Rush Limbaugh thinks high "screwl" football should not be banned

[Guest]

So what if someone gets injured or dies once in a while? What's the big deal? Stuff happens! Football is an industry and we need to put industry first above all other considerations. Besides, beer, hotdogs and popcorn :popcorn: go good with football. We need football!!!!

Rush did not say those exact words, that's just my understanding of his thought process. I live in realville too. :)

[Guest]

Rush did not say those exact words, that's just my understanding of his thought process. I live in realville too.


Just would like to know, Did he say ANY of those words?

[Guest]

Just would like to know, Did he say ANY of those words?

Here's the words he actually DID say.

See, I Told You So: School Board Member Calls for Ban on High School Football - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/11/see_i_told_you_so_school_board_member_calls_for_ba n_on_high_school_football)

[Guest]

So what if someone gets injured or dies once in a while? What's the big deal? Stuff happens! Football is an industry and we need to put industry first above all other considerations. Besides, beer, hotdogs and popcorn :popcorn: go good with football. We need football!!!!

Rush did not say those exact words, that's just my understanding of his thought process. I live in realville too. :)

Well, with the cutting of teaching positions--including probably school nurses-- high school football could become more dangeorous than it already is. The Risk of High School Football Tackles - NYTimes.com (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/the-risk-of-high-school-football-tackles/)

[Guest]

Wow! He did not say any of those words. Now I know why we can't communicate! You can say one thing and someone hears something TOTALLY different. Or atleast makes it into what they want to hear.

Thought so.

[Guest]

No one, including me, would ever think I would utter the words, "Well, Rush isn't out in left field on this one."

Very possible someday not too far off in the future that school districts will decide high school football is too dangerous.

Do they still play "dodgeball" in Jr. High with those grapefruit sized red rubber balls? How many guys remember getting hit in the 'nads with one of those?

Can't insulate kids from games. However, the WWE style of "wrestling" with being body-slammed onto tables and having a folding chair smashed on the head are not what kids should be watching on television. Many kids have tried those moves and gotten paralyzed for life. Or is that the Darwin gene kicking in?

[Guest]

No one, including me, would ever think I would utter the words, "Well, Rush isn't out in left field on this one."

Very possible someday not too far off in the future that school districts will decide high school football is too dangerous.

Do they still play "dodgeball" in Jr. High with those grapefruit sized red rubber balls? How many guys remember getting hit in the 'nads with one of those?

Can't insulate kids from games. However, the WWE style of "wrestling" with being body-slammed onto tables and having a folding chair smashed on the head are not what kids should be watching on television. Many kids have tried those moves and gotten paralyzed for life. Or is that the Darwin gene kicking in?

Looks like dodgeball is alive and well.
Dodgeball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball)

Cheerleading is supposedly the cause of many concussions too. CDC - Sports - Concussion - Traumatic Brain Injury - Injury Center (http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/sports/index.html)
Cheerleader (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/04/03/sports/cheerleader%E2%80%99s-injury-reveals-complexity-dangers-of-concussions/)

[Guest]

Here's the words he actually DID say.

See, I Told You So: School Board Member Calls for Ban on High School Football - The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/06/11/see_i_told_you_so_school_board_member_calls_for_ba n_on_high_school_football)

He's got this one right.

[Guest]

Lush gets everything right.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to the right.

[Guest]

I would imagine this is a bigger issue in some places versus others. Locally, I voted against having the local high school start up a football program specifically because of the cost per student. It was FAR more expensive to outfit a football team compared to our other existing sports (soccer, baseball, basketball, etc). The election ended up passing the resolution and the local high school got varsity football. Checking the net, I see we've had 6 losing seasons, one .500 season and two of those losing seasons were 0-11.

Now why aren't the Republicans complaining about this waste of taxpayer money?

[Guest]

So what if someone gets injured or dies once in a while? What's the big deal? Stuff happens! Football is an industry and we need to put industry first above all other considerations. Besides, beer, hotdogs and popcorn :popcorn: go good with football. We need football!!!!

Rush did not say those exact words, that's just my understanding of his thought process. I live in realville too. :)

Clearly an interpretation of his comments that is way off the mark. But does anyone really care what comes out of a mouth that has a pea sized brain behind it?

[Guest]

I would imagine this is a bigger issue in some places versus others. Locally, I voted against having the local high school start up a football program specifically because of the cost per student. It was FAR more expensive to outfit a football team compared to our other existing sports (soccer, baseball, basketball, etc). The election ended up passing the resolution and the local high school got varsity football. Checking the net, I see we've had 6 losing seasons, one .500 season and two of those losing seasons were 0-11.

Now why aren't the Republicans complaining about this waste of taxpayer money?

DJP, I do know about how it goes in the Northeast, but in most of the South, Southwest and central US football is the cash cow. It funds the other programs.

[Guest]

DJP, I do know about how it goes in the Northeast, but in most of the South, Southwest and central US football is the cash cow. It funds the other programs.

You have that right. Would you even consider sitting through a high school soccer game? Don't think I would.

[Guest]

Wow! He did not say any of those words. Now I know why we can't communicate! You can say one thing and someone hears something TOTALLY different. Or atleast makes it into what they want to hear.

Thought so.

Not for one minute did he ever give ANY consideration to the complaint about injuries. He didn't say, "yes, I'm sorry to say it is dangerous." And he didn't say, "no, it's not at all dangerous." So, he might as well have said the words I wrote for him.

The words he didn't say show exactly how much he doesn't care about injuries and deaths. If he cared about it, he would have said something to that effect.

[Guest]

life is very dangerous...illness, accident, terrorism, murder....should we just blow up the earth and forget all about it???

[Guest]

He mentioned trans fat being banned in New York City.

What did he say back then? I'm pretty sure he said the same things all the other talk show hosts said. "The next thing you know they will want to ban hamburgers." I heard that a lot back then. But they have never banned any food to this date. Trans fat is not a food; it's a process of hydrogenation.

[Guest]

DJP, I do know about how it goes in the Northeast, but in most of the South, Southwest and central US football is the cash cow. It funds the other programs.

Exactly! Do away with football and watch every other sports program except possibly basketball lose its funding. This is doubly true at the college level.

[Guest]

People could just mind their own business. How would that be? You are free to keep your children on a leash and allow them no activity that comes with risk. I think you have to consider banning them from running, ice skating, roller blading, skateboarding, bicycling, swimming, climbing, baseball, basketball, soccer, gymnastics, tennis, etc. etc.

All come with risk of injury. Take your eyes off them for one minute, and BAM!!; you just never know.

I'll end with......eating.............I would suggest only known healthy foods that carry no risk of a child choking on it.

You gotta watch them all the time.

[Guest]

People could just mind their own business. How would that be? You are free to keep your children on a leash and allow them no activity that comes with risk. I think you have to consider banning them from running, ice skating, roller blading, skateboarding, bicycling, swimming, climbing, baseball, basketball, soccer, gymnastics, tennis, etc. etc.

Well said.

I am tired of people trying to make the world with round smooth edges and safety bumpers everywhere!
Our children have learned that if they get hurt that someone should pay for this and pay BIG. What they should learn is, if you fall off of something or run into something, DON"T DO THAT AGAIN! Instead they sue and point fingers at all the people who made this bad thing happen.

ife is very dangerous...illness, accident, terrorism, murder....should we just blow up the earth and forget all about it???

I would add to this and say, Life is dangerous, deal with it and move on!

No I don't think we should ban football, that is stupid. It can be made safer but ban it, no.
Do we ban driving, bathing, flying, swimming, drugs (legal type), walking, you name it, it can kill you.

You are welcome to board yourself up in your house and wrap yourself in bubble wrap and do the same for YOUR family. Mean while I will enjoy life and encourage others to do the same.

[Guest]

life is very dangerous...illness, accident, terrorism, murder....should we just blow up the earth and forget all about it???

Blowing up the earth? I wouldn't go that far. :oops:

I just had a weird thought last night and I might as well try it out on you. So you have the honor of being the first to consider the following: What is the difference between hazing and football.

I don't mean obvious differences like one is a sport and the other is not. I mean as far as the result when it comes to injury and death.

Thank you.

[Guest]

Now why aren't the Republicans complaining about this waste of taxpayer money?

That's a good question. The answer is: Follow the money.

Let's use Rush as an example: He doesn't mind higher taxes if it helps the fast food industry. That's because whatever is good for the fast food industry is good for the radio advertising business.

What do people eat and drink when they go to a football game? Fast food. When they watch football at home on TV, what do they eat? Fast food snacks etc.. What do people eat and drink when they go to sports bars?
Fast food. Football and fast food go together. (go together like a horse and carriage, love and marriage).

Having a vested interest, Rush speaks on behalf of the fast food industry. He is an extension of the fast food industry. And the bottom line is: Profits are more important than any other consideration.

I have heard it said that capitalism has a dark side. If it does, this may be it.

[Guest]

People could just mind their own business. How would that be? You are free to keep your children on a leash and allow them no activity that comes with risk. I think you have to consider banning them from running, ice skating, roller blading, skateboarding, bicycling, swimming, climbing, baseball, basketball, soccer, gymnastics, tennis, etc. etc.

All come with risk of injury. Take your eyes off them for one minute, and BAM!!; you just never know.

I'll end with......eating.............I would suggest only known healthy foods that carry no risk of a child choking on it.

You gotta watch them all the time.

Then what about hazing? Should we allow hazing under the banner of "minding our own business?" Robert Chanpion died as a result of hazing. Should that come under the heading of "stuff happens" or "you just never know"?

[Guest]

Well said.

I am tired of people trying to make the world with round smooth edges and safety bumpers everywhere!
Our children have learned that if they get hurt that someone should pay for this and pay BIG. What they should learn is, if you fall off of something or run into something, DON"T DO THAT AGAIN! Instead they sue and point fingers at all the people who made this bad thing happen.

As far as I know, that's how the world works. (I live in realville with Rush.)
It seems like you want a "world with round smooth edges" too. You don't want any danger of being sued. However, if we live in the real world, we have to recognize the danger of being sued. Patty Sexton was quoted as saying the following: "I'm extremely scared we will eventually be sued over injuries suffered in sports."

Rush thought so little of what she said he didn't even comment on it. Why? Follow the money: If a school gets sued for several millions of dollars, it's not going to come out of his pocket. He's only worried about his own financial interests. Football is a cash cow for the fast food industry and Rush is an extension of that industry (radio advertising).

[Guest]

Then what about hazing? Should we allow hazing under the banner of "minding our own business?" Robert Chanpion died as a result of hazing. Should that come under the heading of "stuff happens" or "you just never know"?

Hazing = Football??

Quite a stretch. I don't think hazing is a sport.

[Guest]

As far as I know, that's how the world works. (I live in realville with Rush.)
It seems like you want a "world with round smooth edges" too. You don't want any danger of being sued. However, if we live in the real world, we have to recognize the danger of being sued. Patty Sexton was quoted as saying the following: "I'm extremely scared we will eventually be sued over injuries suffered in sports."

Rush thought so little of what she said he didn't even comment on it. Why? Follow the money: If a school gets sued for several millions of dollars, it's not going to come out of his pocket. He's only worried about his own financial interests. Football is a cash cow for the fast food industry and Rush is an extension of that industry (radio advertising).

You're reading too much into Rush's comments, in my opinion. Rush is an avid fan of football, and that's all there is to it. He likes the game and it's total Americanism.

All your other speculations about his "motives" are just so much garbage about things that have little connection with Rush, IMHO.

[Guest]

I haven't heard one word as to the benefits of football or for that matter many other sports or undertakings by young people. Many physical activites in general build strong bodies and minds and teach kids the benefits of sacriface, training determination, compeititveness, etc. Risk is a fact of life. Risk is inherit in all facets of living. Risks can be reduced, transferred etc but risk can never be eliminated. People who are obsessed with eliminating risk do not understand the limits of nature. You cannot place children, people or any living thing in a bubble because one way or another risk will visit them.

Don't pay that sport you may get hurt. don't marry that person he/she is not good for you. don't invest in that stock because... don't gamble your life away trying to build that business. don't don't don't

The higher the risk the greater the reward that is what nature demands. For those brave enough to venture out most are greatly rewarded and as nature intended some are not. To discourage children from being adventurers is to damage their very being.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by Villages PL
As far as I know, that's how the world works. (I live in realville with Rush.)
It seems like you want a "world with round smooth edges" too. You don't want any danger of being sued.

This is where you read into my statement just like you have done with Rush. I bet it is a hoot having a conversation with you. I am not sure you hear what people SAY.
I don't live in fear of being sued. I can be sued at any moment but I don't want to make that against the law or ban law suits.
Every time someone does not like something or disagrees with it it seems like the first thing we do is ban it. Like say, 16 oz. soft drinks or a large popcorn!

People need to mind their own d#$m business. If I want a 32 oz big gulp and top it off with a fried pie and a box of gummy bears, it is my business.
And please don't give me the " it is costing us so much in health care. I thought that was all fixed now, and free!

If I want my child (she is all grown now) to play sports it is my business and her choice and having some busy bodies out there saving the world with their " I know better than you" attitude gets old.
Save your family however you want and leave mine alone.

[Guest]

BBQ - Yeah, in the Northeast, football does NOT 'make money' (tickets/concessions come nowhere NEAR the cost of these programs).

I can understand, however, why it would make more sense in Texas as I hear that, even back in the 1970s, they'd fill the Cotton Bowl with high school playoff and championship games.

[Guest]

Hazing = Football??

Quite a stretch. I don't think hazing is a sport.

Both are engaged in by students and both can cause injury and death.

[Guest]

Both are engaged in by students and both can cause injury and death.


It might be easier for you to just list the things that ARE SAFE in your mind because from your post you are able to point out that everything can kill you.

I guess we should just ban life because it always ends up in causing a death!

[Guest]

You're reading too much into Rush's comments, in my opinion. Rush is an avid fan of football, and that's all there is to it. He likes the game and it's total Americanism.

If football is banned in this one school, or school district, he will still be able to watch football. Why is he being so defensive? If he likes Americanism, he should allow for free choice without browbeating individuals who speak up for what they believe in. He may choose to worry about the future of football, while Patty Sexton chooses to worry about the health of her students and school finances.

