I find very offensive.
That being said, the issue of him owning a team or not isn't the disturbing thing here, the disturbing thing is how many 'journalists' took some unchecked quotes off the Internet and ran with them all the way. If we start MAKING UP stuff to demonize those we disagree with then it's all over. We might as well stop talking to each other and just assume the worst of people we disagree with. These are dangerous waters we sail in.
I did hear a funny quote about this on a local show. Conservative writer Mark Steyn (who I believe sits in for Rush on occasion) asked: "Would it be OK for Rush to buy an interest in the Rams if Roman Polanski was his frontman?".
Those who chuckle about this incident, beware. If you think liberal commentators and politicians will be exempt from wikismearing and spurious Internet quotes, you are wrong. Yellow journalism can run both ways. This incident was shamefull, and the only real victim was the truth. Remember this when Chris Matthews is defending himself because of something a rogue wikihead inserted into his entry.
I presume you'd also want Glenn Beck or whatever his name was sued for saying Obama "has a deep seated hatred of white people and the white culture"? What is white culture anyway? Irish culture is very different from Cajun but both are white.
I presume you'd also want Glenn Beck or whatever his name was sued for saying Obama "has a deep seated hatred of white people and the white culture"? What is white culture anyway? Irish culture is very different from Cajun but both are white.
Absolutely. If he said that, and if he claimed that Obama said it and he didn't, then he should be sued for libel. This isn't an 'us vs. them' issue, this is Basic Journalism 101. Check. Your. Quotes. For. Truth.
|
|
Well said Patrick. I don't really feel one way or the other about Rush. I'm pretty conservative on many issues, but I don't listen to the man (or any talk radio). Still, I find the behavior by much of the media to be reprehensible, although not very suprising anymore. I've already seen some legal experts urging Limbaugh to consider a libel suit, and I would hope that he does, if only to try and nip this sort of "reporting" in the bud.I presume you'd also want Glenn Beck or whatever his name was sued for saying Obama "has a deep seated hatred of white people and the white...
Well, there are some differences. Glenn Beck was not attributing a possibly false statement to Obama. He was merely stating an opinion regarding a publicly elected official based on his own observations. Are those observations correct? I would say no. Were they responsible? I don't think so. Should Beck either apologize or provide proof? I say yes. Otherwise, if the standard for libel (or would it be slander) can be met, then why not sue him.
On the other hand, organizations like CNN and MSNBC (to name two) have seemingly intentionally attributed a false statement to Rush, at a time which seems to have been calculated to purposely affect public opinion in order to negatively affect a private sector business deal. If Rush actually said what they claim, they should have no problem providing such evidence.
|
|
Gee I don't know it's all pretty bad. I'd have to say that his total lack of humanity regarding the plight of one M. J. Fox has to be my personal pick for worst human awards. I mean it's not quite dumping a man out of a wheel chair and laughing at him but it is a pretty callous thing to say.
In the interest of diaologue and genuine understanding though, I am curious which of those snippets you found the worst? Most of them struck me as really, really tame as far as commentary goes. Though maybe its only because I heard almost every single one of those as he made them on air and knew the context of the discussion.
As one who heard the show that day, I can say that Rush was not making fun of Fox. He was describing the contents of the commercial Fox had made and criticizing Fox for purposefully exagerating his problems. Rush was very clear to say that he sympathized with Fox's malady. In fact, Rush's attitude over the whole thing was better characterized as annoyance and anger, not humor. I'm not sure how I personally feel about the issue of trying to appear at your worst when asking for sympathy (I can see the reason for it but I find it annoying when people do it in real life to me) but the reasons for Rush's anger towards Fox were legitimate.