Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

Let me not be the one to judge who should and who should not make my
skin crawl as a potential NFL owner. Let's hear the stewards of
professional football speak for themselves...


BOSTON -- Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into
opposition within the NFL on Tuesday, when Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed
to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the
conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated
from any NFL insider.

"I, myself, couldn't even consider voting for him," Irsay said at an
owners meetings. "When there are comments that have been made that are
inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive ... our words do damage, and
it's something that we don't need."

Limbaugh has long been a hero of conservatives and villain to the
left, thriving on his place in the political spectrum while
establishing himself as one of the most successful broadcasters in
history. But the NFL tries to avoid controversy, as Limbaugh learned
in 2003 when he was forced to resign from ESPN's Sunday Night Football
broadcast after saying of Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb: "I think what
we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has
been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Goodell repeatedly distanced the league from Limbaugh's statements on
Tuesday, calling them "polarizing comments that we don't think reflect
accurately on the NFL or our players."

"I have said many times before that we are all held to a higher
standard here," the commissioner said. "I think divisive comments are
not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kind of
comments from people who are in a responsible position within the NFL.
No. Absolutely not."

According to transcripts posted on his Web site, in 2007 Limbaugh also
said: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and
the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." That comment, and
others, resurfaced this month when he revealed he is teaming with St.
Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to bid on the Rams.

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:33:12 -0700, jps wrote:


Let me not be the one to judge who should and who should not make my
skin crawl as a potential NFL owner. Let's hear the stewards of
professional football speak for themselves...


BOSTON -- Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into
opposition within the NFL on Tuesday, when Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed
to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the
conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated
from any NFL insider.

"I, myself, couldn't even consider voting for him," Irsay said at an
owners meetings. "When there are comments that have been made that are
inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive ... our words do damage, and
it's something that we don't need."

Limbaugh has long been a hero of conservatives and villain to the
left, thriving on his place in the political spectrum while
establishing himself as one of the most successful broadcasters in
history. But the NFL tries to avoid controversy, as Limbaugh learned
in 2003 when he was forced to resign from ESPN's Sunday Night Football
broadcast after saying of Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb: "I think what
we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has
been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Goodell repeatedly distanced the league from Limbaugh's statements on
Tuesday, calling them "polarizing comments that we don't think reflect
accurately on the NFL or our players."

"I have said many times before that we are all held to a higher
standard here," the commissioner said. "I think divisive comments are
not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kind of
comments from people who are in a responsible position within the NFL.
No. Absolutely not."

According to transcripts posted on his Web site, in 2007 Limbaugh also
said: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and
the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." That comment, and
others, resurfaced this month when he revealed he is teaming with St.
Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to bid on the Rams.

Let me phrase the question differently. What persons would I be
villified and punished for judging them?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:33:12 -0700, jps wrote:


Let me not be the one to judge who should and who should not make my
skin crawl as a potential NFL owner. Let's hear the stewards of
professional football speak for themselves...


BOSTON -- Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into
opposition within the NFL on Tuesday, when Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed
to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the
conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated
from any NFL insider.

"I, myself, couldn't even consider voting for him," Irsay said at an
owners meetings. "When there are comments that have been made that are
inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive ... our words do damage, and
it's something that we don't need."

Limbaugh has long been a hero of conservatives and villain to the
left, thriving on his place in the political spectrum while
establishing himself as one of the most successful broadcasters in
history. But the NFL tries to avoid controversy, as Limbaugh learned
in 2003 when he was forced to resign from ESPN's Sunday Night Football
broadcast after saying of Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb: "I think what
we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has
been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Goodell repeatedly distanced the league from Limbaugh's statements on
Tuesday, calling them "polarizing comments that we don't think reflect
accurately on the NFL or our players."

"I have said many times before that we are all held to a higher
standard here," the commissioner said. "I think divisive comments are
not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kind of
comments from people who are in a responsible position within the NFL.
No. Absolutely not."

According to transcripts posted on his Web site, in 2007 Limbaugh also
said: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and
the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." That comment, and
others, resurfaced this month when he revealed he is teaming with St.
Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to bid on the Rams.

Let me phrase the question differently. What persons would I be
villified and punished for judging them?

In fact, I'll further tool the question (no double entendre intended).
What persons would I be condemned for judging those persons, or what
persons do I not have the freedom to judge?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:56:42 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:33:12 -0700, jps wrote:


Let me not be the one to judge who should and who should not make my
skin crawl as a potential NFL owner. Let's hear the stewards of
professional football speak for themselves...


BOSTON -- Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into
opposition within the NFL on Tuesday, when Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed
to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the
conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated
from any NFL insider.

"I, myself, couldn't even consider voting for him," Irsay said at an
owners meetings. "When there are comments that have been made that are
inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive ... our words do damage, and
it's something that we don't need."

Limbaugh has long been a hero of conservatives and villain to the
left, thriving on his place in the political spectrum while
establishing himself as one of the most successful broadcasters in
history. But the NFL tries to avoid controversy, as Limbaugh learned
in 2003 when he was forced to resign from ESPN's Sunday Night Football
broadcast after saying of Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb: "I think what
we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has
been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Goodell repeatedly distanced the league from Limbaugh's statements on
Tuesday, calling them "polarizing comments that we don't think reflect
accurately on the NFL or our players."

"I have said many times before that we are all held to a higher
standard here," the commissioner said. "I think divisive comments are
not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kind of
comments from people who are in a responsible position within the NFL.
No. Absolutely not."

According to transcripts posted on his Web site, in 2007 Limbaugh also
said: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and
the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." That comment, and
others, resurfaced this month when he revealed he is teaming with St.
Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to bid on the Rams.

Let me phrase the question differently. What persons would I be
villified and punished for judging them?

In fact, I'll further tool the question (no double entendre intended).
What persons would I be condemned for judging those persons, or what
persons do I not have the freedom to judge?

First, you'd have to pose the question in a way that made any sense.

Secondly, you judge others pretty consistently so I wonder where you
have any standing to question my pursuit of same?

Thirdly, what would Jesus do about Rush Limbaugh?

Fourthly, how do you feel about Rush? Is he your BFF?

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:21:12 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:56:42 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:24:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:33:12 -0700, jps wrote:


Let me not be the one to judge who should and who should not make my
skin crawl as a potential NFL owner. Let's hear the stewards of
professional football speak for themselves...


BOSTON -- Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into
opposition within the NFL on Tuesday, when Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed
to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the
conservative commentator's "divisive" comments would not be tolerated
from any NFL insider.

"I, myself, couldn't even consider voting for him," Irsay said at an
owners meetings. "When there are comments that have been made that are
inappropriate, incendiary and insensitive ... our words do damage, and
it's something that we don't need."

Limbaugh has long been a hero of conservatives and villain to the
left, thriving on his place in the political spectrum while
establishing himself as one of the most successful broadcasters in
history. But the NFL tries to avoid controversy, as Limbaugh learned
in 2003 when he was forced to resign from ESPN's Sunday Night Football
broadcast after saying of Philadelphia's Donovan McNabb: "I think what
we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has
been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Goodell repeatedly distanced the league from Limbaugh's statements on
Tuesday, calling them "polarizing comments that we don't think reflect
accurately on the NFL or our players."

"I have said many times before that we are all held to a higher
standard here," the commissioner said. "I think divisive comments are
not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kind of
comments from people who are in a responsible position within the NFL.
No. Absolutely not."

According to transcripts posted on his Web site, in 2007 Limbaugh also
said: "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and
the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it." That comment, and
others, resurfaced this month when he revealed he is teaming with St.
Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to bid on the Rams.

Let me phrase the question differently. What persons would I be
villified and punished for judging them?

In fact, I'll further tool the question (no double entendre intended).
What persons would I be condemned for judging those persons, or what
persons do I not have the freedom to judge?

First, you'd have to pose the question in a way that made any sense.

Secondly, you judge others pretty consistently so I wonder where you
have any standing to question my pursuit of same?

Thirdly, what would Jesus do about Rush Limbaugh?

Fourthly, how do you feel about Rush? Is he your BFF?

I suppose you'll cajole me into paying complete attention; "For what
persons would I be villified and punished for judging those same
persons?"

WWJD? About Rush? Let's take a look (perhaps you can make sense of
this, assuming you have a good grasp of Jesus' deportment);

NAS Mat 15:22. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and
began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my
daughter is cruelly demon-possessed."
23. But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and
implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at
us."
24. But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel."

Was the Christ racist?
Now, I would expect that you are able to describe in what manner I
judge others (consistently, that is). I'm able to confuse the issue,
possibly, by once again resorting to Scripture;

NAS Luke 9:52. and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went
and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him.
53. But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward
Jerusalem.
54. When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do
You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume
them?"
55. But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what
kind of spirit you are of;
56. for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to
save them."] And they went on to another village.

Was the Christ forgiving? We'll consider another relevent passage;

NAS Mat 23:27. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For
you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful,
but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28. "So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you
are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the
tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30. and say, `If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we
would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the
prophets.'
31. "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who
murdered the prophets.
32. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the
sentence of hell?

So, was the Christ judgemental?

Consequently, if you have license to judge Limbaugh for an allegedly
overt prejudice, one he claims not to have, do you likewise have the
hubris to criticize or condemn me if I were to judge the likes of
Barney Frank?

Now then, how do I "feel" about Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh, like Michael
Moore, is a propagandist. He resorts to informal fallacy. He is
puerile in his mockery of others. He is far from someone I would care
to emulate or revere. However, as much as I find Michael Moore to be
offensive, I don't begrudge him making his 'documentaries.' I have as
much license to rebut and refute his campaign of disinformation.
Similarly, I don't begrudge Limbaugh having an ownership stake in an
NFL team. I have license and the freedom to not watch a Ram's game,
should I choose.

Hopefully, I can tie all of this together to make it somewhat
sensible. What would Jesus do about Rush? He would forgive him.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:42:55 -0500, wrote:



Consequently, if you have license to judge Limbaugh for an allegedly
overt prejudice, one he claims not to have, do you likewise have the
hubris to criticize or condemn me if I were to judge the likes of
Barney Frank?

Judge as you see fit. I think Barney Frank is a first rate lawmaker.

You're welcome to whatever opinion you have, assuming you have the
capacity to form opinions.

Now then, how do I "feel" about Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh, like Michael
Moore, is a propagandist. He resorts to informal fallacy. He is
puerile in his mockery of others. He is far from someone I would care
to emulate or revere.

Good.

However, as much as I find Michael Moore to be
offensive, I don't begrudge him making his 'documentaries.' I have as
much license to rebut and refute his campaign of disinformation.

We have a difference of opinion when it comes to the license each
takes in making points.

Similarly, I don't begrudge Limbaugh having an ownership stake in an
NFL team. I have license and the freedom to not watch a Ram's game,
should I choose.

Fortunately, your opinion won't be considered when the NFL decides
whether he's someone with whom they'd like to be in business.

Let's just assume that he's feathered his nest well in advance of this
controversy and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that this is a
calculation on his behalf to focus the spotlight on himself.

Hopefully, I can tie all of this together to make it somewhat
sensible. What would Jesus do about Rush? He would forgive him.

He may well forgive him but he wouldn't put him in charge of the very
people he's disparaged and expect him to deal with them fairly.

Rush would have been calling for the heads of some tribe or another,
which wouldn't make him fitting material for the rabbinate.

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:44:17 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:42:55 -0500, wrote:



Consequently, if you have license to judge Limbaugh for an allegedly
overt prejudice, one he claims not to have, do you likewise have the
hubris to criticize or condemn me if I were to judge the likes of
Barney Frank?

Judge as you see fit. I think Barney Frank is a first rate lawmaker.

You're welcome to whatever opinion you have, assuming you have the
capacity to form opinions.

Now then, how do I "feel" about Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh, like Michael
Moore, is a propagandist. He resorts to informal fallacy. He is
puerile in his mockery of others. He is far from someone I would care
to emulate or revere.

Good.

However, as much as I find Michael Moore to be
offensive, I don't begrudge him making his 'documentaries.' I have as
much license to rebut and refute his campaign of disinformation.

We have a difference of opinion when it comes to the license each
takes in making points.

Similarly, I don't begrudge Limbaugh having an ownership stake in an
NFL team. I have license and the freedom to not watch a Ram's game,
should I choose.

Fortunately, your opinion won't be considered when the NFL decides
whether he's someone with whom they'd like to be in business.

Let's just assume that he's feathered his nest well in advance of this
controversy and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that this is a
calculation on his behalf to focus the spotlight on himself.

Hopefully, I can tie all of this together to make it somewhat
sensible. What would Jesus do about Rush? He would forgive him.

He may well forgive him but he wouldn't put him in charge of the very
people he's disparaged and expect him to deal with them fairly.

Rush would have been calling for the heads of some tribe or another,
which wouldn't make him fitting material for the rabbinate.

So tell me, was Jesus racist?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:57:44 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:44:17 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:42:55 -0500, wrote:



Consequently, if you have license to judge Limbaugh for an allegedly
overt prejudice, one he claims not to have, do you likewise have the
hubris to criticize or condemn me if I were to judge the likes of
Barney Frank?

Judge as you see fit. I think Barney Frank is a first rate lawmaker.

You're welcome to whatever opinion you have, assuming you have the
capacity to form opinions.

Now then, how do I "feel" about Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh, like Michael
Moore, is a propagandist. He resorts to informal fallacy. He is
puerile in his mockery of others. He is far from someone I would care
to emulate or revere.

Good.

However, as much as I find Michael Moore to be
offensive, I don't begrudge him making his 'documentaries.' I have as
much license to rebut and refute his campaign of disinformation.

We have a difference of opinion when it comes to the license each
takes in making points.

Similarly, I don't begrudge Limbaugh having an ownership stake in an
NFL team. I have license and the freedom to not watch a Ram's game,
should I choose.

Fortunately, your opinion won't be considered when the NFL decides
whether he's someone with whom they'd like to be in business.

Let's just assume that he's feathered his nest well in advance of this
controversy and I wouldn't doubt for a minute that this is a
calculation on his behalf to focus the spotlight on himself.

Hopefully, I can tie all of this together to make it somewhat
sensible. What would Jesus do about Rush? He would forgive him.

He may well forgive him but he wouldn't put him in charge of the very
people he's disparaged and expect him to deal with them fairly.

Rush would have been calling for the heads of some tribe or another,
which wouldn't make him fitting material for the rabbinate.

So tell me, was Jesus racist?

I supposed that depends on what point in his life you're asking about.

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:56:42 -0500, wrote:

what persons do I not have the freedom to judge?

Well, it goes without saying - me.

Being perfect I'm quite unjudgable.

Just goes with the territory - being a Evil Pan-Galactic Overlord and
Supreme Exalted Emporer of all that exists and stuff.

Yo, jpjccd, have a listen
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:42:55 -0500, wrote:



Consequently, if you have license to judge Limbaugh for an allegedly
overt prejudice, one he claims not to have, do you likewise have the
hubris to criticize or condemn me if I were to judge the likes of
Barney Frank?

Judge as you see fit. I think Barney Frank is a first rate lawmaker.

You're welcome to whatever opinion you have, assuming you have the
capacity to form opinions.

If anyone deserves to contract HIV its Barney Frank.