All your other speculations about his "motives" are just so much garbage about things that have little connection with Rush, IMHO.

I'm guessing you don't find a problem with his speculations when he says the following: He refers to Patty Sexton as a "busybody woman". He lumps her in with those who raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for children's health care. Even dredges up the old issues of trans fats and SUVs.

He says all of that while there's absolutely is no indication that she is a liberal. But he appears to be trying hard to paint her as one. To the contrairy, she stated that high school football should NOT be funded by taxpayers. Sounds like she could be a conservative!!!! She's worried about the possibility of eventual law suits against the school. Another conservative position, in my opinion: If the school gets sued, it will put the taxpayers at risk.

And how about your speculations about his motives? You speculate that he's going against this one person, because he is, "an avid fan of football". More garbage?

[Guest]

I haven't heard one word as to the benefits of football or for that matter many other sports or undertakings by young people. Many physical activites in general build strong bodies and minds and teach kids the benefits of sacriface, training determination, compeititveness, etc. Risk is a fact of life. Risk is inherit in all facets of living. Risks can be reduced, transferred etc but risk can never be eliminated. People who are obsessed with eliminating risk do not understand the limits of nature. You cannot place children, people or any living thing in a bubble because one way or another risk will visit them.

Don't pay that sport you may get hurt. don't marry that person he/she is not good for you. don't invest in that stock because... don't gamble your life away trying to build that business. don't don't don't

The higher the risk the greater the reward that is what nature demands. For those brave enough to venture out most are greatly rewarded and as nature intended some are not. To discourage children from being adventurers is to damage their very being.

Very good post, rubicon.

Now I'd like to speak on behalf of Patty Sexton. I think she knows something about risk. Look at the risk she took by speaking about this issue. She will be slammed by every talk show host on radio. She's been called a "busybody woman" by Rush. I would go so far as to call it, "Operation Destroy". Instead of Rush using good points about football, like you did above, he's out to destroy her.

This "busybody woman" doesn't think that football should be funded by taxpayers. Why doesn't Rush tell us what's wrong with that?

This "busybody woman" is worried about the possibility of eventual law suits against the school which would put the taxpayers at risk. Why doesn't Rush tell us what's wrong with worrying about the taxpayers?

This "busybody woman" is worried about the lasting effects form football injuries, especially concussions. Why doesn't Rush address this issue?

[Guest]

If football is banned in this one school, or school district, he will still be able to watch football. Why is he being so defensive? If he likes Americanism, he should allow for free choice without browbeating individuals who speak up for what they believe in. He may choose to worry about the future of football, while Patty Sexton chooses to worry about the health of her students and school finances.



I'm guessing you don't find a problem with his speculations when he says the following: He refers to Patty Sexton as a "busybody woman". He lumps her in with those who raise taxes on cigarettes to pay for children's health care. Even dredges up the old issues of trans fats and SUVs.

He says all of that while there's absolutely is no indication that she is a liberal. But he appears to be trying hard to paint her as one. To the contrairy, she stated that high school football should NOT be funded by taxpayers. Sounds like she could be a conservative!!!! She's worried about the possibility of eventual law suits against the school. Another conservative position, in my opinion: If the school gets sued, it will put the taxpayers at risk.

And how about your speculations about his motives? You speculate that he's going against this one person, because he is, "an avid fan of football". More garbage?

It's all about football and freedom. All else is garbage thinking.

[Guest]

It's all about football and freedom. All else is garbage thinking.

Okay, let's say that it's "all about football and freedom". I would think "freedom" also implies the freedom for a high school or school district to NOT have football. And what about Patty Sexton's freedom to express her oppinion without being attacked by Rush? He's behaving like a bully and you support him. Talk about garbage thinking.

[Guest]

Okay, let's say that it's "all about football and freedom". I would think "freedom" also implies the freedom for a high school or school district to NOT have football. And what about Patty Sexton's freedom to express her oppinion without being attacked by Rush? He's behaving like a bully and you support him. Talk about garbage thinking.

She has her freedom, and Rush has his. It's a wonderful thing.

I think trying to impose your will is akin to bullying and Patty Sexton qualifies in that regard, herself.

I'm only expressing my opinion on the subject matter and so is Rush.

You can be described as a bully here yourself, by your own parameters.

[Guest]

She has her freedom, and Rush has his. It's a wonderful thing.

I think trying to impose your will is akin to bullying and Patty Sexton qualifies in that regard, herself.

A bully is a person who intimidates, belittles or demeans smaller or weaker people. Rush is bigger and stronger than Patty Sexton in many ways. As a professional broadcaster with a large audience, he's bigger and stronger by virtue of his nation-wide broadcasting power. And he used that power like a sledgehammer on Patty Sexton. If calling her a "busybody woman" was not an effort to belittle or demean, then what was it?

