Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (521291)	10/16/2009 4:04:09 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579789

The only relevant statement that he clearly made was that McNabb was overrated (which correct or incorrect is a normal type of statement of someone commenting on sports to make), and that the reason was because in Rush's opinion the press wanted to have a currently successful example of a black quarterback. That last part was obviously controversial, but its about the press more than its about McNabb or black people in general. The problem with it is not that its racist (note he isn't saying "McNabb is a bad QB because he's black", or "black QB's aren't any good", or any such racist claptrap), but that its an accusation of a form of racism by the press. A statement like that is offensive if false, just like any other false accusations or racism or racist statements (like the apparently false accusations about Rush, concerning other statements), and even if its not clearly false, just not solidly substantiated, is problematic, and creates more heat than light. Even if its true, it could reasonably be called "insensitive" (although if we're going to toss people out, or keep them out, of the NFL for mere insensitivity than a big chunk of the league has to go). OTOH as Joe said before, I believe in freedom of association, if the league, or the other potential owners in the group he was formerly in, don't want to associate with him then they shouldn't have to (if they have some contractual obligation to him, it can be enforced, but I haven't seen that they do, and if they do, often it can be taken care of by money, rather than continued association).