• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sharpton, Jackson Attack Limbaugh's Rams Bid

Here's my issue with that, and I honestly don't remember your stance on the Vick situation so not speaking about you directly but many of those in the media using that argument.

Many of the same people now using the "image to uphold" and "its a business" excuse are the same people who were saying Mike Vick had a RIGHT to play in the NFL again. That the NFL would be WRONG to suspend him an extra year, or to ban him outright, for what they did. That its taking a mans "livelihood" away (as if Mike Vick couldn't make money anywhere besides the NFL). That the NFL shouldn't disallow Mike Vick back into the league if a team will have him no matter what hit the image of the NFL would take.

Vick paid his debt. He can play. Vick took responsibility for his mistake. Ultimately, it's up to the league if they want him to play or not. Vick puts butts in seats.

Limbaugh doesn't have that upside. Ultimately, that's what the league does. They do a cost/benefit analysis. I believe the current owners vote on new owners, but I might be mistaken. Maybe that's baseball. If the league said "No." I would certainly understand it would be due to image. He is too polarizing a figure. If they said "Yes." then it's because owners are behind the scenes and don't usually don't figure into the image of the league.
 
Question: Isnt a team purchase subjected to review by the NFL Commissioner?


Anyway I could care less, the Rams suck ass, both the Giants and Jets will stomp them into the ground and so will every other team in the league (yes including the Lions).
 
I agree, I've been saying that the whole time. Dungy was an amazing coach, and Gruden was lucky to have had Dungy's guys in Tampa.



I honestly don't know what the coverage was in the actual cities, and if there's any place I would say McNabb ISN'T overrated, it'd be in Philly, where they seemingly hate him (and often times when I talk to philly fans, they go the opposite direction under rating him)



I don't know, I distinctly remember for most of the 2000's him being talked about as an "elite", top 5 type QB.

Jeepers, Zyph, being a Skins fan, you should know how fickle the Philly fans are. They have had a love hate relationship with him. They love him because he's talented, but hate him because he's injury prone. This year he's finally got some decent receivers. Let's see how he does, shall we? So far these are his numbers. Means little since he's only played 2 games, but it's a good start, don't you think?

Year G Cmp Pct Yds Avg TD Rtg
2009 2 26 66.7 343 8.8 5 123.2
 
Vick paid his debt. He can play. Vick took responsibility for his mistake. Ultimately, it's up to the league if they want him to play or not. Vick puts butts in seats.

Limbaugh doesn't have that upside. Ultimately, that's what the league does. They do a cost/benefit analysis. I believe the current owners vote on new owners, but I might be mistaken. Maybe that's baseball.

Baseball, I don't think the other owners have say. The commissioner does though.

If they said "Yes." then it's because owners are behind the scenes and don't usually don't figure into the image of the league.

Barring Jerry Jones and Al Davis, usually. Those two suck though.
 
Vick paid his debt. He can play. Vick took responsibility for his mistake. Ultimately, it's up to the league if they want him to play or not. Vick puts butts in seats.

I'm not saying he can't play. I'm saying you can't make an argument that the "image" thing isn't allowed to disqualify Vicks "right" to play football if a team wants him, but say it is allowed to disqualify Rush if the owners vote him in. You can't say it doesn't matter that its a business, Vick has a RIGHT to play in the NFL but then say that its a business, and thus its perfectly fine for the Commissioner to simply bar him from owning a team.

This isn't even going into the fact that Vick is a convicted Felon whose acts happened while employed by the league who repeatedly violated the leagues rules in ways that permanent banishment would be completely justifiable (lying to the commissioner) where as Limbaugh's stigma's all came outside of him being in the league and violates no league rules.

Limbaugh doesn't have that upside. Ultimately, that's what the league does. They do a cost/benefit analysis. I believe the current owners vote on new owners, but I might be mistaken. Maybe that's baseball. If the league said "No." I would certainly understand it would be due to image. He is too polarizing a figure. If they said "Yes." then it's because owners are behind the scenes and don't usually don't figure into the image of the league.

You're correct, the owners vote on it and have to approve him. After that, the NFL itself can say "no dice". If the owners want to vote him down, so be it. If the Commish wants to vote him down even, so be it, though I like that less.