I'm only expressing my opinion on the subject matter and so is Rush.

As I said above, he's doing more than that. He's a bully and you support him.

You can be described as a bully here yourself, by your own parameters.

I defined bullying above and I don't fit that description.

Moreover, another reason I think he was on a bullying mission is because he ignored the pertinent issues that she raised. If one doesn't speak to the issues, what's left? The only thing left is "name calling" and lumping her in with those who are against trans fat and SUVs, as if she might be part of a larger conspiracy to take away our freedoms.

Rush would be all for cutting taxes by cutting waste from school budgets, but not football. Oh, noooooooo! We NEEEEEEEEEEEEED football! And to those who will cry that I'm putting words in his mouth, I say this: His silence (on the tax issue) speaks louder than words. Therefore, not only is he a bully but a hypocrite too.

[Guest]

Very good post, rubicon.

Now I'd like to speak on behalf of Patty Sexton. I think she knows something about risk. Look at the risk she took by speaking about this issue. She will be slammed by every talk show host on radio. She's been called a "busybody woman" by Rush. I would go so far as to call it, "Operation Destroy". Instead of Rush using good points about football, like you did above, he's out to destroy her.

This "busybody woman" doesn't think that football should be funded by taxpayers. Why doesn't Rush tell us what's wrong with that?

This "busybody woman" is worried about the possibility of eventual law suits against the school which would put the taxpayers at risk. Why doesn't Rush tell us what's wrong with worrying about the taxpayers?

This "busybody woman" is worried about the lasting effects form football injuries, especially concussions. Why doesn't Rush address this issue?

Villages Pl:

I agree that Patty Sexton ought to have the opportunity to express her belief/opinions withoutfeeling the heavy handedness of talk show host.

I also agree that taxpayers should not fund football (stadiums, etc) These owners are billionaires and make enormous profits and yet the taxpayers foot the bill. The only funding a taxpayer should do is buy a ticket.

Ms. Sexton's concerns about lawsuits has long been a reality. I know because the insurance carrier I worked for insured hundred up hundreds of schools. I had been involved in more than one lawsuit because of a football injury..but that is a whole other topic..

And Ms. Sexton is also correct to worry about concussion.

Again I reiterate that risk is a part of life and while the prudent individual does not invite risk, risk can never be eliminated from our lives. and again I reiterate that football and sports in general benefits far exceed potential risks.

[Guest]

There's nothing special about Patty Sexton that she should be immune from criticism.

It's misogynist to think she should be treated daintily.

It's totally fine to disagree with her, especially since she's a busybody.

As the wonderful Billy Joel says:

"I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life
Go ahead with your own life, and leave me alone"

[Guest]

Rush is simply a pig who uses inflammatory language roil the far right-wingers to a frenzy while he counts his money. :doh:

[Guest]

There's nothing special about Patty Sexton that she should be immune from criticism.

I didn't say she should be immune from criticism. I just thought he was way too heavy handed. and ignored the issues, as you do.

It's misogynist to think she should be treated daintily.

Daintily? That's your word not mine. Speaking of "misogynist", Rush used the word "busybody" which I doubt he would have used if it had been a man.

It's totally fine to disagree with her, especially since she's a busybody.

And it's fine for me to disagree with such childish statements.



As the wonderful Billy Joel says:

Who cares?

[Guest]

I didn't say she should be immune from criticism. I just thought he was way too heavy handed. and ignored the issues, as you do.


I am absolutely ignoring what you consider the issues. I have my own issue, and that is the freedom to live your own life without undue influence from elitists who believe they know what's best for everyone.

[Guest]

No one should post in a serious manor when refering to Rush. Please remember, he is a comedian and not an information sourse.

[Guest]

No one should post in a serious manor when refering to Rush. Please remember, he is a comedian and not an information sourse.

Of course he is one of, if the the most, influential member of the media and has had history changing effects with his commentary.

But, you're free to be a bit delusional about him. God knows you are not alone.

[Guest]

I am absolutely ignoring what you consider the issues.

Rush is ignoring the issues because he has no plausable arguments against them. And you are ignoring the issues because you are his faithful follower.

I have my own issue, and that is the freedom to live your own life without undue influence from elitists who believe they know what's best for everyone.

Undue influence, obviously, by your standards, is when one or two people in the U.S. speak up and say something contrairy to Rush's beliefs. You can't tolerate it. That's what comes from football elitists.

[Guest]

Rush is ignoring the issues because he has no plausable arguments against them. And you are ignoring the issues because you are his faithful follower.
Undue influence, obviously, by your standards, is when one or two people in the U.S. speak up and say something contrairy to Rush's beliefs. You can't tolerate it. That's what comes from football elitists.

I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm much too busy. I read your post and then went to read his transcript and saw that you mislead everyone on this issue because you have a bee in your bonnet about people's behavior that you deem dangerous, whether it's sports or foods you don't approve of, and really believe you know better than anyone else what's good for them, and that you should be able to curtail that activity.

I think Rush is right and you are wrong. It's an issue of personal freedom and Rush believes in freedom, and you believe in a nanny state that would control the behaviors of people that you don't like. You should write Mayor Nanny Bloomberg in NY and see if he needs an assistant.

[Guest]

Why do so many millions find Rush Limbaugh to be considered a negative influence on our country?

[Guest]

Why do so many millions find Rush Limbaugh to be considered a negative influence on our country?

Because he is.

[Guest]

Why do so many millions find Rush Limbaugh to be considered a negative influence on our country?

First of all I reject your theory on "millions" of Americans. I believe you wish that were true.

But in answer to your question; it's because he exposes his critics for the people they are.

[Guest]

First of all I reject your theory on "millions" of Americans. I believe you wish that were true.

But in answer to your question; it's because he exposes his critics for the people they are.

Would he not have any critics to expose if he were a little more sensitive to others and their feelings. I remember the saying YOU CATCH MORE BEES WITH SUGAR THAN SALT. For that reason alone he could do more good for the country with sensible words rather than hateful criticism. Just a thought.

[Guest]

Would he not have any critics to expose if he were a little more sensitive to others and their feelings. I remember the saying YOU CATCH MORE BEES WITH SUGAR THAN SALT. For that reason alone he could do more good for the country with sensible words rather than hateful criticism. Just a thought.

I guess Rush could be a bit nicer and non-confrontational to the targets of his commentary, and I would bet that contrary to your opinion his ratings would plummet to the basement like the ratings of his competitors.

[Guest]

I guess Rush could be a bit nicer and non-confrontational to the targets of his commentary, and I would bet that contrary to your opinion his ratings would plummet to the basement like the ratings of his competitors.

Your probably right. Just Like bill Moyer. I guess most viewers want to hear the negative. It is like a wreck on the highway, people seem to be disappointed if they slow down but don't see any blood.

[Guest]

I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh.

You subscribe to his (whatever it's called) 24/7 newsletter? Whatever it is, you pay for the garbage he puts out. That says it all.

I'm much too busy. I read your post and then went to read his transcript and saw that you mislead everyone on this issue...."

In what way did I mislead? Unlike you, I told the truth. I gave my commentary in the form satire. And then stated that the above words were not his. That was full disclosure. And then you came along as if you were saving everyone. I stand by that first post. He doesn't appear to give a damn about injuries or taxes. And that was the point of my satire.

....because you have a bee in your bonnet about people's behavior that you deem dangerous, whether it's sports or foods you don't approve of, and really believe you know better than anyone else what's good for them, and that you should be able to curtail that activity.

And of course everyone knows it is YOU who knows better than anyone else what' good for them. And what is it? FOOTBALL. And we must all fall in line, or else.

I think Rush is right and you are wrong.

Rush is becoming a bigger and bigger jerk every day.

It's an issue of personal freedom and Rush believes in freedom, and you believe in a nanny state that would control the behaviors of people that you don't like. You should write Mayor Nanny Bloomberg in NY and see if he needs an assistant.

If Rush doesn't want a "nanny state" then let's stop funding football with taxpayer money.

I have plenty to say about Bloomberg and NY but that's another topic. If you want to talk about it start another thread.

[Guest]

I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh. I'm much too busy. I read your post and then went to read his transcript and saw that you mislead everyone on this issue because you have a bee in your bonnet about people's behavior that you deem dangerous, whether it's sports or foods you don't approve of, and really believe you know better than anyone else what's good for them, and that you should be able to curtail that activity.

I think Rush is right and you are wrong. It's an issue of personal freedom and Rush believes in freedom, and you believe in a nanny state that would control the behaviors of people that you don't like. You should write Mayor Nanny Bloomberg in NY and see if he needs an assistant.

May I suggest a subcri[tion to Rush 24/7. You get the show and morning update in podcasts. An hour takes around 34min without commercials. He also does not send the music an parodies. If you are at your computer from 12-3 you can watch him do the show on the "Dittocam".

I got an iPod just for Rush so I could listen to him after work.

Important to hear what Elrushbo really says, not what the Drive-by Media claims he said.

In this case, Football should be the decision of the player, not the Nanny State.

[Guest]

In this case, Football should be the decision of the player, not the Nanny State.

This is about high school football. If budgets are stretched thin and taxpayers (and their representatives) are looking for somthing to cut, they are free to consider cutting football. Therefore, the decision should be made by those who pay for football, not by football players. And, Patty Saxton, a school board member, had every right to make the comments that she made.

High school football players, who are still wet behind the ears, don't get to dictate school policy, as you suggested. The state (that you call Nanny) represents the people who pay the bills.

[Guest]

May I suggest a subcri[tion to Rush 24/7. You get the show and morning update in podcasts. An hour takes around 34min without commercials. He also does not send the music an parodies. If you are at your computer from 12-3 you can watch him do the show on the "Dittocam".

I got an iPod just for Rush so I could listen to him after work.

Important to hear what Elrushbo really says, not what the Drive-by Media claims he said.

In this case, Football should be the decision of the player, not the Nanny State.

I do subscribe, but rarely have time to listen. If I'm home and on the computer I will listen to his stream, but not on his site as he does not stream live on it. I listen on News Talk Radio 77 WABC New York (http://www.wabcradio.com) out of NYC where you can listen to their whole line-up online for free.

I mostly subscribe for his immense library; what he calls his "stack of stuff". So much good stuff there.

His detractors don't like him because he exposes them for what they are. It's really just that simple.

[Guest]

This is about high school football. If budgets are stretched thin and taxpayers (and their representatives) are looking for somthing to cut, they are free to consider cutting football. Therefore, the decision should be made by those who pay for football, not by football players. And, Patty Saxton, a school board member, had every right to make the comments that she made.

High school football players, who are still wet behind the ears, don't get to dictate school policy, as you suggested. The state (that you call Nanny) represents the people who pay the bills.

As I pointed outgo earlier in this thread, in most parts of this country Football costs are not paid by the taxpayer. Football pays the bills for itself and most of the rest (or in some cases all the rest) of high school and college athletic programs.

[Guest]

His detractors don't like him because he exposes them for what they are. It's really just that simple.

And his blind followers have been exposed as those who can't think for themselves.

[Guest]

As I pointed outgo earlier in this thread, in most parts of this country Football costs are not paid by the taxpayer. Football pays the bills for itself and most of the rest (or in some cases all the rest) of high school and college athletic programs.

What about Penn. where a school board member, Patty Saxton, complained that taxpayers shouldn't fund high school football? Are you saying she didn't know that football pays for itself? And she worried about expensive law suits; what would happen if someone was awarded multiple millions of dollars? Who would pay? If what you say is true, why didn't Rush point that out? Instead, he didn't address the issue of taxes at all, and didn't adddress the issue of injuries.

[Guest]

And his blind followers have been exposed as those who can't think for themselves.

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

[Guest]

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

Ignorance is bliss. :laugh:

[Guest]

Ignorance is bliss. :laugh: For you it always has been.

[Guest]

I guess people who hate Limbaugh feel it convient to believe he represents the Repbulican Party and hence attempt to interpret his words and actions Repbulican .

Guess what believe it or not there are many people like me who do not listen to Limbaugh or other pundits but actually follow the issues and decide independently. Its call being an individual.

[Guest]

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

And how about you; do you feel better now?

[Guest]

What about Penn. where a school board member, Patty Saxton, complained that taxpayers shouldn't fund high school football? Are you saying she didn't know that football pays for itself? And she worried about expensive law suits; what would happen if someone was awarded multiple millions of dollars? Who would pay? If what you say is true, why didn't Rush point that out? Instead, he didn't address the issue of taxes at all, and didn't adddress the issue of injuries.

If you actually read Richie's reference, you would have noted that she objected to football in publicly funded schools and made no reference to the costs or monies made from the sport. She also objected to other contact sports such as soccer. Since she objects to contact sports this would necessarily extend to not only football and soccer, but basketball, hockey, girls field hockey, lacrosse, cheerleading, etc as well.

What sports, if any do you believe should be played at public high schools? Apparently you would go along with chess, checkers and little else. No risk of injury and no taxpayer money. Can't you just hear the cheers for a double jump? If you believe some sports should be allowed, do you think students and parents should have a voice in their selection or is up to the superior wisdom of people such as yourself and Patty Saxton? If you can find a reference that shows that football at schools in the Eastern PA area does not pay for itself, please provide it.

[Guest]

And how about you; do you feel better now?

I'm not a leftist, and so of course I don't make those ignorant assumptions about Rush Limbaugh and his listeners views which he validates.

[Guest]

I guess people who hate Limbaugh feel it convient to believe he represents the Repbulican Party and hence attempt to interpret his words and actions Repbulican .

Who are these nebulous "people" who hate Limbaugh? Can you be more specific?

Guess what believe it or not there are many people like me who do not listen to Limbaugh or other pundits but actually follow the issues and decide independently. Its call being an individual.

I don't accept your premise that one cannot listen to Rush and still be an individual. I want to stay informed of the latest "stupid things" he's feeding his blind followers.

By the way, I believe he claims to represent conservatives rather than the Republican party. That's why I'm perplexed as to why he didn't support the tax and liability issues put forth by Patty Saxton. Well, not only didn't he support her, he called her a "busybody woman".

