Posted on 07/07/2004 10:51:43 AM PDT by Skooz
You apparently came on this forum all hair-triggered to make a big point and instead you point out your own foolishness.
He'd better hope Marta's divorce lawyer doesn't find out about it.
I am certain he would remember that, the gist I got from that conversation was implying some civil matter in the past.
That said, you may have a good point. It could have been a bad effort as sarcasm.
(speaking of suits against government. Does everyone realize that the Federal Marriage Amendment is scheduled for a vote in the Senate next week. Media blackout is apparent.)
tell your friends to let their congressmen know their opinion on the matter. My website has a form for it at thotline dot com..
Rush does sue in defense of his intellectual property I am sure.
He does not make business ending lawsuits, nor are they petty or for the purpose of a once in a lifetime lottery type reward as many lawyers get their clients to chase after.
With idiot juries, anything is possible and the very cost of a trial causes insurance companies to just settle to save money. In the case of doctors, this settling does nothing good for their records as a professional.
I heard that exchange. Not one of Rush's better moments, but he handled it better than most of us would have.
Aw, you know what the states did with that tobacco suit money. They spent it on health care for ailing smokers, support for the impoverished widows and orphans of those who smoked themselves to death and on educational programs to convince kids to shun smoking and instead dowhat Clinton and Monica did in the oval office. (sarcasm)
THAT'S IT!
Rush has filed suit for divorce against his wife!
Is this one call to Rush really worth a headline? Just asking.
http://www.harbertv.com/showdescrip.htm
Harber gained national notoriety when he was sued frivolously for $20 million by Rush Limbaugh, et al, for using the word "Rush" in the title of his radio show ("After The Rush"). With broad-based support across the entire political spectrum - including from many of Limbaugh's own fans -- Harber won the federal court case. Limbaugh didn't get a penny while Harber was applauded for standing up to him and not being intimidated. Harber used humor throughout the event and made certain no one took it too seriously.
They're saving it - for the children.
No. It isn't, really.
This thread is a response to a thread, since pulled, titled "A Caller Just Nailed Rush!"
"there is a difference between punitive damages and compensatory damages"
That's a fact, but both are identical in that either can be awarded at excessisive and unreasonable amounts of compensation.
Another disgusting aspect of it all is that the lawyers almost always take home bigger pay checks, after expenses, than the injured party.
That's the only one I could find (more info: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:28260221&refid=ink_g5s1&skeyword=&teaser=) ... hardly seems frivolous, though.
Is that the way it went? I only saw the headlines, but I assumed she had filed.
Be that as it may, rules are rules. We don't allow personal attacks, racism, violence, or Rush-bashing. Any one know where I can get a complete list?
I listen to Rush in Austin on a 1 hour delay. He nailed that liberal caller. He made an idiot of the caller, to be honest.
This was posted by someone else - but reported that Rush had been zapped by the caller. The thread was quickly pulled for "wrong board, Rush bashing not allowed here"....or some such excuse.
"The guy caught Rush flatfooted."
Does that equal a 1/2 or full 'b#tch slapping' - I'm trying to keep score here on 'b#tch slappings & F'yourselves'.
I suspect the caller was a lawyer, probably a litigator, skilled in badgering a witness. Note that Rush did not "pot" down the caller's mic as many other hosts would do under similar circumstances. Instead, Rush was polite to a caller undeserving of that measure of civility.
As another poster said, as a business person, Rush could well be the plaintiff in suits on his behalf. We must consider that Rush's program is under a constant microscopic examination and therefore he must be cautious when discussing his personal affairs. Note how the caller kept badgering rather than let Rush gather his thoughts. The important thing to remember is that by the end of the call, Rush DID answer the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.