The Faux Outrage Continues

Posted Saturday, October 17, 2009, at 8:53 PM
Comments
View 31 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I'm afraid your credibility just went out of the window.

    "My only concern with Rush being an owner in the NFL is that he really didn't seem to know that much about football. He never really talks about football on his show." Micheal Hendricks

    This statement tells me you rarely, if ever, listen to Rush's show. He talks of football every opportunity he gets. He is highly knowledgeable about the game, and know what it takes to win.

    Sadly, your reverting back to your old self Mike.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Oct 17, 2009, at 9:18 PM
  • Can we also assume, Mike, that you don't actually watch Fox News. Your rants sound exactly like all the liberals on MSNBC.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 8:15 AM
  • I agree with Chunky Mike. I watch fox whenever I watch news. NO ONE has EVER stated that they want to go back to the Bush ideas. Reagan, yes, that'a no brainer. The US was never stronger than it was after Reagon. I've never heard ANYONE credit Bush for any kind of glimmer of recovery.

    I really do think you watch the loons at MSNBC make a joke of the news and then try to pass that off as your own ideas. I really don't know where you get this crap.

    As far as Rush and the NFL. I can think of one NFL owner than no one should ever want to play for because it means automatic losses and nothing but a wierdo sideshow act....Al Davis.

    These guys saying they would never play for Rush is about as racist as it gets. What did Rush ever do to them? Rush was on an NFL broadcast once until he said something that was controversial. But guess what, he was right, McNabb hasn't done anything worth garnering all the hype and praise he was getting at the time. Rush does talk about football quite a bit. There again, you are making assertions you know enough about to make.

    Rush has forgotten more about football that Obama will ever know about the majority of the American people.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 10:23 AM
  • I wonder what would happen if Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow or any of the rest of the idiotic, leftist-hate-speech crew tried to buy a pro team, and were dropped due to their offensive take on politics?

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 12:14 PM
  • Iggy,

    You didn't just bring the false "slavery having its merits" issue did you. You must not keep on on current events, it was a lie.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 1:55 PM
  • *

    MrsSmith, first of all Keith Olbermann would be better off buying a baseball team since he knows baseball far more than most people in this country could ever want to.

    Secondly if those two were dropped from potential ownership because of their political beliefs, then so what? Owning a team is not a right, Rush hasn't been denied anything by being dropped from the potential ownership. It's fake outrage at the extreme.

    Justin, can you back up your claim that the US was at its best after Reagan? Because we must be looking at two different histories. Also, to claim that a black player not wanting to play for Rush Limbaugh as being racist is laughable at best. I seriously doubt you can point to one statement by one player about Rush where they said they would not play for Rush Limbaugh because he was white. They said they would not play for him for his political beliefs and the statements he made on ESPN. That's not racist Justin, no matter how you try to twist the language.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 3:42 PM
  • So when the slaves were sold from Black Tribes in Africa what was it called then?

    -- Posted by orville on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 6:43 PM
  • Guill,the Black Tribes of Africa?

    -- Posted by orville on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 8:20 PM
  • orville, didn't you know Rush Limbaugh, who built a time machine using slave labor, went back in time to kidnap all those people on the African continent and brought them to America. He then tinkered with the Philadelphia Eagles player draft to purposely make Donovan McNabb look bad. And lets not forget that Rush, in 2005, took a helicopter to the coast of Africa, did a "cannon ball" into the Atlantic Ocean, thus creating hurricane Katrina.

    There Iggy, you now have all the facts, can you possibly go on with life know?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 8:25 PM
  • LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    -- Posted by orville on Sun, Oct 18, 2009, at 8:27 PM
  • Chunky,

    You seem like a real class act making a joke pertaining to both slavery and hurrican katrina in the same sentence.

    And sceptre, I too believe there is one race. But that doesn't stop people from carrying on false idealology. 99% of "racist" people do not believe we are one race.That's where racism comes from, the feeling that one subgroup of population is more important than the other. And to admit that we are all biologically the same would kill the biggots on the inside.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 8:16 AM
  • And just because Rush talks about football on his show, doesn't mean he knows what he was talking about.

    Aside from the McNabb comments, there were countless times that he would say something idiotic on NFL countdown, and be countered by steve young.

