Reply With Quote
Drudge is reporting that they dropped Rush from the bid.
i didn't make that quote, einstein.Is this coming from a Liberal?
Drudge is reporting that they dropped Rush from the bid.
Einstein?...A little harsh.
Yonivore reported that ESPN was reporting that hours ago.
Well spursncowboys appreciates yonivore telling him that.Yonivore reported that ESPN was reporting that hours ago.
Some of you in this topic could work for Fox News
Jesus christ, you'd think even the DNC would get tired of bieng embarassed by sharpton and tell him to shut up.
Did he not bid enough, or did they cave to public pressure?
What a bunch of pussies in Football...
I really never thought Limbaugh would get the bid. I like Limbaugh, but there's way too many that hate him. He's fighting the good fight. But, since he is fighting, he has enemies. Most owners wouldn't want to start a franchise with so much animosity towards one of their own.
Right or wrong...and I think it's definetly wrong, Rush is too high profile a target for too many. I never thought he had a chance of getting an NFL franchise. Too bad, cuz he truely loves the game, and he's enemies are the real racists and all around nasty people.
But, when your involved in politics as much as he is, fighting against some of the nastiest people in the country...
There was no real reason to oppose him, none. Those who did, were just being assholes...doing what assholes do best.
He would have made a great owner, imho.
Fixed:
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
Fox News Less Biased Than CNN, MSNBC in White House Coverage
October 14, 2009 11:31 AM ET | Mary Kate Cary | Permanent Link | Print
By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
My colleague Doug Heye wrote yesterday about White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's recent attack on Fox News. I agree with Doug—the White House should not be going after a specific news outlet as biased. Especially when it's not true. Take a look at a Fox News account that includes this fact:As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.I'd add this: If you were a reporter at another network, wouldn't the logical "next step" be to make sure your coverage of the president is positive all the time, so that you are not singled out and cut off from further access to the president, as Fox has been? This is what happens when the administration tries to manipulate press coverage. And I think it's safe to say it backfires every time.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories—a spread of 59 points.
the nfl said no.
a little focus, people.
What's that Mr. Internet Tough Guy?
It's there club. Now let's see them hold that for the M. Cubans and Jay-Z's when they want to be a minority owner. This has set precedent, IMO, pretty high. The Rams are worse off.
Well thank you for providing that link. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. It's all a matter of opinion and Rush drew a racially based opinion. I still say that just because they may have favored McNabb, which in itself is a matter of opinion, there really is no proof that they did it because of race. And I still say that race in that situation was without a doubt introduced into the convo by Rush also known as played the race card. But it really doesn't matter at this point the NFL has spoken.
Point out some controversial statements please. And Mark Cuban already got his ass handed to him by the MLB didn't he?
Read the article? Goodell said that Cuban's antics were absolutely the reason they didn't want Rush in the NFL, because they can't tolerate that kind of behavior.
It's interesting that all of these Rush lovers are so up in arms about what Sharpton and Jackson said but conveniently ignore the number of people who are directly associated with the NFL that want absolutely nothing to do with Rush.
Poor Rush... he's built his entire career on being a radio troll, and making inflammatory comments, and now he can't get into the NFL and people are crying about it.
Less QQ please.
I guess the author's admission wasn't proof?
What makes him the ultimate authority?
Well, I'd say that since he's a sportswriter, writing at the time of the incident, that yes, he and other sportswriters were doing what Limbaugh said, makes him more of an authority than anyone in the forum yammering about it 5 years later.
It only helps my argument that he wrote for Slate.
Well this sports writer disagrees with your guy. And it was written in 2003!!!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...nabb_limbaugh/
Like I said all a matter of opinion!!! And Rush's was race based/race card.Now, there is something that Limbaugh said that I do agree with. He stated that McNabb had gotten credit for the defense playing so well and winning games. Welcome to the real world. When you win in football, the quarterback gets too much credit, unless he's Spergon Wynn or Trent Dilfer. That's just the way life is. Quarterbacks get too much credit if the team wins and too much blame if the team loses. That's why they make the big dough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
