• 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

Harshaw said:
It's factually difficult to do, but that's different from a standard of proof.
Click to expand...

Could I get you to explain what you are saying here. It went right over my head, and I think it is important.
 
Ikari said:
The reason I defend Rush is because while one is free to be as divisive as they want, I don't think that provides legitimate grounds to commit crimes against him.
Click to expand...

I hope I have been clear, if some one has libeled Rush, and he wants to sue, I got no problem with that either. I do not know myself whether this is the case or not.
 
Redress said:
I hope I have been clear, if some one has libeled Rush, and he wants to sue, I got no problem with that either. I do not know myself whether this is the case or not.
Click to expand...


Litigation may not be out of the question here:


Rush said:
RUSH: I walked out of the studio at the top of the hour. I went into the control room where the trusted and loyal staff is just outraged. I no more than got one foot in the door, and Dawn starts shouting at me, "We are not satisfied, that first caller was wrong, we don't feel better. Sue 'em!" And then Snerdley stood up, started spitting out the same thing in anger. Brian said, "To hell with it, I'm leaving," and went and got a bottle of water. (laughing) I've become the new owner of the National Action Network. (interruption) Own the Monochrome Coalition? No, no, no. Look, folks, I understand. If you think you're enraged by this, trust me I'm right in there with you leading the pack. But there is a strategery here that has to play out, that has to take place. I don't want you to sit around and think that we're not looking into this. We have been for a while. It's gotta be done right, evidence has to be gathered. It's one battle in a long war.


"Sue 'Em!" Liberal NFL Politics and Media Slander Sparks Outrage
Click to expand...


Right on!


j-mac
 
Redress said:
I hope I have been clear, if some one has libeled Rush, and he wants to sue, I got no problem with that either. I do not know myself whether this is the case or not.
Click to expand...

I think anyone being honest about this whole thing understands that this is clearly slander and libel aimed directly at Rush to cause enough of a stink to directly impact his business and finances. That in my book just ain't right. And I can't understand anyone who would be jubilant about it occurring.
 
Redress said:
Could I get you to explain what you are saying here. It went right over my head, and I think it is important.
Click to expand...

It is factually difficult to show that a person (or news org) had "actual malice" when making a statement. But that's not the same as having a high standard of proof -- as in, beyond a reasonable doubt, say. You can have a lower standard of proof yet still not be able to show actual malice, which is why suits for libel/slander/defamation against public figures don't prevail very often.

Now, in this case, CNN compounded itself when it refused to retract its statement, which could go to showing a reckless disregard for the truth, which works out to be the same. Will it? Dunno.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
It is factually difficult to show that a person (or news org) had "actual malice" when making a statement. But that's not the same as having a high standard of proof -- as in, beyond a reasonable doubt, say. You can have a lower standard of proof yet still not be able to show actual malice, which is why suits for libel/slander/defamation against public figures don't prevail very often.

Now, in this case, CNN compounded itself when it refused to retract its statement, which could go to showing a reckless disregard for the truth, which works out to be the same. Will it? Dunno.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand now, thank you.
 
Ikari said:
I think anyone being honest about this whole thing understands that this is clearly slander and libel aimed directly at Rush to cause enough of a stink to directly impact his business and finances. That in my book just ain't right. And I can't understand anyone who would be jubilant about it occurring.
Click to expand...

I don't know that people intentionally misrepresented Rush's words. The things said had been at one time reported, and then repeated when this happened. It could be intentional, but I don't know that, and can see how it could be unintentional. As an example, in the first thread on this topic, I repeated that players where complaining about a couple of his statements. Did he actually make those statements? I have no idea, I simply commented that this was the complaint of a few players.
 
Redress said:
I don't know that people intentionally misrepresented Rush's words. The things said had been at one time reported, and then repeated when this happened. It could be intentional, but I don't know that, and can see how it could be unintentional. As an example, in the first thread on this topic, I repeated that players where complaining about a couple of his statements. Did he actually make those statements? I have no idea, I simply commented that this was the complaint of a few players.
Click to expand...

Some of the statements were really old and taken out of context. Othes were intentionally misrepresented to portray Rush as something other than what he was. The Crips and Bloods thing was misrepresentation, the McNabb thing was the same. It's all clear attack on him to purposefully make him lose business and financial deals.
 
Redress said:
I don't know that people intentionally misrepresented Rush's words. The things said had been at one time reported, and then repeated when this happened. It could be intentional, but I don't know that, and can see how it could be unintentional. As an example, in the first thread on this topic, I repeated that players where complaining about a couple of his statements. Did he actually make those statements? I have no idea, I simply commented that this was the complaint of a few players.
Click to expand...


Oh come on now....Not intentional? Yeah ok....Tell me when the last time you heard a liberal commentator called divisive on national news, or on the floor of Congress?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh come on now....Not intentional? Yeah ok....Tell me when the last time you heard a liberal commentator called divisive on national news, or on the floor of Congress?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Are you trying to deny that Limbaugh is divisive?
 
Ikari said:
Some of the statements were really old and taken out of context. Othes were intentionally misrepresented to portray Rush as something other than what he was. The Crips and Bloods thing was misrepresentation, the McNabb thing was the same. It's all clear attack on him to purposefully make him lose business and financial deals.
Click to expand...

And that is a strong argument that it may have been. My point is that I do not know, and to make accusations based on guesses is very much what some are complaining about here. It is possible, I am not denying this.
 
Redress said:
Are you trying to deny that Limbaugh is divisive?
Click to expand...

So what if he is? Do you, or I, or anyone have the right to interfere with someone trying to conduct business just because we think they're "divisive"?

If Randi Rhodes wanted to participate in an owner's group that's trying to buy the Phoenix Coyotes, do conservatives now have the right to make erroneous statements about what she might have said on the radio, in an attempt to block her participation? If Alan Colmes wanted to buy into the group that owns the New York Knicks, should the right now make blog entries somewhere on the Internet about how Alan once said that "Mothers should sacrifice their children to Satan on Halloween" and that "Charles Manson is a political prisoner"? I remember reading somewhere that turnabout is fair play - is it?

Personally, I think they should have let Rush continue in the ownership group. If the comments he made are that "divisive", then I'd imagine that there'd be players who wouldn't want to play for the Rams - irregardless of how financially lucrative it might be. Instead of stopping him from owning the Rams, let him own them, and see just how deep his pockets are - how much money the Rams would have to spend to counteract the negative publicity if a player like Terrell Owens or Donovan McNabb refused to play for the Rams because of what Rush said.

Here's a little something to consider -- Before he was elected Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was managing general partner of the Texas Rangers MLB team from 1989-1994. There is talk that when Bug Selig resigns as Commissioner of Major League Baseball, that President Bush will be asked to be the next Commissioner. Whether or not he will accept the position remains to be seen. But, if he does, what will the left do?
 
Last edited:
SpotsCat said:
So what if he is? Do you, or I, or anyone have the right to interfere with someone trying to conduct business just because we think they're "divisive"?

If Randi Rhodes wanted to participate in an owner's group that's trying to buy the Phoenix Coyotes, do conservatives now have the right to make erroneous statements about what she might have said on the radio, in an attempt to block her participation? If Alan Colmes wanted to buy into the group that owns the New York Knicks, should the right now make blog entries somewhere on the Internet about how Alan once said that "Mothers should sacrifice their children to Satan on Halloween" and that "Charles Manson is a political prisoner"? I remember reading somewhere that turnabout is fair play - is it?

Personally, I think they should have let Rush continue in the ownership group. If the comments he made are that "divisive", then I'd imagine that there'd be players who wouldn't want to play for the Rams - irregardless of how financially lucrative it might be. Instead of stopping him from owning the Rams, let him own them, and see just how deep his pockets are - how much money the Rams would have to spend to counteract the negative publicity if a player like Terrell Owens or Donovan McNabb refused to play for the Rams because of what Rush said.

Here's a little something to consider -- Before he was elected Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was managing general partner of the Texas Rangers MLB team from 1989-1994. There is talk that when Bug Selig resigns as Commissioner of Major League Baseball, that President Bush will be asked to be the next Commissioner. Whether or not he will accept the position remains to be seen. But, if he does, what will the left do?
Click to expand...

People do have a right to take their business where they choose. If people would avoid watching a team because Limbaugh is a part owner, that is perfectly fine. If it was a liberal, the same would be true. The NFL owners have a right to say they do not want a particular owner(I believe) because he would either be bad for the NFL, or bad for business.

If there was libel, there are legal recourses, and Limbaugh is perfectly free to go that route. I will not complain nor condemn him for doing so.
 
Redress said:
I hope I have been clear, if some one has libeled Rush, and he wants to sue, I got no problem with that either. I do not know myself whether this is the case or not.
Click to expand...

Then what the hell were we fighting about earlier? You are basically saying the same thing I am but then you piped in, deigning to call me selective in my outrage over a challenge I placed to have someone reference this supposed racism that led to his loss of financial gain.

I am so confused by you sometimes and it has nothing to with not knowing whether you are a chick or dude. :confused:
 
jallman said:
Then what the hell were we fighting about earlier? You are basically saying the same thing I am but then you piped in, deigning to call me selective in my outrage over a challenge I placed to have someone reference this supposed racism that led to his loss of financial gain.

I am so confused by you sometimes and it has nothing to with not knowing whether you are a chick or dude. :confused:
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I said. I have no sympathy for Rush, and think his problem is not his racism(I suspect he is, but could not prove it), but his controversial nature, but if he can prove libel, well, I a a law and order liberal, and I say sue 'em and good luck. Does that clear it up?
 
Redress said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. I have no sympathy for Rush, and think his problem is not his racism(I suspect he is, but could not prove it), but his controversial nature, but if he can prove libel, well, I a a law and order liberal, and I say sue 'em and good luck. Does that clear it up?
Click to expand...

And you did read the part where I said I can't stand the fat ****er, right?

If we are saying the same thing a different way, how can I be selective in my outrage when I have, for all intents and purposes, the same views as you? :confused:
 
Redress said:
I saw this earlier. Wonder how this will get spun into being all the liberals fault.
Click to expand...

How about by the exposing of the absolute LIES your beloved leftist media, Sharpton and Jackson used in this fantastic example of a liberal smear campaign!

Rush is too kind! I'd have every one of your beloved propagandists bent over a deposition table.. but HE chose the "higher road"... shame there's no way to get to that road from the slimy rocks which they hide under... CNN, MSNBC and all the libs that toted the line! :2wave:
 
Redress said:
If there was libel, there are legal recourses, and Limbaugh is perfectly free to go that route. I will not complain nor condemn him for doing so.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing though. All the good principled liberals are essentially hiding behind a loophole in the law here, that effectively you're almost completely free to libel famous people because its harder to prove you actually did it.

That doesn't change the actual facts of the matter from a definition, rather than legal, stand point in which the main argument most were using against Limbaugh since it was leaked he was part of the group ("He's a racist") was based on extremely poorly sourced, questionable quotes that were either 100% false or stated without context.

So what you're basically saying is its completely fine to take extremely questionable factual information about famous people and contextless statements from them and foment rage within a population to screw them out of business ventures because they have less protection under the law.
 
Zyphlin said:
Here's the thing though. All the good principled liberals are essentially hiding behind a loophole in the law here, that effectively you're almost completely free to libel famous people because its harder to prove you actually did it.

