Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar and so is Joe Scarborough

Rush that magic slab of bacon fat is a very evil man. He gets to lie, propagandize, distort and preach hate every day for three hours and then get the MSM to quote him and replay his pontification.
This week the rush lost every thing he ever wanted in this world. Or at least the one thing he cares most about. Ownership of an NFL team. Ha.
So he cries about it in print in the Wall Street Journal. I mean where else but in that nazi Murdoch's rag?
Here is just a portion from his extremely short whine:
The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.
When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb -- in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback -- fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910170005
As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477021697942920.html
We have our own Bill Bowman to get good coverage of Michael 'The Wiener' Savage. Hell he wrote a book on the asshat.
If you wish to follow Rush Limbaugh, if you wish easy access to contradictions of the MSM regarding past comments made by this nazi, fascist, racist bastard, go to Media Matters.org first. I got the cue to the Wall Street Journal's editorial written by the rush from MM. In a couple hours you can find quotes from this bastard that would get him fired from any MSM network except FOX of course.
I googled for a quicky on the lies contained in this editorial and, sure enough, found someone as mad as me who really wrapped it up. At least for me. You see, I cannot just sit back and say:
Rush Limbaugh is a racist, fascist prick...
And then leave it at that. Not after I listened to Scarborough on Friday talk about how half of the accusations against rush are untrue. You see I disagree with jughead scarborough on two levels:
First, even if half the accusations against rush were false, that would not and should not mean that rush is not as bad as 'the left' says. Hell one tenth of the accusations should be enough to label anyone else as a no good racist prick.
What jughead scarborough is attempting to do, along with his comrades at arms, is to minimize the damage that his good friend (as joe calls him) has done to this country over the last two decades. Scarborough is also attempting to demonstrate that the right wing is really made up of good Americans with the best of intentions.
Then what jughead will do is attack beck or some unnamed army of wing nuts for specific statements so that he will look REASONABLE. But he cannot let go of his real roots and he figures that rush has followers who can help Mornin Joke maintain ratings and at the same time remain available for some future political bid.
In fact, Joe Scarborough is the liar. We know rush is, but we must demonstrate that those who minimize what rush says ARE ALSO LIARS. I found the following summary so well done that I must reproduce most of it here:
1. I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark. (Limbaugh has denied making this quote, but due to his history of lying we are investigating the matter)
2. You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed. (Limbaugh has denied making this quote. but due to his history of lying we are investigating the matter)
3. Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
4. Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela -- who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.
5. Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.
6. The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.
7. They're 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?
8. Take that bone out of your nose and call me back(to an African American female caller).
9. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve.
There can be no excuse for such statements. Mr. Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants, but ABC and ESPN have no obligation to sponsor such hateful and ignorant speech. Mr. Limbaugh should be fired immediately.
Read the article to get some good responses as well as a good wrap up by this author. The article also alludes to his diatribes against Colin Powell and others. Remember, Colin Powell only backed Obama because he is black and that is the one and only reason Colin Powell would....blah blah blah. I mean we could list a thousand other comments. But this article really hits it on the nose.
But make no mistake. Rush apologizes for nothing--except in one instance. He half way apologized for the Blood/Crypt comment. Sort of, finally concluding that he should not have said that.
I saw a recent tape of rush just crying about his lost goal. To be an NFL owner would be like dying and going to heaven. I have never been more elated to see someone fail in my life. Really. He has hundreds of millions of dollars, and he will be paid hundreds of millions of dollars in the future for spreading pure hate throughout radio land.
There are women out there who would do anything to satisfy his desires. Even if he persisted in comparing them to his pet feline.
He can procure any drug he wants. He can speak in any forum he wishes. He can get apologies from repub pols who cross an invisible line by calling him out. He can get the Scarboroughs out there to still maintain that old rush is really a good friend.
BUT HE CANNOT HAVE A FUCKING FOOTBALL TEAM.













Damn right!
October 17, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha. You betchya. ha
October 17, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The guy is a victim, I tell ya! A real, honest-to-goodness victim!
Yeah, right. How come I feel so little sympathy?
October 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not wish to find my only satisfaction in LIFE seeing others fail,
BUT THIS IS ONE GOOD EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE. AHAHAHA
October 17, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, some real parallels with McCarthy. Tailgunner Joe was ultimately a truly pathetic character, tormented by alcoholism and other demons that haunted him to his death.
Yet, there was not a tear shed here when he was gone, but rather a sense that he suffered not nearly enough.
Not proud of the feeling. But can't disown it either.
October 17, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Tailgunner Joe was a fascist alcoholic.
Fats Limbaugh is a drug-addicted fascist who lost his hearing to his misuse of Oxycontin - and bought it back through implants because he is a very wealthy fascist slob. He also bought enough good lawyers to avoid being charged with doctor-shopping.
A little bit of justice is mixed in with all that. Not enough.
October 17, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot that Obama's real agenda is "forced reparations" and that "in Obama's America" black kids get to say "right on!" while a white kid gets beaten up...
Because it's a bus on "Good Times"?
I do like his the head implant thingy he gets to wear as a badge of his drug abuse... nice look! Very "Terminator"-y.
What goes around comes around, fatty fuckbucket. Use some of that mythic "personal responsibility" you supposedly love so much and stop whining like the little bitch that you are.
RIGHT ON!! RIGHT ON!!! (Dynomiiiiiiiite!!!)
October 17, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is right Igot, what's fair is fair as they say.
His karma caught up to him. He still is a member of the extreme oligarchy, he still has tons of power...
but he lost one because of what he did and what he said...not because of what someone else 'accused' him of doing or saying. ha!!
October 17, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps he is so powerful he forgets that they RECORD his show.
You know, like when Bush One was amazed by a bar code reader...
Poor bastard thinks he can just claim he isn't a racist.
"Show me PROOF!"
"Uhm... OK show me MORE PROOF!!"
"Dammit... uhhh... hmm."
"OK, but "Barack the Magic Negro" was making fun of a liberal guy who SAID that, and he was black, so... that makes it OK, right? C'mon HE SAID IT..."
*cardiac arrest*
October 17, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahaha. No, when you feel like that take a nitro tablet. under the tongue
hahahah
October 17, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check this out:
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/10/17/2009-10-17_rev_al_sharpton_threatens_to_sue_rush_limbaugh_over_wall_street_journal_oped.html
(notice the misleading poll... implies that you can say anything you like about any public figure... not true)
October 17, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/entertainers/
October 17, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I KNOW THEY DO IT FOR THE MONEY Donal. But they hurt soooooooooooo many people and then they show up at gop functions and pretend to be expert pundits or advisors or some such.
They are evil people and must be taken out every single time they lie.
Palin and Bachman are worse because they have official positions or at least had some position at some time.
October 17, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Jughead ever fully explain that dead young lady in his offices?
Has Limp-bough ever come clean about his Dominican Republic trip?
Does anyone remember why Limp-bough is not on ESPN?
October 17, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
that sob ever runs for anything THERE WILL BE ONE MILLION BLOGGERS ALL ASKING ABOUT HER GROUCH. hahaah
God you think as sinisterly as i do. hahaah
Poor lady.
October 17, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Jughead ever fully explain that dead young lady in his offices?
OG, he has not fully explained the presence of the dead young woman in his office. And I, for one, am still waiting.
October 18, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
We were discussing this briefly in chat. I wrote about it in a couple of blogs.
The way I saw it was at the LEAST old jughead was headed for a fall. There was some scandal brewing. A divorce ensued. He did have a son who was ill.
No this will never be fully answered because the investigation of an 28 year old girl hitting her head on the corner of a desk orsome such and dying alone in joe's office....kind of ended abruptly.
I cannot accuse joe of murder. But too many 'things' or events took place around the same time.
At any rate, I really dislike this fellow. But on the positive side, I despise Mika much more. ha
October 18, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Grouch,
As to his Dominican Republican trip, he was loaded up with Viagra and I always wondered what he was looking for in the D R that he couldn't find in the good old U S of A.
If he was simply looking to get screwed by a human female of age he could have gotten that here easily enough.
We should waterboard him and make him confess.
October 18, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahaha. I tell you one thing John. What that boy needs is three days of cross examination in Federal Court. He would break down like a little boy caught stealing the change in his daddy's sports coat.
You would not need waterboarding. His attorneys kept him out of court. That is what save his big ass.
October 18, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
dickday,
When you consider the Dominican Republic and Viagra, I always thought he went there for underage kids.
October 18, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone here once said, quite accurately, that Fox and The Lump have such high ratings because EVERY ignorant knuckledragger watches or listens to them, while the other 79% of the population spreads their attention around to the other networks and wouldn't listen to Rush or watch Fox if they got paid to do it.
That "class" of people hooked on trash talkers like The Lump is very similar to a cult. Lifton's standard 8-point outline for identifying a cult can be quite accurately attributed to them.
1. Milieu Control; "they (cult members) can be warned under threat of punishment to stay away from the world's educational media,"
2. Mystical Manipulation; If a person leaves for any reason, accidents or ill-will that may befall them are always attributed to God's punishment on them... The organization is therefore given a certain "mystique" that is quite alluring to the new recruit.
3. Demand for purity; "The world is depicted as black and white, with little room for making personal decisions based on a trained conscience.
4.The Cult of Confession; Serious sins (as defined by the organization) are to be confessed immediately. (How many times have we seen conservatives criticize Rush, only to turn around and apologize fearfully the next day?)
5. The Sacred Science; The cult's ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. The ideology is too "sacred" to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership.
5. Loading the language; The prolific use of "thought-terminating cliches," expressions or words that are designed to end the conversation or controversy. Such cliches are easily memorized and readily expressed. They are called the "language of non-thought," since the discussion is terminated, not allowing further consideration.
6. Doctrine Over Person; Human experience is subordinated to doctrine, no matter how profound or contradictory such experiences seem.... The person is only valuable insomuch as they conform to the role models of the cult.
Dispensing of Existence; The cult decides who has the "right" to exist and who does not. They decide who will perish in the final battle of good over evil. The leaders decide which history books are accurate and which are biased.
Check it out at http://www.freeminds.org/psychology/mind-control/eight-marks-of-a-mind-control-cult.html
You can see the similarities between say, the teabaggers, the birthers, the Palinites, and these identifiers of what constitutes cult members, it really explains the profane relationship between the Fox/Rush listeners and their cult idols.
Rush is a cult idol, and his listeners are brainwashed lemmings. I've said it before, but it probably sounded like your everyday barebones complaint.
Here I am attempting to put more meat on the bare bones. I meant it seriously, not just as a lament, but as a warning to those lemmings.
If you don't learn to think for yourselves, you can never be free from the likes of The Lump, and you will waste your lives parroting other peoples' pernicious words.
October 17, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy cow, JEP. That's freakin' scary.
October 17, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby render unto you the Dayly Comment of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site given to all of you from all of me.
AND ITS ON MY BLOG AND I CAN REFER BACK TO IT ANYTIME I WISH. hahhaaha
This is just frickin great. It can be used in a hundred contexts, And when I use it, which I will, I will tie it to you. This is frickin great.
October 17, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, It's Lifton's work, I just parroted him.
When Lifton wrote his seminal piece "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, A Study of 'Brainwashing" in China, a piece of serious research, on which the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" (hey, Rachel, me too...) was based, the Democrats wouldn't touch it because they were afraid of association with the word "Communist."
But both the Republican Party and Madison Avenue (Mad Men, literally) found it very valuable. Anyone who doubts it is blind and deaf to the brainwashing we see and hear every day from the wingnuts.
Here's the Google online version of his book; if you think my little paraphrase of Lifton's whole work was scary, Flowerchild, wait until you read this, or some of it.
Long URL, but it leads to one of the most pertinent but obscure works of research in the past 100 years. If you want a glimpse into the dark places of the mind, and the pernicious people who tap them for power and profit, take the time to check it out.
My short take on it is that Totalitarianism, by any other name, would still stink just as bad.
Read the forward, Lifton recognizes that his work transcended it's original intent, to prove what I just paraphrased.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FU_ifHrIIg0C&dq=lifton+Chinese+thought+reform&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=zp7aSuPrCMfL8Qa2jpG3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=lifton%20Chinese%20thought%20reform&f=false
October 18, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that link. I realized you did not come up with this ex nihilo but you have put it together so succinctly...
Well thank you very much for this.
October 18, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the insight and the excellent link. It's exactly the kind of thing I expect from this crew a DD's blogs.
This one answers some questions I have had for years.
October 18, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most EXCELLENT!!!
October 17, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the visual, Arthur...made me so sick I can't even look at the cookies I was considering eating!
I'm being a very bad girl today...1st I roared over the blue vegetable's naughty picture, now I am enjoying the thought of this poor man's misfortune.
I hope God has a good sense of humor.
October 17, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too Stilli. hahahaaha. The misfortunes of others.
A not so secret delight at times. hhahaaha
October 17, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have we all contracted some new psychosis?
Rush freudenschade?
October 18, 2009 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care how much of a controversial speaker or blowhard he is, he has the right to own an NFL team if he wants to.
Unfortunately, the NFL owners caved to the Players Union right during the time when the two of them are negotiating a new agreement.
October 17, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have the RIGHT to own an NFL team???? I didn't know that! Then I want one, too! Do I get to pick which one?
October 17, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I say "we" have the right? I think I said that Rush has the right. Just like anyone else who can afford it has the right to purchase an interest in a sports team. Not sure why you find what I said controversial.
October 17, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you said he had a "right" to own an NFL team, and if he has that "right" wouldn't we all? He may have the "financial ability" to own a team, and I don't, but if he has the "right" so do I.
October 17, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, sorry for being so literal. He has the right to be able to bid on a team. But I think you knew what I meant.
And I think the owners made a poor decision by letting the Players Union use Rush's bid as leverage in their current collective bargaining negotiations.
October 17, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think the word "right" gets thrown around pretty casually at times...I didn't know if you really thought it was a right, or were just mis-speaking. Thanks for the clarification.
October 17, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Because money grows on trees and therefore as long as he wants to own a team, he has the right to.
Thanks for playing...
October 17, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it isn't like going in and buying a $1000 bottle of wine...He has the right to attempt to buy a team, but he doesn't have the right to buy it...the seller gets to choose, and he lost. He didn't have the RIGHT. Quit being a hard head. You are wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.
October 17, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. It's up to the seller. But it's always up to the seller. I think you are just nit-picking what I am saying.
I am being critical of people who say that he's not allowed to own a team because they disagree with what he says on his shows.
October 17, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. We have the right to own a football team but according to Republicans, we don't have a right to healthcare.
Apparently, the NFL right is written in secret coded ink in the Constitution and the second is er... not written about anywhere?
October 18, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is easily one of the dumbest things you've ever written.
October 18, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now there's a sharp reply. It is actually a valid point, MCB, and very symbolic of how profane the right has become.
Strain at a gnat and swallow a football team.
October 18, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any connection between healthcare and who gets to own a football team. But I'm all ears.
October 18, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had to choose, which do you suppose should be considered a "right?" Either or, no fudging, which most likely could be a "right." Bet you can't answer this with one word, which is all that will fit now, in your attempt to get the last one, no matter how meaningless.
October 18, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we were talking about someone's ability to own a football team without politics getting in the way. Didn't realize we were talking about healthcare.
October 18, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to be a little dense of you NOT to understand, Bill..You consider it a "right" to own an NFL team, while at the same time, do NOT consider the availability of affordable health care to be a "right." How messed up is that?
October 18, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I will correct your misconception. I do NOT say that it's a right to be able to own a team. If I won the lottery that doesn't guarantee that I could be an owner of the Jets or Giants.
What I object to in this situation is how the Players Union is letting political influences decide whether someone who's qualified to be an owner can actually become one. The are not turning down the applicant for what I would consider to be valid reasons.
It's no different from me applying for a job and not getting it because of political reasons even if I have great qualifications/skills that would be pertinent to the job
October 18, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much better argument. We could have saved a lot of time and energy if you had started there.
October 18, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said yesterday, I think you took me too literally because you hate Limbaugh. He got booted out because people don't like WHO he is, as opposed to whether he'd be a good minority partner along with Dave Checketts.
October 18, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I took you at what you said, as did others...next time say what you mean and we won't have these problems.
October 18, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But your interpretation doesn't make any sense. Of course someone can't just wake up one day and say "I've decided to buy an NFL team" just because they have the money. Everybody knows that it's a two-way deal between buyer and seller. And unfortunately in this deal people like Al Sharpton and who knows who else got involved to stop it because they disagree with Limbaugh's politics. Rush was too "controversial" to own an NFL team.
Did you ever wonder why it was fair that some kids growing up got better jobs than you or accepted into better colleges because their parents have connections? Some colleges and companies accept people who aren't the best qualified but have connections. That's what I refer to as "politics" and I don't like it. That's exactly what happened here.
October 19, 2009 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta have the last word, huh? You are wrong. Just admit it.
October 20, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you must have the last word. You are quabbling over terminology
October 20, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha ha ha ha ha
October 20, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has the right to pursue happiness, not to get it. The other owners also have the right to pursue happiness and they've decided that a racially inflammatory owner will not further their pursuits.
October 17, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really. The other owners caved to pressure by the players union, who used it as leverage during the current negotiations. It had nothing to do with Rush's comments.
October 17, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's called "the free market," No Class Bill. I know you support that.
October 18, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? A free market would be one where politics doesn't get involved. When politics steps in it's not a free market.
October 18, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I do not have the "right" to not buy products, not patronize establishments, or not work for an employer whose values I find reprehensible?
You are stupid, shit-eating rightwing troll who thinks that people with money should be able to do whatever they want, yet people who need to work for a living should have no rights at all. Fuck you.
October 18, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words. Since it's your professional capacity, have you come up with an analysis for how the short sellers caused Lehman's demise?
October 18, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should ask Matt Taibbi that questions as well, prick.
October 18, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think you know more about the subject than a Rolling Stone reporter? I wanted to hear your analysis since you should understand the concepts so much better than a magazine writer.
I'm shocked that someone who understands it as well as you do would defer to a magazine writer (for Rolling Stone, no less) as a good source of truth and analysis.
October 18, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll explain it all to you just as soon as you explain why Lehman was the only investment bank to fail in spite of having similar liquidity and risk metrics to the other investment banks, all of which survived. Your trolling on this topic is beyond tiresome; you obviously feel like you've "got" me on this topic, because you've been bringing it up out of nowhere for weeks, yet you won't defend your side of the argument.
And until you do so, you can go piss up a rope.
October 18, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shouldn't have to explain it to you. Since it's your day job, you should know it better than me.
It shouldn't matter that I think that Lehman isn't the only one which failed. It just was the only one that wasn't saved. Wachovia, Merrill, Bear, AIG, and many others also failed. So I guess short sellers ruined all of these companies, according to your logic.
October 18, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one putting words in my mouth, asshole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmB-8onoMo
October 18, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Which words am I putting in your mouth?
Here's some of your quotes:
"I don't have time to go into full detail, as I am actually working on issues related to the Lehman bankruptcy in a professional capacity."
and then later on
"What basically killed Lehman were the short sellers and market panic (which, of course, was largely fed by the shorts)."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/15/short_sellers_the_unsung_heroes_of_the_financial_c/index.php
October 18, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I work for a living, why would you think that I don't care about that group of people, which includes myself?
October 18, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics doesn't affect a free market? Pray, what color is the sky in your world?
October 18, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it does play a part. And it makes the market less perfect and less free. When politics decides winners and losers it might be a market but it's not free nor is it perfect.
October 18, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some would say that nothing is perfect, but that's not true. There is manifest evidence around here that there is such a thing as a perfect idiot.
October 18, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feel free to think whatever you like. I will stop trying to discuss a point with someone like you who just prefers to throw gibberish like "puppy semen" around rather than actually have an honest debate.
October 18, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, YOU'RE the one who supplies this blog with dog smegma, No Class. But I WOULD be delighted if you completely ignore me from now on AS I ASKED YOU TO DO MONTHS AGO.
October 18, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you too. Ironically you're the one who started this thread yet you want me to ignore you. Normally if you wanted someone to ignore you, then you'd stop throwing flames at them.
October 18, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tried that, No Class. You wouldn't accept. Now your only chance is to spew your ridiculosity somewhere else, or eschew politics and go back to indulging your taste for canine and assinine genitalia full time.
October 19, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you tankard. Please never change, stay just the way you are.
October 19, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count on it, Dog Dick Licker.
October 20, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you too
October 20, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Bill, don't you think the players have the right to voice their oppinions. I mean as much as we might think rich blowhards are better people and all if it wasn't for the players there really wouldn't be a game or a team to play it. Just imagine a bunch of fat drug adicted millionares owning teams with no players. Wouldn't that make for a fun sunday afternoon at the stadium?
October 18, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course players have the right to voice their opinions.
Too bad the entire league of players didn't get to vote. Instead the head of the union gets involved and I'm sure was under a lot of political pressure from people like Al Sharpton.
October 18, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet they took one look at the aux News boycott and imagined something of that scale leveled at their team.
I'd have gracefully declined as well.
October 18, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he doesn't. The NFL reserves the right to approve or turn down any potential team owners. The NFL isn't a democracy...there are no 'God given rights" associated with it. The bottom line is they don't want, and rightly so imo, somebody like Rush associated with the product they're selling.
October 17, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes they have the right to say no. But unfortunately they did so because the players union was putting pressure on them. It had nothing to do (imo) with the types of comments he made.
The NFL is usally all about money. If the guy has money and can pay players' big salaries, then he's welcome. But here the Players Union decided to use Rush as leverage in the negotiations.
October 17, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehehe...the NFL is swimming in money, like they need Rush's. There are many people with very deep pockets looking to get in. The TV contracts bring them an astronomical amount of money. But, from a purely business point of view, Rush with all his money would be a money loser for the league...bad publicity from someone who has made overtly racist comments, being associated with a venture with a significant amount of minority players and consumers, would be a business disaster...sending the wrong message about what the NFL is about.
October 17, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really? That's right, because the NFL is such a goody-two-shoes league that holds their players to REALLY high standards.
It might be swimming in money but salaries are only going in one direction and they could always use MORE money. Every team needs to buy its way to a championship.
It's absurd to say that a professional sports team doesn't "need" any more money. Try making that argument to the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Cowboys.
The owners caved to the unions during a collective bargaining agreement negotiations.
Rush owning a team would not do a thing to TV viewership.
October 17, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, which is why ESPN dropped him like a hot potato.
Grow a sense of decency, would you? It's like arguing with a flat, bald, tire.
October 17, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does ESPN dropping him have to do with anything? Maybe fans would prefer someone better on TV to do the commentary.
But that's completely different than being an owner. If the guy has $$$$, then he would be a good owner.
If he owned a team, nobody would stop watching that team because he was an owner.
And nobody would stop playing for that team as long as they could earn a competitive salary.
None of the fans or players would care one bit if Rush was an owner.
October 17, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm.... if none of the fans or players would care one bit if Rush was an owner, then please explain again how this supposedly became an issue of leverage during union negotiations between players and owners?
What? There were no other contentious issues on the table, so they decided to introduce the Limbaugh bid as a sop just to have something to do?
There is an inconsistency in your arguments here, bill, that needs some explaining.
October 18, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're assuming that the heads of the unions really have the best interests of the players in mind. If you believe that, then you also believe that Congress only does stuff in our best interests.
When somebody like Al Sharpton or DeMaurice Smith doesn't like Limbaugh because of things he says about Obama and Democrats, it's easy for him to tell the NFL that he doesn't want Limbaugh as an owner. Even if it's not in the best interest of the players.
October 18, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The NFL makes their money from advertising. Each team is sensitive to the concerns of the advertiser.
Rush could not make it on ESPN because of that. period.
The advertisers were scared away. You do not think those owners as well as the investment group did not speak with advertisers before making this decision.
SOMETIMES THE SYSTEM WORKS Libertine. hahahaha
Not often, but sometimes. hahahaha
October 17, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep dd, just like the ESPN, the NFL made the right call on the bloviating asshole.
What MCB seems to miss is that the NFL is a commercial venture, very dependant on people to buy its product, so if you offend the consumers you'll lose customers and money.
October 17, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the bloviating asshole."
Now there's an accurate depiction.
Sounds like a new character for South Park.
Consider the possibilities...
October 18, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, DD.
That's the same reason why newspapers pushed journalistic objectivity for two generations. The biggest newspapers made their money from getting big crowds into the downtown department stores and from the classified ads. Moving the stores to suburbs ended that source, and the Internet ended the other. The niche markets that replaced mass markets cater to the current politicized journalism.
October 17, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Football teams are not set up into niches. They are too big.
October 17, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw this before Richard and I did not 'get it' You really have a point here. I mean add the suburbs--all white to start with and all middle class--then the exurbs; then add cable and then the internet. A lot of forces at work here.
And the oligarchy is still trying to figure out how to control it all. Very difficult. New FCC rulings coming down about broadband that I do not understand. SEE FLOWERS BLOG. I do not even know which 'side' to be on with regards to the issue.
The computers can handle the dow and such. Software is at a premium way up there I bet!!!
But all things being equal, my daughter in the suburbs does not make it to DT Mpls, that I am sure of. No reason. She will drive to the burbs from the exurbs. ha This demonstrates a real change in demographics.
October 18, 2009 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Actually I didn't realize either it until I started to reply to you.
I knew about the newspaper problems, of course, but I hadn't connected it to football teams until someone pointed out that they are designed to paid for out of advertising more than anything else. Just like Papers and free over the air TV.
I am still waiting to see how Jerry Jones pays for his $1.2 billion Dallas Cowboys football stadium. He has the world's largest TV screen mounted in it to show advertisements on, I know that much. If TV advertisement revenues flag ...
October 18, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if the NFL has that right, does WallMart have the right to refuse to sell to Latinos? Or can McDonalds refuse to serve Blacks? Or Ford refuse to sell cars to democrats? Just wondering how faar these rights go in your opinion.
October 18, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ownership of a business is not a public accommodation:
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/business-right-to-refuse-service.html
October 18, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has the right to own a business, just like anybody else in this country. But workers have a right to choose which business owners they go to work for. And if the workers won't work for him, he'd be a failure as an owner. His potential co-owners saw the writing on the wall and cut him out of the deal.
You reap what you sow.
October 17, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me that football teams are each set up around a few stars. Winning football stars either are not going to like working for someone like Rush, or they are going to be second raters willing to accept going to a team that can never achieve first rate status.
Letting Limbaugh buy into ownership of a pro football team would then relegate that team into permanent loser status. That reputation would carry over to all its recruiting which would just accentuate the problems. Which home city is going to accept their team as a permanent loser? I don't know what cities can do to effect the decisions of the football teams, but I'm sure there is a good bit they can do.
My bet is that is the reasoning the NFL owners have decided on.
October 17, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would certainly change the mix. Now there certainly are racist owners, conservative owners, a few liberals i would guess....all kinds, all sorts.
but none of the owners wish to have undue news expose's. I mean most of them wish to simply watch their teams win.
They do not wish their political views to be exposed. and they certainly cannot afford to have players who think they are racists.
October 18, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We the People of the United States, in order to own a more perfect foot ball team..."
October 18, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's your point?
October 18, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up, MCB, it was meant to bring a chuckle.
If you can't take a joke, you need to find a drier blog to troll.
AND DON'T BE ASHAMED OF THE "TROLL" LABEL, YOU SHOULD WEAR IT PROUDLY!
From the Urban dictionary;
"TROLL;
1a. Noun
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
I only wish right wing blogs would allow some of us to do the same "over there."
The only reason you can exercise your right to free speech here is because this type of blog allows you to continue. Those blogs more in keeping with your apparent ideology aren't nearly so democratic (with a small "d").
And in defense of my sarcasm, you seem quite willing to defend The Lump's "right" to own a football team, but reticent to admit his pernicious influence on our body politic. You are likely a Rush Cultist, as defined previously, who blindly and vociferously defends The Lump no matter how malignant he grows.
Considering that he has already metastasized throughout the Republican Party, and helped splinter them into irreconcilable factions, there's some good evidence that my derogatory allegorical "Lump" label is not inaccurate.
As long as cult consumers like you feed that Lump, it will continue to grow.
October 18, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not defending his actions. Have said many times he's a bozo but bozos should be allowed to own teams.
October 18, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Rush, did you hear that, MiddleClass Bill thinks you are a BOZO! What do you intend to do about it?
October 18, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying that for a while, guess you haven't been reading it.
October 18, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the definition of a "troll" - you fit into that definition quite nicely yourself. I think you post things that are deliberately provocative as well.
October 18, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Bill. Are you saying that anyone who has the money can buy any existing organization?
In this case you are asserting that the NFL itself has no right to prevent him from taking an ownership position. You are asserting that the employees of the team have no (free speech) right to object to his ownership. The city that houses the team has no right to reject an individual from ownership. The fans have no right to object? That's a load of crap, you know. They all have rights to object, and the NFL is looking at the danger of lowering the value of all other NFL teams if that piece of garbage is allowed to
In broader terms, you are asserting that anyone can buy any organization they wish, shut it down and sell off the assets. I remember when the Dallas Morning News did exactly that to the Dallas Times Herald, and the result was to eliminate all newspaper competition. The News quit reporting on city activities and investigating the city and county government and instead became nothing but a booster and propaganda outfit for the real estate developers.
You are saying that having the money in hand gives someone the right to destroy an organization and those whose livelihood depends on it. Would you say the same thing if a Communist drug dealer with a despicable reputation but a (purchased) Presidential Pardon from Bush were to buy the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute?
If that's what you are asserting, then you are asserting that the only value an organization has is what it sells for. It has NO social value at all. In which case I see no reason at all for the government to even permit it to incorporate.
October 18, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it doesn't give them the right to own a team. But they should be able to participate in a process where politics is not the major driver in the decision making process. And that's exactly what happened. People who don't like Rush for his outspoken and controversial statements somehow think that because he's a bozo on TV he shouldn't have an economic interest in a sports team.
October 18, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Le us not dwell on the staggeringly obvious when the merely obvious will do.
C
October 17, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually thought about this, if I get your drift.
I was just going to publish quotes.
ha. I cannot shut up, basically C. hahaha Besides the real point was that I hate Scarborough. ha
October 17, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Dd, tell us how you 'really' feel... lol, great title!
Well it's one tiny bit of satisfaction to see him denied his football team.
Wish our country had the same standards as the NFL!
October 17, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha. Well how do I really really feel about all this?
I HATE RUSH LIMBAUGH.
HAHAHAHA
October 17, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Limbaugh got kicked out because the players would leave the team if he was an owner. He admits he's an entertainer, but he has been entertaining the rabid misogynist racists for a long time with his "feminazis" and "mud people." I have a pretty think skin, and support freedom of speech, this guy (and Fox in the henhouse crew - sorry bwak) are way over the line.
October 17, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got that right Rowan. ha
He attacks every minority group you can think of besides the majority group (women).
Just a little taste of karma Rowan.
October 17, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have got to be kidding. There is no player that would honestly leave a team just because of Rush. It's all about $$$$ to the players. If Rush offers somebody $20mm to leave the Giants, and the Giants can only offer $15mm, then that player is going to Rush's team. Pure and simple.
October 17, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be silly.
Of course they'd leave. Many people leave jobs because they feel that the owners are corrupt or immoral. I did it myself.
For some decent people 15 million and a clear conscious is PLENTY
October 17, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like who? Name ONE player in the NFL who you think would take less money. That's a joke.
October 17, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You insist that it was the player's union who scrapped the deal. Yet, you then insist that no players would have a problem with his ownership of a team.
Pick one, Mr. Bill.
October 17, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no inconsistency there. It's easy for the Players Union to use it as a negotiating tactic even if they don't believe in it.
October 17, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know they don't - why?
October 18, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show me one who has exhibited "principles" over money.
October 18, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Tillman
October 18, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch! That one's going to leave a mark.
October 18, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Tillman took considerably less money.
October 18, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like who? Name ONE player in the NFL who you think would take less money. That's a joke.
October 17, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of 'em
Good grief, what is wrong with you? Tell me would you work for a guy that tortured kids because he paid you $150 more a week? That's what you're talking about here, and frankly, you totally disgust me.
There is such a thing as standing up for principles over money AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THAT HAVE NO SUCH COMPUNCTIONS ARE A POX, A SICKNESS, INFLICTED ON THE REST OF US.
Be gone. We've had enough of the likes of you and your kind. People stand up for their principles everyday. Bankers are a glaring exception, which is why they are UNIVERSALLY LOOKED DOWN ON.
It's EASIER for those making 7 figure salaries then for some of us, but you betcha they'll stand against that hatemonger.
They have their own reputations to think of. They are role models for kids, and if you don't think they take that seriously, I'd suggest you start spending time with a better class of human.
October 17, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget it it Bwak. No Class Bill judges everyone by the same low standards the he keeps. He cannot comprehend anyone having principles or ethics or self respect because he himself is totally berift of these things.
C
October 17, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Principles and ethics? Maybe for a priest but we are talking about football players. Show me ONE player that has chosen less money over some more principled reason. Show me an NFL that also has principles. I guess you are willing to forgive people like Ray Lewis, Michael Vick, Rae Carruth, Steve McNair, Donte Stallworth, etc. They all have such high principles.
October 17, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Tillman
October 18, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't work for someone who tortured kids, but Rush didn't torture anybody.
The VAST majority of players in the NFL, if not all of them, are in it for the money. They will take whoever pays them the most.
You say that's a poor reflection of me, but that's the truth.
They think about themselves first, and kids second. Stop kidding yourself that they are concerned about their "reputations". Players sign a contract, make millions of dollars and pray they don't get hurt before the contract runs out.
I'd suggest you actually try to speak with an NFL player before pretending that you know better.
October 17, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Tillman
October 18, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly apples-to-apples but it is a good example.
Pat Tillman opted out of a football career to fight in Iraq. He switched career for something he cared about greatly.
So we now have one football player who decided that money isn't everything. But I still stand by my opinion that the vast majority of players will go wherever the money is the greatest.
October 18, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You demanded ONE EXAMPLE; ONE NAME. And now that's not enough.
You asked about WalMart. Yes, it's true. Rush could buy WalMart because the workers there have no clout. If they wanted him as an owner, or if they didn't it would be irrelevant. The NFL players and their union have far more power than 90% of other workers. So what is your point?
Do you want all workers to have no voice?
I think Rush should buy WalMart. That would be perfect.
October 18, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've proved me wrong. I did ask for one example, and I admit that Pat Tillman is one example of someone who saw something more important than money.
My mistake was just asking for one example. Because one example doesn't mean that the NFL is overall a collection of boy scouts. Far from it. Unless you want to defend Vick, Carruthers and all the others who've committed crimes.
I have no idea what your talking about regarding WalMart - I don't remember saying anything about WalMart. So I can't respond to that point.
PS - Thanks for not calling me an asshole.
October 18, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. I thought you were gonna say "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Liar and So is His Mother and The Dead Horse She Rode In On."
But, Joe Scarborough werks, too.
October 17, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahahha. Now I cant stop. hahahahah
Wait aminute, I hereby render unto you the Knightly Line of the Day Award for this here TPMCafe Site given to all of you from all of me.
October 17, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seldom agree with MCB's posts, but this time I must defend him. Time for a reality check, here. I'm an idealist and "have" put my jobs on the line based on my ideals. In my experiences, very few individuals place morals over greed. I say,"Follow the money," and you will stay on course 99% of the time. Bless all of you who are pure enough to place decency over greed...You are rare!
October 17, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh yeah, follow the money Chuck just about every time. Is one of the players actually going to turn down a ten year contract for a hundred million bucks or more for principle? Probably not. But what if the investors think the threat might end up costing more in contract negotiations?
There are a lot of variables here.
NO THEY ALL WANT THE BIG MONEY AND THIS COUNTRY HAS TO STOP THE BIG MONEY. A 90% tax rate might have an effect on that.