Has Obama pushed the Steelers to sell?
posted at 12:30 pm on July 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The complicated tax implications for succession, in combination with NFL ownership rules, have forced the last of the family-owned major sports franchises into a bitter battle. The Wall Street Journal and CNBC both look at the potential sale of the Pittsburgh Steelers, which has been in the hands of the Rooneys since joining the NFL in 1933. The implications of a Barack Obama presidency and his policy on capital-gains tax rates may force the Rooneys to unload the team:
[Daniel] Rooney, 75 years old, is attempting to buy his four brothers out of their interest in the team in order to comply with NFL regulations and put an orderly succession process in place. But in a move that shows they want to get full value for their individual 16% shares of the storied franchise, Mr. Rooney’s four brothers have retained Goldman Sachs & Co. to field and evaluate offers for their stakes in the team.
Those brothers — Art Rooney Jr., Timothy Rooney, Patrick Rooney and John Rooney — aren’t involved in the operations of the team, which is run by Daniel Rooney and his son, the team’s president. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Mr. Rooney has offered his brothers $35 million each for about one-third of each brother’s stake, which would increase his own stake to 36% from 16%, a valuation that would put the team’s worth at about $700 million. He also pledged to buy additional equity during the next decade.
The revelation has turned a quiet family squabble into a public battle for a trophy asset, a battle that includes financier Stanley Druckenmiller, billionaire chairman of Duquesne Capital Management. He is angling to buy a controlling interest in a franchise the Rooney family has owned since 1933.
This starts with two ownership issues with the NFL. First, the league now requires that the controlling partner own at least 30% of the team, and Daniel Rooney only owns 16%. He needs to buy some of the ownership interest from his brothers, who themselves provide the second NFL complication. They own a horse track and recently added poker tables — which conflicts with the league’s policy on gambling ties. They want the Rooney brothers to get out entirely and have tried to facilitate the transfer to Daniel Rooney.
Unfortunately, the sale has major tax implications, and it will get worse if Obama puts his tax plans into effect. CNBC reports on the impact:
A capital gains tax is a tax on the profit from a sale of something. Currently, if an owner sells a team, he’ll have to give 15 percent of the profit back to the government in capital gains. But under Obama’s current plans, that number could rise to as much as 28 percent, meaning that the money paid to the government after the sale of the team might double by next year.
Let’s say the Rooneys could get $1.3 billion for the Steelers. Factoring in everything they pumped into the team, let’s say their profit is $600 million. Selling it now vs. if Obama is in office could mean the difference of nearly $80 million.
That requires a quick turnaround, and Daniel Rooney apparently doesn’t have that kind of liquidity. Also, Democrats want to end the repeal of the estate tax, while McCain wants it extended, and that has all of the Rooneys worried about the tax burden their children will face when the current generation of owners move to that Great Gridiron In The Sky. All of this favors a sale in 2008, before the sale gets hit with huge taxes, and that means the Druckenmiller bid looks very attractive to everyone — except the NFL, Daniel Rooney, and probably all of Pennsylvania.
It may be just one example of how a lot of investors will act in 2008, facing the prospect of higher tax rates on investment profits, but it’s also going to have a great deal of impact in a key battleground state in 2008. Pittsburgh lives and dies with the Steelers, and the prospect of the Rooneys losing control of their team because of the tax policies of an Obama presidency will put his economic policies on the hotseat. Obama cannot afford to lose Pennsylvania to John McCain, but the real-world example of his redistributionist policies may give voters in the Keystone State a reason to think twice about Obama.
The Rooneys have earned a great deal of respect and affection in Pennsylvania and with sports fans nationwide — certainly more than Barack Obama has. With Obama threatening to throw the legacy of Jerome “The Bus” Bettis under the bus of a confiscatory tax policy, that affection for Obama certainly won’t increase.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
It’s an illusion my friend. If there is any justice in the world and the US is to regain the moral high ground, the traitors to the American ideal will be arrested and face prosecution. I would forget about total control however, as enticing a dream as that may have been.
Curiosity is what killed the cat, or didn’t you know?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Watchman rants:
wrong on all counts. Bush’s tax cuts benefited everyone, the middle class especially. First off, the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy went up after the cuts. Since the top 1% pay over 40% of income taxes while earning 16% of the income, the taxes are already highly progressive. The bottom 45% pay 0% of the taxes.
Secondly, as every economist will tell you, tax cuts benefit the economy. If you don’t believe a strong economy benefits you, then you probably live on govt handouts and don’t have to worry about keeping your job.
The richest nation in the world already provides lots of health care for most of it’s citizens.
Regardless, why do you think that you have a right to take money that other people earned, and spend it on your health care? What are you doing to provide your own? or are you one of those people who believe that it’s the responsibility of govt to look out for you.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Your understanding of historic events is staggering Bishop. I feel sorry for you.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Just as long as I know you are fine with attacking and occupying Serbia and Afghanistan, two nations which never attacked the U.S., then we are cool.
But hey, I suppose you could claim communist expansion as a reason to go to war against North Korea and China in 1950; now if only Bush had said that too, you would be onboard with him.
Still waiting on your “darkie” explanation.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The name of your savior is vain!
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Bishop,
You missed the obligatory pean to the notion that whatever 50%+1 of the population wants, they have a right to take, and the rest of us are not permitted to complain.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Why am I not surprised that Watchman brought up Israel? Okay, what UN Security Counsel resolution has Israel disobeyed? I counted about 15 Iraq disobeyed. Lemme guess: you have absolutely no problem with Hizbollah violating the UN resolution to disarm that ended the recent Hizbollah Israel war, do you? Dead Israelis, as well as dead Americans, don’t bother you, do they?
You sound dangerously close to “blame Israel for everything” mode. Which is also anti-semetic. And coupled with your “darkies” comment, I dare say you are showing up as quite the racist. No wonder you promote Democratic policies–they are the most racist people I know.
Watchman–answer these questions, if you dare:
1) Do you support the idea of Israel, or do you wish it to be destroyed?
2) Do you still wish Saddam was in power?
3) Do you believe the US was right to retaliate against Afghanistan and the Taliban after 9-11?
4) What, in your view, constitutes sufficient justification for the US to go to war? Does it involve more than just military attacks on US troops?
5) Do you ever think it is okay for the US to use military force?
6) Do you support the Death Penalty?
7) Do you wish Bush and Cheney would be tried, convicted, and executed for whatever reason?
8) Do you think it is possible to commit treason against the United States–and if so, how?
I dare you to answer those.
Vanceone on July 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Yessssssssss (hissing sound), our evil tentacles reach yet again into the very fabric of American society and snatch an unbeliever from their naive revery.
Illuminati unite!
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM
No, clawing my leather sofa killed the cat. I understand why you wouldn’t answer the question though.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM
go ahead and put your trust in your savior, ObaMAHDI and we’ll see who has the last laugh!
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Ah yes, the old Bush lied and people died meme.
It doesn’t matter how many times that fable is put to rest, liberals will continue to believe in it.
On the other hand, Watchman seems to believe in everyother liberal fable as well, so it’s hardly surprising.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 2:41 PM
It’s obvious Big Orange–Watchman likes France the best. Well, probably the France before Sarkozy. It seems to fit his holier than thou, look-down-my-nose at real Americans pose quite well.
He probably hates the Irish for stopping the EU too. Ahh, the wonders of unelected bureaucracy–probably tears up at the very mention of it.
Vanceone on July 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Big O, watchman won’t answer. I am still waiting for him to explain what he meant by the term “darkie” but I think he understands how deep his hole is getting to be.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Were debating a French sheep farmer. LOL!
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I love the way the liberals on this site get their panties in a wad over the notion of people making money.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Of course France subsidizes the raising of sheep by a huge amount. I’m not surprised that Watchman found a way to do what he wants while soaking the taxpayers to pay for it.
He probably goes to sleep everynight telling himself what a wonderfull person he is, soaking up that extra income that those evil rich Frenchmen didn’t need anyway.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Yeah, Big Orange– a French Sheep farmer has the moral authority to make us all vote for Obama, because it’s wrong to make more money than he does herding sheep. Thus, it is morally right to take money from those who make more and give it to him. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need–and Watchman needs soooo much that Bill Gates and the Rooney’s could buy for him, dontcha know!
So could I, for that matter, but I don’t expect to use their money to buy it for me. He does.
Vanceone on July 10, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Remember when Clinton gave a speech declaring that he personally wanted to give everyone a tax cut, but he was afraid that if he did so, the people wouldn’t spend the money wisely, and that would hurt the economy. So for the good of all, the govt just had to keep that money.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Watchman…are you formulating an explanation for your term “darkie”? I’m giddy with anticipation.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 2:48 PM
1) non sequitur, its not an if/or. Israel is not America. Let them deal with their own probs. The gods know, they do nothing to help us with ours. BTW, did you know that every Israeli citizen is entitled to state health care? And who do you think pays for that? (you don’t have to answer that)
2) Non sequitur. I never “wished” Saddam was in power. Just didn’t really see it as my responsibility to remove him from power.
3) Absolutely.
4) I do NOT subscribe to the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. Period.
5) Obviously, see question 3.
6) No, I do not support the death penalty. I do not support any legislation that gives the kind of power to government required to take the life of its citizenry. That’s a personal thing, so attack me if you like. But let me put it to you this way. Would you support the death penalty if you were governed by Saddam Hussein?
7) I believe firmly in the American judiciary. Let’s start with a hearing and see if a trial is warranted. As far as convicted is concerned, again, see part one of answer 7. Executed, see question 6.
8) I must admit that I don’t understand the question. This is not a hesitance to answer, I truly don’t understand what you mean by the question.
I’ve answered, do I win the cupie doll?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:51 PM
The name of this incredible sheep farm? The Marx Ranch!
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Take deep breaths, its helps with giddiness. Also, try dating. Worked for me so many years ago.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Umm. WTF?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:54 PM
So still no explanation? Huh.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 2:55 PM
so you don’t support the pre-emptive war roosevelt launched against the nazis? or the pre-emptive war Clinton launched against serbia?
why? since the taliban did not attack us.
in other words, you don’t believe in democracy, rather an oligarchy of the judiciary.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 2:56 PM
No, sounds to me like you killed your cat.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:56 PM
If you’re going to twist my words, learn to do it with finesse. You write like a child in a schoolyard.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Nope. I threw it outside and my dog did. So, again, what country is the best?
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Looking forward to the “sheepish” response.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:03 PM
your ‘logical thinking’ doesn’t even rise to that level.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Okay. So, you just don’t care about Israel… you just don’t like them. As for why we support Israel–gee, the only Democracy, and we felt guilty for not saving more of the Jews during World War II. They are also the second most hated country in the world, and a firm ally of ours.
You don’t think Saddam was a threat to the US–that’s what it boils down to, don’t you? All the UN resolutions violated, all the attacks on the US, the breaking of the terms of the end of the first gulf war…. no consequences? Guess not!
I suppose if you support the Afghanistan war, then Iraq is the country you meant was “helpless” against us?
If you don’t support “preemptive war” then you oppose Obama invading Pakistan, right? That’s his idea. Iraq was a clear and present threat, as we have discovered since the war, but since he was attacking us already, wasn’t really a “preemptive war.”
Would I support the Death penalty under Saddam? Well, I doubt I’d have a choice. At least here I have lots of judicial protections. Under the fantasy world liberals live in, I am guilty for being a white male Christian. Oh, and anti-gay marriage.
If you guys want to put Bush and company on trial, let’s start with Carter and his giveaway of the Panama Canal. Then we can try Clinton for Serbia and Bosnia. While we are at it, let’s try Clinton for screwing up Somalia as well. Then we can dig up Reagan’s corpse and try him for putting the fear of God into Libya–another disaster from the point of view of the Liberals, who hate American power.
Treason, simply defined, is providing aid and comfort to the enemies of, or waging war against the United States. Thus, I would ask you if Teddy Kennedy committed treason in the early 80’s when he, outside the State Department, tried to get the Soviet Union to cooperate in an effort to get rid of Reagan. Or Nancy Pelosi and her trip to Syria, also outside the State Department. Or her encouraging of Chavez, an avowed enemy of the United States.
I.E. is it treason to seek to undermine the current government of the United States and make end runs around it’s policies, cosying up with governments who swear to destroy this country? To provide comfort to people engaged in battle by undermining morale by declaring “the war is lost” on parlimentary floors, as exemplified by Harry Reid?
Or just supporting money and cash to them?
Vanceone on July 10, 2008 at 3:04 PM
he can’t respond, anything that requires thought, and goes beyond left-wing wacko talking points is too much for him. but its amusing to see the ‘intellect’ of a typical left-wing wacko.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Doesn’t appear we are getting an answer here Bishop.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:05 PM
you don’t really expect a coherent response, do you?
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Norway, by far. Ever been to Oslo?
LOL
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Nope, but plenty of Obama-like twirling.
Seem like simple questions to me:
-if the U.S. is no longer the best country, who is?
-what did you mean by the term “darkie”?
I have a feeling that watchman has just conceded the battlefield. Thanks for playing, good luck next time.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:09 PM
right4life: No, I don’t. I expect him to distort and twist, once more. Fact of the matter is, the liberal mindset, which starts with “America is at fault, somehow” is simply not equipped to deal with the real world.
Vanceone on July 10, 2008 at 3:10 PM
libs cannot go beyond talking points. and desperately try to change the subject when questioned on the substance of a subject.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Holy COW (my apologies to PETA), an answer!
Norway? Good lawd, I’m part Norwegian and I can’t stop giggling.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:12 PM
This has been fun. I get a kick out of hot air. reminds me of why I left the states back in 02. bring on 08, and whoever replaces this lot. I had neighbours just like you guys when I was back home. not many, but they sounded like they equaled normal people in numbers. even their mothers didn’t want much to do with them. oh well, been a slice boys, see you on the rebound.
i hereby concede the battlefield to Bishop, by far my superior.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I will share the field when you give an explanation for your term “darkie”. Considering I have asked a dozen times and you continue to obfuscate, one can only think you don’t have a plausible explanation.
Care to try now?
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM
That explains a bunch. I will give you a pat on the back though, at least you pursue socialist ideas in socialist countries instead of trying to turn America into liberal utopia. For that, I thank you. If the USA can ever catch up to Norway, maybe I too can become a French sheep farmer.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Run now, run from your anonymity on a blog where you don’t even have to look someone in the eye when you talk to them; it can’t get much easier than this.
I rest my case.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Well he didn’t answer your question but he did do something I expected him to do, he surrendered. LOL! This is to dang easy.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I farm sheep in the north west of France, I’m not a “French Sheep Farmer”. Anymore than Dick Cheney is an Iraqi Oilman.
Here you go Bishop, just to safisfy your lust.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
but they sounded like they equaled normal people in numbers. even their mothers didn’t want much to do with them.
And of course the obligatory slander which is seemingly all that watchman had left in his repertoire. A shoddy craftsmen blames his rivals.
I know you are still reading this, watchman, even if you don’t comment. You said “darkie”. Please explain.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Umm, oh, ok.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Main Entry:
Variant(s): \ˈdär-kē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural darkies
Date: 1775
usually offensive: a black person
I thought you were leaving? No? Sorry but I can look up a definition myself, I want to know what you meant by using that term and why you used it?
Concentrate on the last line of the definition you provided and explain yourself.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Uhh, ok. No one here knows who you are watchman, no one here knows what you look like, you can say whatever you like and the only recourse we have is to refute your statements.
I’m asking for a simple explanation of why you used the term “darkie”. Thats all.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I got a definition out of him, that’s it. Next he will probably send me a link to some settler in the Belgian Congo using the term “darkie” 100 years ago.
It isn’t the only question he has ducked either, he hasn’t managed to say whether he supported the invasion and occupation of Serbia and Afghanistan.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Sorry Bishop, but it was only necessary to read between the lines of your gun posts to come up with the term darky. You know, brown people, blacks, negroes. The ones that plague your dreams at night, making you wet your bed. The ones you avoid if you can, and are over polite to when you can’t. The very americans you hate, fear and envy, all at the same time. The very people that defend you nation in great numbers and yet you wouldn’t give the time of day to. Get it now, Bishop?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Just another in a long list of reasons of why I despise Barak Obama.
This guy will never be my President, no matter how many morons choose to vote for this unqualified, corrupt circus clown this fall.
NoDonkey on July 10, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Is that code for something?
cntrlfrk on July 10, 2008 at 3:34 PM
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Ephesians 6:12
Pretty tacky, quoting a Biblical passage, considering you said this earlier:
“The name of your savior is vain!
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 2:36 PM”
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Nor has he answered the question about FDR’s preemptive war against Germany. All I have heard from him is America bad, Israel bad and “darkie”.
When asked the best country, he said Norway. Lilly white Norway. Hmmm
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I don’t come here to answer your questions Bishop. I come here for the very same reason anyone from the reality based community comes here. A god damned good laugh, a view into the dark mind of wingnutia, and yes, sometimes to lament and mourn the passing of honest debate.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Get it now, Bishop?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:32 PM
You managed to get ALL of that from a few posts professing gun rights?
Actually I don’t get it, considering you have no idea what color my skin is, do you?
Whew….WOW.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:40 PM
This would make a great dissertation topic for a discourse analysis PhD candidate. We start with the Steelers and the Rooney family, and almost immediately jump to Bush, France and subsidies for sheep, and Israel.
I used to think ADHD was crap. Now, I’m not so sure.
rightwingprof on July 10, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Get it now, Bishop?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:32 PM
You managed to get ALL of that from a few posts professing gun rights?
Actually, I don’t get it, considering you have no idea what my skin color is, do you?
Whew…WOW.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Whoops, sorry peeeples for the doubly.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I read that somewhere once, and it seemed appropriate to paraphrase. I’m looking at you Bishop, in my run from my anonimity.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM
That was absolutely classless. I was having a little fun with this but calling Bishop racist with no basis whatsoever is, well, very leftist of you. Please stay in France.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Um, well, I’m guessing you’re a whitey. Blacks don’t talk like that. Tell me I’m wrong.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I shall be, thank you.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:48 PM
‘reality based’?? oh this is too funny!! talk about delusional, you can’t even answer any question. all you can do is type talking points.
you cannot debate, you are unable to answer questions, because you are too dishonest, and cannot think independently, like the rest of your ‘real lies’ based community.
and what ‘god’ do you serve? I mean besides obama…
laughable.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:48 PM
A god damned good laugh, a view into the dark mind of wingnutia, and yes, sometimes to lament and mourn the passing of honest debate.
And of course your contribution to honest debate consists of terms like “darkie” and statements such as “even their mothers didn’t want much to do with them” or “The ones that plague your dreams at night, making you wet your bed”.
Yeah, watchman, you’re a regular paragon of honest debate.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Thanks Bishop, I like to think so too.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Um, well, I’m guessing you’re a whitey. Blacks don’t talk like that. Tell me I’m wrong.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Whoa, this hole you’re digging is set to reach the nickel core of Earth.
What do “blacks” talk like, exactly? And what is a “whitey”?
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Thanks Bishop, I like to think so too.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:50 PM
And Babe Ruth points.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM
You didn’t tell me I’m wrong though, did you?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM
and what ‘god’ do you serve? I mean besides obama…
laughable.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Odd personality, isn’t he? He ridiculed an earlier poster over a “Jesus” reference, then later he quotes Ephesians.
Damned odd.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:54 PM
odd for normal people, typical for a left-wing wacko.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 3:57 PM
How do blacks talk Watchman? It’s becoming apparent who loves to point at someone’s race.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 3:57 PM
You didn’t tell me I’m wrong though, did you?
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Here we have it, finally. The unrefuted accusation means guilt without a shred of proof. Classic media ploy, “So, do you still beat your wife, senator”?
The only guy here who uses the term “darkies” and “whiteys” and makes a claim that “black people don’t talk like that” has chosen an answer for me.
Heh.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:59 PM
You’re getting it from all sides, watchman, perhaps you better work on those answers.
-why do you use the term “darkie”?
-what do black people talk like?
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Now, back to the guns. You still think it’s time to arm up, seeing as how B. Hussein Obama will likely be the next POTUS? Do you really believe that he will take your guns from you, force you to abort your children, convert to Islam and pledge allegiance to the thirteenth Imam? Do you believe that he can do more damage to the country than the neocons have? Do you still believe Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George Bush? Do you blush when you hear their voices, even when you hear them in your head? Are you old enough to vote, and does your mother know you’re using her internets? Have you had to do the google to keep up with this conversation? Do you speak a foreign language? Do you understand english, even when spoken subtly? Have you had your lunch today, and is it miller time, or are you a malt liquor man? Have you ever kissed a girl, or a boy? Do you think you ever will? Do you believe in a jealous and just creator, heaven and hell, and the easter bunny?
Just a few things for you to think about.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 4:02 PM
[Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM]
Not that I’ve paid attention to your full debate with him since, but I was following the thread when he first said it, and my first reaction was that he said it because “reds” or “pinkos” wouldn’t have been inflammatory.
Dusty on July 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Were selling Watchman short Bishop. He studied Ebonics in Norway so he knows who is black and who is not.
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Is your last post more of the “honest debate” you are looking for, watchman? Perhaps you would be more comfortable over at DU?
What do black people talk like, watchman?
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Why, me Bishop, they talk like me.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
talking points. you are unable to engage in rational discussion..ie you’re a good lib!
you must be in a great deal of pain, it has to hurt to be so stupid.
right4life on July 10, 2008 at 4:09 PM
So…blacks talk like you?
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Do you “farm” your sheep in the “north west of France” every day?
If so, you may be on the wrong blog.
cntrlfrk on July 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Perhaps, but worry not, I have health care.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Why, me Bishop, they talk like me.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 4:08 PM
No kidding? Are you black?
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Since this started as a thread about the Steelers, does Lynn Swan talk like you Watchmen?
Big Orange on July 10, 2008 at 4:13 PM
They don’t call me 11 inch watchman for nothing bro.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I haven’t had an opportunity to look at this thread until after the show was over today, but we have a troll outbreak that has now been resolved. I’m happy to get this thread back to the tax and electoral topics, and away from the racial epithets and genitalia references spouted by an ex-member of the Hot Air community.
Ed Morrissey on July 10, 2008 at 4:17 PM
They don’t call me 11 inch watchman for nothing bro.
Watchman on July 10, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I don’t understand, please explain.
So if I use the term “darkie” and “whitey” would that make me more black or just black? What if I didn’t use the term at all, would I be not-black or unblack or what? If I were hispanic could I still use the word “darkie”? What if I were asian? Or Native American? What if I were mixed-race, could I use some terms but not others?
Perhaps you could clear up the confusion by telling everyone which words black people use and which words they don’t. Please advise.
Bishop on July 10, 2008 at 4:22 PM
Whew, thanks Ed, what a troll wreck!
4shoes on July 10, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I’m not sure what you mean by “family-owned”. Wm Clay Ford and his son Bill Jr. still own the Detroit Lions (though it’s debatable that the hapless Lions are a “major” franchise), Ralph Wilson (also a Detroiter) still owns the Buffalo Bills. The Ilitch family owns both the Detroit Tigers and the Red Wings.
I think while many teams are owned by partnerships or corporations, a significant number of major league franchises are still owned by individuals or their families.
rokemronnie on July 10, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Thanks Ed! I still wonder if McCain’s people will point out the hit regular people will take as a result of the capital gains tax. Or will they let that go unchallenged?
Vanceone on July 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I tried to explain this to my lefty stepfather. He was complaining about the tax hit he took when he cashed out some stock options he was given by his employer.
Since this was a couple years ago, I told him it would have been worse if Kerry was Prez and ‘Rolled Back the Bush Tax Cuts’.
He wrote me off as a victim of listening to Rush too much.
I wrote him off as being an uninformed idiot.
cntrlfrk on July 10, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Thanks. He was so nasty, I was wondering why you let him stay in your store.
JiangxiDad on July 10, 2008 at 5:20 PM
So the fact that Dan Rooney endorses Obama for president means nothing?
wytammic on July 10, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Is that fact, if so then let them eat cake…
right2bright on July 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM
dont worry, Obama would destroy America and the Steelers with his policies.
Chakra Hammer on July 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Thanks Ed for taking care of that…it is difficult I have been caught with a couple of new guys the past few days, and sometimes it is difficult to get rid of them. You end up defending yourself, and then realize that they don’t care if they are wrong, and they don’t care about hijacking a post. Now I just ignore them, one may have been banned.
right2bright on July 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM
This whole thing is a lot of horse mess. Okay, Obama has tried messing with our guns, our money, our basic freedoms, and now, lo and behold, his policies now effect my Steelers?!?! That’s just going too far, buddy. The Rooney’s are a dynasty, something to which Obama will never become nor come to understand.
Send_Me on July 10, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Ed,
Article has some little known inconsistency/inaccuracy. Art Rooney Sr. sold the Steelers to Alexis Thompson in 1939-40. Thompson and Bert Bell (Eagles) traded franchises, etc until eventually (months later) the Steelers were back in Art’s hands.
Also, the articles on Druckenmiller make it plain: he’s a fan (still goes to games in face paint, even though he’s a billionaire), another member of the ‘Burgh diaspora, likely to maintain and honor the team’s ties to the fans and the city.
thirtypundit on July 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM
The Chargers, the Redskins, the Padres and the Damned Yankees also come to mind.
Pablo on July 11, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »