Animal Cruelty is acceptable, but Conservative politics isn't? ROFL  

I'll give PETA a rare bit of respect on this one since they have protested Vick's re-entry into the league and protested the Eagles for hiring him.

Taskr, did Rush have some drug problems in the past? And, Rush has said bashed the NFL many times. Would you want someone who doesn't like you organization running a team in your organization? It isn't good business, plain and simple.

Everyone knows Rush had drug problems in the past, but those weren't even brought up with regards to him being a partial owner of the Rams. The only thing anyone cared about were his political convictions and supposed racism. Him being a partial owner wouldn't have affected the NFL's business in the slightest.

Taskr, it is all about business. You are correct that it wasn't brought up about his drug problems, but when conservatives started attacking the NFL, it fought back. Do you really think that conservatives really want to battle the NFL? It is one of the most popular sports in the world. This is political death for your party. There are alot more NFL fans than conservatives, and pissing them off wouldn't be great for the party.

When did conservatives start attacking the NFL? If the NFL's issue with Limbaugh is them "fighting back" then please show me where conservatives attacked the NFL before that.

The "party" shouldn't waste their time attacking the NFL because there is absolutely NOTHING to gain from it just as the NFL has nothing to gain from attacking conservatives.

"When did conservatives start attacking the NFL?"

When conservatives started to point out all of the bad people in the NFL, like the posts on here.

"If the NFL's issue with Limbaugh is them "fighting back" then please show me where conservatives attacked the NFL before that."

Limbaugh has attacked the NFL before. He said that an NFL game looked like a game between the Bloods and the Crips. Would you really want someone like that owning one of your teams, when you don't need him to? I sure wouldn't.

"The "party" shouldn't waste their time attacking the NFL because there is absolutely NOTHING to gain from it just as the NFL has nothing to gain from attacking conservatives."

To late. I listen to the NFL channel on Sirius all day, and they were going off on republicans for pointing out the problems that NFL players have had. If you listen to right wing hate radio you heard these attacks today, and it isn't going the help the cause. I wonder how long this is going to keep going?

"Limbaugh has attacked the NFL before. He said that an NFL game looked like a game between the Bloods and the Crips. Would you really want someone like that owning one of your teams, when you don't need him to?"

Ok, I just checked and yes, he acknowledged saying that. It's a good point and a solid argument.

"I listen to the NFL channel on Sirius all day, and they were going off on republicans for pointing out the problems that NFL players have had."

Well that's not limited to conservatives. I'm sure you're well aware of all the folks on the left who have objected to players like Lawrence Phillips and Michael Vick. Why is it wrong for people to object to criminal behavior? Is it only wrong when such criminals are professional athletes? Perhaps the NFL should be more focused on cleaning up its image than objecting to those who oppose rewarding criminals.

Does it make me a conservative if I cite that some NFL athletes have taken drugs and are still playing in the league today? I don't see how that drug argument would hold up to anything. Or how about stating the silly fact that criminality is forgiven by the NFL, but apparently controversial speech isn't?

Trying to assign political labels to people in a conversation context who see a bit of hypocrisy and selective outrage in the situation is really ridiculous. myLot is all about opinions. Someone can weigh in and voice an opinion that isn't bashing Rush Limbaugh, and in the process cite some of the NFL's problems, and that doesn't make them a conservative.

For the conservatives who do choose to weigh in on the matter, it's not waging war by simply stating the obvious.

It's like I said about people who bashed Fox for running ACORN stories: Just because the left chose to ignore it doesn't make it a partisan ploy, especially when one of the biggest reasons for ignoring it was to point the finger and scream smear.

Maybe "liberals" and other Rush-bashers shouldn't act like Rush is a huge blow to the NFL's business. Ever thought about it that way? lmao ... There's a lot more going on detrimental to the NFL than Rush Limbaugh's 2 (that's all I know of; feel free, someone, to tell me the rest) controversial comments concerning the NFL.

..but it's ok to be a pedophile, rapist, gang banger, or anything else. Not that I don't agree with you, I do. The NFL has every right to decide who they want to associate with and who they don't. I just find it funny and telling that they would accept the most scummy people who walk the earth, but they draw the line at Rush Limbaugh.

Rush has never claimed to be a saint. It's only his detractors that hold him to that kind of standard.

Debater, people go to game for the players and the team. Most people neither know, nor care who owns a team. Art Modell is considered a complete scumbag for taking the Browns out of Cleveland. He even said that a woman beaten by Lawrence Phillips must have done something to deserve it, but that sure didn't stop fans in Baltimore from going to Ravens games.

You're right, there is no good for the NFL that comes from Rush purchasing a team. There's no bad that comes from it either. They just feel that a conservative commentator is unacceptable whereas killers, drug dealers, and wife-beaters are perfectly acceptable.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Ted, I agree that there are some bad people that are in the NFL, and have been. But, on the other hand the have actually been harder on some people then our judicial system has. Donte Stallworth got 28 days in jail for killing a man while he was high, but the NFL suspended him atleast a year. The NFL suspended Michael Vick for three games even though he spent three years in federal prision.

