T1B

Classic shit. I'm surprised that it took Jackson this long to snap on Irvin.

[video width=400 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/v/pCpFOdVA3Wo[/video]

Would have been nice to actually hear Jacksons rebutal, aside from the name calling.

kcdave wrote:Would have been nice to actually hear Jacksons rebutal, aside from the name calling.

1. Why? The question itself was retarded.

2. You'd bore the stripe off of a dead skunk's back.

3. Name calling would be. "You are retarded" not "Are you retarded?" That would be a rhetorical question.

4. A followup to #1. What could possibly interest you in the rebuttal of a question of who a professional game is more important to? What would have made it nice?

Irvin, in my opinion, was wrong. However, I would submit that TJ showed the utter lack of class that everyone accuses Irvin of...Irvin should have retorted "no rings says what?" or maybe just "that was not my real take I just found it on the floor of my car"

LOL!


"Are you retarded?"




I was looking for the poll Yes or No

Irvin talks and looks like a clown.
The knot on his tie is as big as a grizzly bear's prostate, but hey, he's got an excuse.
He's on crack.

Jackson is just a straight up PUSSY.
I'll never get over the fact that dude was going to quit if ESPN didn't fire R. Limbaugh for ..... giving a take.
WTF ... ?
Imagine that, a talking head giving his take.

Usless cunt.

Fuck him endlessly.

poptart wrote:Jackson is just a straight up PUSSY.
I'll never get over the fact that dude was going to quit if ESPN didn't fire R. Limbaugh for ..... giving a take.
WTF ... ?
Imagine that, a talking head giving his take.

Usless cunt.

Fuck him endlessly.

So let's just put David Duke on the show. After all, he's just "giving a take".

Rush Limbaugh's Comments on ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown

September 28, 2003


RUSH: I've been listening to all of you guys, actually, and I think the sum total of what you're all saying is that Donovan McNabb is regressing, is going backwards --

TOM JACKSON: Mmm-hmm. (Nodding)

RUSH: -- and my... I'm sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.

TOM JACKSON: Mmm-hmm. (Nodding)

MICHAEL IRVIN: (Nodding)


RUSH: I think there is a lot of hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't really deserve. The defense carried this team, I think.

TOM JACKSON: But Rush -- But Rush somebody went to those championship games.

RUSH: Oh, they "went."

TOM JACKSON: Somebody made those plays that I saw running down the field, doing it with his legs, doing it with his arm. He has been a very effective quarterback for this football team over the last two or three years –

RUSH: Yeah, but you take –

TOM JACKSON: -- and they didn't have any more talent then than they do now.

RUSH: Oh yes they did: on defense. On defense, they did.

MICHAEL IRVIN: (Nodding)

TOM JACKSON: (Nodding) Oh, on defense they did. I'm talking on the offense side of the ball.


RUSH: Well, that's what I'm saying. I think he got a lot of credit for the defensive side of the ball winning games for this team.


STEVE YOUNG: But I'll tell you what. I'll say it even more strongly, Tom. When they're winning, nobody makes more plays --

TOM JACKSON: Right.

STEVE YOUNG: -- with his arm than Donnvan McNabb. That guy is one of the best in the league at making plays, BUT making plays does not win championships. Running the offense does. So at some point --

TOM JACKSON: Gotta run the offense.

STEVE YOUNG: -- I think that Koy Detmer looks like a better option because he'll go in there, drop back, and throw the ball correctly.

CHRIS BERMAN: Isn't it odd that last year with the broken leg – I know it was Arizona – but the one time he was in the pocket he looked great. Right?

STEVE YOUNG: He had to run that offense.

TOM JACKSON: So Rush, once you make that investment though – once you make that investment in him, that's a done deal.

RUSH: I'm saying it's a good investment. Don't misunderstand. I just don't think he's as good as everybody says he has been.


MICHAEL IRVIN: Rush has a point.

STEVE YOUNG: Well, he (McNabb) certainly hasn't matured.

MICHAEL IRVIN: Rush has a point.

------------------------------------------------------

Vicous, ugly, awful, racist stuff there.
Enough to get a man fired.

x infinity


Note: The Philadelphia defense WAS damn good McNabb's first 3 yrs as a starter (4th, 2nd, and 2nd in the league in pts allowed).

poptart wrote:Vicous, ugly, awful, racist stuff there.
Enough to get a man fired.

You would like to think we're past the "can a black QB play in the NFL" debate.

Aren't we?

Limbaugh made NO such comment.

poptart wrote:Limbaugh made NO such comment.