That doesn't change the actual facts of the matter from a definition, rather than legal, stand point in which the main argument most were using against Limbaugh since it was leaked he was part of the group ("He's a racist") was based on extremely poorly sourced, questionable quotes that were either 100% false or stated without context.

So what you're basically saying is its completely fine to take extremely questionable factual information about famous people and contextless statements from them and foment rage within a population to screw them out of business ventures because they have less protection under the law.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the modern world. It's done countless times, and by Limbaugh himself. Let's take a look at Politifact's Limbaugh file: PolitiFact | Rush Limbaugh's file

True: 0
Mostly True: 1(so far he is better than Glenn Beck)
Half True: 0
Barely True: 3
False: 1
Pants on Fire: 1

Distortions, lies, exaggerations and out of context statements are a part of politics. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is the truth of the world we live in.
 
SpotsCat said:
If Alan Colmes wanted to buy into the group that owns the New York Knicks, should the right now make blog entries somewhere on the Internet about how Alan once said that "Mothers should sacrifice their children to Satan on Halloween" and that "Charles Manson is a political prisoner"? I remember reading somewhere that turnabout is fair play - is it?
Click to expand...

Is Alan Colmes even a real person?

I thought he was just some actor hired by Sean Hannity for patsy purposes.
 
Redress said:
Welcome to the modern world. It's done countless times, and by Limbaugh himself. Let's take a look at Politifact's Limbaugh file: PolitiFact | Rush Limbaugh's file

True: 0
Mostly True: 1(so far he is better than Glenn Beck)
Half True: 0
Barely True: 3
False: 1
Pants on Fire: 1

Distortions, lies, exaggerations and out of context statements are a part of politics. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is the truth of the world we live in.
Click to expand...





:lol: that's a far better record than the president. :lol:


PolitiFact | Barack Obama's file
 
Redress said:
Welcome to the modern world. It's done countless times, and by Limbaugh himself. Let's take a look at Politifact's Limbaugh file: PolitiFact | Rush Limbaugh's file

True: 0
Mostly True: 1(so far he is better than Glenn Beck)
Half True: 0
Barely True: 3
False: 1
Pants on Fire: 1

Distortions, lies, exaggerations and out of context statements are a part of politics. I don't like it, you don't like it, but that is the truth of the world we live in.
Click to expand...

Politics

Public office

Public Officials

This is different than PRIVATE enterprise, PRIVATE citizens, PRIVATE contracts...which ultimately even celebrities are private citizens. Even the NFL, or Radio, or a movie is a private business.

There is a distinct difference between individual citizens, and those entering into business ventures with private companies and those that are public officials seeking public office elected by the public.

Not to mention your link is hilarious and far to full of itself. Lets take this example:

"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

Seriously, they're fact checking freaking hyperbole? Really? Do you think most people hear that and honestly, truthfully, believe he's saying every single speech ever by Washington had a reference to god? Its a common, typical pattern of speech to say "you can't hear someone speak without hearing them say [x]" when they use a word or saying a lot. That doesn't LITERALLY mean they can't actually SPEAK without saying it, its a saying, a phrase. Jesus that site makes baby jesus cry.

Oh crap! PolitiFact may have to rank me as "pants on fire" because its obviously untrue that baby jesus actually managed to cry due to that site since baby jesus was dead centuries
before hand :roll:

But my bad, I shouldn't besmirch the great reputation of Politifact, I mean, where would we be without their great work fact checking SNL skits about Obama. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
"You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty."

Seriously, they're fact checking freaking hyperbole? Really? Do you think most people hear that and honestly, truthfully, believe he's saying every single speech ever by Washington had a reference to god? Its a common, typical pattern of speech to say "you can't hear someone speak without hearing them say [x]" when they use a word or saying a lot. That doesn't LITERALLY mean they can't actually SPEAK without saying it, its a saying, a phrase. Jesus that site makes baby jesus cry.
Click to expand...


Yes. Limbaugh's the joke, not Politifact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom