White House Threatens Limbaugh Over Obama Criticism

Rush Limbaugh is the epitome of Republicanism. He is patriotic to America just like a Chinese Communist is patriotic to China.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8/8/2009 by die_another_day]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Go back to sleep, your rest want be long.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Oh... so I voted for Obama because I didn't like Bush? Was that why I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004?

No, you voted for Obama because you are a partisan as did a lot of other partisans.

So why was that the first time I ever voted democratic? Doesn't seem very partisan to me to vote democratic for the first time ever because you like the guy.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Look this thread isn't about you, it's about the White House threatening a private citizens if you want to take up this conversation I will gladly oblige you if you start a different thread.

The real problem that I see here is that there are still people foolish enough to believe that the right and left are different. They both want to enslave the country with their "nanny state" laws. Bush, Obama, and McCain are all the same. There seem to be people here who blindly follow the new cult of personality and don't even realize that it's all the same. The only real change is that the laws to restrict your freedom are coming a lot faster than when Bush held the reins. Palin was made out by the media circus to be an idiot because she wants people to be responsible for themselves and not controlled by the American Reich.

If you are still arguing the difference between Bush or McCain and Obama, then you are a completely lost cause. See you in the bread and toilet paper lines comrade.

Originally posted by tallcool1
The real problem that I see here is that there are still people foolish enough to believe that the right and left are different. They both want to enslave the country with their "nanny state" laws.

On this I agree...

We need a party which is partial to atheists, agnostics and self-reliant individualism.

As long as movements are fueled by fear and faith in a deity, there will never be peace.

Unfortunately this USED to be the Republican party before they "got religion".

[edit on 8-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

You don't get it do you?

Bush had a super low approval rating when he left office, that is a big reason why Obama got elected.

The people didn't stop being PO'd when Bush left office. Obama is continuing many of the same policies and now he has resorted to issuing threats against the citizens.

Agreed.

Also, if you look back at the election in its entirety, you will notice that Republicans and Independents voted for Obama. Even though they voted Democrat this time around, that doesn't mean they somehow became Democrat. They are still Republicans and Independents. If I remember the radio and cable news broadcasts correctly, the Republicans and Independents who did voted for Obama did so as a protest. Since loyalists were upset about their own party, they voted against it to send Republicans a wake up call.

50% Approval rating does not mean 50% of us are Democrat.
53% Win on election day is the majority, but it is not a significant majority.

Even though Obama won the election by 3% of the votes, that does not mean he automatically wins the other 48%. Does anyone know how many Republicans and Independents voted for Obama?

We could be looking at a lame duck for the next election. If Obama does not find some way to unite our country, he will lose the next election cycle.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Pathos]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I think you're overreacting to what I said. I never said you are wrong. I simply am stating that politicians are angry at what people do, but it is they who make that situation like that.

People are angry because of years of bush being an ass and spying and abusing his power. Now Obama is continuing this, so they feel even more angry. This causes anarchistic actions. It is not 100% bad either. This has happened before when both parties at the time became unreasonably idiotic. The mob is a terrible thing indeed. But there are times they are right. They are just wrong 90% of the time. They have been lulled into believing this is a democracy, so they act accordingly. It is a republic though, and they have forgotten that.

Think about it though. These are democrats, Republicans, Unionists, and common folk all forming angry mobs. This is too diverse to be paid or organized. diversity only organizes when there is a commonality to their beliefs.

The mob is wrong to use violence, but it is right to use fear tactics. Fear is the only motivator of government. Fearing the people is the best way for reform. Until someone dies, I will support the mob, but I will NOT support their violent behaviors.

Obama and Rush have something in common...

They both profit off of America's stupidity...

I promise I promise To protect and defend To protect and defend The Constitution The Constitution Of the United States Of the United States Of America Of America

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

He admitted that he used the wrong words, but he didn't reverse his opinion about the Gate's issue. He didn't try to unite people.

Really... having a beer summit wasn't an attempt to unite folks?

I don't think it was, it was a politically motivated photo op, Obama was trying to cover his a$$,

and no one fell for it,

Oh wait.

[edit on 013131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Look this thread isn't about you, it's about the White House threatening a private citizens if you want to take up this conversation I will gladly oblige you if you start a different thread.

Sorry a poster made it about me by saying everyone voted for Obama because they didn't like bush.

I was trying to make the point that many voted for Obama because they liked him.

The the same poster said that I voted for Obama because I was partisan.

yet again I explained that I never voted for democrat UNTIL Obama.

So the theory that everyone just voted partisan doesn't hold water.

But that's ok. Continue with the topic... now that the air is cleared on that.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by SaraThustra


I promise I promise To protect and defend To protect and defend The Constitution The Constitution Of the United States Of the United States Of America Of America

Like this was on topic?

Originally posted by SaraThustra


I promise I promise To protect and defend To protect and defend The Constitution The Constitution Of the United States Of the United States Of America Of America

Back at ya.


ON TOPIC:

The title of this thread is misleading. There were no threats, just "figures of speech"

[edit on 8-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Actually I think the "thin ice" comment was meant to state exactly that. As if I am on the shore line looking at someone skating.. trying to warn them that where they are going might end up making them fall in ...


That's not a threat... it's a warning.

Not a warning that the WH would do anything, but that Rush is going to sink himself just like Glenn Beck did.

Not to restate myself, but I continue to hear the claim that this was actually threat without any address to the challenge of such interpretation. Could someone please explain to me exactly why they interpret the video the OP posted as a threat to Rush Limbaugh and the like? I didn't get the sense that he singled anyone out. He was responding to a reporter's question and the reporter cited evocative and controversial Nazi comparisons occurring on both sides. In response he essentially said nothing in this debate warrants such comparisons and suggested that using such a tactic puts one on thin ice. Almost a tip of the hat to Godwin's law, really. We can keep talking as if he made some kind of a clear threat on behalf of the White House, but it seems to me that it just ain't so.

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
Am I the only one who watched the video and didn't interpret it as a threat whatsoever? It sounded to me as if he was suggesting that going to such extremes puts one's argument on thin ice. Further, I interpreted his "take the temperature down a bit" remark as being equally directed to all sides. He was appealing the position that we ought to have a rational, calm discussion about it. That high-level Democrats calling protestors "brownshirts" and popular talk show hosts comparing the President to Hitler is perhaps not doing the dialog much of a favor. I'd be interested if someone could point out how I've misunderstood the clip in the OP.

Totally agree.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Not a warning that the WH would do anything, but that Rush is going to sink himself just like Glenn Beck did.

Agreed. The repercussions will be in their wallets.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by HunkaHunka


No, that is just the way you interpreted it. You cherry picked what you wanted to read and twisted it and forgot to apply all logic to what I was saying.

You are toeing this party line hook line and sinker. Every time an Obama thread pops up you are right there defending him.

You can say what you want, but your actions tell a different story.

You turned what I said around and made it about you.

___________________________


Again On topic,

A warning to who? Like this administration wants Rush to keep his job? After all the attacks that have come from this White House about him?

Rush is far from sinking as is Glenn Beck, their ratings are only growing. I few advertisers dropped running ads during his show, doesn't mean anything just shows they disapprove of what he said.

Just like with Letterman and his comments about Palin's kid he lost a few advertisers, happens all time in the TV business, it isn't anything new.

This admin's approval ratings are dropping like a rock and they have a bone to pick with Rush. This was a threat, spin it anyway you want too, but you aren't going to change the meaning of saying somebody is on "thin-ice" isn't a threat.

Alright, I've read most the pages of this thread but I may have missed this, so I'm sorry of this has already been posted. Here is the transcript.

The reporter asks:

And just one follow up to Ben's question, just on the town hall meeting. This week there's just been an amplification in terms of the rhetoric. Some of the protestors against the President's position on health care reform have used Nazi imagery, a Democratic congressman said that the protestors were using Brown Shirt tactics; a Democratic senator called the protestors behavior un-American, although she retracted it; Rush Limbaugh went on a very long speech yesterday during his radio show in which he compared Democrats to Nazis and the President to Hitler. And I'm wondering if the President has seen any of this and has a take on it? Obviously the Nazi imagery has been condemned by Jewish groups, but I'm wondering if he feels anything about language being used this way?

And Mr. Gibbs answers:

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he's certainly seen news reports about this. I don't know whether it's written or cable. I'd make a couple of points. I'll build on what I said to Ben, which is regardless of where we are, regardless of the differences we have on even an issue as important as health care, I know the President believes strongly that we can discuss these issues without personally maligning the person that we're discussing this issue with, that we're doing so in a way that respects the dignity of each individual.

I think -- I think any time you make references to what happened in Germany in the '30s and '40s, I think you're talking about an event that has no equivalent. And I think any time anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they're on thin ice and it's best not deployed.

So where exactly is the threat, here?