Check out some similar questions!

ETWolverine · Oct 14, 2009, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Speech I looked couldn't find anything about him going to rehab. You don't lose part of your hearing taking a little bit of Oxy. You have to be taking a lot. So if he was taking a lot he couldn't just stop taking them or he would be going through withdrawal. I never listened to Rush so did he have like a month of shows where he was throwing up on the air?

Ummm... Spit, where did you get the idea that he lost his hearing because of Oxycontin use? He lost his hearing in a three-month period back in 2001 due to AIED. He wears a cochlear implant.

Limbaugh learning to listen again: Rush Limbaugh lost most of his hearing because of a rare disease, but the conservative icon says he has not lost his ability to communicate with his audience | Insight on the News Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

As far as your statement that he is a "current drug user", Limbaugh has also been undergoing random drug testing since his agreement with the Palm Beach Prosecutor's office in 2006 to drop the investigation, and has been clean since then. He also went through 5 weeks of drug rehab in 2003, when the investigation first started.

Rush Limbaugh Arrested On Drug Charges - CBS News

Where are you getting your information?

Elliot

speechlesstx · Oct 14, 2009, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Yes he has a right to put a bid in. Just like the NFL owners have a right to deny that bid.

But since when did the NFL approve character assassination and attempts to destroy someone's chances before they even get a hearing?

tomder55 · Oct 14, 2009, 10:19 AM

NFL does not enjoy the anti-trust exemptions that MLB has .They have limitted ones that allow them to screw cities like Jacksonville with blackout rules ,but when they tried to deny Al Davis the right to move to LA he sued them and they lost anti-trust suits against the USFL (the jury reward was a mockery of the verdict) . They have lost every single law suit against them either by startup leagues ,or by rogue owners like Al Davis.

Restraint of trade mainly affects post-termination restrictive covenants in employment contracts, and restrictions on competition in contracts for the sale of businesses.

Restraint of trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW ;Excon is right ;buying the Rams is a losing proposition. But that should be between the Rams and the purchasing group .

ETWolverine · Oct 14, 2009, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Yes he has a right to put a bid in. Just like the NFL owners have a right to deny that bid.

But they have ACCEPTED Fergie's bid... and are trying to deny Rush's.

Are you OK with that double-standard?

Elliot

excon · Oct 14, 2009, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Are you OK with that double-standard?

Hello again, Elliot:

What double standard? Are you saying that business doesn't have the right to decide who they do business with?? Other than the standards set by law, a business can have as many double standards as they wish... No??

You're not saying, are you, that because I happened to do business with a fellow named Charlie, that I have to do business with everybody named Charlie??

Only a flaming LIBERAL would think like that.

excon

spitvenom · Oct 14, 2009, 10:45 AM

Explain how it is a double standard. What bigoted thing did Fergie say? Now if you are trying to say it is because she sings about smut well the NFL has no problem with smut. You can go to your favorite teams website and buy a calender of their cheerleaders in their underwear. It is not about drugs because no one in the NFL is saying it is about drugs. It is all about what he said about McNabb. So what bigoted thing did Fergie say?

I know my cousin has hearing problems because of the painkillers he abused. Amazing how a drug abuser loses his hearing to a "rare" disorder. Not the painkillers he abused from 96 to 03. Oh and if you think you can't beat a drug test you are mistaken ET.

tomder55 · Oct 14, 2009, 10:47 AM

By the way ;another SCOTUS case to watch this term is American Needle v. National Football League . Again the NFL is under fire for anti-trust actions.

speechlesstx · Oct 14, 2009, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Explain how it is a double standard.

Double standard or not, prejudging this potential owner is not what the NFL represents itself to be.

My concern though is we have a White House, Democrats everywhere, leftist bloggers, Hollywood wackos and a number of people here that consistently slam Fox News for their bias and nobody seems to give a sh*t when the rest of the media engages in blatant character assassination based on lies and fabricated quotes.

The thread is about the double standard in the media and among Fox news bashers. Rush just happens to be the one in their sights this time.

spitvenom · Oct 14, 2009, 11:17 AM

Except the NFL is not prejudging Rush. The are going off a bigoted remark Rush made on ESPN about one of the Leagues good guys. Kudos to the NFL for standing up to Rush.

ETWolverine · Oct 14, 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

What double standard? Are you saying that business doesn't have the right to decide who they do business with??? Other than the standards set by law, a business can have as many double standards as they wish... No???

You're not saying, are you, that because I happened to do business with a fellow named Charlie, that I have to do business with everybody named Charlie????

Only a flaming LIBERAL would think like that.

excon

Oh, they have the right to try to ban Rush, I guess. I guess everyone has the right to have a double standard. I'm just asking you to RECOGNIZE IT and CALL IT when you see it.

No, you don't have to do business with anyone named charlie just because you once did business with a guy named charlie.

But if you go around claiming that the REASON you aren't doing business with someone is BECAUSE they are named charlie, and then you do business with SOMEONE ELSE named charlie, you can expect people are going to call you a hypocrite.

If you go around claiming that the reason that you don't want Rush as an owner of an NFL team is because he is a racist, a drug user and says disgusting things on the air, and then you approve someone else who has done the Same THINGS, you better believe that someone's going to call you a hypocrite for it.

Though the truth is that the NFL owners really DON'T have the right to ban him. MBL owners do because of the anti-trust laws they operate (or are exempted) from. But the NFL owners operate under a different set of rules. I don't think that they can legally ban Rush if Chip Rosenblum, Lucia Rodriguez and Stan Kroenke decide to sell to him and the rest of his consortium. I don't think that the other owners have the right to interfere in a private transaction between private individuals for sale of an asset. That would be a violation of the anti-trust laws.

Elliot

spitvenom · Oct 14, 2009, 12:23 PM

ET the thing is 24 out of the 32 owners have to approve of the sale. If they don't then NONE of those people are owning the Rams. Plus I don't think Rush will be all that happy about how the NFL shares the wealth.

Football 101: Revenue Sharing and The Salary Cap

speechlesstx · Oct 14, 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Except the NFL is not prejudging Rush. The are going off a bigoted remark Rush made on ESPN about one of the Leagues good guys. Kudos to the NFL for standing up to Rush.

That's just it, Spit, where's the bigotry? Where's the racism? The McNabb remark was not racist. Rush is not racist. He would not have a black man as his right hand man every day on the air, frequently use a black man as guest host and consider it an honor to interview to Tony Dungy if he were racist. It's all manufactured outrage.

Even if it were racist, I thought he NFL allowed people a chance to redeem themselves, i.e. Michael Vick, Ray Lewis, Pacman, Shawne Merriman and on and on and on. NBC has a guy on their Sunday Night Football broadcasts that says far more outrageous things on a daily basis by the name of Keith Olbermann, and believe it or not (at least until Obama signs the hate crimes bill this week) we have freedom of speech in this country.

spitvenom · Oct 14, 2009, 12:53 PM

Yes we do have freedom of speech. But you do not have freedom of speech in the NFL. Just like we do not have freedom of speech at our jobs or even on AMHD.com I have had comments removed from this site for saying something negative about Catholics. You know how it works

Saying McNabb is not a good player and the only reason why people want to make him look like a good player is because he is black is bigoted. The NFL does not control who NBC puts on their pregame show.

Vick, Pacman, Merriman, and Olberman are not trying to own a NFL team. The League holds the owners to a different standard. Hence the vetting process and needing to get 24 of the owners votes.

speechlesstx · Oct 14, 2009, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Yes we do have freedom of speech. But you do not have freedom of speech in the NFL.

Rush is not in the NFL.

speechlesstx · Oct 14, 2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

ET the thing is 24 out of the 32 owners have to approve of the sale. If they don't then NONE of those people are owning the Rams. Plus I don't think Rush will be all that happy about how the NFL shares the wealth.

Football 101: Revenue Sharing and The Salary Cap

Jerry Jones found a way around that remember?

spitvenom · Oct 14, 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Rush is not in the NFL.

Right he is not in the NFL but he wants to be. And if never said anything about one of their good guys we would not be having this conversation.

spitvenom · Oct 14, 2009, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Jerry Jones found a way around that remember?

Actually I don't.

speechlesstx · Oct 14, 2009, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by spitvenom

Right he is not in the NFL but he wants to be. And if never said anything about one of their good guys we would not be having this conversation.

Nevertheless, he deserves the chance to speak for himself on these matters and not be derailed by a bunch of media hacks preemptively.

Actually I don't.

Sorry, it all started when he signed an exclusive sponsorship agreement with Pepsi for Texas Stadium when Coke had a league-wide agreement. And by the way, most NFL owners are big time Republican types from what I understand so I bet Rush gets a hearing anyway if he continues to pursue this. In the meantime, those media hacks better do as tom said and get their lawyers ready.

tomder55 · Oct 14, 2009, 02:46 PM

Does anyone know who else is in the Checketts group ? Unconfirmed report is the Rush is being dropped from the group . Unconfirmed report is that convicted insider trader George Soros is in the group .

spitvenom · Oct 15, 2009, 06:05 AM

Yup Rush has been dropped from the group. The sad thing about it is the NFL commissioner came out the other day and basically said your comments about McNabb offended the NFL and we don't want you in the league. And Rush's reaction, That is not the reason I was dropped. It is the left and the democratic party trying to kill conservatism. He is insane. And if you believe him then you are also insane.