I wonder why no one on this board has been able to explain this?

[Guest]

His detractors don't like him because he exposes them for what they are. It's really just that simple.

Who are these mysterious detractors? Anyone who questions what he says?
If you dare question what he says, you're a detractor! Very interesting.
You're either a follower or a detractor; there's no inbetween.

[Guest]

Most leftists make ignorant statements like that. It makes them feels better about themselves.

Why are you referring to "most leftists"? Can't you be more specific?

[Guest]

By the way, I believe he claims to represent conservatives rather than the Republican party. That's why I'm perplexed as to why he didn't support the tax and liability issues put forth by Patty Saxton. Well, not only didn't he support her, he called her a "busybody woman".

I wonder why no one on this board has been able to explain this?

I believe I did just that is post 64. Why don't you read it and see if it answers your question and then answer the ones I posted.

[Guest]

If you actually read Richie's reference, you would have noted that she objected to football in publicly funded schools and made no reference to the costs or monies made from the sport.

So, now you are objecting to what she didn't say. But you don't object to what Rush didn't say. Rush didn't say that high school football pays for itself. You were the one that said high school football pays for itself and now you're changing the subject because you can't back it up.

She also objected to other contact sports such as soccer. Since she objects to contact sports this would necessarily extend to not only football and soccer, but basketball, hockey, girls field hockey, lacrosse, cheerleading, etc as well.

No, it wouldn't "necessarily extend" to other sports. Stop trying to change the subject.

What sports, if any do you believe should be played at public high schools? Apparently you would go along with chess, checkers and little else. No risk of injury and no taxpayer money. Can't you just hear the cheers for a double jump?

Again, stop trying to change the subject.

If you believe some sports should be allowed, do you think students and parents should have a voice in their selection or is up to the superior wisdom of people such as yourself and Patty Saxton?

As I have already indicated, all of these decissions should ultimately be determined by the taxpayers and their representatives.

If you can find a reference that shows that football at schools in the Eastern PA area does not pay for itself, please provide it.

You were the one who made the contrary (contrary to what a knowledgeable school board member said) statement that high school football pays for itself. So, the burden of proof is on you.

[Guest]

What Ms. Paxton did say was that she objected to football being played in taxpayer funded schools. She did not say that she objected to taxpayer money being spent on football. Unless you have another source, please do not extend her objection to football being played in publicly funded schools to taxpayer funding of football. An entirely different thing. You invented this claim out of whole cloth and need to back it up or admit you cannot. I doubt you'll do either since you keep trying to avoid the issues.

What other sports? If spending of taxpayer money is part of the issue as you contend, then THIS IS THE SUBJECT. Stop trying to avoid the issue of taxpayer funding of sports in public schools. The same applies to your next comment.

You did clearly answer that students and their parents should not have a voice in the matter of sports to be selected, but rather that it be determined by, "taxpayers and their representatives." Students have no voice and instead of direct parental involvement you favor determination by government. Local, State or Federal? What are you favoring?

Your 'knowledgeable school board member' did not make the assertion that football does not pay for itself. This was your claim and again I ask you for proof of your assertion.

[Guest]

What Ms. Paxton did say was that she objected to football being played in taxpayer funded schools. She did not say that she objected to taxpayer money being spent on football. Unless you have another source, please do not extend her objection to football being played in publicly funded schools to taxpayer funding of football. An entirely different thing. You invented this claim out of whole cloth and need to back it up or admit you cannot. I doubt you'll do either since you keep trying to avoid the issues.

Of course, you're just nit-picking because you can't back up your statement that high school football pays for itself in Penn. I'm simply defending her statement that, "schools funded by the general taxpayer base is inappropriate."

What other sports? If spending of taxpayer money is part of the issue as you contend, then THIS IS THE SUBJECT. Stop trying to avoid the issue of taxpayer funding of sports in public schools. The same applies to your next comment.

Football is the issue.

You did clearly answer that students and their parents should not have a voice in the matter of sports to be selected, but rather that it be determined by, "taxpayers and their representatives." Students have no voice and instead of direct parental involvement you favor determination by government. Local, State or Federal? What are you favoring?

Whatever Patty Saxton was calling for as a school board member.

Your 'knowledgeable school board member' did not make the assertion that football does not pay for itself. This was your claim and again I ask you for proof of your assertion.

In my opinion, the burden of proof is still on you because you brought it up. Anyway, I don't much care one way or the other. Whatever her exact position is on the matter, I'm simply defending her right (as a school board member) to make a judgement and express her opinion. Obviously, there may be budget issues we don't know about.

And I notice you cleaverly left out the issue of potential liability that may result from serious injuries. Who would pay, for example, a multi-million dollar judgement, if not taxpayers?