• 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

Agent Ferris said:
You are either an ignorant fool or you are a god damn liar:



She did this on the ****ing House floor so don't you ****ing tell me that this isn't the government doing anything.
Click to expand...

And the house is doing what? Why nothing. She is free to speak her mind, but congress is to the best of my knowledge doing nothing. SIO I was right, you where wrong. Surprise, surprise.


This is a clear cut case of political blacklisting perpetrated by the black Nazi's Sharpton and Jackson and the leftist fascist controlled Congress. The only reason why this is an issue is because leftist fascists disagree with Limbaughs political opinions. McCarthyism at its finest. Seig Heil sir. Welcome to Obama's America have fun in your cult of personality.
Click to expand...

No it is not. A bunch of people, including players and other owners, spoke out about having a controversial figure owning a team. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not "Nazi" or "fascist", it's America at work. We have every right to express our displeasure with people, and when it enters the business realm, businesses have every right to avoid people that might hurt business.

You need to get past the stupid, over the top rhetoric. It does you no good, and gets in the way of you actually applying logic and common sense to a situation.
 
American said:
I thought Redress was going to be a fairminded liberal when he first showed up around here. But he has shown that he is not above disengenuous partisan hackery, when he's wrong about something. I had respect for you at first.
Click to expand...

But at least I can add more than one mindless sentence to topics, so I am still way up on you.
 
Erod said:
Translation of this thread: Liberals are so tired of being beaten into an intellectual bloody pulp by this guy, that they play the old standard....the race card.

By the way, libs, he's winning again. He's the thorn in Obama's side that will eventually take away his majority in Congress, and the presidency in the next two elections.

You hate him because you can't beat him.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I and I think most liberals thought he should be allowed to have the team. It's certainly preferable to listening to this horrid playing the victim crap we are hearing.

When you can beat any one to an intellectual bloody pulp, get back to me, maybe we can do a true debate.
 
Ikari said:
And what are you doing? Dividing and laughing in people's faces. So why should slander and libel be accepted from hypocrites such as yourself? This isn't the NFL rejecting Limbaugh just because he's Limbaugh. A bunch of people started running their mouths about **** they had no idea about. They lied, saying he's racist (prove it, you can't, you're nothing more than a liar ruining people's business and possible financial gains), they're raising a stink because THEY DON'T LIKE LIMBAUGH'S POLITICAL POSITION. That's it, that's what it comes down to. Sad and pathetic; but some people are I guess.
Click to expand...

That is allowed. He is controversial, and the NFL owners don't want the controversy. It's not that he is a conservative, it's that he is controversial.
 
Ikari said:
I think he should sue some of the real racists like Jackson and Sharpton out there who slandered and libeled him [Rush] to such a degree that it actually had financial and business consequences. It's one thing if what these people were saying were true (some, like Redress, I fear don't understand this point), but it's not. They are now liable for the financial loss.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, if he can prove a liable case, I have no problem with that. Sue away, that is the American system in action, we allow people to do that. On the other hand, Rush makes his living in part by calling people names and insulting them, I don't see where he has a lot of room to complain that others call him names too.
 
Redress said:
Interestingly, if he can prove a liable case, I have no problem with that. Sue away, that is the American system in action, we allow people to do that. On the other hand, Rush makes his living in part by calling people names and insulting them, I don't see where he has a lot of room to complain that others call him names too.
Click to expand...

If someone thinks Rush has libeled them, they are free to sue. I don't recall that ever happening, do you?

As it stands, Rush has an excellent chance at successful suits against several media outlets.
 
Gill said:
If someone thinks Rush has libeled them, they are free to sue. I don't recall that ever happening, do you?

As it stands, Rush has an excellent chance at successful suits against several media outlets.
Click to expand...

If I was a public figure and Rush made inaccurate statements about me, I would not sue. It would just call more attention to the statements, and those who believe Rush would go on doing so. It would be like Obama suing the Birthers. It would do more harm than good.
 
liblady said:
good luck with that. i hope he tries.
Click to expand...

Here's a partial transcript of the Tuesday, October 13th show --

If people are trying to destroy your reputation and your credibility, your life and your career by attacking you as a racist, then you have to stand up and fight that. Now, we are in the process behind the scenes working to get apologies and retractions with the force of legal action against every journalist who has published these entirely fabricated quotes about me, slavery, and James Earl Ray. I never said them. We have tracked them. We know where they came from. We don't know the identity but we know where they came from, a single blogger who posted the stuff on my Wikipedia page in Wiki quotes, unsourced. Wikipedia says, "Well, this is in dispute." It's not in dispute. They were never uttered. I never said them. And I've even told reporters, "I never said them."

...It's a fascinating thing to watch otherwise professional journalists totally embarrass themselves by repeating fabricated, made-up quotes I have never said. And we found out where it all came from, and we're going to do two things. To everybody who has repeated these lies we're going to send a letter and say, "Back it up, source it, prove it, find out where I said it, I want to know." If they can't, which they won't be able to, then we're going to demand an apology and a retraction, and that is the least that some of these people can do."
Click to expand...

Somehow I have the feeling that retractions and apologies aren't going to be adequate - like the title of that old Judas Priest song says "Some Heads Are Gonna Roll".
 
Ikari said:
He should try, he should take it to court. I think the fact that people are so outraged about Rush being a minority owner along with like 20 other people of a football team based on Rush's political tendencies is sick. There are plenty of places for appropriate criticism. But you can't start making things up and causing a stink to purposefully have negative affects on one's business dealing and financial gains. That's just right out. I find it a bit sad that some people really don't understand that. Instead, they're happy to be partisan hacks spreading lies and slander about a man because they don't like who he is, what he does.

That's what happened in the end here, and people cheering for it are cheering for illegal activities against an individual. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing to be cheering.
Click to expand...
it's my understaning that the claim was he is a controversial figure. how could you dispute that?

anyway, didn't his PARTNER drop him?
 
Redress said:
That is allowed. He is controversial, and the NFL owners don't want the controversy. It's not that he is a conservative, it's that he is controversial.
Click to expand...

No, it was because people were bitching. Nothing innate to Rush himself. It was that other people had a problem with him. And that problem is based on political opinion. So the people who don't like Rush ran out and ran their mouths as loud as they could to make it so Rush couldn't do anything.

Breaking the law is not allowed. I can't believe you are encouraging and excusing libel and slander.
 
It seems rush' bombastic public perception that he himself cultivated has come back to bite him in the ass.

And to tell you the truth I would not go into business with him in situation because I think his public persona would be a liability more than an assest.
 
SpotsCat said:
Here's a partial transcript of the Tuesday, October 13th show --



Somehow I have the feeling that retractions and apologies aren't going to be adequate - like the title of that old Judas Priest song says "Some Heads Are Gonna Roll".
Click to expand...

doubtful. he's said plenty that IS on record. i don't believe he has grounds to sue anyone.
 
Redress said:
Interestingly, if he can prove a liable case, I have no problem with that. Sue away, that is the American system in action, we allow people to do that. On the other hand, Rush makes his living in part by calling people names and insulting them, I don't see where he has a lot of room to complain that others call him names too.
Click to expand...

If Rush came out and started lying and misrepresenting people, assaulting their character to such degree as to affect that person's business and financial life; he would be in the wrong and sued for it. Defending others for having done just this to Rush is inexcusable. It's nothing more than partisan hackery and intellectual dishonesty.
 
liblady said:
anyway, didn't his PARTNER drop him?
Click to expand...

Yes, because of the outrage built on lies and hyperbole being spread by idiots and spiteful jerks.
 
liblady said:
doubtful. he's said plenty that IS on record. i don't believe he has grounds to sue anyone.
Click to expand...

They quoted remarks and claimed he said them. He says he did not, so the onus is on them to prove he did and I don't believe they can do that. That is slander for the ones that said in over the air like the talking heads on MSNBC and libel for those that printed it.
 
Gill said:
They quoted remarks and claimed he said them. He says he did not, so the onus is on them to prove he did and I don't believe they can do that. That is slander for the ones that said in over the air like the talking heads on MSNBC and libel for those that printed it.
Click to expand...
i guess we'll see what happens, my bet is NADA.
 
liblady said:
i guess we'll see what happens, my bet is NADA.
Click to expand...

