Mark D - I’m Catholic and I can take a joke too.

I am Roman Catholic that is. not just “catholic” as so many sectarian wannabes who don’t read history and know zip about the Faith use the word as though they can erase 15 centuries and start the Church in 1517 with Martin Luther.

Mark - I bet you went to catechism class, presided over by a Director of Religious Education who thinks the Church started in 1962 with Vatican II.

After Vatican II a lot of Catholic educators decided that blasphemy, along with a lot of other malefactions against the 10 Commandments. didn’t exist any more.

Like that title card at the beginning of the movie “Dogma” that told Catholics that they should sit back and take all the lies, misrepresentations and shit thrown at Catholic teaching and if you don’t, you just have no sense of humor.

Funny - when people make fun of Enviromentalist jerks and Global warming gurus the same people curse and scream that I and people like me are ruining the planet.

Wake up Mark - blasphemy is a sin. There are such things. They hurt you much more than God because the numb your conscience to truth and the majesty of the All-seeing, Almighty God.

Ya poor slob. I really pity you.

Her problem is that she has no common sense, as shown by her decision to drink till she was bombed. As another columnist has pointed out, the girls have finally arrived at full equality, allowing themselves to make themselves as piggish as us guys.

You will recall the incident featuring Catherine Bosley, the news anchor who entered a wet Tshirt contest, removed all her clothing and displayed an astoundingly unreal set of boobs. She lost her job.

Hiring women with no common sense is the fault of TV executives who think a toothy smile and a firm rack are all you need to have to be a woman on TV.

Always funny?

Editorial irony is lost on Ernie who did not read the rest of the column, apparently.

Steven - read Matthew 27:25 in context - the people who demanded Christ’s blood be on them and their children were a bunch of loafers on an early Friday morning looking for a diversion. I realise that describes a lot of football fans, too.

So tell me Steven - when the Ku Klux Klan wielded a great deal of political clout in the South and other places in the US - would you say that the KKK represented the people of the United States for all generations as well?

Sean

I used to believe in the “Jewish Holocaust”.
But then I discovered the internet and
people like the ADL blacklisted reporter
Douglas Reed and the great American patriot
Benjamin Freedman.

“I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish
sources, the process by means of which, over the years,
the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of Hitler’s
victims and their number inflated at will from day
to day (Hitler’s book-bonfire became “the burning
of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where
ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became
concentration camps for Jews; a wartime report about
the killing of” 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians
and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews”;
and so on interminably).

“My opinion is that, whatever was the number
of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler,
the number of their victims was in roughly
that proportion to the total population
stricken, Polish, Czech and other.

I have found this to be the opinion of all
persons known to me who survived
the concentration camps and occupations.
Having suffered themselves, their feeling
for Jewish victims was as strong as for all
others, but they could not understand why
the one case of the Jews was singled out
and the number of Jewish victims monstrously
exaggerated.

-Douglas Reed

The Controversy of Zion
http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

“And because they control the newspapers, the magazines,
the radio, the television, the book publishing business,
they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the
politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language
… so naturally you’d believe black is white if you heard
it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore —
you’d start to call black white. And nobody could
blame you. ”

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/freedman.html

So now I know when someone like Dana Jacboson
insults the most revered person in history she
is really just expressing the inner core of her
Talmudic religion which is essentially
anti-Christian.

“First I will summarize the references by Rev.
Pranaitis referring to Jesus in the Talmud in
the original texts translated by him into Latin,
and from Latin into English:

Sanhedrin, 67a — Jesus referred to as the son
of Pandira, a soldier

Kallah, 1b. (18b) — Illegitimate and
conceived during menstruation.

Sanhedrin, 67a — Hanged on the eve of
Passover. Toldath Jeschu. Birth related in
most shameful expressions

Abhodah Zarah II — Referred to as the son of
Pandira, a Roman soldier.

Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son
of Pandira, the Roman.

Schabbath, 104b — Called a fool and no one
pays attention to fools.

Facts are Facts by Benjamin H. Freedman
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/facts2.htm

Always funny?

Thanks for telling us
Christians and Muslims
who revere Christ
where you are coming
from.

Now we know what not to buy
from you creeps.

Of course, this seems like too much to ask nowadays…

“ps. Neither Christians nor Muslims are a race… it’s hard to be racist towards a group of people who don’t share a race”

OH BS! I suppose you think that the Jews are White, too? These people have so much “chutzpah” anymore, for the way they are leading America around the nose.

America! These Zionist Jews are trashing this country, totally. Our wealth is being squandered away and we are being sucked dry by Zionists in the service to Israel. Check out the facts and figures to all of this and you’ll see, alright. I’ve accumulated a wealth of public links and documentation:
http://incogman.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/america-enslaved-to-zionist-bloodsuckers/#more-372

After you read this article, you’ll get pissed for sure!

Quickly Proving that Islam is a False Religion…

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument - you make the assumption that the words in the Bible are accurate.

You do know that that bible wasn’t written at the time of Jesus? And that it has been changed many times since it was written?

Cyber_Cohen.

In the realm of the big three, Jews, Christians and Muslims, only one is immune from attack. Gee, I wonder who that would be???

I think this is case in most “Western” countries; some even put you behind bars for the mere crime of questioning.

Cyber_Cohen.

The author of the article should sort himself out; this is an issue between (a possible) Jew and their thugs, the Christians. Leave the Muslims out of this one, please!

Cyber_Cohen.

“After all, we should be used to the double standard that christians are OK to attack, I suppose.”

This Dana-trash is a christian. A good one or a bad one is irrelevant. The fact is she has sworn your ‘god’ and christians don’t care (much).

If she were muslim the first point is she wouldn’t say what she said. Not ever. Not even the bad ones among us.

You see the one holy unseen God of all is Allaah in Islam, God the Father in old christianity and G*D in Judaism, is one & the same. If someone swore Allah they’d be pushing up daisies by now. If someone swore G*D in the old days they’d be pushing up daisies now. If someone swore God the Father in days gone by, they’d be pushing up daisies now.

What she said is what’s in all your hearts. Your society is a reflection of that. Your religious celebrations are just an excuse for sex drugs and rock & roll. Where as islamic religious occasions are religious congrgational prayers to the goD of Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Jesus, & Muhammad.

What she said is on all your lips and in all your hearts, save a few.

Props to her, women should be allowed to drink and be as foul as men, thats what equal rights is all about.

bs is bs

There is SOME Spirituality in Religion.
but
There is NO Religion in Spirituality.

Do the 2000 year old rituals if you wish.
Notice we are BEINGS not DOINGS.

We are all one in the same
and
ALL THAT IS…is WITHIN US ALL

PEACE

The true religion (which is the Catholic religion) cannot have blatant illogic at the heart of its teaching. Islam has blatant illogic at its heart. Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet, but it denies that He was God. Islam says that God had no Son and it repudiates the Trinity.

The illogic is this: Jesus said and indicated that He was God many times (e.g., John 8:58). On this point one can also consult: Where does the Bible teach that Jesus is God? If He was not God (as Islam says), then He was a false prophet for claiming to be God when He was not. According to Islam, he would logically – and we say this for the sake of argument for those who, God forbid, might accept Islam as true – have to be considered a blasphemer and a false prophet. He could not logically be considered a prophet. That proves that Islam is a false religion and that it has an official teaching which is blatantly false and illogical. It proves it without even getting into the other false teachings of Islam which demonstrate that it’s a false religion which was inspired by the enemy of mankind to lead souls astray.

Jesus Christ was God, and the Catholic religion is the one true religion. You need to convert to it and be baptized for salvation.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

And even though rightwing “Christian” fundmamentalists have openly declared war on my religion spreading filth and lies about it to suit Ziomism’s greater agenda, I am more concerned with being Truthful and honest as our Religion teaches us to be:

I declare without doubt, or hesitation, that the Christian religion is, and has been, under heavy attack for at least the last 30 years or so by America’s Media Apparatus. It is mocked and derided at least on a monthly basis… And documentaries attempting to distort and debase the beautiful character of Jesus are almost a “dime a dozen”, as they say.

And whilst Jewish attacks on Islam are prevalent and obvious (in fact, it’s almost P.C now), the attacks on Christianity have been more subtle… or if they become obvious, they are quickly swept under the rug and we are made to “forget” these attacks ever occurred…

And what is the end goal?

Well, who largely controls the Media (especially in the U.S)?

Why, Jews of course (I would say people of the Jewish “Faith”, but most Jews these days seem to be “Atheists”, not “theists”.)

And who attempted to murder Jesus 2000 years ago? (Muslims do not believe Jesus was killed, but that he was taken bodily up into Heaven: we sincerely believe that God loved him too much to have him murdered at the hands of tyrants & vile sinners.)

And who is being targeted and persecuted in the Holy Land at the hands of these same Jews? Muslims AND Christians of course!

So, to whose benefit is it that Muslims and Christians have their religions denigrated and put-down in America’s media?

And just WHO is fighting Israel’s wars for her?

I declare that there is only *One* God (Our Creator and Sustainer who is SEPARATE from the Creation), and I declare that Muhammad is His final Prophet and Messenger (In a long tradition of Prophets from Adam through to Moses and Jesus).

Not the Vatican II counterchurch of Benedict XVI.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed).”

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:

“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:

“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:

“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” (Denz. 351)

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

But I totally agree with you on the issue of mocking. It’s a free-for-all!

As for the “jews killed Christ” being much worse — no, it isn’t. And it isn’t inaccurate, either. The jewish religious leaders were threatened by Him — and his radical ideas. Jesus wasn’t trying to overthrow the Romans or lead them to revolt against Rome. He was trying to overthrow the corruption that he saw in the Jewish community at the time. But, even Christ said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”. If Christ forgave the Jews for whatever part they played, why should Christians today place blame on Jews for His death? I certainly don’t. I realize there are some who do — but there are also Christian snake handlers and I don’t think bible encourages us to prove our faith through handling poisonous snakes. Just because some people who PROFESS to have a certain faith adopt crazy ideas doesn’t mean that the true faith endorses such craziness.

And the whole issue of jewishness as race or religion is baffling to me. If Judaism accepts converts (which it does), the jews can’t really be defined as a separate race. Especially since you have major differences genetically between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi jews. So, I can’t see how the jews can be defined as a race.

In a world where questioning any part of the Holocaust story (even if you do not deny that it happened) can land you in prison in several nations, I think we need to be open and honest about this double standard. One group should not get a pass simply because they were the victims of a historical horror. Either we can criticize and mock everyone or we have to stifle our speech with political correctness for every group. Personally, I’m for the former.

You are free to mock me as you will.

Who cares?

ps. Neither Christians nor Muslims are a race… it’s hard to be racist towards a group of people who don’t share a race.

Get over it.

Though it’s a pretty feeble boast that you’re not going to attack people, it’s not that hard to keep from hurting others.

God and Godesss is within us all. Once this is realized - There is no stopping the Human Race from becoming the Gods they already are…

“Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.” - Thomas Jefferson

Thank your/her God you did not trample on Druids - then I would take umbrage.

This is why your television denigrates Jesus for the past 20 years. This is who runs the media, and works in the media, for the most part.

Welcome to reality, otherwise known as “that of which we dare not speak”.

yes, there is a double standard between Christianity and the other major world religions that is constantly reinforced by the media; people will just have to tough it out

TJ, get a life; it says leave a reply, not your high school debate case

nobody “killed” Jesus; he sacrificed himself for the sake of man

this is an example of why you leave the comedic “roasting” up to professional comedians, not to “journalists”

and yes, Dana is a drunk fool that does bear an odd resemblance to a horse, but nevertheless we should forget her and move on to more interesting news…..

Uhh, yea.

I love your name.

“monkey brain”? I that an honorary title?

Please, this wasn’t a “private event”. You do NOT sell tickets, advertise, and tape for later broadcast a “private event”.

Uh, so am I. And you might want to look up “at will” employment. Now, this woman obviously has a contract, but I know for a fact that ESPN employees have terms in their contracts that allow them to be terminated for anything that may damage the reputation of the company. As a matter of fact, most companies have those clauses. I’m not sure where you get the idea that you can’t fire your employees, but you can, as long as you don’t violate civil rights statutes, wistleblower laws, or issues like that. First amendment doesn’t apply.

I realize you won’t believe me, so I did a quick look a came up with this:

PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW

REPORT
JURY VERDICTS IN WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASES
by David J. Jung, Professor of Law and Director, Public Law Research Institute, October 29, 1997

This report was prepared by the Public Law Research Institute at Hastings College of the Law. It does not represent the views or policies of Hastings College of the Law, its Board of Directors or its faculty.

Jury Verdicts in Wrongful Termination Cases

Introduction

Methodology

The Types of Wrongful Termination

The Facts of Wrongful Termination, Revisited
A. How many lawsuits?
B. How many verdicts?
Figure 1: Wrongful Termination Verdicts, 1992-1996
Figure 2: Type of Case, 1992-1996
C. Who wins?
Table One: Wrongful Termination Verdicts, 1992-1996
D. How much?
Table Two: Average and Median Verdicts, 1992-1996

1. Contract cases
2. Public policy cases: retaliation and discrimination
3. Independent torts
Table Three: Verdicts in Contract, Retaliation, Discrimination, and Independent Tort Cases, 1992-1996
Table Four: Rates of Success, 1992-1996

Wrongful Termination Elsewhere
A. Contract cases in Texas
B. Retaliation cases in Texas
C. Discrimination cases in Texas

Implications for Pending Legislation

Conclusion

JURY VERDICTS IN WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASES

by David J. Jung1

I. Introduction
At the request of the Senate Office of Research, the Public Law Research Institute has conducted a study of jury verdicts in California wrongful termination cases from 1992 to 1996. “Wrongful termination” cases are lawsuits in which an employee seeks damages from his employer for firing him without cause. Recently, concerns about the economic burden wrongful termination suits impose on California employers have led to proposals for legislative reform. To evaluate the need for and possible effects of these reforms, this study reviews a sample of 639 jury verdicts in California wrongful termination cases over the last five years. For purposes of comparison, the study also examines 396 verdicts in Texas wrongful termination cases.

Wrongful termination lawsuits first became controversial in the late 1980’s, because a series of California court of appeals decisions had permitted some employees to recover damages for emotional distress and punitive damages from employers who fired them in bad faith. Verdicts in some wrongful termination cases reached into the millions of dollars; credible estimates of average verdicts ranged from $452,5702 to $646,855.3

These developments sparked a number of studies, including one by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, focusing on the costs of these new liability rules for employers.4 The RAND study suggested that the direct legal costs of wrongful termination were quite small, particularly per employee. The indirect costs of changing personnel and employment practices, however, could be significant, and the RAND study argued that the effects of these costs could be seen in the economies of states with liberal rules. While the RAND study acknowledged that the kind of job security the developing law of wrongful termination provided generated benefits as well as costs, the costs of wrongful termination attracted the public’s and the media’s attention.

The indirect costs the RAND study identified had largely to do with personnel and employment practices employers might adopt under the perceived threat of large compensatory and punitive damage awards. Shortly after the RAND study was published, however, the California Supreme court changed the ground rules for damages in wrongful termination cases. In Foley v. Interactive Data Corporation5 the Court reaffirmed the rule of at-will employment in California. That is, employers may fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all, unless the employer has expressly or implicitly agreed only to fire the employee for cause. If an employer has agreed only to fire for cause, wrongfully terminated employees may recover damages for the economic loss — lost wages, and the like — caused by their dismissal. Punitive damages and damages for emotional distress cannot be recovered.

On the other hand, while employers are free to fire at-will employees for any reason or no reason, some “bad” reasons can result in liability. If firing the employee violates a fundamental, public policy, or if the employer negligently or intentionally causes the employee some kind of personal injury, the employer may be liable for damages for emotional distress or punitive damages, in addition to being liable for the employee’s economic losses.

Thus, since the RAND study, the ground rules for wrongful termination have changed. The kind of damage awards the RAND study was concerned with are now limited to cases in which the employer violates a fundamental public policy by firing the employee, or commits some independent wrong, like defamation, or assault. Once it became clear that employers would not be liable for punitive damages simply because they lacked good cause to terminate an employee, the controversy over wrongful termination seemed to abate.6

Recently, however, the controversy has been renewed. Employers have expressed concern over “surging”7 and unpredictable verdicts that create a disincentive to hiring, and Governor Wilson has responded by including wrongful termination in his package of tort reform proposals.8 Legislation that would restrict recoveries in wrongful termination cases has been introduced in both the Senate9 and the Assembly.10

II. Methodology
Tdatabases. Searches his study is based on reports of jury verdicts found in Lexis®-Nexis®’s jury verdicts were run in the LexisCAJURY combines reports ®-Nexis® ALLVER, CAJURY and TXJURY databases. from several local jury reporters, including Jury Verdicts Weekly, Verdictum Juris Press, Inc., O’Brien’s Evaluator and Tri-Service. TXJURY combines reports from North Texas Reports and Soele’s Trial Reporter. The ALLVER database combines these local jury reports with two national reporters, Jury Verdicts Research, and Confidential Report for Attorneys.

Jury verdict reporters typically rely for their data on reports attorneys file voluntarily when a case is concluded. Because jury verdict reporters rely on self-reporting, they are not comprehensive, and it is always possible that certain categories of cases or cases from certain cities and counties are over represented. Yet, there seems to be a consensus among researchers that local jury verdict reporters are a useful source of information about the civil justice system.11

All cases in which the injury complained of was identified as “wrongful termination” were examined. Cases described as involving “retaliatory discharge,” “employment discrimination” and “breach of employment contract” were also examined. Cases involving other adverse, employment decisions, such as failures to hire or promote, were not included. A complete description of the search terms used can be obtained by contacting the Public Law Research Institute.

III. The Types of Wrongful Termination
Some background information about the law of wrongful termination is necessary in order to understand the study’s results. According to the California Labor Code, unless an employee is hired for a specific term, the employee is an “at-will” employee, and can be fired for any reason or no reason at all.12 He cannot be fired, however, for a bad reason, like discrimination, and he cannot be fired in a way that violates his right to be free from personal injury.

Thus, an employee who wishes to sue for wrongful termination must show either,

1) that his employment contract, either expressly or implicitly, included a promise that he would not be fired without cause (contract cases); or,

2) that his employer fired him for a reason that violates a fundamental policy expressed in California’s statutes or constitution (public policy cases), including laws against unlawful discrimination (discrimination cases), or

3) that the employer committed a tort, like defamation, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress (independent tort cases).

Of Course people get fired for no good reason every day, but they can’t afford a lawyer I am sure she does not have that problem. Why do you think Imus was able to sue CBS, breach of contract. CBS could not challenge is constitutional right to say what he said as a defense for his termination, that’s why they settled out of court. This would be the same type of situation should it come to that.

I fail to see that, but I’ll give it to you. That’s “any number”?

Trying to draw a parallel between yelling fire in a crowded theater to what Jacobson said is much worse than what she uttered at the Roast as well.

Could you please show me where I drew a parallel between the two? I used the “FIRE” example to demonstrate that your statement “people should be able to say what ever they want with no qualifiers” is nonsense.

What will there excuse for firing her be, because she said something mean about a figure in Christian Doctrine even though she’s well with in her constitution rights to say so.

I’d don’t know where you are from, but here in the U.S., private employers can fire people for no reason. The Constitution doesn’t enter into the discussion.

What don’t you understand about “CONGRESS shall make no law…..”? Last time I looked, the Constitution doesn’t mention ESPN.

In addition, I’m sure that ESPN has behavior clauses written into their contracts.

As for your 2nd point you are completely wrong. You can try pressure the sponsors and ESPN if you want to. And they may even fire her. And that is when the law comes in because we can say with certainty that there will be a law suit. What will there excuse for firing her be, because she said something mean about a figure in Christian Doctrine even though she’s well with in her constitution rights to say so. And you know what; she’ll win that case if they should fire her. Although ABC and ESPN don’t care if they have to settle that case because it would be cheaper in the long run. So don’t be so hasty to dismiss the constitutional rights of Americans when you demand that some one be fired because they hurt your feelings by making fun Jesus at a Roast.

PS I am a practicing Roman Catholic and the church has no place in government just as the government as no place in the church. That my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you all here are entitled to your opinions as well, no matter how much I disagree with you :>

Yet you fail to mention any.

She is entitled to her opinion. This is not a theocracy; it’s a Republic with Democratic Ideals. Which means people should be able to say what ever they want with no qualifiers.

First of all, you can’t “say what ever they want with no qualifiers” in this country, there are certain things that, for a number of reasons, are prohibited. Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is one example most often used.

Second, that isn’t what is being argued here. Seeing as how she said what she did, and wasn’t arrested or cited, I think I can safely say that the Consitution is safe in this instance. Your “Democratic Ideals” argument goes to the all-important phrase “Congress shall make no law”. It says nothing about the right to be free of the “consequences” of free speech. Just as Mrs. Ed has the right to say F#ck Jesus, I can call ESPN and complain. Failing that, I can contact the advertisers of the show and urge them to exert pressure on the network.

Barbara, she attacked Jesus because she was roasting Mike Golic, who when to Notre Dame… a christian school. Somehow I don’t think attacking allah would have been as effective in that case.

I’m not sure why someone would want to “attack” Jesus because of Notre Dame. But the point of the posters who metioned “Allah” was that there is no doubt her punishment would have been much more severe had she chosen to slander him, for whatever reason.