Posted on 10/16/2009 1:18:56 AM PDT by GVnana
Rick Sanchez:
i've know rush. in person,i like him. his rhetoric,however is inexcusably divisive. he's right tho. we didn't confirm quote. our bad.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.nationalreview.com ...
I think the “our bad” was a deliberately sarcastic “in-your-face” nose-thumbing reply to avoid admitting the truth.
The rats’ success in these efforts depends almost wholly on the joe-sixpack public’s ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.
"Our Bad" or "My Bad" is so 1995.
Rick won’t know bad until Rush owns CNN
Sanchez is a pompous lying Leftist Bigot. Sue him till his next meal requires him to walk fifteen miles to the nearest soup kitchen. Because he’s so broke he can’t afford to ride the bus. Sue him till he has no job. Sue him till he has to sell his house. Sue him till he has to sell his car. Sue him till he has to sell his pension. Sue him till he has to sell all his valuables. Sue him till he is penniless. Sue him till he’s sleeping in a refridgerator box. Sue him till he truly is a full fledged product of the DemoGenerate System.
Actually Dan Rooney, the primary owner, (the old man who ‘thanked’ Obama when he received the Lombardi Trophy) is now safely ensconced in the US Embassy in Dublin. Dan Rooney also may be experiencing some health issues (very frail looking).
His son, Art Rooney runs the day to day operations (with a group of others, both family and non family members).
The other owners of the Steelers are the other Rooney Brothers (they would be Art Rooney’s uncles). That group is solidly conservative, Catholic (own race tracks and other sporting franchises).
Could Dan Rooney have interceded? Possible. Could any of the actual operators of the Stillerz interjected themselves into the Limbaugh issue...not likely...but again we don’t know. Would any of the other Rooney brothers (the other owners of the team) acted. Highly doubtful...Dan was the lone loose liberal canon.
This was predictable.
Character assasination filled with bald-faced lies. ‘
Followed by “um, sorry, my bad.”
BOR said that Rush was a public figure and he could not sue. Many public figures have sued and won. Rush has the best case I have seen yet.
Finally, there is evidence that the Times published the advertisement without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of course, establish that the Times "knew" the advertisement was false, since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. With respect to the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of rejecting advertisements containing "attacks of a personal character"; their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We think the evidence against the Times supports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.
New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
I think Limbaugh's case against CNN is MUCH stronger than Sullivan's case against NYT. There is no question that CNN's reports were against Limbaugh (Sullivan was not personally named in the advertisement that he sued on), and CNN's "reliance on the good character of the source" argument is weak, in light of the statement in Wiki that the report about Limbaugh (in Wiki) is described (in Wiki) as being contested! CNN made specific, direct statements - incorrectly attributed to Limbaugh - and if they used Wiki, they were given notice that the "fact" was contested.
CNN needs to use the minuscule amount of restraint necessary to prevent that the rumors they sell from having the concurrent qualities of being false (while CNN asserts they are true) and damaging to the people they name. That is not too much to ask, under the law.
I would also sue certain people within CNN personally, even though CNN is bound to pay their defense and any judgment.
I think that's why we saw so much front-page prominence to the alleged tortures at Abu Ghraib on the New York Times.
I think we see that in the Limbaugh case. If Limbaugh is attacked time and again, , no matter if the attack is baseless, eventually our Joe sixpack says, enough already from this guy. That is the real danger for Limbaugh, the public will not consider the facts of the matter but only seek to be relieved of the bother.
Does Rick Sanchez ever discuss his drunken hit and run, back in his Miami reporter days?
Rush said something about building evidence...so we may not hear about this for a while, but I believe he will do something about it that will be so sweet we will be smiling for days. :) He’s not the type to leave something undone.
I think you are exactly right. Their tactic is to wear people down.
BOR is wrong. Ask the National Enquirer they have been sued many times and had to pay up.
Rush, I’d rather own CNN than a football team. Just sayin.
Rush talked about that yesterday and said he didn't know until someone told him Wed. while all this was breaking.
Now wouldn't that be great! Rush owns CNN with the help of Soros money gained from a law suit. CNN becomes a Conservative station.........love it.
I agree that is their tactic and that they believe it will work because it has worked for them in the past. But change is in the air and Mr. Hope and Change has accidentally also inspired conservatives to believe “YES WE CAN!”
Rush’s 21 year career and golden microphone protects him. He has a solid fan base (including me) and while I would never rush to the defense of an average celebrity I will STAND UP for Rush and stay standing.
Also, the left forgot to factor one thing in using this old play from their old playbook: Nothing inspires a populace to fight back than threatening the future of their children - which the president and his policies most definitely are.
Let’s take up the call of the left’s hero Roosevelt: “We have only just begun to fight.”
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.