This was brought up on the House floor?

Somebody needs to be smacked. Over and over and over.

The current owner(s) can sell to whoever they want to and whoever can afford to buy in should be free to make an offer.

This couldnt possibly have less to do with politics or government.

---

---

If the owners association ever did approve this, it would do nothing but lend credence to their short memories; wasn't Rush the one a few years back who said that Donovan McNabb had been coddled in the press because he was black? Don't think that kind of belief structure belongs anywhere near a professional sports organization that relies so heavily on multi-culturalism... 'sides, has he ever seen an Eagles game? "Coddled" isn't exactly the word I would use to classify how their fans treat their quarterback...

Bottom line is that someone so politically divisive has no business in professional sports, IMO...

Originally posted by Legion2112
If the owners association ever did approve this, it would do nothing but lend credence to their short memories; wasn't Rush the one a few years back who said that Donovan McNabb had been coddled in the press because he was black? Don't think that kind of belief structure belongs anywhere near a professional sports organization that relies so heavily on multi-culturalism... 'sides, has he ever seen an Eagles game? "Coddled" isn't exactly the word I would use to classify how their fans treat their quarterback...

Bottom line is that someone so politically divisive has no business in professional sports, IMO...

Yes. Here are a couple of Rush quotes from the article.

"The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Originally posted by Aggie Man It makes business sense.

Since you brought that up does blocking this individual from partially owning a team make more or less business sense than signing a felon and animal torturing quarterback to your team?

I wonder what football fans abhor more: some radio host or a guy who tortured and killed dozens of animals for fun? Lord knows Vick didnt need the profit although that was there too.

All of the felon players and scumbag worship pushed me away from basketball.

Soon enough all that will be left is curling.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Aggie Man It makes business sense.

Since you brought that up does blocking this individual from partially owning a team make more or less business sense than signing a felon and animal torturing quarterback to your team?

I wonder what football fans abhor more: some radio host or a guy who tortured and killed dozens of animals for fun? Lord knows Vick didnt need the profit although that was there too.

All of the felon players and scumbag worship pushed me away from basketball.

Soon enough all that will be left is curling.

No matter what the venue, bottom line is talent has value and will be pursued, regardless of past mistakes. In this case, Vick had talent to bring to the Eagles. Rush has no redeeming qualities to bring to the table as owner.

EDIT: Not to mention that many NFL players have spoke out on this issue and said they would not play for the team if Rush was owner. That in and of itself would add an additional layer of adversity against a team that is already in the dumps.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Aggie Man]

The NFL, being a private organization, can accept or deny an ownership bid for most any reason. That said, I think its a little hypocritical. Aside from whatever skeletons are in the closets of the other NFL owners, some of the guys the NFL allows on the field make Rush Limbaugh look like a model citizen by comparison.

There is a lot of opposition to Rush owning it because of racial statements Rush has made in the past. It was the reason he was kicked off the NFL show on Sunday's many moons ago.

Many players have already admitted that if Rush bought the team, they will never join it.

The franchise is already hurting. They don't need Rush hurting it more.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Aggie Man It makes business sense.

Since you brought that up does blocking this individual from partially owning a team make more or less business sense than signing a felon and animal torturing quarterback to your team?

I wonder what football fans abhor more: some radio host or a guy who tortured and killed dozens of animals for fun? Lord knows Vick didnt need the profit although that was there too.

All of the felon players and scumbag worship pushed me away from basketball.

well, Vick went to jail for the dogs...rush didn't go to jail for drug dealing and use.

Soon enough all that will be left is curling.

Originally posted by willow1d
... and we know the true reason they are opposing it is due to Rush's political stance.

Why? Because football and sports in general are historically driven and supported by the left?

This is a racial issue. Limbaugh has spouted his racist crap one too many times and it's come back to bite him on the ass. Of course he's going to blame it on the left. That's what he does best.