However if he does its utter and completely hypocritical BS on the part of Goodell, and that doesn't change the fact that all the idiots in the media now that previously were talking about Vicks "Right" to play and how business/image doesn't matter in regards to the Commissioner over ruling a team wanting him who are currently calling for the commissioner to simply throw him out due to business/image.
 
I'm not saying he can't play. I'm saying you can't make an argument that the "image" thing isn't allowed to disqualify Vicks "right" to play football if a team wants him, but say it is allowed to disqualify Rush if the owners vote him in. You can't say it doesn't matter that its a business, Vick has a RIGHT to play in the NFL but then say that its a business, and thus its perfectly fine for the Commissioner to simply bar him from owning a team.

This isn't even going into the fact that Vick is a convicted Felon whose acts happened while employed by the league who repeatedly violated the leagues rules in ways that permanent banishment would be completely justifiable (lying to the commissioner) where as Limbaugh's stigma's all came outside of him being in the league and violates no league rules.



You're correct, the owners vote on it and have to approve him. After that, the NFL itself can say "no dice". If the owners want to vote him down, so be it. If the Commish wants to vote him down even, so be it, though I like that less.

However if he does its utter and completely hypocritical BS on the part of Goodell, and that doesn't change the fact that all the idiots in the media now that previously were talking about Vicks "Right" to play and how business/image doesn't matter in regards to the Commissioner over ruling a team wanting him who are currently calling for the commissioner to simply throw him out due to business/image.

I hear what you are saying. Like I said though, the delineating factor is the bottom line. That doesn't mean that there are other factors to be taken into account. There is no upside to Limbaugh. Sure, he hasn't broken any conduct rules with the NFL. But maybe they are afraid of what he may say in the future. He didn't last long on ESPN. I don't see Vick being a repeat offender. Vick doesn't have a right to play though. Nobody has a right to any job.

I'd like to see the condition that he has to fight Buddy Ryan in order for consideration. :mrgreen:
 
The Rams suck....Rush and the rams deserve each other.
 
When is L.A. getting a football team? :2razz:

No one here cares.

We have real football here...its played on Saturdays.

The corporate Sunday BS has very little resemblence to the game.

The NFL thought that they could keep a team away and then get cities here to flock to offer to build stadiums for them on the taxpayer dime. Angelenos are smarter than that and gave the NFL a big thumbs down.
Now the NFL is trying desperately to get a team here...and are finding that people here have no interest in their merchandise.

The day the Rams and Raiders left was great for LA....there are so many better things here to do with your time.
 
Last edited:
No one here cares.

We have real football here...its played on Saturdays.

The corporate Sunday BS has very little resemblence to the game.

The NFL thought that they could keep a team away and then get cities here to flock to offer to build stadiums for them on the taxpayer dime. Angelenos are smarter than that and gave the NFL a big thumbs down.
Now the NFL is trying desperately to get a team here...and are finding that people here have no interest in their merchandise.

The day the Rams and Raiders left was great for LA....there are so many better things here to do with your time.

So you opt for the corporate Staurday BS? :rofl
 
College Football isn't even close to the same corporate BS as the NFL....

Yeah, :lol:, I never knew there were so many black Mormons and Irishmen.

It's all about the money there too.
 
Rush is a fat slob drug addict.

Sorry I'm late, did anyone else cover this point?

I'm kinda late to this thread too but I think your post covers it pretty well. ;)

I think Rush Limbaugh is a psychological drain on this country & one reason why anger/hatred is the norm now instead of just discussing issues.
Limbaugh's product is HATE.......That's what he sells & I could care less if he buys a football team, a whorehouse or a car dealership...The travesty is that a guy like him makes enough money to buy anything. :thumbdown
 
Last edited:
Anyone who works in the field of drug addiction will tell you: "Once a drug addict, always a drug addict". Rehab is a life long process. Don't fool yourself.





This is not true. While it's the accepted norm, there are other schools of thought that don't follow this....


But so much for that liberal compassion. :roll:
 
Anyone who works in the field of drug addiction will tell you: "Once a drug addict, always a drug addict". Rehab is a life long process. Don't fool yourself.

I've heard the addage too, and in general I think its correct. Its wonderful to know that you think despite attempst to stop using drugs people should still be called addicts or druggies.

So, hows the Cokehead in Chief doing?
 
Have you seen the BCS?

Of course he has. USC fans always have seen the BCS.

Now seeing the games against the Stanfords and Washingtons of the world are a different story....

;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom