Limbaugh / Fluke Incident: Enough!!! Time to Fight Back (Vanity)

March 8, 2012 | no dems

[Codeflier]

Please quit perpetuating the myth that she was testifying before congress. She was not. It was a staged media event made to look like she was before congress. I know it seems petty, but it bothers me that this has somehow become accepted as the storyline.

[Ex-Democrat Dean]

Rush should ask Mark Levin to be his attorney! Can you imagine Mark doing deposition of Fluke!!!

[A CA Guy]

That is exactly why she would not want to sue. Discovery would clean her clock.
She made herself a public figure and once that was done she opened herself to public opinion and negative views that would surpass the norm.

This isn’t like Clinton calling Paula Jones all kinds of names and slandering a private citizen as President and then dragging her into the public view.

[IronJack]

the Georgetown Bob?

Considering Ms. Fluke's promiscuity, "bob" has a completely different connotation. And yes, she probably has done it ... repeatedly.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Can you imagine Mark doing deposition of Fluke!!!

That is why there is no-way no-how Fluke will sue Rush for libel. She'd be wide open for discovery on her sexual history (which likely would prove her to be a slut...or worse). Plus I'm sure Levin would try and get the Court to designate her a "public figure" for purposes of libel law, which would open up an intense examination of all of her prior activism.

[GOPJ]

Please quit perpetuating the myth that she was testifying before congress. She was not. It was a staged media event made to look like she was before congress. I know it seems petty, but it bothers me that this has somehow become accepted as the storyline.

There's a legal difference here (goes back to three sisters who couldn't sing and a newspaper panned them or something like that - the SC sided with the newspaper ... or something like that - forgotten the details.) - might be why dems are pushing the 'testifying before congress' lie. One way she's a 'public person - and we have the right to say what we want about her and her ideas - and the other way - is kine of 'maybe she is - maybe she isn't'. If she's not a public figure they can sue us - and destroy our rights...

Bloggers are a lot more innocent than some third year law student at one of the top law schools. But that won't help us much. The press wants us stripped of our 'citizen journalists' rights too. They'll be heavy into her side. If we lose our citizen rights - if they can established THEY have rights that we don't have - the right to critique public people, they'll feel they can re-establish their role as 'gatekeeper' ...

That's a big incentive for them. And it might work.

If little miss 'I want free birth control' decides to not only sue Rush - but to sue bloggers - and she wins - our ability to made comments about people in the news will be stopped. Who wants to comment if they could get sued - and lose everything?

How honest would you be about some liberal blow-hard IF you knew he could sue you and take everything you own?

If a few of us were thrown in jail and stripped of all our belongings, it wouldn't take long before all of us were silenced.

These totalitarians-in-waiting are playing hard ball - we've got to be careful. Very careful.

[GOPJ]

Please quit perpetuating the myth that she was testifying before congress. She was not. It was a staged media event made to look like she was before congress. I know it seems petty, but it bothers me that this has somehow become accepted as the storyline.

You're right - there are people perpetuating that myth.

There's a legal difference here (goes back to three sisters who couldn't sing and a newspaper panned them or something like that - the Supreme Court sided with the newspaper - forgotten the details - something about fair criticism and comment... ) - might be why dems are pushing the 'testifying before congress' lie. One way she's a 'public person - and we have the right to say what we want about her and her ideas - and the other way - is kine of 'maybe she is - maybe she isn't'. If she's not a public figure they can sue us - and destroy our rights...

Bloggers are a lot more innocent than some third year law student at one of the top law schools. But that won't help us much. The press wants us stripped of our 'citizen journalists' rights too. They'll be heavy into her side. If we lose our citizen rights - if they can established THEY have rights that we don't have - the right to critique public people, they'll feel they can re-establish their role as 'gatekeeper' ...

That's a big incentive for them. And it might work.

If little miss 'I want free birth control' decides to not only sue Rush - but to sue bloggers - and she wins - our ability to made comments about people in the news will be stopped. Who wants to comment if they could get sued - and lose everything?

How honest would you be about some liberal blow-hard IF you knew he could sue you and take everything you own?

If a few of us were thrown in jail and stripped of all our belongings, it wouldn't take long before all of us were silenced.

These totalitarians-in-waiting are playing hard ball - we've got to be careful. Very careful.

Ping

[stephenjohnbanker]

Fortunately, this woman lied like a rug. A months supply of her BC is available 3 miles from Georgetown for 9.00 a month
so her 3000.00 over 3 years, is really 320.00 over 3 years.
Rush ran the numbers. Unfortunately, he handled it poorly. Fortunately, his comments were based on her BARE-FACED LIES.
The woman is finished.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”If little miss ‘I want free birth control’ decides to not only sue Rush - but to sue bloggers - and she wins - our ability to made comments about people in the news will be stopped. Who wants to comment if they could get sued - and lose everything?’

When you sue someone you want to make sure you can at least recover the legal costs. Suing anonymous bloggers doesn't sound like any case a lawyer would take,.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you GOPJ. I appreciate you mentioning this. I had thought she was reporting to a committee, so I was operating under a false premise too.

[hank ernade]

Learn to research.

