Darrin prefers to be ignorant.
It's his nature.
Darrin prefers to be ignorant.
It's his nature.
If anyone is interested, my latest new thread:
Also, lest you think that the conversation has been "framed" for me as a woman's health issue, my wife uses birth control to control the growth of some painful cysts. It takes an act of congress for them to approve the right kind (they cover birth control for pregnancy prevention, but apparently only the cheap kind which doesn't work for her health purposes). I can only imagine how hard it would be for a company who doesn't cover birth control at all.
I am riding in the MS150 for San Antonio in October of this year. Part of it includes raising funds that get donated to help fund MS research. If you would like to donate my team please go link and click the "Donate" button on the right of the screen. Thank you.
Fuck our team, clown!
it's a "list" of companies who have pulled their ads from Rush's show.
Divided by 600+ stations how will that affect him? I noticed the other day he
had one of his "major" sponsor's back. Lifelock.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
Sears Holding's Press Releases
I searched others, and could not find them. The Allstate one is from facebook. Did it come from the corporate Allstate, or an individual office? Couldn't find it either.
Still looking, but haven't found any.
+1MAHER: To compare that to Rush is ridiculous - he went after a civilian about very specific behavior, that was a lie, speaking for a party that has systematically gone after women's rights all year, on the public airwaves. I used a rude word about a public figure who gives as good as she gets, who's called people "terrorist" and "unAmerican." Sarah Barracuda. The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
q: So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and someone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?
vy65: "no, we cannot"
QUOTE=vy65;6952966] I don't think harming other people is immoral. [/QUOTE
QUOTE=robdiaz2191;7536012]I think hacking babies to death is ok sometimes.[/QUOTE
From the same quick interview.MAHER: Of course if you take out of context over 10 years snippets inside comedy bits you can make anyone look bad - and sometimes, I have been! Not perfect, but not misogyny. In general, this is an obvious right wing attempt to dredge up some old shit about me to deflect from their self-inflicted problems. They are the kings of false equivalencies.
And through it all, I have defended Rush's right to stay on the air! Not what he said, that was disgusting - but the right to not disappear because people who don't even listen to you don't like what you said. That really bothers me. I never hear Rush Limbaugh unless a guy in the next truck at a stop light has it on; it would be arrogant for me to say "he has to disappear" and deprive the people who do listen to him of what they like. We all have different tastes and different opinions, that's America
Maybe we could ask vy.
Do Rush's comments rise to the level of libel or slander?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slanderslander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications. (
He kept doubling down on it.libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages.
Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit.
I think the lawyers told him "she can sue your socks off, you dumb fuck", and that is the only reason he took it back.
Not because he was sorry, but because he didn't want to be deprived of any precious money, IMO. He has never been sorry for anything, unless it affected him financially.
I don't know why Rush apologized nor do I care why. Fluke would have no case against him and any suit filed would be for publicity purposes only. Rush would probably grow his listenership and sponsors. JMHO.
This isn't really a public figure beyond that single statement.
Even so, no one deserves that kind of shit.
Defamation is one of the hardest torts to prove. When I started my private practice several years ago, I learned this the hard way. The burden is almost impossible to meet. She has no case and Rush has money to burn in his defense.
THe number of statements do not make a difference. The setting of the speech makes all the difference. Her appearing on talk shows and cable news programs just reinforces that she has become a "public figure". Again, I am no expert on this subject, but under my understanding of defamation, she loses.
You have no argument from me that no one deserves what Rush said. No one deserves what Bill Mahr said either, but this is America and we have to live with free speech, even when we absolutely hate it. Its why people can see things like God Hates Fags at soldiers funerals and we just have to shut up and take it.
Again, I am not here to defend Rush. He is a big boy and should take full responsibility for his words. I also disagree with BM in that, people who are offended by someone's words should ban together to boycott Rush or his sponsors if they feel so passionate about it.
Gone, But Not Forgotten:
Attack Troop 1-61 Cav
Bayonette Troop 1-61 Cav
Comanche Troop 1-61 Cav
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)