The issue with Rush is not his politics, it is the fact that there is no upside with him owning a team. No one is going to go to a game because of him, no one is going to buy a shirt, or a sky box because of him. But, there are many that would do the opposite just because they don't like his views, or his mouth. It is much like Michael Moore, if you knew that he owned a sports team would it make you think twice about giving him your money? I honestly don't think it has one thing to do with his politics. Everything in the NFL is about money, just like politics.

Taskr, you are correct that most people don't know who owns the team the support. But most owners aren't on the radio everyday pissing people off. If Michael Moore owned a team, would you still want to go see a game knowing that you are making him money? If you think about it you will see the down side to this in a business sense. I understand that most of us want things to be fair and balanced, but that isn't realistic.


"They just feel that a conservative commentator is unacceptable whereas killers, drug dealers, and wife-beaters are perfectly acceptable."

Let me ask you something: If you had an investment broker that was making you 30% on your investments, would you care if he had a drug problem? Business is business!! Ask anyone that invested with Madoff

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Debator, I wouldn't care if he was a recovering addict, but I would care if he raped someone.

Ted, by the way what NFL player raped someone?

Ted, Do you know anything about Sorro's? He is considered a very good business man, and he is well loved throughout the world. Just because he funds democrats doesn't mean that he is divisive, it just means that he wants to make money. Just like all of those people that donated millions to Bush/Cheney. Do you really think they did that because they "liked him"? He was the best investment you could have made. Just look at how much the oil industry, and the investment banking industry sent to republicans, and look at the tens of billions they made. Like I said: It is all about money!!!

Football is all about the players...not the owners. If the players union is against someone...if the individual players have a problem working for a particular owner, even if they don't make good on their threat to go Free Agent...it hurts the team. The players score the points, the players win games, the palyers get your team into the playoffs and, hopefully, the Super Bowl...so, it's all about how the players feel.

you are 100% correct

Spalladino, then the game is all about coddling rapists, pedophiles and gang banging thugs?

I'll tell ya, you're right about football being about the playerS, but that's only to an extent.

The vast majority of teams in the NFL do not and will and will never revolve around singular star power. They will do what's best for the whole.

If, for example, two players wanted to boycott Rush coming to the NFL, and claimed they wouldn't play at all, you better believe that situation would be resolved quickly.

Outside of an EXTREMELY small handful of players (the Manning brothers, Brady, AP, and maybe LT at 100%, possibly another or two) their "wants" aren't worth a damn to the whole picture. Ask TO how quickly he's run out of town every time he gets on the me, me, me kick. He's a top-5 receive at his best.

The NFL revolves around players, but they're paid to play -- not to make social statements.

If a player outside of that incredibly small and truly irreplaceable group acted up and wanted to sit out, they WILL be replaced in a heartbeat. Sure, the NFL-PA may cause a rift by demanding money and other things, but meanwhile, that non-playing player is risking his long-term credibility in a few ways: What else will he abstain from playing for? Will he sacrifice his team for personal hang-ups? Is he a media wh0re? etc.

For every player willing to sit out in the NFL, there are a thousand more just begging to jump in! Some of the league's very best players were hiding in the shadows until they got their opportunity (Steve Young, Tom Brady, etc). Coaches and owners know that every player good enough to play on an NFL level is a possible superstar in the right situation.

Players strike at their own peril. By and large, they have no true power over a team's chances of victory or even morale unless they're legitmiate superstars. (A good example would be Crabtree's attempted shakedown, which say the 49ers start better than they have in YEARS! lol) And in today's overpaid and underachieving league, stars are few and far between.

P.S. Anything that George Soros puts his hand to is corrupt, Debator.
A good businessman? Or a cruel traitor? He was a Nazi sympathizer who harmed his fellow Jews and recently told 20/20 he had no remorse. Now, of course, as an America hater, he has put a traitor, illegal alien, dual national in a position to destroy our freedom, using the race-card to curb dissent. I would say it's brilliant, but it's too evil and disgusting to think about. If the NFL in in league with Soros in any way it shows their true colors.

Google George Soro Criminal and you will find that he is known as the man who broke the Bank of England by selling short the British Pound (And making close to a Billion Dollars in one day). He has a conviction in France for insider trading. In Thailand he is known as an Economic Criminal. The Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad has also accused him of being a Criminal for his currency manipulation forcing countries to the brink of bankruptcy by trading currency and selling it short. (Selling a stock or currency before you own (you have so many days to fill the order) it and then buying the stock or currency to cover the trade at a lower price.)

But what he said about McNabb was true.. and Limbaugh isn't the only one who has said it.