Like a the mean Santa Ana winds, she blew through LA defense and left the damaged behind. With gut and determination, and a little lace, she shreded the defense and ran into the history books in Lingerie Bowl III.
Posted on 02/10/2006 3:58:47 PM PST by haole
Whiney "See Honks" really are tiresome.
Rush is the man!
It's true!!! No matter what happens, when the play has been reviewed in ANY sport, and all was said and done, it's what ended up on the board that counts. That's probably what Rush meant. Who cares, anyway? This is totally splitting hairs. I can't possibly see what this very vague comment has to do with a man's credibility.
"You don't remember what things were like before Rush?
Rush is the man!"
About a month after Rush went national he had an hour where only conservatives could call, they sounded like war survivors crawling out of bunkers, unsure of themselves, a little doubtful this was real. As the years of Rush grew you could hear the bold confident voices of conservatives, now that they finally had a national voice. Let me say God bless Rush and never forget William F. Buckley who also was a voice in the wilderness.
Amen.
No, haole, it's not that it's only a game. It's that it's pathetic that you think everyone must believe as you do or else they can't be trusted. The guy scored a touchdown. I saw the replays, and I agree with the refs. Rush agrees with the refs.
You're analogy to judicial candidates is downright insulting. To me, to the refs, to Rush, to the other 79 players on the field. If you want to accuse the refs of ruling by fiat (i.e., lying) you're way off base.
As for expecting a player to correct an official who sided with him: I could see your point if the player knew for CERTAIN something. Suppose a catcher missed the tag, and the umpire called the runner out. In that case, the catcher KNOWS the umpire screwed up*. But the quarterback didn't KNOW the touchdown wasn't good. So he didn't lie by omission (failing to correct a falsehood). He simply deferred to a higher authority, who frankly was in a better position to know. And that is perfectly honest, moral and just.
(*By the way, the catecher's moral necessity is very debatable. Baseball purposely does NOT have instant replay, even though instant replay would be extremely effective at calling balls and strikes, for instance. One could infer from this that "working the umpire" is perfectly legit. And indeed, umpires seem to take no offense at all to such attempts as shrinking a batter strike zone, a catcher pulling a ball into a strike zone, or a shortstop jumping a bag in a double play. However, I will agree that in football, "working the ref" is dishonorable.)
Actually, when Bush's amnesty plan looked like it was going to pass last year, I was blown away at how plainly Rush attacked Bush.
Your screenname has an "a" and an "h" switched.
If we remain obsessed with such pettiness, we will become the Democrats, ie unable to win elections as we look like clowns to the general public.
Quite a different story if Rush, say, endorsed a gun grabbing, pro-abort RINO like Rudy Giuliani because he was "the only guy who could win." Then even I would be going after Rush.
Blam I agree with you about how we should remember how it was before Rush came on the scene.
Rush is awesome and no one comes even close to what he has contributed to those of us that have wanted someone like that on the radio. There has never been anyone like him, and never will be again at least I feel that way.
If the ref's say it was a touchdown...it was a touchdown. The end. Move on...life is short.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.