NADA? National Automobile Dealers Association? The group that publishes the book that lists the value of a used car? :2razz:

I think you're wrong. I think there's going to be some serious fallout over what happened to El Rushbo - probably a few retractions and apologies issued, then perhaps a civil suit or two for the more egregious and recalcitrant ones.

Rush can easily prove the economic harm caused by the comments made about him, the obstacle is that since he's a "public figure" he has to prove "actual malice". Actual malice is defined as "...the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

I'm of the opinion that not checking actual facts, but instead using WikiQuote, before you go on the air with them is "reckless disregard". If Maharushie can find twelve people that think the same way as I do...
 
Last edited:
SpotsCat said:
NADA? National Automobile Dealers Association? The group that publishes the book that lists the value of a used car? :2razz:

I think you're wrong. I think there's going to be some serious fallout over what happened to El Rushbo - probably a few retractions and apologies issued, then perhaps a civil suit or two for the more egregious and recalcitrant ones.

Rush can easily prove the economic harm caused by the comments made about him, the obstacle is that since he's a "public figure" he has to prove "actual malice". Actual malice is defined as "...the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth."

I'm of the opinion that not checking actual facts, but instead using WikiQuote, before you go on the air with them is "reckless disregard". If Maharushie can find twelve people that think the same way as I do...
Click to expand...
seems to me rush would have to sue the partner hwo dropped him. btw, what exactly was said about rush and by whom?
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm really, REALLY interested to know if Soros is actually part of this group.

Because if he is, and this same backlash doesn't get done for him, then its going to be clear as ****ing day it has nothing to do with having and being out spoken about "Controversial views" and its going to have everything to do with liberal sports writers having a bone to pick with Rush Limbaugh and seeking to stir up and create a massive wave of discontent against him through race baiting, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
They'll never say that Soros is racist, no matter what he has said.
 
liblady said:
seems to me rush would have to sue the partner hwo dropped him. btw, what exactly was said about rush and by whom?
Click to expand...

If you and I are going into a business partnership, and I drop you from the partnership because of comments made about your behavior - comments that are later proven to be false - then my lawsuit is against the people that made the comments. In theory, if my partner(s) should have known that the comments were so outlandish as to be false, then I can bring suit against them - especially if I can prove that they had an ulterior motive for forcing me out of the partnership - but nevertheless, my cause of action is against the person(s) who made the original comments.

Off of the top of my head -- there have been comments made by Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, and a variety of "talking heads" on all the alphabet network and cable channels - Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, just to name a few.

As I stated earlier - Rush can easily prove the economic loss as a result of the comments allegedly attributed to him. Now the question is "How far is Rush willing to persue this?"
 
I am still waiting for clear examples of this racism...
 
jallman said:
I am still waiting for clear examples of this racism...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I like how this is taken as automatically true despite no proof....


....yet Obama's relationships with Ayers, Wright, etc, are just happenstance and say nothing about his core values.
 
SpotsCat said:
If you and I are going into a business partnership, and I drop you from the partnership because of comments made about your behavior - comments that are later proven to be false - then my lawsuit is against the people that made the comments. In theory, if my partner(s) should have known that the comments were so outlandish as to be false, then I can bring suit against them - especially if I can prove that they had an ulterior motive for forcing me out of the partnership - but nevertheless, my cause of action is against the person(s) who made the original comments.

Off of the top of my head -- there have been comments made by Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, and a variety of "talking heads" on all the alphabet network and cable channels - Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, just to name a few.

As I stated earlier - Rush can easily prove the economic loss as a result of the comments allegedly attributed to him. Now the question is "How far is Rush willing to persue this?"
Click to expand...


I don't think Rush is going to sue. I think he's going to get as much mileage out of this as he can and in the end, I believe he'll have the last laugh.
 
Erod said:
Yeah, I like how this is taken as automatically true despite no proof....


....yet Obama's relationships with Ayers, Wright, etc, are just happenstance and say nothing about his core values.
Click to expand...

And all this time I thought this thread was about the feminazi bitch not obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom