Yes…with help from Jackson and Sharpton. These two are the real racists. They have no shame.
He says nothing about players getting into fights over being disrespected. He’s talking about them dancing and yelling at each other, and sometimes getting hit with unnecessary penalties… and then makes the connection to “This is the reason these guys are getting shot in bars.”
And I think you’re making up a charge about “looking for racism” as a defense for a ridiculous remark from Limbaugh.
Really? Are they complaining about all the white folk who own football teams, or were they objecting to the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being part-owner of a football team?
Meanwhile, what ‘help’, other than expressing their displeasure, did they provide to quash the deal?
And I think if you hear a black person’s name used in the same sentence with a gang you automatically assume that the speaker is racist. You CAN actually make a disparaging remark about an individual (black, white, or whatever) and even compare them to gang members without being racist. The problem is people who are so delicate that any disparaging remark they hear about anyone in a protected class is automatically assumed to be hate speech.
Expressing their displeasure? Yes, but this is not the same as you or me expressing our displeasure. Sharpton wanted a meeting with the NFL Commissioner over this. Even though I think Sharpton and Jackson are race hucksters, their actions have an impact on a large segment of the population who look to them as civil rights leaders. Perhaps the media should start reporting on both of their overt racist comments made over the years.
I am not going to say this makes him racist or not, but it surely makes him an idiot and a tool.
What Limbaugh needs to face here is that Jackson and Sharpton are not the guys denying his bid–it’s the old, rich, white conservatives he’s lionized for decades. The NFL and members of the ownership group are only interested in the bottom line, and bringing Limbaugh and his associated controversy on-board was bad for that bottom line.
It’s an irony that has me tuning in to his show lately over lunch. In his ongoing effort to gin up ratings (especially now that Glenn Beck does it so much better), he has spent the last 20 years redirecting dittohead outrage away from the real culprits to perceived cultural enemies. Now he’s performing that procedure on himself, and damn if it isn’t a fascinating look into the paranoia and self-pity that feeds his feeble soul.
Doubtless it is all due to the old white conservative men caving to wimpy liberal hand wringing.
I think you are a racist for calling Rev. Sharpton’s voice a minstrel voice.
This is a shitty defense for the comments, though: ‘In theory it’s possible to insult someone by comparing them to gang members without bringing race into it!’
Yes, it probably is. In the context of this specific remark, I don’t think it is. We’re talking about a specific statement where he invoked gangs twice in reference to taunting and jawing during a football game. He made the Crips and Bloods comment after talking about two black players, and for the record, the player who was hit with that taunting call (Drayton Florence) is also black.
Yeah, unless it’s Rush Limbaugh or anyone else that YOU deem already a racist.
So, if one or both of the players were white and he made the gang comment it would not be racist? What if he used Latin Kings and MS13 in the place of Bloods and Crips? Would it still be racist? Your argument makes no sense.
Al Sharpton has also asked the NFL to Cancel the Hall of Fame Game in 2008 over accusations of racial profiling among Canton police. Jesse Jackson called for players in the 2000 Super Bowl in Atlanta tohave American Flags on their uniforms in protest of the Georgia state flag, which includes the Stars and Bars (he at first threatened a boycott but backed down prior to gametime). Around the same time Jackson protested the firing of African-American Green Bay head coach Ray Rhodes, calling for meetings with comissioner Paul Tagliabue and the Green Bay Packers.
None of these protests were successful; the NFL did not cancel the 2008 HoF game, no changes were made to the NFL uniform rules for the 2000 Super Bowl (Jackson did stage a protest outside, but it’s a question as to whether he attended), and the NFL never met with Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH coalition (Ray Rhodes, I believe, is now with the Texans).
Now, Limbaugh would have us believe that Jackson and Sharpton have suddenly gained the ability to bend the NFL to its will. Like most conservatives, his world-view depends on a stubborn resistance to facts, a curse afflicting those of us in the reality-based community.
He needs to face facts: The NFL is a business. The three protests I mentioned above, if successful, would harm the NFL’s bottom line, so they avoided them. Ditching Limbaugh eliminates a potential threrat to their business, so they do it. The fact that the latter happens to conform to what Jackson and Sharpton asked for is pure coincidence.
This unsupported statement has completely convinced me that you are correct.
By the way, racist comments by Sharpton and Jackson have gotten plenty of media attention over the years. Jackson’s “Hymietown” statement would be the most notable of those.
I don’t think he would’ve made the comment in the first place.
Exactly. He’s bad for business, and the consortium trying to buy the team realized that he’s a distraction. Total capitalist, right-winger move. And I agree with 'em.
Limbaugh, as Dio points out, is a pretty smart guy. He goes to the line of racism and bigotry, but leaves enough wiggle room to not be completely tarred by that brush. I’m not fooled, but a lot of folks are.
He’s made millions playing this game and now it’s bit him in the ass. Schadenfreude, baby. I am loving all of these “dittoheads” on my local radio station stating that they will “watch less football, and no games with the St. Louis Rams.” First, nobody watches their games. Second, every dittohead could do exactly this (and they won’t) - and it wouldn’t do a damn thing to the NFL’s bottom line. They’re still making more cash than God and they don’t have to give a scintilla of attention to what Limbaugh or his fanboys think.
The other thing to note, of course, is that the NFL, Sharpton, and Jackson, or any boogeyman one cares to name didn’t take him out. It was his business partners. 
This statement is supported by your words. You claim that it is, indeed, possible to make the comments about black players without being racist. Yet, you claim that it is the context here which makes it racist. What context is that. He is talking about football players in general (not all of them are black!) and about a few individuals. The only context that makes it racist in your eyes is that it was spoken by Limbaugh and you consider him a racist.
I’d say they got less coverage than the phony Limbaugh comments. The media didn’t even bother to source those quotes.
Not to mention Sharptons racist comments have gotten people killed.
Of course not. A racist would never make a racist comment if there were white folk involved. Can’t you see that your logic is circular?
Maybe Limbaugh is not a bigot. Maybe he is not a racist. Maybe in person he is a swell guy and has lots and lots of friends who are minorities. On his radio show however he absolutely engages in race baiting so yorick73’s blinkered view to miss this is rather amazing. It matters not one whit if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are racists in this discussion. Limbaugh is what he is irrespective of the other two.
Here are more quotes for you (checked and he did say these things):
Race baiting pure and simple.
Thanks. You’ve got this right.
It’s ridiculous to think that even a week of campaigning by Sharpton (and to a lesser extent, Jackson) had anything to do with this.
Jim Irsay effectively put the kibosh on Limbaugh’s admission to the NFL owners’ club with just one sentence.
I didn’t want to wade through 4 pages on this topic, so forgive me if this has already been addressed, but the NFL owners have a very, very good reason not to want Limbaugh among their number (aside from principle and good business sense, of course): to allow Rush in would open them up to one of the most cutting criticisms of the NFL of all- there are still no black team owners. They came close in 2005 with the Reggie Fowler deal, but no cigar.
I think that’s part of the NFL’s sensitivity to issues of race. The Rooney Rule was a huge step in increasing minority participation, of course, but there are still no minorities actually signing the checks.
I already made a couple of posts about the context, so if you don’t understand it, it’s not because I haven’t explained it.
I’d never heard about this crips and bloods thing until I opened this thread. And “Hymietown” is still pretty well known 25 years later.
Yes, they did. 20 years ago. Now why does that make Rush Limbaugh not a racist?
It’s not circular at all. You’re just not understanding it and you’re re-explaining it poorly. He compared black football players to gang members. If a white Chargers player had been called for a taunting penalty, I don’t think he would have brought it up as an example of bad behavior. Is that easier?
Congrats on actually checking this time. There is nothing pure and simple without context. Also, I guess that self hating Snerdley puts up with all that trash talk from his massah in order to get that fat paycheck. Oh, as Marley23 said…“he’s a good…”
I don’t think any of those comments, even out of context, are racist. Some of you just cannot hear any discussion of race without immediately assuming that the white guy is racist or race-baiting.
By the way, if you ever listen to Rush you know he uses quite a bit of sarcasm. I would suggest listening to some of the quotes rather than just reading them.
Then you agree that lefties aren’t going to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. 