By saying "I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well", Limbaugh is presupposing that there is still a debate. Which makes LImbaugh even more retarded than Irvin.

You are the one 'presupposing' things.

Aren't you one who likes to champion freedom of expression ... ?

Or is that not applicable when the dreaded right wing windbag is the one giving opinions ... ?

poptart wrote:You are the one 'presupposing' things.

Aren't you one who likes to champion freedom of expression ... ?

Or is that not applicable when the dreaded right wing windbag is the one giving opinions ... ?

Limbaugh has every right to say what is on his mind, no matter how idiotic those things might be. That same right extends to Jackson. ESPN also has the right to shitcan employees should they become a disruption in the workplace. Welcome to capitalisim you pinko.

Of course they have the right, and they excercized that right.

The ESPN leadership showed themselves for what they are by exercising that right in this case.

poptart wrote:Of course they have the right, and they excercized that right.

The ESPN leadership showed themselves for what they are by exercising that right in this case.

The word you are looking for is "smart". As in the ESPN leadership was smart for tossing Limbaugh to the curb.

Smart depends on how you want to look at it.

I look at ESPN's leadership as PC cunts.

Sell-outs.

They keep a crackhead on their football broadcast, yet fire a guy who gives a legit take that ESPN is fearful a segment of the audience doesn't want to hear.

ESPN has a segment on it's highlight show called 'Jacked Up' where juvenile sounding middle-aged men yuk it up and scream 'YOU GOT JACKED UP!!!!!' while showing highlights of players getting hurt.

Whatever floats your boat, smart guy.

poptart wrote:Smart depends on how you want to look at it.

Not really. Limbaugh was becoming a locker room cancer. ESPN cut the cancer out before it could grow. End of story.

Well regardless of ESPN's decision to "resign" Rush from the show, I think few would argue Tom Jackson was being a whiny bitch on the show immediately after his resignation. Let's face it, it wasn't a racist comment and Tom went way overboard.

We do agree the comment wasn't racist, right?

Rush said nothing wrong. If Steve Young asked Micheal Irvin if he was retarted, I guarantee Steve would be apologizing on air or even been fired.

This thread is fucking retarded. You pecker heads are amazing, fucking argueing over stupid shit that goes on between talking heads in a fucking studio. What does this have to do with football?

Move this shite to Trots.

I found it a bit ironic that ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh for going Rush Limbaugh on the broadcast. No, the comment wasn't racist, it was Limbaugh's opinion about the media. But this is a guy who has made "bone through the nose" comments about black callers to his show and other infamous racial blasts. When they hired him, they knew exactly what they were getting. They got it, then cut him loose for being himself.

That being said, I had no problem with Rush getting the axe, as I generally found his comments to be boring, boorish and brought that broadcast to a screeching halt every time they would throw that stupid red flag so that he could talk.

OCmike wrote:I found it a bit ironic that ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh for going Rush Limbaugh on the broadcast. No, the comment wasn't racist, it was Limbaugh's opinion about the media. But this is a guy who has made "bone through the nose" comments about black callers to his show and other infamous racial blasts. When they hired him, they knew exactly what they were getting. They got it, then cut him loose for being himself.

That being said, I had no problem with Rush getting the axe, as I generally found his comments to be boring, boorish and brought that broadcast to a screeching halt every time they would throw that stupid red flag so that he could talk.

Yea, I found it ironic as well. I think the folks at ESPN underestimated Limbaugh's capacity as a lightning rod for controversy. Once they realized exactly how polarizing Limbaugh could be on their show, they cut him loose. It is not like the folks at Disney are looking to make those kind of waves. Remember, these are the same network folks that fired Bill Maher.

Maher said, "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly,"

I don't know that he should have been fired for that comment.

Prolly should have just had his head bashed in.

poptart wrote:Maher said, "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly,"

I don't know that he should have been fired for that comment.

Prolly should have just had his head bashed in.

You mean Maher should have had his head bashed in for attacking Clinton?



Methinks the Raider fan is suffering from PTSD.

Your inability to look at issues from a perspective other than democrats good, republicans bad significantly compromises your intellectual integrity.

poptart wrote:Your inability to look at issues from a perspective other than democrats good, republicans bad significantly compromises your intellectual integrity.

Would it be asking too much for the myopic cum swilling Raider fan to at least put SOME NFL smack into his post? Seriously, are you retarded?

Oh yeah, but great yob keeping the racist crackhead on air, ESPNonsense.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm




IRVIN APOLOGIZES, OFF THE AIR

Michael McCarthy of USA Today reports that ESPN analyst Michael Irvin has apologized for his comments regarding Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo.

The apology ends up in print a full week after the incident, and it conveniently was made off the air.

"It's clear I was joking around. But I understand my comments were inappropriate. I apologize for those comments," Irvin told McCarthy in a phone interview.

Irvin said last Monday on The Dan Patrick Show that one possible explanation for Romo's exceptional athletic ability is that one of his female ancestors mated with a slave.

Said ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys: "Generalizations about heritage are inappropriate even in jest, and what Michael said was wrong. We have spoken to Michael about it."

Even more inappropriate, in our assessment, is that there wasn't a hint of an apology until after an AP column ripping Irvin for his comments was published over the weekend. So did ESPN not decide until before the conclusion of Sunday's two-hour pregame show that what Irvin had said was wrong? Or was the network merely monitoring the extent to which the story grew (or, as they hoped, stagnated) before deciding when to pull the pin on the "I'm sorry" option?

Um, it's the latter.

Don't get us wrong on this. It's good that Irvin apologized. And the fact that the apology will appear in the Monday morning edition of a national daily that we've been reading on a near-daily basis since the early 1980s means that the story will finally get the widespread attention it deserves.

With that said, we were a little troubled by McCarthy's seemingly gratuitous dig at those (like us) who forced the story into the mainstream by complaining so loudly about it.

"[T]he stylized, Kabuki-style reaction to these media-driven controversies suggests there's hypocrisy to go around," McCarthy writes. "Some critics screaming for Irvin's head are driven more by jealousy or animosity for a TV personality they don't like. It's also frighteningly easy to screw up on live TV/radio."

As a preliminary matter, we're not sure that reference to a theatrical tradition in which performers paint their faces white is the best choice in this particular situation. On a deeper level, we find it ironic that McCarthy would make Irvin's apology the focal point of his Monday submission and then shake a crooked finger at the very folks who helped keep the issue alive through a Holiday weekend in which many members of the "real" media were either on vacation or mailing it in.

Then again, McCarthy might have felt (consciously or otherwise) the need to express gratitude for the decision of Irvin and ESPN to hand-feed the apology to him. Or maybe McCarthy's decision to take up for Irvin was simply part of the deal, if indeed a quid pro quo of any kind was negotiated (expressly or otherwise) for access to Irvin.

As to McCarthy's suggestion that it's "frighteningly easy to screw up on live TV/radio," that's all the more reason (in our view) that former players shouldn't be given unlimited license to appear on live TV/radio until they have proven that they understand, on an extemporaneous basis, the line between what is and isn't proper. In Irvin's case, ESPN continues to throw caution to the wind because some focus group somewhere has opined that they "like" Irvin. (And because Irvin delivers "exclusive" softball sessions with "troubled" NFL players who "identify" with the Playmaker.)

Bottom line -- if Irvin isn't going to be held accountable for what he says on the air, then ESPN should be held accountable for putting him on it.

And McCarthy's lame-o excuse for Irvin's actions can be applied to any situation in which offensive words or conduct invade our ears or eyes. "It's frighteningly easy," McCarthy might have said after halftime of Super Bowl XXXVIII, "for a breast to spring out of a shirt on live TV."

McCarthy closes out his column by noting that Irvin might have benefited from having a babysitter like ESPN partner Tom Jackson to reel him in. But then McCarthy notes that, when Jackson tried to do so earlier this year by asking Irvin whether he was "retarded," Jackson became the subject of criticism.

First, Jackson wasn't criticized in very many spaces other than this one, so he really wasn't criticized in the "real" media sense.

Second, what the heck is your point here, McCarthy? Are you saying that it's okay for someone to say stupid and/or offensive things on live TV/radio in order to prevent someone else from doing so? Or are you just merely making sure that the folks in Bristol are sufficiently pleased with the kid-gloves treatment you've given to an embarrassing issue that was destined to get out in widespread fashion after the AP pounced on it?

We've known for a while that ESPN/ABC/Disney owns pretty much every channel on the dial. We must have missed the press release announcing Mickey Mouse's acquisition of USA Today.

No take from you, mr bri' .... ?

The network shitcanned the white republican for skimming the surface of a race issue, and yet keeps the black crackhead racist who spoke some strange shit about a white player being good because one of his female ancestors mated with a slave ... ?

hahahaha



All respect to ESPN for keeping it real, yo.

True dat. They don't want The Revs breavin down thay backs.

It's amazing he still has a job, he must have a ton of footage and pics of ESPN brass.