Liberals Rush to Lynch Limbaugh

I heard that if Limbaugh sues, he should sue in court in London where the law would favor him.

CNN broadcasts there and defaming him there will get him a pile of bucks and put teeth into the war against the testa di merde who run around fact-checking Obama skits on SNL but can't find the time to do the same for Limbaugh.

Rick Sanchez at CNN is one of the biggest losers there and has had to retract a bunch.

If the statements you can verify were so bad, then a person would not have to make up from whole cloth.

If, as you say, the source of the quotes are from a single source who might have had self serving reasons or motivations to be less than truthful, Mr. Limbaugh deserves an apology--gulp.  This is difficult for me to write, but in the interest of fairness it needs to be done lest the credibility of the Democratic Party suffer. 

Should he sue?  Is this going to change the sports deal for him or would it be an example case to warn news agencies about what they say and print and determining authenticity and verifying sources.

Remember this story?

On September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited “exclusive information, including documents” to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. Within a few hours of those documents being posted on CBS News’s Web site, however, typography experts voiced skepticism that the documents had actually originated with their alleged author and Bush’s former commanding officer, the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian. As the evidence mounted, Rather stubbornly clung to the idea that his story was bulletproof, and he derided critics as partisans and Internet rumormongers. When he “apologized” on September 20, Rather would not concede that the documents were forgeries, only that he and CBS could “no longer vouch for their authenticity.”

The over arching question is if something is reported as fact and the intention was altruitistic, but turns out to be wrong, is it anyones at fault?  Are there grounds to sue someone for something they believed to be the truth at the time.   

cowpoke

No, I never thought that it was worth ruining his reputation.  In fact, I was surprised it was not handled in a more dignified manner by stating the sources were supposedly trustworthy and if it was a professional forgery, anyone could be fooled by it.  It happens all the time in the case of antiquities.  

Hugh: Good report! As the progressives are so fond of saying: "Words have consequences."

One of the problems facing America is that there's a bunch of ideologues out there that jump up and down and  pee in there pants whenever one of their brethren throws out red meat  in the form of "sick the right-wing radio host and rip his throat out. because he's stifling our ideology". 

If the situation were reversed, and a bunch of right-wingers went after a progressive talk-show host, my sentiments would be the same. Progressives don't seem to get the fact that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the only reason why they can make the absurd and ridiculous statements that they invariably make. Ideologues, no matter what side of the political spectrum  they're on, only fuck things up for the rest of us that simply want to live and let live and not get all freaked out about what some radio guy says. If y'all are that concerned about what Rush Limbaugh says, then start up your own radio station and convince America that your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are the way to go. Until you do that--and there's no legitimate reason, or excuse, why you can't--then y'all need to stop whining . . . .

I do not like Limbaugh, almost never listen to him.

Yet he has the right to own a team, to have a radio show, and free speech.

Not all liberals but the far left extremists want to silence him, ytet they praise people like Olbermann and Michael Moore.

Hugh: OK! You caught that one didn't you? HA! It was simply a rhetorical . . . . Yes . . .for some reason, progressives or liberals-- or whatever they call themselves nowadays-- can't seem to gain an audience in the world of talk radio. When I was living in New York back in the eighties, Mario Cuomo (former liberal NY governor) tried his voice at talk radio and turned out to be an utter failure at the art. But then again, Ed Koch (former NYC Democrat mayor) turned out to be rather successful at the art of talk radio. Probably one of the  reasons why Mayor Ed Koch was successful is that throughout his radio show he often announced the disclaimer that he was " a liberal with sanity". HA!

Hugh: Yeah! I can tell that you're a Marks Brothers fan! Drum roll please!

Poor Rush. He's been victimized by mean, mean people.

nanute: Yes! Rush is a victim of an evil racist conspiracy! No doubt about it! The powers that be over at the NFL simply hate him because of the color of his skin. If Rush were a black progressive, he'd have no problem buying into an NFL team no matter how many racist remarks he made.

Right! A bunch of wealthy white guys have conspired against another wealthy white guy.I've heard that shtick about the black progressive racist already. You mean a black progressive that hates white people? A red herring or a straw man of one's imagination, in my opinion. But then again, what the hell do I know. I'm just a self hating white guy. And maybe a rube.