I don't care if Sharpton and Jackson are retards, they are right on the money when Rush makes comments about bloods and crips in relation to black NFL players. Fox keeps on trying to minimize the existence of white racists and focuses on black racists. "Oh we don't hav any racists anymore" oh yes you do and we don't blame you for their acts....unless you try to hide it and be an accomplice.
He's going to an extreme, but from personal experience (and I'm honestly not trying to sound sexist in any way except forthright truthiness) women do indeed have a tendency not to take the job as seriously as a man, save one exception.
Ugly women. Again, I'm not a chauvinist, but based on my personal experience, attractive women DO NOT like to work. At all. He may be right in the sense that attractive women use their sexuality to get ahead.
I'm not scoffing, if I had tits, I'd use them too.
Well, that's one person's personal experience. My experiences have been different in many ways. I don't think there is anything that shows that women produce less economic output than men, at least that I know of.
But some objective facts are that more women go to college than men yet they're still paid less than men for the same jobs on average, even if they have a college degree and their male coworkers don't.
Even you admitted that there is 2-3 years off at most. Thats still 2-3 out of 30. As much as 10%.
Furthermore, you're not accounting for splash damage. Say you have a garage of dirty guys. If you hire a woman, you then have to worry about the loss of productivity when complaints are filed because of the sports illustrated swimsuit calendar.
Women do have less industrial output than men, but I'm not saying that women should be kicked out of the workplace. I'm saying it justifies pay scales.
Its the fact that at any given job you are more likely to have males who will work there for life that you are with females.
Every job I've worked at has had a male foreman that averaged 5 years of employment for the same company. Every woman at every company had been there for less than two.
Women are many orders of magnitude better at raising children, and I applaud them for that.
Men are just more versatile when it comes to industry.
No, I don't, but I've also only ever heard of two female diesel mechanics in a MOVIE, coupled with the fact that men are, as a generalized fact, stronger, and more neurologically geared toward the Hunter/competition mindset of business in general.
I have never met a female contractor, waste management specialist, or commercial welder. I understand that this is an anecdotal generalization, but I don't feel I need statistics to show that men comprise the majority of these jobs.
Being stronger doesn't mean you produce more economic output or that the value of what you produce is necessarily high. That's why janitors are paid less than white-collar workers even though janitors are usually physically stronger and sometimes work longer hours.
And you are still going back to personal anecdotes. That's a logical fallacy. I want some actual economic data.
I understand the comparison between white collar workers and labor workers, but what we're talking about is labor here.
I'm not making a logical fallacy by showing my own experiences, as long as i label them anecdotal (Which i did), and not using them as a national figure.
You're making your own logical fallacy by asking me for a source for statistics which I have not cited, while not providing any for the exact numbers which you have cited.
I'm simply saying I can understand their decision.
I'm talking mostly blue collar jobs, because I don't believe that there is any kind of pay gap between sexes in white collar jobs. If you have contradicting evidence, please present it.
I'm also not talking about Female CEOs either, because you'll have a tough time drawing the same pay scale comparison between them and their male counterparts. Female white collar workers make the same as their counterparts.
If you have conflicting statistics, I'd like to see them.
What I'm saying is that in general, men are more equipped to the war-like atmosphere of the business world, do not give birth, don't file sexual harassment claims, and are thus less of a risk to hire.
A college degree doesn't count for much if the person without a degree is better at the job, and an employer doesn't have to worry about maternity leave, Sexual harassment, or Human Resources.
The point is that men are relatively low maintenance when it comes to work.
Sexual harassment was not even heard of before women entered the workplace.
I don't know if anyone's made a study as far as gross economic output compared between the sexes, yet between adult and high school jobs, I have noticed the serious amount of complications that arise when women enter a workplace primarily composed of men.
When I was a cook at Red Robin, I could slap the ass of any male worker, and while most consider that dirtier than slapping a woman's ass (Considering that I'm strait), I would have gotten fired if I even looked at a women bending over.
Personal anecdotes don't really count as evidence of national trends. That's like saying because one white guy I know gets others to do his work for him at his job that most white male employees are like that.
While part of the problem is that women are more likely to chose lower-paying professions there is not much of an explanation of the difference in wages where physical strength has little to no bearing on productivity (such as white-collar fields). I just finish researching it and I haven't found any resources showing a significant difference in productivity by gender in non-physical jobs.
I'm not talking about physical strength, nor did I ever. I used "Stronger" to draw a parallel to the fact that men are simply more geared to a male dominated environment.
Its like talking about female quaterbacks. They don't do the dirty work, and usually just make a pass or two.
Again, I'm not saying that women produce less by themselves, its the fact that their simple presence creates complications. The less productivity refers to Maternity leave, and "Splash damage".
Most women are not pregnant most of the time. Women are usually pregnant only a few months to a couple of years out of their entire careers. That is no justification for lower pay.
And the concept of women as minority was invented by men. That was Richard Nixon who determined women are a "minority".
I love how you whine about the alleged persecution of rich white capitalists but think everyone else being paid less than white males for the same jobs is perfectly fine.
Now, I'm not defending licentious, as he's obviously a massive prick proudly marching into a patriarchal 17th century, but he is crudely right on some aspects. Women are more of a risk to hire, plane and simple. Maternity leave, more intricate biological needs, not to mention the fact that Sexual Harassment was literally not an issue until women entered the workplace.
Men are expected to work 30+ years and provide for a family. Women are not.
I can kind of understand where he and you are coming from on that issue but most women don't spend a significant fraction of their working lives off work. They miss maybe 2 to 3 years at most (many less than that). Some women don't even have kids until their 30s and 40s after they've built a career.
Another issue is that I don't think maternity leave drives down their wages as much in other industrialized countries in the world.
Its not about driving down wages, it's the fact that they will spend at least a year collecting money from the company which they are not contributing to.
Hiring a young woman is simply taking a risk of negative productivity. 1 year is enough for an economic collapse as we've seen.
I'm not saying all women are a risk, just young ones. There's a reason you'll now see a slew of 60 year old women working at McDonalds.
They don't have to worry about maternity leave and re-hiring.
So how does that justify paying them 20% less for their entire career because some spend up to a year off total out their entire career? And most women don't file reports complaining about their workplace either. You're operating on vastly generalizing stereotypes.
It justifies it because of a likely 10% less output, combined with the complications arising from putting them in a situation which is not only male dominated, it is derived from purely paternalistic competitive attitudes.
Its not just less productivity for the person, its less productivity for the group.
Its not how many women actually file complaints, its that the likelihood of a man filing the same complaint is many orders of magnitude lower.
I said 2-3 years max. Most women aren't off work that much time. Even a 10% decrease in output doesn't justify paying 20% less.
And your logic is flawed because by your logic ALL employees should be paid less almost all people in the labor market are unemployed at some point and not contributing anything to the economy during that period. Companies take a risk hiring anyone because you never know when when they will leave and you will have to replace them.
Yes. I accounted for a 10% max, with "Splash damage" (more risk).
You're using your 20% figure as an average. Is it max or average? And since we're in the business of calling out statistics, may I see your 20% figure and it's source?
No, my logic is not flawed, because you're not taking into account the fact that there is no such thing as Paternity leave.
The fact still remains that it is less risky than hiring a man.
I looked again and the difference in income between males and females ranges from 6% to 17%. I'm well aware there is no such thing as paternity leave but:
1) Most women spend less than 18 months on maternity leave.
2) By your logic all employees should be paid less because all companies take a risk by hiring employees where there is no guarantee they will be in employ of that company for life.
1) 18 months is still 18 months. Thats 5 Fiscal Quaters, and some change.
2) Women pay less in car insurance than men. Is this sexist? Or is it simply risk management? Women present MORE of a risk than men do, when hiring them.
Whats your source for 6-17%?
Also, have you considered pairing that number up with my 10% average earlier?
1) Sure but the average American worker spends that much time or more off of work if you count all their unemployed time throughout their career(s). By your logic everyone should be paid less since everyone is a risk.
2) Well in the case of blue-collar work I can understand why women are paid less in some jobs in that field. Same with car insurance because young men statistically get into more accidents than women.
1) Yes, everyone is at SOME kind of risk, which is why you don't start paying them their pay cap. My point is that SOME are more risky than others, hence the gap.
2) Then you should surely understand the difference between hiring a man who has a statistically higher liklihood of working for 30 years than a woman who doesn't. If they aren't likely to be a lifer, then why pay them the same wage as someone who is more likely to be?
Actually men are more likely to become frictionally unemployed than women, which more or less evens out their chances with women of periods of not working. They're also less likely to have college degrees. Men are also more likely to still receive jobless benefits when they're not working than women (if the woman is not working but not pregnant).
I think you kind of generalized the sexual harassment thing and exaggerated the amount of leave time most women take a bit but I can see where you're coming from on the leave issue and physical productivity in blue collar professions.
Many things weren't a national issue prior to the 1940s-1980s because American society was a much more WASP male-dominated society and social inequality due to discrimination was more seen as "oh well" back then.
Yes, it was much more WASP dominated, but my point about the workplace is that it is as much of a male environment as Football.
I find that trying to make men and women capable of playing "Fairly" against eachother at football to be laughable.
However my point about sexual harassment is that it doesn't seem to be a problem amongst guys. I'm not making an excuse for sexual harassment, I'm just saying that Risk Managers have to think about that when hiring someone.
I don't know how you say that. The average person doesn't work agriculture or heavy industry anymore in the US. In white collar jobs and service sector jobs there is no advantage to being a male in most cases.
Men are far less likely to report sexual harassment than women in all walks of life because of social reasons. Men are afraid of being seen as "weak" for doing so where women don't necessarily face that stigma.
Claiming a sexial harassment suit, and simply complaining about sexual innuendo are two different things. I got fired from a pizza joint when I was 17 because of "sexual harassment".
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the real scenario was that the accuser was treated like the sexiest little thing by every guy there except me (who made her work for her pay), at which point she made up sex harassment stories, and told them to the manager, whom she was fucking.
That's an example of why women claim sexual harassment more than the reverse:
1) Women are more likely to be believed when doing so.
2) Most heterosexual men, myself included, don't feel victimized when they are hit on by women. Even if they are pursued somewhat aggressively. Some women do feel victimized by sexual comments and ogling eyes.
Yes, the likelihood of such events are factored into the risk. I'm not saying women are wrong to feel that way, I'm saying that that places all of them at a higher risk. The Risk is the importance.
There don't even have to be sexual harassment cases. A woman can complain about a man having a swimsuit pinup on the wall of his private cubical, and he has to take it down, but the same complaints arn't reversed.
Would you happen to know the percentage of sexual harassment complaints are Male Male?
So if a woman is 80% more likely to file a complaint, then shouldn't that be factored into (if not outright hiring) their pay if they are being integrated into a primarily-male workforce?
And conversely, what would be the issue in hiring a strait male at a primarily female establishment, such as a salon, or nail joint?
Not really when the likelihood of it happening is low. Men are more likely to die at a young age than women. Should workplaces factor that into salaries?
Indeed employers have to think about things like sexual harassment filings by employees but sexual harassment reports are so relatively rare from both women and men in the workplace that it's not really a major concern. Certainly not enough that it would warrant lowering pay.
I also agree that some people are statistically more of a risk than others on some issues. Such as you males being more a risk when it comes to car insurance and women being more of risk when it comes to companies paying for certain leaves such as maternity.
Its going to take me a while to read through these reports, but the slight skimming I've dont so far has reinforced my position.
I'd like to say I'd get back to you and continue on this subject, but it's way past my bedtime as is, and I dont find the subject intereting enough to continue on at a later date.
That being said, my opinion hasn't really changed, but I do thank you for the statistical information, and hope that you will take my assertions into account, as I have yours.
I never said they have lower average productivity in non-physical white collar jobs, primarily because by the time they have worked up to the white collar job, they have proven to be less of a risk than their female counterparts.
Again, this argument centers around blue collar jobs. If you want to shout out any statistics regarding white collar women that I havent come across in these links, I'd like to hear them.
We don't seem to be arguing that white collar women get paid less.
Actually males are more likely to become unemployed from white collar jobs. Males are also more likely to collect jobless benefits while unemployed. This is covered in the links that I gave you.
The links I gave you also showed that women in white collar jobs are still paid less than men in the same jobs.
I'll have to look at that, but even then, I could still understand the Risk.
A man who has driven flawlessly for 40 years will still pay more in insurance than a women of the same record. He's simply cursed by gender and industry, as we all are.
Also, Drawing a comparison between unemployment, and sex-based hiring is unfair, because you're still leaving out one part that drastically separates the sexes: Maternity leave. There is no such thing as paternity leave.
I tried to get you to look at the converse of that kind of decision making by bringing up how you can receive a medical discharge for pregnancy in the military but you ignored it.
Men can't get pregnant. Is that sexist, or just realistic?
Leave is leave. When you're gone company output is hurt either way so it doesn't really matter WHY you're gone because the economic effects are still the same.
It's like quibbling about whether dying of a heart attack or dying of a stroke has more effect on the economy.
Yes leave is leave. However, as an employer you must apply risk management to any hiring scenario. Women pay less than men for car insurance, because they are at LESS RISK. Is that sexist? Or is it realistic?
The same sentiment applies to men as well. If you have a man who is prone to taking any kind of leave, then he is less likely to be hired.
I come down in the middle of the both of you. If women do the same jobs, then yes they should be paid the same, but the trouble is that there is more risk when hiring a woman because of the liklihood that they will get married, have kids, and require maternity leave. Maternity leave means the same expendiature for zero productivity. Ergo hiring a woman is a risk.
You can say it's sexist, but so is the military guideline that says Pregnancy is acceptable for discharge. Men cant get pregnant.
Being anti-racist is racism? WTF? I guess MLK was the biggest racist who ever lived then. Race should not matter but the fact is that minorities are discriminated against. If people have "ethnic-sounding names" or voices they are far less likely to be hired. This is a confirmed fact.
But you only care about discrimination when it happens to white people.
You're right, quotas are illegal and that's why they aren't being used.
"the racial makeup of employees is irrelevant"
It's relevant because people are being denied employment because of their skin color. A black man with a Bachelor's Degree has the same chances of being hired as white man with a high school diploma and a felony. Studies have shown that if you have an "ethnic-sounding name" or voice you're far less likely to be called back for an interview.
Affirmative Action. It's applied to less than 90,000 jobs a year in the US job market of over 95,000,000 jobs. While I agree it's a ham-handed policy there is really nothing else being done to fix discrimination in job hiring.
As a side not all AA hires still have to meet the job requirements.
That's not racist because it's an insult against Rush Limbaugh. Not a race. Rush's insults have been towards entire groups of people.
"We are a more racist nation"
No, I think White Nationalist douches like you are just coming out of the closet now for obvious reasons (first nonwhite guy in office in the US). It's funny that a White Nationalist is calling other people "racist".
I don't think any kind of racism is funny but I think it's funny for you to treat Rush Dumbaugh as a race.
Sotomayor's comment was in the same vein that Alito's was. That someone from the background of a disadvantaged group would be more sympathetic than someone who isn't. Simple as that. But I digress because Sotomayor isn't trying to buy an NFL team.
His comment about McNabb was silly because it isn't based in reality. It also implied that McNabb and all black quarterbacks are less talented than white quarterbacks.
No one said anything about slavery but you. Perhaps you need to get over it and get over the fact that America is a multicultural nation and that is not going to change. The 1940s/50s are dead and aren't coming back. Get that chip on your shoulder towards nonwhite people and women off.
I should also inform you that most of the NFL owners are Republicans.
I don't know the hell you brought Justice Sotomayor into this. You seem to have a lot of pent up issues. Sotomayor said that she would hope a wise Latina immigrant would be more sympathetic towards poor people than a rich white male. Justice Alito made a similar comment when he said whenever he seems immigrant families in his court he can sympathize being from an immigrant family himself.
Those are NBA teams, dumbass. And there is only one rapper who PARTIALLY owns an NBA team as far as I'm aware. All of the NFL owner are white.
Rush was rejected because he's a bad investment. He would cause discord among the teams as many players are not willing to play for a team he owns and his extremist political views and racist and sexist comments could possibly cause boycotts of the NFL by people offended.
Then why have no other rich black men bought an NFL team yet? It's not like there are no rich black people in the US.
"black anti white racism any longer"
Okay Mr. White Kwame Toure. It's time for the black man to stop keeping the white man down! Lol.
Black people had nothing to do with Rush losing his bid. He was rejected by the NFL owners themselves. Last I checked they are some of "successful white capitalists" you idolize so much.
Telling a black woman to "take the bone out of [her] nose" is not racist? That's like saying it's not racist to tell a white person to stop molesting their sister (the racist stereotype that all whites are inbreeding hicks) or get some sun. It's funny the same people who never hesitate to call a black person a "racist", even in cases where it isn't racism, will defend white racists to the end.
Exactly, it's a team. If Rush was an owner he would continually draw negative attention to the team with his racist comments and very divisive political views.
Lol @ you playing the race card. There are NO black owners of the NFL so your comment is silly. Rush was rejected by a bunch of successful white capitalists for his own history of comments. Rush ruined Rush's chances. Had he recanted his comments and apologized and vowed to stop in the future he might have had a chance. But he didn't.
The NFL is already owned by them. They don't have to let him join their ownership club. This is a lot different than trying to buy an unowned company.
"Racism" of the NFL? He's a rich conservative white man who was rejected by a bunch of other rich conservative white men. They won't let him into their club because of his racist comments and extreme political antics. In their eyes he's a bad investment. They don't want that kind of negative attention constantly coming to the league.
That's capitalism for you. You'd think right-wingers would understand this since this is the logic they use to argue against labor unions (even though unions are protected by the 1st Amendment), wage raises and collective bargaining.
Newsflash: It's not a RIGHT to become part of a group that owns a business. The NFL is not unowned so he doesn't have the "right" to buy it. He has no more right to become an NFL owner than he has the right to force a country club to let him join.
the rushie Great Depression neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled ditto heads .. the manson i mean meocon family are birthers & racists ... take football's grand dragon rushbo ... the fbi, snopes, factcheck, state of hawaii all say the jedi knight obama was born in hawaii & CAN be president ... the grand dragon says ridiculous ... I'm best at determining who can be president ... is the answer no blacks ... you decide ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
yo slut...agree to a point. not at all, 'years ago. and i dont. waste my time listening to hate mongors anyway. you are missing the point!!
HIS PARTNERS DROPPED HIM!! whether Goodell, or contacts made to NFL, espn, or whatever contributed to partner, Mr checkett....PARTNER SAID NO!!! obviously statement do have bearing. so, if i'm anti white... which is amusing, fairly well tanned tho. maybe thats itI ISPEAK UP AGAINST THESE HATERS. and if you agree with the remarks they make..have a good day.
the rushie Great Depression neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled ditto heads .. the manson i mean meocon family insist they are not racists ... take football's grand dragon rushbo ... swears he is not filled with discrimination & hate ... would a grand dragon ever admit it before the world ... but his best pals decided he's a liar & back stabbed him before anyone else could ... Rush Hudson Limbaugh - UMMM, UMMM, UMMM .. join the fox news sponsor boycott
yeah ok jackoff. what would anyone expect from a dildo ditto like you and an i.q. of 65. homphobe cock sucker. all you right wing hatin homophobes crack me up. you would die for my dick in your mouth. tea bagger for sure and a birther asshole! HE LOST! YOU LOST! MY SIDE WON! ME N HUNDREDS MADE CALLS N CONTACTS! N' WE GOT UR DONE!
And like the true Satan Worshiping liberal whining moron you are, and like all the rest of your ilk, you contradict your own retarded statement as in your own words. And you talk about IQ? Go back to watching Bill Maher you brainwashed dolt.
Yes there is a war, in heaven and on earth, your god will be cast out soon onto the earth, cant wait to be tossed in jail for 10 days for not bowing a knee to your jesus. Its what us low IQ scums are looking forward to. Oh by the way I dont bother with demonstrations against liberals like yourself, God said the wicked would be creating the one world system in these end times.
mr fucking brainiac prophecises. 10 days not enough. leave your head up your ass, so the rest of us can breath. coffee table time. its smarter than you.
lickem slut. dickweed...his [ex] partners dropped him. wanna force Limpballs on them? on mcnabb, he said black quarterbacks are over rated...he said NFL made excuese for black quarterbacks. YOU DONT TALK RACE IN NFL....if u dont like their policys. DONT WATCH EM. I'll be watchin all the games Sun/Mon. w/out his hogness limpbaugh!
let the capitalist do anything he wants! What a dickwipe!!
Only rush limbaugh fans could revel in the fact that 80% of Football coaches and management are Republican ONE WEEK, then the NEXT decry the organization for being "Infiltrated by liberals" just because Rush didn't get his Vinyard, and is now crying to Jezebel about it.
Rush, you didn't get your way because you're an asshole and the Rams are having money trouble as is. With you owning the team, you're going to lose out on a LOT of players, and at least half of your audience.
penusman and you have no right, being out in public. and surely no right to formulate sentences. Nor spell, or, for that matter, think in complete thoughts, unless you have Fix news on, while you mime as they bullshit n spew garbage.
it's numbskulls like thespartan18 that have enabled the socialist takeover of america.Yeah,go get your hod dog and soda and go watch the game you fucking idiot.
the reason rush got dummped is not because of "bias" or anything like that, the reason is: He is a controversial figure, he says controversial things on a daily basis, i mean its his shtick. The nfl didnt want that and dont need him for any reason, plain and simple
I'm talking about all of those bastards Olbermann, Limbaugh, Beck all those nut jobs. Stay away from my sports. The only reason I even accept Olbermann as an occasional sports caster is he never mentions politics when he does it. if he did even once I would say boot him. He still shouldnt own a team tho.
what about the fact that a black QB has never won the superbowl except for doug smith more than 20 years ago.Seems like u don't want to talk about dat.
I don't know why I said doug smith.I watched that game when they blew denver out of the stadium.Williams was brought in by gibbs a year before as backup but eventually found himself standing behind those hogs with a chance to grab some history and he did.
in all reality sharpton and jackson probably had little to nothing to do with limbaugh dropping out of the group. it had more to do with the nfl not wanting to bring that amount of controversy into the nfl. I heard something today that i hadnt thought about, if limbaugh did get any amount of ownership of a team it would only be a matter of time until he said something on his radio show controversial and reporters starting asking the players their opinions on it in the locker room after games.
You people that talk about Sharpton or Jackson, but don't see ANYTHING wrong with these PHONY CONSERVATIVE radio host like RUSH LIMBAUGH or GLENN BECK/(DICK), must have the IQ of STONE. You people are such HYPOCRITES and FOOLS! You have the nerve to talk about Sharpton or Jackson being RACE baiters. But these talk show host like RUSH LIMBAUGH and GLEN BECK and the others are the biggest RACE baiters and trouble makers around. I am White and I TRUST SHARPTON & JACKSON more than RUSH or BECK !
White or not... If you believe Sharpton & Jackson, then you are delusional, my friend! They do nothing but try and seek and destroy the lives of anyone whose opinion they do not agree with and then have the audacity to call themselves men of faith. The bible states forgivness and the constitution states freedom of speech. THEY are the hyocrites and you are the fool!
You are a dumbass........Sharpton and Jackson have made a career out of shaking down corporations threatening to stage an african american boycott of their products if they did not send money......they are thugs
You people that talk about Sharpton or Jackson, but don't see ANYTHING wrong with these PHONY CONSERVATIVE radio host like RUSH LIMBAUGH or GLENN BECK/(DICK), must have the IQ of STONE. You people are such HYPOCRITES and FOOLS! You have the nerve to talk about Sharpton or Jackson being RACE baiters. But these talk show host like RUSH LIMBAUGH and GLEN BECK and the others are the biggest RACE baiters and trouble makers around.
the rushie Great Depression neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled ditto heads .. the manson i mean meocon family define LIARS ... that's their main problem ... rushbo ... fox news ... they have a problem with honesty ... that's why 42% of the GOP still believe today that the jedi knight was born in kenya ... the world has no time for these buffoons ... the air waves are a public asset owned by the public ... get them off ... join the fox news boycott
The point is she has NO business using her position in Congress to further her own agenda when it comes to a person (Rush) and a topic (the NFL) that has absolutely nothing to do with her. If I were one of her voters and I found out she was using that time allowed not for discussing national security or healthcare or education or defense, but Rush Limbaugh & the NFL, I would be embarrased as hell to know she represents my state and that I voted for her.
Trust me people, this is going to work REALLY GOOD in Rush Limbaugh's favor. I don't think Rush really cared at all to own the Rams and I think he knew he never had a chance at all to begin with. I think he is preparing himself for the backlash that the NFL and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Sheila Jackson Lee are going to get. I think this whole thing was done to make them look like the jackasses they are and its going to make Rush's ratings go up and the NFL ratings go way down!
None, but I wish it was the same one that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton live in. Think about it, get the title "reverend" slapped to your name and get rich off of making the lives of other people hell because they don't agree with you.
Food for thought: Film Critic & Reverend....the only 2 jobs in the world anyone can do because all you have to do to prove you can do it is either watch a movie or read the bible.
Anybody who thinks this is suddenly going to win Rush Limbaugh fans and turn people against the NFL does NOT have any grip on reality. And I don't take Jackson or Sharpton any more seriously than I do Rush. The biggest difference between Rush and those other 2 is that they're much sillier.
Dog killers, wife beaters, suspected murderers, drug addicts are ok and and courted by the NFL and their owners but throw the Conservative under the bus. What a bunch of bullshit ! And Sharpton has the balls to say anything - what a sleeze ball !
How is it that assholes like Jackson and Sharpton are allowed to talk about anyone being "devisive?" Why doesn't the media pick up on that blatant double standard? Also, if Limbaugh was black, do you think the head of the players union would be asking players to speak out? What a shakedown!!!! People need to boycott NFL games.
what you saw with this whole situation was blacks banding together and preventing someone they didn't like from being involved in a business. If someone did that to a black guy, Jesse and Al would be screaming to everyone who would listen. I'm just wondering when white folks are going to wake up to this unfair bullshit.
of course, even though Jesse and Al are the biggest racists in the world, you never hear a peep out of the African americans in the US. Why is that? Afraid to be a sellout? That's why no one will ever take you seriously.
NeOsurf, being an ignorant racist moron like that fat greasy dumbass Rush Limbaugh, demonstrates why Rush Limbaugh isn't allowed to be in the mainstream. This anti-semitic racists like this moron NeOsurf are Limbaugh's true following. Mainstream people don't condone this kind of racism and anti-semitism. Bouncing Rush's greasy racist ass from consideration was the right thing to do. Yeaahhhh!!
isn't "allowed" to be in the mainstream? Then how is our racist president in the mainstream? How is Jesse? Or Al? Or Farrakhan? Or that worthless racist Skip Gates? I guess it must be the double standard.
you don't seem to be running your mouth about those two greasy hoods disguised as reverends shaking down business owners with frivilous law suits, etc. What's the matter? Afraid of being labeled an Uncle Tom? God's got a special place in hell for those two turds.
it is LEGAL to discriminate on all but a few things i.e. gender, race. Because those things you are born with. But If someone wants to discriminate against a conservative or a liberal then that is ok.. its called FREEDOM
Rush never claimed to be a victim?! Hahaha! This guy spurts as many woe-is-me lines as he does lies and fallacies! I love how he thinks people not liking him and holding him accountable for racist remarks is an issue of freedom. Isn't this the guy who talks about blacks as "big-eared people" who "live in little hut-villages"?
Sharpton and Jackson have taken the traditional negro line for years. When are negros going to become Americans and not N ....... s. I am sick of being called racist by a bunch of Racists.
How in the world can he sue ? The owners decide who can own a franchise and who can't. It's like McDonald's. Not just anyone can own one. What would he sue for ? The NFL knows that Limbaugh is TOXIC to it's image and THEY DON'T NEED HIM.
Why doesen't he want to buy a soccer franchise or a cricket team. how about a small division of the KKK. heard they have plenty of openings. What about building a tennis stadium ya know? Start of the art tennis and dont let black players or people in. Whites are the minority in this country we are here deal with it or go the fuck back to euro limbaugh.
This is the reason why the Nfl is the most lucrative business i the USA. They constantly make good decisions like keep this racist fat ass away from football.
those things that he said were bad, and i go both ways for him owning the rams. one, he would put his money into getting that team better. and then 2. blacks probly wouldnt want to play under him. now if he was really racist, why would he want to own an nfl team, where half the team is black/white. but i dont think he should own a team for the moment. btw, i fuckin hate jesse jackson, if anyones racist, its him, fuckin dumb shit
I wish some of these people on YOUTUBE that write who love RUSH LIMBAUGH, or who are CONSERVATIVE or say things about MINORITIES, I wish they would say these things to MY face. I really wish they would, because I would absolutely KICK their AS$ on the SPOT!!!! But like a lot of these CONSERVATIVES, they are only BIG and BAD on the internet.
Hey, I'm a conservative and I loathe and despise Rush Limbaugh. He absolutely does NOT speak for all of us. He puts us to complete and utter shame. Anyone who takes seriously anything Rush says has no heart or conscience.
Hey, smajdk and 6point67xtentoneg11 (if you are in fact two different people), there's something called a period. It's used to separate sentences. Try it. Once you've mastered basic grammar, we'll move on to logic. Maybe you can even start wearing big boy pants and leave the house without your safety helmet!
I don't care if Sharpton and Jackson are retards, they are right on the money when Rush makes comments about bloods and crips in relation to black NFL players. Fox keeps on trying to minimize the existence of white racists and focuses on black racists. "Oh we don't hav any racists anymore" oh yes you do and we don't blame you for their acts....unless you try to hide it and be an accomplice.
lozoft9 4 months ago
Hilarious, Limbaugh only wants a NFL franchise so black players can call him a "owner".
Nagelshube 7 months ago
Limbaugh just wants access to the painkillers.
AtlasShruggery 1 year ago
One thing is for sure if he became an owner all his players would be white.
GodChristLord 2 years ago
Not necessarily.
Even the late racist Nazi Cincinatti reds owner Marge Schott had black guys on her team. She just referred to them as her "million dollar n*****s."
ffairlane57 2 years ago
"females are lazy" "they use sex to keep their jobs"
Okay you are officially crazy. You obviously have issues. No wonder you listen to an idiot like Rush Limbaugh.
A86 2 years ago
He's going to an extreme, but from personal experience (and I'm honestly not trying to sound sexist in any way except forthright truthiness) women do indeed have a tendency not to take the job as seriously as a man, save one exception.
Ugly women. Again, I'm not a chauvinist, but based on my personal experience, attractive women DO NOT like to work. At all. He may be right in the sense that attractive women use their sexuality to get ahead.
I'm not scoffing, if I had tits, I'd use them too.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Well, that's one person's personal experience. My experiences have been different in many ways. I don't think there is anything that shows that women produce less economic output than men, at least that I know of.
But some objective facts are that more women go to college than men yet they're still paid less than men for the same jobs on average, even if they have a college degree and their male coworkers don't.
A86 2 years ago
Even you admitted that there is 2-3 years off at most. Thats still 2-3 out of 30. As much as 10%.
Furthermore, you're not accounting for splash damage. Say you have a garage of dirty guys. If you hire a woman, you then have to worry about the loss of productivity when complaints are filed because of the sports illustrated swimsuit calendar.
Women do have less industrial output than men, but I'm not saying that women should be kicked out of the workplace. I'm saying it justifies pay scales.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Its the fact that at any given job you are more likely to have males who will work there for life that you are with females.
Every job I've worked at has had a male foreman that averaged 5 years of employment for the same company. Every woman at every company had been there for less than two.
Women are many orders of magnitude better at raising children, and I applaud them for that.
Men are just more versatile when it comes to industry.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Do you have economic data which shows that women aren't as good at their jobs in general?
"Men are just more versatile when it comes to industry"
Link some real data which proves this please.
A86 2 years ago
No, I don't, but I've also only ever heard of two female diesel mechanics in a MOVIE, coupled with the fact that men are, as a generalized fact, stronger, and more neurologically geared toward the Hunter/competition mindset of business in general.
I have never met a female contractor, waste management specialist, or commercial welder. I understand that this is an anecdotal generalization, but I don't feel I need statistics to show that men comprise the majority of these jobs.
Men are stronger.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Being stronger doesn't mean you produce more economic output or that the value of what you produce is necessarily high. That's why janitors are paid less than white-collar workers even though janitors are usually physically stronger and sometimes work longer hours.
And you are still going back to personal anecdotes. That's a logical fallacy. I want some actual economic data.
A86 2 years ago
I understand the comparison between white collar workers and labor workers, but what we're talking about is labor here.
I'm not making a logical fallacy by showing my own experiences, as long as i label them anecdotal (Which i did), and not using them as a national figure.
You're making your own logical fallacy by asking me for a source for statistics which I have not cited, while not providing any for the exact numbers which you have cited.
I'm simply saying I can understand their decision.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
"but what we're talking about is labor here"
Oh, you're talking mostly about blue-collar labor based jobs?
A86 2 years ago
I'm talking mostly blue collar jobs, because I don't believe that there is any kind of pay gap between sexes in white collar jobs. If you have contradicting evidence, please present it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I'm also not talking about Female CEOs either, because you'll have a tough time drawing the same pay scale comparison between them and their male counterparts. Female white collar workers make the same as their counterparts.
If you have conflicting statistics, I'd like to see them.
What I'm saying is that in general, men are more equipped to the war-like atmosphere of the business world, do not give birth, don't file sexual harassment claims, and are thus less of a risk to hire.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
A college degree doesn't count for much if the person without a degree is better at the job, and an employer doesn't have to worry about maternity leave, Sexual harassment, or Human Resources.
The point is that men are relatively low maintenance when it comes to work.
Sexual harassment was not even heard of before women entered the workplace.
You must hold that to account at least...
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I don't know if anyone's made a study as far as gross economic output compared between the sexes, yet between adult and high school jobs, I have noticed the serious amount of complications that arise when women enter a workplace primarily composed of men.
When I was a cook at Red Robin, I could slap the ass of any male worker, and while most consider that dirtier than slapping a woman's ass (Considering that I'm strait), I would have gotten fired if I even looked at a women bending over.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Personal anecdotes don't really count as evidence of national trends. That's like saying because one white guy I know gets others to do his work for him at his job that most white male employees are like that.
A86 2 years ago
I'm not saying that my personal experiences prove my point, merely that they are personal experiences.
However, you simply cannot show me the converse of what you're asking.
If you can show me a link which proves an equal productivity among women, I will renounce my position.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
While part of the problem is that women are more likely to chose lower-paying professions there is not much of an explanation of the difference in wages where physical strength has little to no bearing on productivity (such as white-collar fields). I just finish researching it and I haven't found any resources showing a significant difference in productivity by gender in non-physical jobs.
A86 2 years ago
I'm not talking about physical strength, nor did I ever. I used "Stronger" to draw a parallel to the fact that men are simply more geared to a male dominated environment.
Its like talking about female quaterbacks. They don't do the dirty work, and usually just make a pass or two.
Again, I'm not saying that women produce less by themselves, its the fact that their simple presence creates complications. The less productivity refers to Maternity leave, and "Splash damage".
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Most women are not pregnant most of the time. Women are usually pregnant only a few months to a couple of years out of their entire careers. That is no justification for lower pay.
And the concept of women as minority was invented by men. That was Richard Nixon who determined women are a "minority".
A86 2 years ago
Minorities are indeed paid less than white males.
en (dot) wikipedia (dot) org / wiki / Male % E2 % 80 % 93female _ income _ disparity _ in _ the _ United _ States
"females are subservient to men"
Keep marching proudly into the 17th century. Factually prove that females produce less output in the workplace than males.
A86 2 years ago
I love how you whine about the alleged persecution of rich white capitalists but think everyone else being paid less than white males for the same jobs is perfectly fine.
You can take off that Klan hood any time now.
A86 2 years ago
Now, I'm not defending licentious, as he's obviously a massive prick proudly marching into a patriarchal 17th century, but he is crudely right on some aspects. Women are more of a risk to hire, plane and simple. Maternity leave, more intricate biological needs, not to mention the fact that Sexual Harassment was literally not an issue until women entered the workplace.
Men are expected to work 30+ years and provide for a family. Women are not.
Its just simple economics.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I can kind of understand where he and you are coming from on that issue but most women don't spend a significant fraction of their working lives off work. They miss maybe 2 to 3 years at most (many less than that). Some women don't even have kids until their 30s and 40s after they've built a career.
Another issue is that I don't think maternity leave drives down their wages as much in other industrialized countries in the world.
A86 2 years ago
Its not about driving down wages, it's the fact that they will spend at least a year collecting money from the company which they are not contributing to.
Hiring a young woman is simply taking a risk of negative productivity. 1 year is enough for an economic collapse as we've seen.
I'm not saying all women are a risk, just young ones. There's a reason you'll now see a slew of 60 year old women working at McDonalds.
They don't have to worry about maternity leave and re-hiring.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
So how does that justify paying them 20% less for their entire career because some spend up to a year off total out their entire career? And most women don't file reports complaining about their workplace either. You're operating on vastly generalizing stereotypes.
A86 2 years ago
It justifies it because of a likely 10% less output, combined with the complications arising from putting them in a situation which is not only male dominated, it is derived from purely paternalistic competitive attitudes.
Its not just less productivity for the person, its less productivity for the group.
Its not how many women actually file complaints, its that the likelihood of a man filing the same complaint is many orders of magnitude lower.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I said 2-3 years max. Most women aren't off work that much time. Even a 10% decrease in output doesn't justify paying 20% less.
And your logic is flawed because by your logic ALL employees should be paid less almost all people in the labor market are unemployed at some point and not contributing anything to the economy during that period. Companies take a risk hiring anyone because you never know when when they will leave and you will have to replace them.
A86 2 years ago
Yes. I accounted for a 10% max, with "Splash damage" (more risk).
You're using your 20% figure as an average. Is it max or average? And since we're in the business of calling out statistics, may I see your 20% figure and it's source?
No, my logic is not flawed, because you're not taking into account the fact that there is no such thing as Paternity leave.
The fact still remains that it is less risky than hiring a man.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I looked again and the difference in income between males and females ranges from 6% to 17%. I'm well aware there is no such thing as paternity leave but:
1) Most women spend less than 18 months on maternity leave.
2) By your logic all employees should be paid less because all companies take a risk by hiring employees where there is no guarantee they will be in employ of that company for life.
A86 2 years ago
1) 18 months is still 18 months. Thats 5 Fiscal Quaters, and some change.
2) Women pay less in car insurance than men. Is this sexist? Or is it simply risk management? Women present MORE of a risk than men do, when hiring them.
Whats your source for 6-17%?
Also, have you considered pairing that number up with my 10% average earlier?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
1) Sure but the average American worker spends that much time or more off of work if you count all their unemployed time throughout their career(s). By your logic everyone should be paid less since everyone is a risk.
2) Well in the case of blue-collar work I can understand why women are paid less in some jobs in that field. Same with car insurance because young men statistically get into more accidents than women.
A86 2 years ago
1) Yes, everyone is at SOME kind of risk, which is why you don't start paying them their pay cap. My point is that SOME are more risky than others, hence the gap.
2) Then you should surely understand the difference between hiring a man who has a statistically higher liklihood of working for 30 years than a woman who doesn't. If they aren't likely to be a lifer, then why pay them the same wage as someone who is more likely to be?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Actually men are more likely to become frictionally unemployed than women, which more or less evens out their chances with women of periods of not working. They're also less likely to have college degrees. Men are also more likely to still receive jobless benefits when they're not working than women (if the woman is not working but not pregnant).
A86 2 years ago
I cant comment further on this until I look at your statistics in depth.
Regardless, I;d like to know what you think about my Spash Damage assertion, as you haven't really addressed it.
Sexual Harassment, Human Resources, etc.
These things were not an issue before women entered the industrialized workforce.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I think you kind of generalized the sexual harassment thing and exaggerated the amount of leave time most women take a bit but I can see where you're coming from on the leave issue and physical productivity in blue collar professions.
Many things weren't a national issue prior to the 1940s-1980s because American society was a much more WASP male-dominated society and social inequality due to discrimination was more seen as "oh well" back then.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, it was much more WASP dominated, but my point about the workplace is that it is as much of a male environment as Football.
I find that trying to make men and women capable of playing "Fairly" against eachother at football to be laughable.
However my point about sexual harassment is that it doesn't seem to be a problem amongst guys. I'm not making an excuse for sexual harassment, I'm just saying that Risk Managers have to think about that when hiring someone.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
I don't know how you say that. The average person doesn't work agriculture or heavy industry anymore in the US. In white collar jobs and service sector jobs there is no advantage to being a male in most cases.
Men are far less likely to report sexual harassment than women in all walks of life because of social reasons. Men are afraid of being seen as "weak" for doing so where women don't necessarily face that stigma.
A86 2 years ago
I say that because sexual harassment, which does exist, is less likely to occur among men in the workforce.
I'm not saying sexual harassment is right, it just is what it is. Something you have to account for the risk of occurring.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
That's true but it's rare in general. I don't even think 0.1% of all employees claim sexual harassment.
A86 2 years ago
Claiming a sexial harassment suit, and simply complaining about sexual innuendo are two different things. I got fired from a pizza joint when I was 17 because of "sexual harassment".
Whether you choose to believe it or not, the real scenario was that the accuser was treated like the sexiest little thing by every guy there except me (who made her work for her pay), at which point she made up sex harassment stories, and told them to the manager, whom she was fucking.
Kind of the opposite.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Sorry to hear that. That sounds terrible.
That's an example of why women claim sexual harassment more than the reverse:
1) Women are more likely to be believed when doing so.
2) Most heterosexual men, myself included, don't feel victimized when they are hit on by women. Even if they are pursued somewhat aggressively. Some women do feel victimized by sexual comments and ogling eyes.
A86 2 years ago
Yes, the likelihood of such events are factored into the risk. I'm not saying women are wrong to feel that way, I'm saying that that places all of them at a higher risk. The Risk is the importance.
There don't even have to be sexual harassment cases. A woman can complain about a man having a swimsuit pinup on the wall of his private cubical, and he has to take it down, but the same complaints arn't reversed.
Would you happen to know the percentage of sexual harassment complaints are Male Male?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Even if its .1%, I have to ask what percentage of them are female.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Women probably constitute (this is just my guess) around 80-85% of sexual harassment claims.
A86 2 years ago
So if a woman is 80% more likely to file a complaint, then shouldn't that be factored into (if not outright hiring) their pay if they are being integrated into a primarily-male workforce?
And conversely, what would be the issue in hiring a strait male at a primarily female establishment, such as a salon, or nail joint?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Not really when the likelihood of it happening is low. Men are more likely to die at a young age than women. Should workplaces factor that into salaries?
A86 2 years ago
Indeed employers have to think about things like sexual harassment filings by employees but sexual harassment reports are so relatively rare from both women and men in the workplace that it's not really a major concern. Certainly not enough that it would warrant lowering pay.
A86 2 years ago
I also agree that some people are statistically more of a risk than others on some issues. Such as you males being more a risk when it comes to car insurance and women being more of risk when it comes to companies paying for certain leaves such as maternity.
A86 2 years ago
Its going to take me a while to read through these reports, but the slight skimming I've dont so far has reinforced my position.
I'd like to say I'd get back to you and continue on this subject, but it's way past my bedtime as is, and I dont find the subject intereting enough to continue on at a later date.
That being said, my opinion hasn't really changed, but I do thank you for the statistical information, and hope that you will take my assertions into account, as I have yours.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
No prob. But so far I haven't read anything that shows that women have lower average productivity in non-physical white collar jobs.
A86 2 years ago
I never said they have lower average productivity in non-physical white collar jobs, primarily because by the time they have worked up to the white collar job, they have proven to be less of a risk than their female counterparts.
Again, this argument centers around blue collar jobs. If you want to shout out any statistics regarding white collar women that I havent come across in these links, I'd like to hear them.
We don't seem to be arguing that white collar women get paid less.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Actually males are more likely to become unemployed from white collar jobs. Males are also more likely to collect jobless benefits while unemployed. This is covered in the links that I gave you.
The links I gave you also showed that women in white collar jobs are still paid less than men in the same jobs.
A86 2 years ago
I'll have to look at that, but even then, I could still understand the Risk.
A man who has driven flawlessly for 40 years will still pay more in insurance than a women of the same record. He's simply cursed by gender and industry, as we all are.
I'm not saying it's equal, but sexually fair.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
My sources for 6-17% less pay are:
(dot) usnews (dot) com / blogs / the - inside - job / 2009 / 07 / 31 / young - women - closing - in - on - gender - wage - gap (dot) html
and
(dot) bls (dot) gov / cps / cpswom2008 (dot) pdf [PDF File]
A86 2 years ago
PM me those pages. I'm going to bed soon, and don't feel like removing the gaps.
You posted them here, so the pages are up for all to see.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Also, Drawing a comparison between unemployment, and sex-based hiring is unfair, because you're still leaving out one part that drastically separates the sexes: Maternity leave. There is no such thing as paternity leave.
I tried to get you to look at the converse of that kind of decision making by bringing up how you can receive a medical discharge for pregnancy in the military but you ignored it.
Men can't get pregnant. Is that sexist, or just realistic?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Leave is leave. When you're gone company output is hurt either way so it doesn't really matter WHY you're gone because the economic effects are still the same.
It's like quibbling about whether dying of a heart attack or dying of a stroke has more effect on the economy.
A86 2 years ago
Yes leave is leave. However, as an employer you must apply risk management to any hiring scenario. Women pay less than men for car insurance, because they are at LESS RISK. Is that sexist? Or is it realistic?
The same sentiment applies to men as well. If you have a man who is prone to taking any kind of leave, then he is less likely to be hired.
Its simple risk management.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
1) The risk management about evens out because men are almost as likely to not be working as women when you take frictional unemployment into account.
2) One of the links (I think the second) shows a pay gap by gender in white collar jobs.
A86 2 years ago
"Frictional unemployment"?
I'm not familiar with the term.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
That's when a person is in between jobs due to their own choosing. Like they're unemployed because they resigned from one job in search of another.
A86 2 years ago
No one said genders should be combined but there is absolutely no reason why women should be paid less than men for the same jobs.
A86 2 years ago
I come down in the middle of the both of you. If women do the same jobs, then yes they should be paid the same, but the trouble is that there is more risk when hiring a woman because of the liklihood that they will get married, have kids, and require maternity leave. Maternity leave means the same expendiature for zero productivity. Ergo hiring a woman is a risk.
You can say it's sexist, but so is the military guideline that says Pregnancy is acceptable for discharge. Men cant get pregnant.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
And you determined this how? Factually prove that everyone works less hard than white men or produces output of lower value.
The job market is not a free market so your ideology is moot.
A86 2 years ago
"Merit"
So what is your explanation of why every demographic in America is paid less than white males?
A86 2 years ago
"You're a racist"
Being anti-racist is racism? WTF? I guess MLK was the biggest racist who ever lived then. Race should not matter but the fact is that minorities are discriminated against. If people have "ethnic-sounding names" or voices they are far less likely to be hired. This is a confirmed fact.
But you only care about discrimination when it happens to white people.
A86 2 years ago
You're right, quotas are illegal and that's why they aren't being used.
"the racial makeup of employees is irrelevant"
It's relevant because people are being denied employment because of their skin color. A black man with a Bachelor's Degree has the same chances of being hired as white man with a high school diploma and a felony. Studies have shown that if you have an "ethnic-sounding name" or voice you're far less likely to be called back for an interview.
A86 2 years ago
Affirmative Action. It's applied to less than 90,000 jobs a year in the US job market of over 95,000,000 jobs. While I agree it's a ham-handed policy there is really nothing else being done to fix discrimination in job hiring.
As a side not all AA hires still have to meet the job requirements.
A86 2 years ago
80% of AA recipients are white women.
A86 2 years ago
No, you're a racist because of your comments exposing that you believe in racial separatism and view minorities as the bane of America.
McNabb isn't a race issue but Rush attempted to make him into one.
A86 2 years ago
That's not racist because it's an insult against Rush Limbaugh. Not a race. Rush's insults have been towards entire groups of people.
"We are a more racist nation"
No, I think White Nationalist douches like you are just coming out of the closet now for obvious reasons (first nonwhite guy in office in the US). It's funny that a White Nationalist is calling other people "racist".
I don't think any kind of racism is funny but I think it's funny for you to treat Rush Dumbaugh as a race.
A86 2 years ago
"Any players who would not play for Rush are racists"
I wasn't aware Rush Limbaugh was a race. Lol!
A86 2 years ago
Sotomayor's comment was in the same vein that Alito's was. That someone from the background of a disadvantaged group would be more sympathetic than someone who isn't. Simple as that. But I digress because Sotomayor isn't trying to buy an NFL team.
His comment about McNabb was silly because it isn't based in reality. It also implied that McNabb and all black quarterbacks are less talented than white quarterbacks.
A86 2 years ago
No one said anything about slavery but you. Perhaps you need to get over it and get over the fact that America is a multicultural nation and that is not going to change. The 1940s/50s are dead and aren't coming back. Get that chip on your shoulder towards nonwhite people and women off.
A86 2 years ago
I should also inform you that most of the NFL owners are Republicans.
I don't know the hell you brought Justice Sotomayor into this. You seem to have a lot of pent up issues. Sotomayor said that she would hope a wise Latina immigrant would be more sympathetic towards poor people than a rich white male. Justice Alito made a similar comment when he said whenever he seems immigrant families in his court he can sympathize being from an immigrant family himself.
A86 2 years ago
Those are NBA teams, dumbass. And there is only one rapper who PARTIALLY owns an NBA team as far as I'm aware. All of the NFL owner are white.
Rush was rejected because he's a bad investment. He would cause discord among the teams as many players are not willing to play for a team he owns and his extremist political views and racist and sexist comments could possibly cause boycotts of the NFL by people offended.
He's a bad business investment. Just that simple.
A86 2 years ago
Then why have no other rich black men bought an NFL team yet? It's not like there are no rich black people in the US.
"black anti white racism any longer"
Okay Mr. White Kwame Toure. It's time for the black man to stop keeping the white man down! Lol.
Black people had nothing to do with Rush losing his bid. He was rejected by the NFL owners themselves. Last I checked they are some of "successful white capitalists" you idolize so much.
A86 2 years ago
"Racist? Why was it racist?"
Telling a black woman to "take the bone out of [her] nose" is not racist? That's like saying it's not racist to tell a white person to stop molesting their sister (the racist stereotype that all whites are inbreeding hicks) or get some sun. It's funny the same people who never hesitate to call a black person a "racist", even in cases where it isn't racism, will defend white racists to the end.
A86 2 years ago
Exactly, it's a team. If Rush was an owner he would continually draw negative attention to the team with his racist comments and very divisive political views.
Lol @ you playing the race card. There are NO black owners of the NFL so your comment is silly. Rush was rejected by a bunch of successful white capitalists for his own history of comments. Rush ruined Rush's chances. Had he recanted his comments and apologized and vowed to stop in the future he might have had a chance. But he didn't.
A86 2 years ago
The NFL is already owned by them. They don't have to let him join their ownership club. This is a lot different than trying to buy an unowned company.
"Racism" of the NFL? He's a rich conservative white man who was rejected by a bunch of other rich conservative white men. They won't let him into their club because of his racist comments and extreme political antics. In their eyes he's a bad investment. They don't want that kind of negative attention constantly coming to the league.
A86 2 years ago
That's capitalism for you. You'd think right-wingers would understand this since this is the logic they use to argue against labor unions (even though unions are protected by the 1st Amendment), wage raises and collective bargaining.
A86 2 years ago
Newsflash: It's not a RIGHT to become part of a group that owns a business. The NFL is not unowned so he doesn't have the "right" to buy it. He has no more right to become an NFL owner than he has the right to force a country club to let him join.