Proflowers is owned by-
Provide Commerce Inc., San Diego CA

Provide Commerce is owned by-
Liberty Interactive Corp., Englewood CO
which owns QVC, Liberty Mutual, Expedia and others

the CEO of Liberty Interactive is-

GREGORY MAFFEI
- chairman of the Colorado McCAIN presidential campaign
- donor of over 600k to McCAIN
- former CFO Microsoft

Looks like that weasel McCAIN is involved in this.

Get busy!!!!

[hank ernade]

Learn to research.

Proflowers is owned by-
Provide Commerce Inc., San Diego CA

Provide Commerce is owned by-
Liberty Interactive Corp., Englewood CO
which owns QVC, Liberty Mutual, Expedia and others

the CEO of Liberty Interactive is-

GREGORY MAFFEI
- chairman of the Colorado McCAIN presidential campaign
- donor of over 600k to McCAIN
- former CFO Microsoft

Looks like that weasel McCAIN is involved in this.

Get busy!!!!

[GOPJ]

When you sue someone you want to make sure you can at least recover the legal costs. Suing anonymous bloggers doesn't sound like any case a lawyer would take,.

I've known journalists who felt protections they have under the first amendment( and case law) - do NOT extend to 'citizen' journalists. For some of them, taking away our ability to compete with them - sitting in our pajamas in front of computer screens - is the holy grail - the grail that will return their gatekeeper status. It's not a question of some store front lawyer getting a percentage... it's much bigger.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”I've known journalists who felt protections they have under the first amendment( and case law) - do NOT extend to ‘citizen’ journalists. For some of them, taking away our ability to compete with them - sitting in our pajamas in front of computer screens - is the holy grail - the grail that will return their gatekeeper status. It's not a question of some store front lawyer getting a percentage... it's much bigger. “

If suing anyone for criticizing them was so easy then Palin would have done it for that REAL book that claimed she used Cocaine and other stuff.

Dems are getting away with so much stuff, I don't know why you are going down this dead end.

[GOPJ]

If suing anyone for criticizing them was so easy then Palin would have done it for that REAL book that claimed she used Cocaine and other stuff.

Sick, that's my point. Palin is a public person - almost anyone can say anything they want about her - and they won't get sued. Say the same about your neighbor or boss and you'll wind up in court - and you'll lose. Printed comments from police are usually Sergeant and above. There's a reason for that... Even though comments from beat offices might be more colorful, newspapers won't quote a beat cop because he's NOT a public person - and holding him up to ridicule will get them sued. Successfully. In the above example a beat cop can be quoted for 'nice' - like, "Anyone would have done what I did - I'm not a hero"... those kinds of comments can be quoted and printed about anyone...

Most newspapers have a first amendment attorney on retainer. This is serious stuff and the rules are well known. I watch freepers dance on the edge sometimes and I can hardly catch my breath... but the law seems so in line with common sense and fair play - that few here cross it. But there are people out there who would like to take our ability to 'speak truth to power' away from us. The fastest way would be to say we're NOT real journalists and don't have the protections they have... There ARE people who want to do this to us.

About Rush and his apology - studies have consistently shown that when a paper 'goes too far' IF they apologize and print a retraction - it helps them from being sued - and if they are sued - it helps with the jury. What Rush did was prudent.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Sick, that's my point. Palin is a public person - almost anyone can say anything they want about her - and they won't get sued. Say the same about your neighbor or boss and you'll wind up in court - and you'll lose”

There are a few libs here in Maryland I know personally that I really dislike but I have way too much common sense to talk about them by name on the internet, or to use my real name when posting my opinions of politicians.

Fluke on the other hand appeared on MSNBC after Issa committee rejected her but before she ‘testified’ to the Pelosi House NOW gang, and before Rush made his comments. And in her interview on MSNBC before Rush's comments she played ‘the victim of House Republicans’ act. I know because unlike most here I saw it first-hand. I noticed that few here even know that. It would be great to find the show and transcript.

Much like Palin she became a public figure then joining Dems in a public political battle.

[GOPJ]

The committee didn't accept her for testimony because she's not an expert in Church/State issues. She came anyhow - from what I understand and was declined. After that some dems came up with the idea of a ‘mock’ hearing where she could ‘testify’. All fake - all PR - looks like it was done by an ex Obama Communication specialist or some such thing. Drudge has the story.

[GOPJ]

The woman is finished.

For us, she's finished. We know the game they were playing. But she's showing up on MSM TV... and not being exposed for the game playing she did - or who's behind her...

[GOPJ]

Thought I'd share this with you - the liberal Geraldo Rivera was on Fox and Friends this morning with the line about Rush Limbaugh being the spokesperson for the Republican party. It seems to be a liberal talking point. When he mouthed it, it became official. :) And you're right, we are on the same team. I came up with something a while back that was similar to what the liberal liars were pushing. It felt creepy - so I know what it's like. Happens.

I think dems are going to drop this issue - more is coming out about Ms Fluke and the people behind her....

[stephenjohnbanker]

You mean the 1,000.00 bux a year, that is really 118.00 a year?

Yeah : )