Rush didn't get into trouble because he brought race up in a sports program.
He got into trouble because he brought politics up in a sports program.
Many people who watch sports do so to get away from everyday stresses of life, and politics is a very stressful part of life.
Rush's comments were not so much racist as anti-Affirmative Action.
I did not listen to the show, but it sounds almost as if he was asking for someone right then to debate with him on that point so he could get into a Affirmative Action Cheats Good White People argument.
None of the other commentator's took his bait, so now he goes off and pouts, being the victim of "Liberal Media Bias" and all the "name calling Liberals" who call him a racist for making a simple remark.
Poor abused Rush.
To his fans he remains the victim of liberal witch hunting.
To his detractors he remains the fool in conservative clothing.
To his bank, he is Mr. Limbaugh of the big checks.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he COULD have provided an explanation that fits more of the available facts. That is, that he's overrated because he plays for a high quality team. This not only fits McNabb's case, but many other quarterbacks as well. As well, by choosing to go the route he did, he ignores quarterbacks such as Michael Vick, and Warren Moon... black quarterbacks who are NOT overrated, and have done extremely well in pro-football.
In other words, his explanation makes no sense unless he's trying to either race bait or media bait.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
His argument was that the Eagles weren't doing well because of McNabb, but because they had a good team and the media made it appear that it was because of McNabb because the media wants Black QBs to succeed. Who knows what he would have said about Moon and Vick because at the time he was just talking about McNabb and the Eagles. Maybe he wouldn't have had a good explanation but that would just be because he was wrong not because he's a racist.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between me and Rush, I don't believe that someone's addictions are the source of political commentary or humor. I do applaude him for getting medical treatment and working on kicking the addiction.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not possible to have a civil discussion involving race. Only one side of the discussion is allowed in public. The other side is attacked as racist.
It should never be okay to give advantages or take them away based on race.
When the NFL makes rules that require teams to interview black applicants for any coaching job, the NFL makes race a BIG deal. Jesse Jackson is one of the forces behind the rule about interviewing blacks. The NFL has allowed his brand of racism to creep into its rules and practices.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth, that reminds me of the old saying: Keep your words sweet, you may have to eat them. I don't care one way or another about Rush's comments that forced his resignation as a sports commentator. He has had many comments on his radio show worse than that without any uproar. It was a mistake to hire Rush as a commentator just as it was a mistake to hire Dennis Miller for Monday Night Football. Neither was a match for the job.
I despise hypocrites, and Rush's cheerleading for the drug wars while becoming addicted himself is puzzling. I wonder if he'll soften his stance on addicts when he gets out of rehab. Somehow, I doubt it. Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is how and why you got addicted. There's a difference between taking drugs to ease physical pain and taking drugs because you are having a hard day and don't feel like doing reality. It's a difference of attitude.
OTOH, I don't know anyone who is an addict via physical pain, so maybe I'm totally off base.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Alucard would say. From what I hear from my friend who is a pharmacy tech, getting hooked on painkillers after a surgery is pretty commonl.
quote: One study found that only 4 out of about 12,000 patients who were given opioids for acute pain became addicted. In a study of 38 chronic pain patients, most of whom received opioids for 4 to 7 years, only 2 patients became addicted, and both had a history of drug abuse.
The issues of underprescription of opioids and the suffering of millions of patients who do not receive adequate pain relief has led to the development of guidelines for pain treatment. These guidelines may help bring an end to underprescribing, but alternative forms of pain control are still needed.
posted
Curious... does anyone think that Limbaugh should be punished by drug laws? (The same as everyone else, or MORE, since he so publicly upheld them?)
On the one hand, I'd rather see folks get rehab than jail. On the other hand, I hate double standards, and I don't like to see the rich and famous get rehab while poor folks get jail...
(A personal rant: idiots like Limbaugh who abuse prescription drugs annoy the hell out of me... my sweetie was in an accident last year, and was in a lot of pain, and unable to sleep because the painkillers she was on weren't enough. I would've gone out to get her Oxycontin... but thanks to idiots like Limbaugh who abuse Oxycontin, I had to wait until the morning to pick up a prescription for Oxycontin from her doctor...) (You can't even get a prescription for Oxycontin phoned in, you have to give a signed prescription to a pharmacist...) [/rant]
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, they rarely punish people for getting addicted to painkillers like this. So treating Limbaugh like everyone else would be not prosecuting him.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