A86 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the rushie Great Depression neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled ditto heads .. the manson i mean meocon family are birthers & racists ... take football's grand dragon rushbo ... the fbi, snopes, factcheck, state of hawaii all say the jedi knight obama was born in hawaii & CAN be president ... the grand dragon says ridiculous ... I'm best at determining who can be president ... is the answer no blacks ... you decide ... join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
yo slut...agree to a point. not at all, 'years ago. and i dont. waste my time listening to hate mongors anyway. you are missing the point!!
HIS PARTNERS DROPPED HIM!! whether Goodell, or contacts made to NFL, espn, or whatever contributed to partner, Mr checkett....PARTNER SAID NO!!! obviously statement do have bearing. so, if i'm anti white... which is amusing, fairly well tanned tho. maybe thats itI ISPEAK UP AGAINST THESE HATERS. and if you agree with the remarks they make..have a good day.
MrClaydough 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the rushie Great Depression neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled ditto heads .. the manson i mean meocon family insist they are not racists ... take football's grand dragon rushbo ... swears he is not filled with discrimination & hate ... would a grand dragon ever admit it before the world ... but his best pals decided he's a liar & back stabbed him before anyone else could ... Rush Hudson Limbaugh - UMMM, UMMM, UMMM .. join the fox news sponsor boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
This man is disgusting.
He represents the worst of America.
Good on the NFL for keeping that sick man out of their organization, which certainly doesn't need a man like RL involved with it.
USALiberal 2 years ago
Jesse Jackass and his dick suckin faggot lover Alice Sharpton are both Satan worshipers, what does anyone expect from those two serpents.
YeahOkTerrific 2 years ago
yeah ok jackoff. what would anyone expect from a dildo ditto like you and an i.q. of 65. homphobe cock sucker. all you right wing hatin homophobes crack me up. you would die for my dick in your mouth. tea bagger for sure and a birther asshole! HE LOST! YOU LOST! MY SIDE WON! ME N HUNDREDS MADE CALLS N CONTACTS! N' WE GOT UR DONE!
go whine in private. come out of the closet!!
MrClaydough 2 years ago
And like the true Satan Worshiping liberal whining moron you are, and like all the rest of your ilk, you contradict your own retarded statement as in your own words. And you talk about IQ? Go back to watching Bill Maher you brainwashed dolt.
YeahOkTerrific 2 years ago
yeah ok ur scum we like Jesus around here. love bill maher. again i.q. probably 50 points higher than a homophobic hater, tea bagger, birther moron.
we're all Gods children son. idiots like you, make me wonder. ISNT THERE A WAR FOR YOU? A JAIL CELL?
MrClaydough 2 years ago
Yes there is a war, in heaven and on earth, your god will be cast out soon onto the earth, cant wait to be tossed in jail for 10 days for not bowing a knee to your jesus. Its what us low IQ scums are looking forward to. Oh by the way I dont bother with demonstrations against liberals like yourself, God said the wicked would be creating the one world system in these end times.
YeahOkTerrific 2 years ago
yeah ok you really are a dick wad
mr fucking brainiac prophecises. 10 days not enough. leave your head up your ass, so the rest of us can breath. coffee table time. its smarter than you.
MrClaydough 2 years ago
Limbaugh is an egotistical jerk and he just warps the minds of the impressionable who listen to him uncritically
2indulgent 2 years ago
lickem slut. dickweed...his [ex] partners dropped him. wanna force Limpballs on them? on mcnabb, he said black quarterbacks are over rated...he said NFL made excuese for black quarterbacks. YOU DONT TALK RACE IN NFL....if u dont like their policys. DONT WATCH EM. I'll be watchin all the games Sun/Mon. w/out his hogness limpbaugh!
let the capitalist do anything he wants! What a dickwipe!!
MrClaydough 2 years ago
Only rush limbaugh fans could revel in the fact that 80% of Football coaches and management are Republican ONE WEEK, then the NEXT decry the organization for being "Infiltrated by liberals" just because Rush didn't get his Vinyard, and is now crying to Jezebel about it.
Rush, you didn't get your way because you're an asshole and the Rams are having money trouble as is. With you owning the team, you're going to lose out on a LOT of players, and at least half of your audience.
Its CAPITALISM!
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Limbaugh deserved it.
StopOnlineHate 2 years ago
Comment removed
pianomanmaestro 2 years ago
penusman and you have no right, being out in public. and surely no right to formulate sentences. Nor spell, or, for that matter, think in complete thoughts, unless you have Fix news on, while you mime as they bullshit n spew garbage.
try night school.
MrClaydough 2 years ago
the Almighty Maha Rushie got rejected by the NFL i guess your not so Almighty after all.... lol
StateOfTheArts 2 years ago
ground n pound me baby, yeah thats how i want it!!
jennbootz349 2 years ago
it's numbskulls like thespartan18 that have enabled the socialist takeover of america.Yeah,go get your hod dog and soda and go watch the game you fucking idiot.
rw5791 2 years ago
the reason rush got dummped is not because of "bias" or anything like that, the reason is: He is a controversial figure, he says controversial things on a daily basis, i mean its his shtick. The nfl didnt want that and dont need him for any reason, plain and simple
singlephase80 2 years ago
pain killers
barneygrumble 2 years ago
Stay the fuck out of the NFL political nuts stick to yelling angrily to morons.
Thespartan18 2 years ago
are you talking about keith olberman?
rw5791 2 years ago
I'm talking about all of those bastards Olbermann, Limbaugh, Beck all those nut jobs. Stay away from my sports. The only reason I even accept Olbermann as an occasional sports caster is he never mentions politics when he does it. if he did even once I would say boot him. He still shouldnt own a team tho.
Thespartan18 2 years ago
what about the fact that a black QB has never won the superbowl except for doug smith more than 20 years ago.Seems like u don't want to talk about dat.
rw5791 2 years ago
Thats completly off topic and you sound like your a bigot so Im done talking to you.
Thespartan18 2 years ago
FYI his name is Doug Williams and he attended Grambling State University
89Grambling 2 years ago
I don't know why I said doug smith.I watched that game when they blew denver out of the stadium.Williams was brought in by gibbs a year before as backup but eventually found himself standing behind those hogs with a chance to grab some history and he did.
rw5791 2 years ago
in all reality sharpton and jackson probably had little to nothing to do with limbaugh dropping out of the group. it had more to do with the nfl not wanting to bring that amount of controversy into the nfl. I heard something today that i hadnt thought about, if limbaugh did get any amount of ownership of a team it would only be a matter of time until he said something on his radio show controversial and reporters starting asking the players their opinions on it in the locker room after games.
singlephase80 2 years ago
Limbaugh's chickens have come home to roost!!!
ThisJustin123 2 years ago
You people that talk about Sharpton or Jackson, but don't see ANYTHING wrong with these PHONY CONSERVATIVE radio host like RUSH LIMBAUGH or GLENN BECK/(DICK), must have the IQ of STONE. You people are such HYPOCRITES and FOOLS! You have the nerve to talk about Sharpton or Jackson being RACE baiters. But these talk show host like RUSH LIMBAUGH and GLEN BECK and the others are the biggest RACE baiters and trouble makers around. I am White and I TRUST SHARPTON & JACKSON more than RUSH or BECK !
soccerfan123444 2 years ago
White or not... If you believe Sharpton & Jackson, then you are delusional, my friend! They do nothing but try and seek and destroy the lives of anyone whose opinion they do not agree with and then have the audacity to call themselves men of faith. The bible states forgivness and the constitution states freedom of speech. THEY are the hyocrites and you are the fool!
Wahpiti1 2 years ago
You are a dumbass........Sharpton and Jackson have made a career out of shaking down corporations threatening to stage an african american boycott of their products if they did not send money......they are thugs
Jacobrester 2 years ago
You people that talk about Sharpton or Jackson, but don't see ANYTHING wrong with these PHONY CONSERVATIVE radio host like RUSH LIMBAUGH or GLENN BECK/(DICK), must have the IQ of STONE. You people are such HYPOCRITES and FOOLS! You have the nerve to talk about Sharpton or Jackson being RACE baiters. But these talk show host like RUSH LIMBAUGH and GLEN BECK and the others are the biggest RACE baiters and trouble makers around.
soccerfan123444 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the rushie Great Depression neocons is the obstruction party of NO ... the neocons are mind controlled ditto heads .. the manson i mean meocon family define LIARS ... that's their main problem ... rushbo ... fox news ... they have a problem with honesty ... that's why 42% of the GOP still believe today that the jedi knight was born in kenya ... the world has no time for these buffoons ... the air waves are a public asset owned by the public ... get them off ... join the fox news boycott
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 2 years ago
Well he sure as hell should try getting the voters of Texas to vote Ms. Lee out of office.
thisisrumorcontrol 2 years ago
Wow, you guys want to vote out a senator becaus she brought him up?
Did she create and pass any binding resolution barring rush? No. A nonbinding resolution? No.
And you conservatives yell and yell that liberals are the ones controlled by emotions. That liberals are the constant victims.
You guys should listen to your own goddamn rhetoric once in a while.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
The point is she has NO business using her position in Congress to further her own agenda when it comes to a person (Rush) and a topic (the NFL) that has absolutely nothing to do with her. If I were one of her voters and I found out she was using that time allowed not for discussing national security or healthcare or education or defense, but Rush Limbaugh & the NFL, I would be embarrased as hell to know she represents my state and that I voted for her.
thisisrumorcontrol 2 years ago
Trust me people, this is going to work REALLY GOOD in Rush Limbaugh's favor. I don't think Rush really cared at all to own the Rams and I think he knew he never had a chance at all to begin with. I think he is preparing himself for the backlash that the NFL and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Sheila Jackson Lee are going to get. I think this whole thing was done to make them look like the jackasses they are and its going to make Rush's ratings go up and the NFL ratings go way down!
thisisrumorcontrol 2 years ago
LOL!!! What fantasy do you live in?!?!?
kayper54 2 years ago
None, but I wish it was the same one that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton live in. Think about it, get the title "reverend" slapped to your name and get rich off of making the lives of other people hell because they don't agree with you.
Food for thought: Film Critic & Reverend....the only 2 jobs in the world anyone can do because all you have to do to prove you can do it is either watch a movie or read the bible.
thisisrumorcontrol 2 years ago
Anybody who thinks this is suddenly going to win Rush Limbaugh fans and turn people against the NFL does NOT have any grip on reality. And I don't take Jackson or Sharpton any more seriously than I do Rush. The biggest difference between Rush and those other 2 is that they're much sillier.
kayper54 2 years ago
Dog killers, wife beaters, suspected murderers, drug addicts are ok and and courted by the NFL and their owners but throw the Conservative under the bus. What a bunch of bullshit ! And Sharpton has the balls to say anything - what a sleeze ball !
KRAMMARS 2 years ago
Racist GOP slimeball
JuanchoMan 2 years ago
Comment removed
COM0fAek 2 years ago
How is it that assholes like Jackson and Sharpton are allowed to talk about anyone being "devisive?" Why doesn't the media pick up on that blatant double standard? Also, if Limbaugh was black, do you think the head of the players union would be asking players to speak out? What a shakedown!!!! People need to boycott NFL games.
RavensFan2812 2 years ago
what you saw with this whole situation was blacks banding together and preventing someone they didn't like from being involved in a business. If someone did that to a black guy, Jesse and Al would be screaming to everyone who would listen. I'm just wondering when white folks are going to wake up to this unfair bullshit.
RavensFan2812 2 years ago
you white asholemen better wake up! I am white and I se you brats shitting in bathrooms and being the sick brats they are!
padude64 2 years ago
Rush Limbaugh is detested practically by every African American in the U.S. He is a racist leader of the Republican Party.
rgftown1 2 years ago
of course, even though Jesse and Al are the biggest racists in the world, you never hear a peep out of the African americans in the US. Why is that? Afraid to be a sellout? That's why no one will ever take you seriously.
RavensFan2812 2 years ago
NeOsurf, being an ignorant racist moron like that fat greasy dumbass Rush Limbaugh, demonstrates why Rush Limbaugh isn't allowed to be in the mainstream. This anti-semitic racists like this moron NeOsurf are Limbaugh's true following. Mainstream people don't condone this kind of racism and anti-semitism. Bouncing Rush's greasy racist ass from consideration was the right thing to do. Yeaahhhh!!
TheTruthNow000 2 years ago
isn't "allowed" to be in the mainstream? Then how is our racist president in the mainstream? How is Jesse? Or Al? Or Farrakhan? Or that worthless racist Skip Gates? I guess it must be the double standard.
RavensFan2812 2 years ago
you don't seem to be running your mouth about those two greasy hoods disguised as reverends shaking down business owners with frivilous law suits, etc. What's the matter? Afraid of being labeled an Uncle Tom? God's got a special place in hell for those two turds.
RavensFan2812 2 years ago
so you admit that the jewish marxo-fascist pc scum run the NFL. thanks for finally admitting it.
ne0nsurf 2 years ago
the jews will never allow a truth telling white man to own a football team in their nigger football alliance.
Charlotte bobcats owner robert johnson was a black panther member.
ne0nsurf 2 years ago
the jews will never allow a truth telling white man to own a football team in their nigger football alliance.
ne0nsurf 2 years ago
Shouldn't you be burning a cross someone?typical racist inbred jackass.
fairmont66 2 years ago
should you be at your JDL meeting or killing some innocent palestinian? you're a typical racist piece of shit.
Charlotte bobcats owner robert johnson was a black panther member.
ne0nsurf 2 years ago
I think the term that apply to shithead like yourself
is projection. Look it, shit for brains.
fairmont66 2 years ago
i think that you need to buy some more neurons, dumbfuck. because you're about the most racist shit-stain i've seen on here all day.
case closed
ne0nsurf 2 years ago
hey inbred grow a brain and some balls.
fairmont66 2 years ago
Rush Limbaugh is never going to own an NFL team due to his own bigoted big mouth. This guy needs to just go away. Go away please!
2indulgent 2 years ago 2
what does that have anything to do with owning a team? Brothers are so stupid.
RavensFan2812 2 years ago
it is LEGAL to discriminate on all but a few things i.e. gender, race. Because those things you are born with. But If someone wants to discriminate against a conservative or a liberal then that is ok.. its called FREEDOM
235isaiah 2 years ago
Rush never claimed to be a victim?! Hahaha! This guy spurts as many woe-is-me lines as he does lies and fallacies! I love how he thinks people not liking him and holding him accountable for racist remarks is an issue of freedom. Isn't this the guy who talks about blacks as "big-eared people" who "live in little hut-villages"?
angryseraph 2 years ago
This works out real well for Mr. Limbaugh. He now gets to portray himself as some sort of "victim".
neuronsactivated 2 years ago 2
Not hardly, Rush has never claimed to be a victim, that is left for the non-working people of the USA, no matter what race.
smajdk 2 years ago
Sharpton and Jackson have taken the traditional negro line for years. When are negros going to become Americans and not N ....... s. I am sick of being called racist by a bunch of Racists.
Wake up America.
smajdk 2 years ago
How in the world can he sue ? The owners decide who can own a franchise and who can't. It's like McDonald's. Not just anyone can own one. What would he sue for ? The NFL knows that Limbaugh is TOXIC to it's image and THEY DON'T NEED HIM.
Gunnshy357 2 years ago
Why doesen't he want to buy a soccer franchise or a cricket team. how about a small division of the KKK. heard they have plenty of openings. What about building a tennis stadium ya know? Start of the art tennis and dont let black players or people in. Whites are the minority in this country we are here deal with it or go the fuck back to euro limbaugh.
thecatsareback 2 years ago
This is the reason why the Nfl is the most lucrative business i the USA. They constantly make good decisions like keep this racist fat ass away from football.
thecatsareback 2 years ago
You sound like a Black racists to me. What is the chance I'm right? 100%
smajdk 2 years ago
those things that he said were bad, and i go both ways for him owning the rams. one, he would put his money into getting that team better. and then 2. blacks probly wouldnt want to play under him. now if he was really racist, why would he want to own an nfl team, where half the team is black/white. but i dont think he should own a team for the moment. btw, i fuckin hate jesse jackson, if anyones racist, its him, fuckin dumb shit
linkinpark4ever0 2 years ago
I wish some of these people on YOUTUBE that write who love RUSH LIMBAUGH, or who are CONSERVATIVE or say things about MINORITIES, I wish they would say these things to MY face. I really wish they would, because I would absolutely KICK their AS$ on the SPOT!!!! But like a lot of these CONSERVATIVES, they are only BIG and BAD on the internet.
soccerfan123444 2 years ago
Hey, I'm a conservative and I loathe and despise Rush Limbaugh. He absolutely does NOT speak for all of us. He puts us to complete and utter shame. Anyone who takes seriously anything Rush says has no heart or conscience.
kayper54 2 years ago
You are not a conservative
Jacobrester 2 years ago
Read Jacobrester's reply, you are not a conservative, what are you a black racist?
Or a White, Black Racist? Or just not to involved in the understanding of the number who died to make us free?
smajdk 2 years ago
Hey, smajdk and 6point67xtentoneg11 (if you are in fact two different people), there's something called a period. It's used to separate sentences. Try it. Once you've mastered basic grammar, we'll move on to logic. Maybe you can even start wearing big boy pants and leave the house without your safety helmet!
angryseraph 2 years ago
Where is the statement/statements that speak of racists views? Do not spew, if you have