    For the record, McNabb is a top 5 qb in the league, and at the time RUsh made the comment, he was top 3. Rush is an idiot.

    -- Posted by mccookreader on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 8:18 AM
  • Yes Mike, it's called the Clinton years. It's called the 90's. It's called the biggest non post-war growth period in American history. What kind of a history teacher are you? Many, many idustried grew at an exceptional rate during these times.

    I'm sure you have another theory on this and it will have to do with what Clinton did I'm sure. We sure had in pretty good in the 90's though.

    What planet are you from that you missed this era?

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 11:04 AM
  • If it's not racially motivated then why did Jackson and Sharpton show up in this mess?

    They are always after white guys no matter what. There is a double standard and that's that. Any bunch of white guys going after black guys all the time would be racism big time!

    And I think it's funny that Guillermo still hasn't figured out that Rush uses absurdity to illustrate the absurd. Do you really believe he thinks there is merit behind slavery? Get a clue guys.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 11:08 AM
  • regardless of what you think about Rush. McNabb has NEVER been a top 3 or 5 QB, unless you are a Philly fan. Each and every year he has played, there have been much better qb's in that year. McNabb is good, better than most, but not an elite top 5.

    -- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 11:11 AM
  • There's only so much talk you can do on the deficit. It's been talked about over and over on these blogs. People on these blogs are outraged. But the fight has been hashed out, neither side giving in.

    So why are the concerned with who is purchasing a football team? I'd assume its because it Rush who can be extremely controversial, and when he fails at something one side is always happy and the other side says its an injustice.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 1:50 PM
  • *

    Justin I just want to see if I am following your logic here. Your basis for your quote that the US was best after Reagan is the Clinton years? You don't have to be a history teacher to see the fallacy in that logic. You offered up another administration that can in after a huge economic turn-down during the latter Reagan and all the Bush Administration.

    Just so I'm not missing anything here, you brought up Clinton and yet you are already criticizing me for pointing to Clinton which I haven't done. Preemptive criticisms usually don't work.

    You have avoided the directed question, and that is still what FACTS do you have to support your claim that the US was at its best after the Reagan years.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 3:32 PM
  • *

    duffer, where is the outrage that you are proclaiming that I have? If that's what you read, then you should probably read again. I'm not outraged over the faux outrage, just pointing it out. I could have cared less if Rush got a minority ownership in the Rams. In fact, when I first heard about it I laughed out loud. I thought it was a joke. If he wants to get into the NFL that's his prerogative, but the owners have to approve the buy, and (as conservative as they are) they weren't showing any signs of interest.

    As for your confusion on free speech, I haven't stopped anyone on this blog from voicing their opinion. Yes if someone said something out of bounds or purely hatred, I would flag it. That's my right as the owner of this blog.

    Person A criticizing Person B for something they have said is not a violation of Person B.

    A business firing someone because of what they have said is not inherently violating that person's freedom of speech if that person signed a contract and in that was language about what could and couldn't be said.

    Rush Limbaugh being denied a stake in an NFL team because of comments he has made is not a violation of his freedom of speech.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 3:41 PM
  • *

    duffer, Fox News being a news organization is laughable at best. The same exact thing can be said about the majority of MSNBC programming. Why should I be outraged that the Obama Administration is calling the majority of Fox News what it is, opinion. Did you show the same outrage when the Bush Administration froze out MSNBC? I doubt it.

    I can editorialize because I am not a journalist. I am a a blogger. Fox News (and coincidentally any organization that claims that they report the news) should not be editorializing anything if they are honest good journalists. Journalists do not give their opinion on a story they report it from both angles.

    Should the Obama Administration be wasting its time on Fox News. Of course not, it will only drive viewership up for the channel. Controversy always does. But I do give them credit for calling out the channel for what it is doing.

    Finally, give me a break. Obama is not barring Fox News from doing anything. I do enjoy though that when a Democrat does something they are ATTACKING (as if there is a war on) but when a Republican does the same they are just being good Americans.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 3:50 PM
  • I see where the obama administration has declared war of Fox News. Censorship?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 10:18 PM
  • Personally, I don't know why everyone's upset about the President not going on Fox. He's only hurting himself. You can think whatever you want about the station itself but if you think the only people who watch Fox are Republicans who oppose the President then you're just denying reality.

    The truth is FoxNews would not get the high ratings it does if it was only reaching one political demographic. When the President refuses to present his case on that network then he loses thoses viewers. Pretty dumb move, in my opinion because then you've got a news network with millions of viewers reporting on how the President refused to come on their network.

    Those people watching realize Fox, like every other major news organization, has pundits and hosts with a particular opinion but they don't deny it as a news organization. I know there are people who don't like Fox but I don't see how they could deny Fox's ability to reach a wide audience with diverse political beliefs.

    All of the talk about Fox as a news organization is beside the point anyway because I'm pretty sure he's went on Colbert and about every late show he can. None of those are technically news programs either. The difference is that they were a lot friendlier to him at that time and he could deal with that. Would he get tougher questions than he would in the MSM? Of course, he would. I wouldn't deny that and they'd probably be a little tougher than I think but if he can't handle a tough interview then we have bigger problems on our hands. I'm finding that he lacks the ability to confront criticism head on and that's certainly not a change.

    I'm fine with him not going on Fox. All he's doing is hurting himself by not reaching out to that audience. If he does something to weaken his own agenda then I'm not going to stop him. I think he's pushing a lot of things that need to be stopped and his mixture of arrogance and ignorance will help to achieve the goal of stopping him in his tracks.

    Denying FoxNews as a news organization is laughable at best and it will be amusing to watch the President backtrack when he realizes the mistake that's being made.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 9:56 AM
  • Can we all agree, fredd is to be ignored.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Oct 20, 2009, at 5:27 PM
  • Fact: Fox New is NUMBER 1 in ratings. Could all these viewers be wrong? Has anyone else noticed when Fox reports on the health care plans, the democrat led senate, congress and the president have to change their plans? Is it possible the truth has been exposed. Have the liberals moved so far to the left, they can't see this?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 4:26 PM
  • Regardless fredd, Fox News is #1. The ratings prove people trust Fox with delivering the news.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 5:30 PM
  • fredd,

    By your own logic, MSNBC must be nothing more than an arm of the democratic party. Anyone can see that, anyone with an open mind.

    You talk about Fox, Shawn, Glen and Rush as the reason you only see so-called right winged hate shows when discussing the liberal media. Well, let's think about this... Shawn and Glen are on Fox and I've never personally seen Rush give an interview on the other stations. So, you're basically saying that since Fox news exists there is no liberal media? You can't make a valid argument against the existence of a liberal media when you only focus on one of the stations.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, Fox is a conservative staion and MSNBC is liberal and CBS, ABC and NBC all lean towards a liberal bias with CNN becoming more of a liberal chatterbox than in prior years which is disappointing and probably has something to do with why there ratings are dropping so dramatically. The best thing CNN could do is to get rid of Rick Sanchez. He doesn't even seem to know what's going on half the time and the other half he says something so awkward that his guest just sits there in total disbelief of his idiocy.

    The only station I can rely on for no bias is C-Span. You have one station out of many that goes conservative, several others that are quite liberal and one that is truly neutral but you want to whine about bias at Fox. I prefer to watch them all so that I can see what the others don't report but I don't have Fox or MSNBC so I rarely see much from either of them but I'm sure I can catch quite a bit of what MSNBC reports on one of the stations I do get. The commentary is just probably is less blatant in its bias.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 5:57 PM
  • Still, why is Fox News #1. If Fox News is so out of tune with the rest of America, and Conservative are so in the minority, shouldn't they be in last place.

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 6:53 PM
  • Guillermo,

    I can't believe you sent me to wikipedia. Worse, I can't believe I went there. Seriously, isn't this whole debate flawed? The Conservatives are idiots, the republicans are doomed, and yet, Fox News wins the ratings. Or has the center of Liberalism gone so far to the left, that any debate from anyone to the right of them, becomes "republican talking points"?

    -- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Oct 21, 2009, at 9:46 PM
  • fredd,

    What tax hike are you referring to about Reagan and Bush signing the 2 largest tax hikes in history? I know it's not income taxes so I'm curious for some specifics.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 11:40 AM
  • Just wondering about some of the RECENT historical revisionists here.

    I do seem to recall the Reagan/Bush years ended with a rather serious economic downturn -- Just a small matter of FARM AUCTIONS, resulting from massive farm foreclosures, plus small business collapses, plus huge home foreclosure rates, plus the complete collapse of Western Metals Mining, timber industries and oil exploration.

    So much for Reaganomics.

    Well except for the actor Presidents little speaking tour of Japan, which netted him several million -- ON THE RECORD.

    Following Reagan -- we had Poppa Bush,who actually got to harvest the eggs deposited by Reaganomics -- how do you spell T-R-I-C-K-L-E D-O-W-N-!~!-?????

    As a pretty good indicator of the near total collapse at that time -- IOWA LOST 500 NEWSPAPERS.

    That's right -- 500 Iowa communities could no longer support a community newspaper.

    Now -- we are living the results of Baby Bush's financial genius.

    To date, President Obama is strictly operating with the Bush/Cheney, 2008-2009 Federal Budget.

    NOT one dime for any of the Obama programs has been spent.

    The economic bail outs were started in September, 2008 with the Auto Industry, then October and November, 2008 with the banks, Wall Street and AIG.

    ALL Bush/Cheney programs, in place and funded when the new president took office Jan. 20, 2009.

    Virtually all of those corporate welfare recipients came back after January and the new bailouts included oversight.

    You may have noticed, the 25 top executives of each of those companies just got their paychecks trimmed, thanks to the last federal help.

    The $2-Million men became $200,000 men. Tough!!

    The impressive thing about our Neo-Con bloggers is that they have much more high-level financial knowledge than all of the world's economists, the House and Senate Budget offices and the Executive budget offices combined.

    With all that economic genius available to southwest Nebraska -- it will probably be the new Garden of Eden within three years.

    And then again, Sam, Scepter, Chunky and you other High Plains financiers -- Hope you will pardon me if I don't hold my breath until that happens.

    Of course, once I learn you are arriving at McCook International Airport in your private 747, I'll be the first to come in by Amtrak to cheer you on.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 3:28 PM
  • Now I know I didn't get my degree at Herndon University, but the Federal FY ended 9/30/09, which means as of 10/1/09, its the Obama FY. Maybe we need to change the FY to revise your history?

    -- Posted by dufferxyz on Thu, Oct 22, 2009, at 8:05 PM

    Duffy, Ol' Bean --

    The Fiscal Year is the Fiscal Year.

    The first budget to be approved by President Obama is several months from passage -- or haven't you noticed.

    The current budget was authorized by a budget bill signed by a certain George W. Bush.

    Someone complained that the taxpayers will never see any of the bailout money again.

    Actually some of the banks have begun repayment.

    I'll admit to being as surprised as anyone.

    What is disgusting is that the bailed out banks have not put any of that taxpayers money into the small business and home purchase credit markets.

    As REPUBLICAN APPOINTEE to the Federal Reserve Chairmanship Ben Bernake pointed out this month -- "The banks are going right back into the risky loans which got them into trouble to begin with."

    I've been trying to find just one of those Bailed Out Bank Presidents who is a REGISTERED Democrat.

    SURPRISE!!!!

    They are every dadburn one of them -- REPUBLICANS!!!

    Of course, after the last two days, with 90% pay cuts ordered from the "Bail Out" overseers, they are decidedly less wealthy Republican Welfare recipients.

    Anyone out here on the High Plains want to volunteer to take a pay adjustment to just $200,000 annually?

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Oct 23, 2009, at 3:55 PM
  • I want to know why the government hasn't done anything about the swine flu. Instead of the governement doing there job and dealing with a Nation wide crisis, they just put there heads in the sand and watch as thousands die.

    It is easy to attack the banks, insurance companies, oil companies, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, rich people, executives, Fox news. It is also easy to distract by talking about taxing the rich, cap and trade, free health care for most (someone has to pay), winning noble prizes and traveling all over the world.

    All the while we had a medical crisis last January and it is returning. The Government has igonored the problem and thousands are going to die.

    Before this flu season is over more Americans will have died from the flu than all our citizens killed in Iraq and Afganistan.

    How are you people that are so biased going to blame others but yourselves for that?????

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Oct 24, 2009, at 9:04 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: