• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sources: Checketts to drop Limbaugh

Good idea there. When you got nothing, feign even more outrage so you are not speaking to me, so you don't actually have to defend your foolishness. Very clever of you, in a vile sort of way.

Oh piss off. You have done nothing but attempt to impugn the characters of your opponents and confess that you have no problem with lying to make digs at political opponents. Your credibility is nil so why would I have any interest in listening to more of your vile lies and distortions?

Oh that's right...I'm not.

See, it isn't all that selective. It's equal opportunity outrage at liars. :2wave:
 
Really I guess you don't know much about the NFL first off they would love to have his money and so would the city of St.Lo, second as far as the Image thing please don't even go their.

I suggest all of you including Roger take a look in his own backyard first.

Enjoy reading this website.

NFL Crimes NewsBlog
roger goodell has been doing his best to clean up the image of the nfl. the nfl doesn't need his money, there will be plenty of others lined up to take his place. rush was going to be a minority owner, so really, i guess you don't much either.

but thanks for tipping your hand.
 
It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.

Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.


Right's not a lawyer :cool:, or at least, I've gotten the impression he has not grad'd law school and passed a bar exam.


(However, I do like to read his law postings, I have to say.)
 
Oh piss off. You have done nothing but attempt to impugn the characters of your opponents and confess that you have no problem with lying to make digs at political opponents. Your credibility is nil so why would I have any interest in listening to more of your vile lies and distortions?

Oh that's right...I'm not.

See, it isn't all that selective. It's equal opportunity outrage at liars. :2wave:

Except that is all lies. Hypocrisy is something you are known for, and it raises it's head again. It's funny how you complain about people misrepresenting Rush(which I have not done), and yet you are quick to make up stuff about me. That is truly selective outrage.
 
From that source:



Yes, that's because of the higher burden of proof when media report on public figures. They have to prove not just knowingly reporting false information (or disregard blah blah), but malice with intent to harm reputation. Or something like that.

There's some pretty big hurdles to jump here.
 
Right's not a lawyer :cool:, or at least, I've gotten the impression he has not grad'd law school and passed a bar exam.


(However, I do like to read his law postings, I have to say.)

Correct, but he is both knowledgeable on the topics as a law student, and honest enough to keep most partisan spin out of what he says when it directly relates to law.
 
Except that is all lies. Hypocrisy is something you are known for, and it raises it's head again.

And you being a lying stain is something you are known for. Funny that.

Until I hear something in the way of retraction for the lies and misrepresentations about me, you can expect that any response from you is only going to be to point out what a liar you are. So go ahead and lie some more. Prove my point for me.
 
Correct, but he is both knowledgeable on the topics as a law student, and honest enough to keep most partisan spin out of what he says when it directly relates to law.


yes, IA that's true. :2wave:
 
Yes, that's because of the higher burden of proof when media report on public figures. They have to prove not just knowingly reporting false information (or disregard blah blah), but malice with intent to harm reputation. Or something like that.

There's some pretty big hurdles to jump here.

About the only place Rush might have a case then is after he denied making the comments, if places kept reporting it as he made the comments, he might be able to prove something, I think.
 
And you being a lying stain is something you are known for. Funny that.

Until I hear something in the way of retraction for the lies and misrepresentations about me, you can expect that any response from you is only going to be to point out what a liar you are. So go ahead and lie some more. Prove my point for me.

Keep up the good work there, keep making the unsubstantiated claims you can't prove and complain about. Have fun!
 
About the only place Rush might have a case then is after he denied making the comments, if places kept reporting it as he made the comments, he might be able to prove something, I think.


I wonder, did MSNBC and CNN keep reporting it after he said the stuff was false? I'm not sure.

Reading the article again ...
 
Keep up the good work there, keep making the unsubstantiated claims you can't prove and complain about. Have fun!

What unsubstantiated claim hasn't been proven, liar? It's all right here in this thread how you attempted to paint me in a bad light rather than answer for the crap you spewed.

You are a liar. Period.
 
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.

It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.
 
It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.

Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.


Here's a blog quoting Lis Wiehl from Fox saying Rush has to prove the quotes are fabricated:


(snip ... ) One of the things he can do is pick up the ball and run straight to court. Lis Wiehl, a former federal prosecutor and Fox News legal analyst, said Limbaugh has grounds for a libel suit if he can prove he never uttered those words.

"If he didn't say that, his people should come out and say that," Wiehl said. "If it's true he didn't say that, then this is horrible what those organizations are trying to do to slime him."
As a public figure, Wiehl said, Limbaugh would have to prove actual malice and damages -- meaning he'd have to show that the media organizations knowingly and maliciously published that information without regard for the truth, and that he suffered because of it.

"It's a higher standard," she said. "If they actually made up a quote that cost him a deal that he would've otherwise gotten, then yeah, he's got a case."

more ...

JIM McMAHON - CHICAGO
 
It's "innocent until proven guilty". Since Limbaugh would be making the charge in court, he would have to prove that what is said about him is both inaccurate, and known to be inaccurate.

Again though, we might want to shelve this until a lawyer shows up, since I would bet we are both wrong in some ways, and RightInNYC can clear it up clearly.

What Limbaugh initially has to prove is not difficult -- CNN, for example, clearly made the false statement, it was made to third parties, and it was definitely about Limbaugh himself.

On that, CNN would have to prove "truth," which they probably can't -- other possible defenses such as consent, privilege, "opinion," "fair" comments, inadvertence, etc., almost certainly do not apply.

The one thing Limbaugh would have to prove which would be difficult is, because he's a public figure, that CNN had actual malice toward him (NYT vs. Sullivan). But their further reluctance to retract the statement when challenged, essentially doubling down on the charge, may help him there, as it may establish that CNN had a reckless disregard for the truth.
 
Last edited:
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.

It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.

Folks like Rachel Maddow continued to report it as fact after it was already proven false because she in fact reported it twice, once after Rush called Sotomyer a racist and now again with regards to the Rams purchase. This is a clear cut case of slander and the intent of malice is cut and dry. I say sue the bitch.
 
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.

It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.

One would hope he had some recourse for at least having it retracted. It's just a damned shame that because he has controversy as a part of his job, he has to suffer the predations of classless attacks on his personal character in the form of lies and distortions.

But if the liberals around here are any indication, that's just A-ok because he is a big mean bad bad man.:shock:
 
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.

I think this goes on alot. One place makes a claim about something that gets carried initially in some news source. Any further reporting using Lexus, and they find the first, inaccurate report, and the innacurracies get embedded in the system. James Carvelle claimed that was how some of the poor reporting of the Whitewater story developed. The first, breaking news article was in error, and that same article was used as a reference for all the later reporting, or articles based on the first one. Take the source and the story for what it is worth, I make no claims as to veracity of it, and point to it as an example of how it works only.
 
I agree there's not likely to be a worth while case against those that said it before him claiming its false. Its ****ty, pathetic hatchet job reporting, and defamation by definition, but not an open/shut case of libel/slander under the law.

It is a different story however if any of these outlets continued to push the quote as being attributed to him after that point. I also think he may have justification in demanding a retraction by any newspapers that claimed he made such statements, though I’m not as knowledgeable on such stuff.
the quotes attributed to rush are contained in a published book (jack huberman). why has not sued that author?
 
Here's a blog quoting Lis Wiehl from Fox saying Rush has to prove the quotes are fabricated:

Actually what I see is a blogger giving his interpretation of her words. Her quote doesn’t say he has to “prove he never uttered those words. She states specifically:

“If he didn’t say that, his people should come out and say that” and that’s EXACTLY what he’s done.

One can not “prove” in any way shape or form something they did not say when the person making that accusation, lets say even at this time the book in question, doesn’t actually give any reference at all to when or where he said it. It’s not improbable, its 100% impossible. There’s no humanly possible way to “prove” you never said something, anywhere, ever.
 
All these people whining away simply have no real notion of what free speech is all about. Rush used his. Now he is facing the repercussions for using it as he has done.

THAT'S what free speech is all about ladies and gentlemen. :2wave:

So then you agree with Macarthyism then?
 
What Limbaugh initially has to prove is not difficult -- CNN, for example, clearly made the false statement, it was made to third parties, and it was definitely about Limbaugh himself.

On that, CNN would have to prove "truth," which they probably can't -- other possible defenses such as consent, privilege, "opinion," "fair" comments, inadvertence, etc., almost certainly do not apply.

The one thing Limbaugh would have to prove which would be difficult is, because he's a public figure, that CNN had actual malice toward him (NYT vs. Sullivan). But their further reluctance to retract the statement when challenged, essentially doubling down on the charge, may help him there, as it may establish that CNN had a reckless disregard for the truth.

Keep in mind, too, that on this, the burden of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it's probably a preponderance of the evidence -- that is, "more likely than not."
 
the quotes attributed to rush are contained in a published book (jack huberman). why has not sued that author?

Because up till now there's been nothing close to a legitimate case that it somehow "damaged" him in any wya.

I think this goes on alot. One place makes a claim about something that gets carried initially in some news source. Any further reporting using Lexus, and they find the first, inaccurate report, and the innacurracies get embedded in the system. James Carvelle claimed that was how some of the poor reporting of the Whitewater story developed. The first, breaking news article was in error, and that same article was used as a reference for all the later reporting, or articles based on the first one. Take the source and the story for what it is worth, I make no claims as to veracity of it, and point to it as an example of how it works only.

True. But there's a difference.

In one case, people were citing and actual news story from a legitimate news source. A source that you're supposed to be able to assume is unbaised and factual.

This one?

Most are citing a political activist blog or that blogs source directly, which is this book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America”.

Now if that’s not a title that screams “unbiased source of factual information” I don’t know what does. Lets go further and look at its description.

“Perhaps one of the most ridiculous phenomena of recent years is Bernard Goldberg’s right-wing and unforgivably successful 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America. The vast majority of his targets are no different from the picks of any hyperventilating fan of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly: feminists, academics, media moguls, newspaper columnists, liberals, and a few obscure cartoonists and painters. But it's thin on the right wing politicos, their media and corporate echochamber who have landed us in the mess we're in.
Jack Huberman provides us with an entertaining and informative bestiary of the real crooks, liars and cheats who are screwing up America. These are not just the people making asses of themselves or getting more media attention than they deserve. Huberman restores the likes of Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, James A. Baker III, Gary Bauer Brent Bozell, Ann Coulter, Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, Leo Strauss and Ralph Reed to their rightful place in the national hall of shame, along with such oozing pustules of cultural putrefaction as the Olson Twins, Mel Gibson, William Bennett, Katie Couric, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, Oprah Winfrey, Teletubbies, the Simpson sisters, and God.“

Hmm, so being made specifically to counter a conservative book he didn’t like. Yep, its shaping up to be amazingly good SOURCE material. Lets continue on to an editorial review from Publishers Weekly:

“More than a mere hit list of America's most despicable individuals, corporations, affinity groups and think tanks, this droll and acerbic refresher course on the issues confronting the 21st-century United States marks Huberman's (The Bush-Hater's Handbook) latest foray into the dark side. Starting with the premise that right-wing pundit Ann Coulter is an evil alien manipulated by crypto-fascist Scientologists, he occasionally gets carried away with his modus operandi, becoming just as inanely self-righteous as the reactionaries he's decrying. Entry 67, about SUV buyers, offers some chilling statistics about the vehicles. But to argue that all SUV owners are antisocial misfits meriting utter contempt, when many a suburban soccer mom is simply trying to protect her family from being obliterated by a three-ton behemoth on the way to Disney World, is self-defeating. Though Huberman takes his readers' sympathies for granted, the unabashedly left-wing bias and sheer breadth of this frontal assault on Republican politics and culture are factually convincing. Some early entries (J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Candace Bushnell) may raise a few eyebrows, but overall Huberman serves up a frothy indictment to warm liberal innards. (July)”

That’s right. They’re quoting as a legitimate source a book that starts with the notion that Ann Coulter is an alien.
This isn’t so much a case of someone picking up a news story that turns out to have been based on false information. Its people picking up information from a biased source, who got his information (and links to it) to a source that is obviously biased AND borderline satirical in nature.
 
Last edited:
Actually what I see is a blogger giving his interpretation of her words. Her quote doesn’t say he has to “prove he never uttered those words. She states specifically:

“If he didn’t say that, his people should come out and say that” and that’s EXACTLY what he’s done.

One can not “prove” in any way shape or form something they did not say when the person making that accusation, lets say even at this time the book in question, doesn’t actually give any reference at all to when or where he said it. It’s not improbable, its 100% impossible. There’s no humanly possible way to “prove” you never said something, anywhere, ever.


Her actual words:


"If he didn't say that, his people should come out and say that," Wiehl said. "If it's true he didn't say that, then this is horrible what those organizations are trying to do to slime him."

As a public figure, Wiehl said, Limbaugh would have to prove actual malice and damages -- meaning he'd have to show that the media organizations knowingly and maliciously published that information without regard for the truth, and that he suffered because of it.

"It's a higher standard," she said. "If they actually made up a quote that cost him a deal that he would've otherwise gotten, then yeah, he's got a case."

If the matter revolved around a non-public figure, the potential lawsuit would be a "slam dunk," Wiehl said.

"[Limbaugh] would literally have to prove that whoever put that out did so knowingly in an attempt to hurt him," she continued. "If I were his lawyer, I would argue actual malice. If it's fabricated, what other reason would they make it up?"

Limbaugh May Have Grounds for Libel Suit, Legal Analysts Say - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com


His summary is well within reasonable, combined with the knowledge that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.



BTW, has Rush actually flat out denied this? I only saw in Bozell's newsbuster's thing where Rush said if he had said such a thing, he'd have been gone long ago (paraphrasing from memory).
 
Back
Top Bottom