White House Threatens Limbaugh Over Obama Criticism

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
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.

This was from Limbaugh's August 6 radio show:

reply to post by JohnnyElohim


This is from what Gibbs said:

And I think any time anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they're on thin ice and it's best not deployed.

Who are they on thin-ice with?

Answer that? Advertisers? Listeners? the White House?

The fact of the matter is the Rush's words were twisted, the video of what he said is posted in the beginning of this thread.

This admin has a history of taking pre-packaged questions, so who exactly is Rush on "thin-ice" with?

Gibbs cracks me up. He tries to paint a "we encourage a civil discussion" picture when he boss says things like this:

"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."

Pretty much sums up Obama's Idea of bipartisanship I guess. As long as you follow him, your ok.

www.realcle... arpolitics.com/video/2009/08/07/obama_i_dont_want_the_folks_who_created_the_mess_to_do_a_lot_of_talking.html

"You are on thin ice" was used alot on me when I was younger. I always took it as a threat, but there was never any sort of punishment named along with it.

To me, it has always been a threat or a warning.

I suppose if the current administration wanted to, they would find a way to get rid of those who they don't like speaking against them, not saying physically kill them - who knows, maybe - but I'm sure they have their ideas on how to shut someone up.

If there wasn't any truth to what people like Limbaugh or Beck or Hannity said, it wouldn't bother the current administration so much. Another old saying...the truth hurts. And they are mad that anyone would expose it or give the American people any reason to question what the administration says or does.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

This is from what Gibbs said:

And I think any time anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they're on thin ice and it's best not deployed.

Who are they on thin-ice with?

They THEMSELVES are on thin ice. It's a figure of speech. It means it is an argument of last resort. I honestly don't know what causes people to be so ignorant, but whatever it is sure seems to be working. (That is one of mine.) Or as Grandpappy Kurious used to say: "When you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance." (Too bad we never found his body when the lake thawed.)

nm, kinda tired totally wrong analogy



[edit on 8-8-2009 by pavil]

[edit on 8-8-2009 by pavil]

reply to post by kinda kurious

They THEMSELVES are on thin ice. It's a figure of speech. It means it is an argument of last resort. I honestly don't know what causes people to be so ignorant, but whatever it is sure seems to be working.

Yea you got that right I don't know what causes people to be so ignorant either.

Tell me how can somebody be on thin-ice with themselves? For real? Seriously answer the question. Quit deflecting it and calling people ignorant.

Gibbs said, "those people are on thin-ice".

So who are they on thin-ice with? Obviously it is the administration or else there would be no need to say it.

Look unless somebody is literally skating on thin-ice then it was always an implied thread. That is a fact.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I realize you are playing word games and skewering semantics, but I interpreted the phrase to be something akin to a euphemism.

Like "cut off your nose to spite your face" or "sawing on the wrong side of the limb" or "whizzing in the wind"

C'mon man. Nobody is THAT dense.

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

Originally posted by lee anoma


Okay so a statement about these critics being on "thin ice" and need to "cool it" equates to a threat?
You'd think the White House hired a hitman or something.

Seriously what is with so many conservatives acting like drama queens lately?

I have heard the right call Obama a racist, a terrorist, a socialist, a nazi, a Muslim(which is nothing but zhenophobia) Hitler, and attack his community record.
But he tells you to cool it and now you are inciting the right to free speech? And he is threatening you?

Here is a hanky.


Read your rights, you don't have the right to say whatever you want. Even free speech has its limits, and they were there long before Obama.

Here are your limits:

Clear and Present Danger Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Fighting Words Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence? In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Libel and Slander Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection. In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of “obscenity” established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts. In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered “obscene”: Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest? Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way? Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

Time, Place, and Manner These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.

limits of freedom of speech

reply to post by kinda kurious

I realize you are playing word games and skewering semantics, but I interpreted the phrase to be something akin to a euphemism.

No, you are the only one "playing word games" and 'skewering semantics".

The fact of the matter is saying somebody is on "thin-ice" except in the case where a person is actually on "thin-ice" has always been a threat.

You are deliberately attempting to change the meaning of a phrase.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

I think the "thin ice" comparison refers to support. if a person is walking on a frozen lake and the ice is thick, he can literally walk on water. the frozen water will keep him safe and breathing. but when you walk on thin ice, there isn't enough support to keep you from sinking into the freezing water and drowning. it seems to me an odd phrase for gibbs to use. the ice/support for questions being asked about obamacare, cap and trade, unbridled spending is growing stronger all the time. the questions are thickening not melting. the only ones on thin ice are white house officials and congress who assumed they could say meaningless things and pass detail free bills that appropriate vast sums of money forever. they thought the ice would hold them but it's melting fast and they'd better scramble to get to safety.

i'm sure gibbs meant to imply threat, danger, but it makes no sense in the way he used it. people have been using the nazi comparison for years. nothing new. we really do need a nice new word though to describe the shredding of the constitution that obama and his buddies are currently doing.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Honestly, I sincerely attempted to make a case.

You parrot my words and taunt me.

If you'd like to continue to embrace ignorance, please don't let me stop you.


Regards. . .KK

I listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity everyday. Then in the evenings I watch Glenn, O'Reily, Hannity, sometimes others...like Megyn Kelly in the mornings...

Yes, I am FOX news junky.

I am absolutely convinced that nearly all the other networks are toadies for the White House. Very few newscasters stick their necks out...
where as FOX will give some of the "BAD BOYS " air time. The other networks are so afraid of the White House, that they play PattyCake with them, and as a result, misinform, or under inform the publics need to know.

Same goes for radio...with the exception of those like Glenn, Rush, Hannity...etc. These guys mince no words, and do not candy coat the issues facing us. They know they run risks of losing advertisers, and support...and are willing to face a storm of controversy over the comments and subject matter on their shows.

I say good for them. At least they have the cojones to do it. I will listen to them, buy their books, and other things they promote.

I wish I had men like these as high school educators when I was in school, rather than the tiresome hacks I had. I realize now, that everything I was taught, and tested on in high school, was all crap! My real education began five years ago with these guys.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Honestly, I sincerely attempted to make a case.

You parrot my words and taunt me.

If you'd like to continue to embrace ignorance, please don't let me stop you.


Regards. . .KK

Taunting you? Asking a question and wanting an answer is now taunting?

You can sit there and say I'm "skewering semantics", "playing with words", implying that I'm ignorant and "dense" because I don't agree with what you are saying, and then you are trying to say I'm "taunting" you?

You honestly expect to hurl insults at me and then you get mad when they get used back at you? Seriously? Then you want to say that I am "embracing" ignorance because I don't agree with what you are saying because you have not put forth a logical explanation?

Answer the question, who is Rush on "thin-ice" with? That is all. For Gibbs to say what he said somebodies ice has to be thin, in order to be on "thin-ice". So who is Rush on thin-ice with?

So far the only answer put forth is "himself", sorry if I'm not buying it, because I find it really hard to believe that you are on "thin-ice" with yourself, because that absolutely doesn't make any sense at all.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
This is from what Gibbs said:

And I think any time anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they're on thin ice and it's best not deployed.

Who are they on thin-ice with?

Answer that? Advertisers? Listeners? the White House?

The fact of the matter is the Rush's words were twisted, the video of what he said is posted in the beginning of this thread.

This admin has a history of taking pre-packaged questions, so who exactly is Rush on "thin-ice" with?

Thin ice with the U.S. people, the FCC, the president, who cares. The fact of the matter is that the man lies and incites fear and hate in people too old, too uneducated, or too lazy to check anything he says instead of just following blindly. If you really want to know who he is on thin ice with, just encourage his followers a little more. When someone finally attempts or succeeds at taking a shot at the president, Rush will be missing his Oxycontin and illegal viagara more than a comfy bed and golden microphone.

The easiest way to tell that someone is an ignorant dittohead that just follows this lying drug addicted huypocrite- let them say things like "this admin has a history of taking prepackaged questions." Aside from the fact that this admin has barely had6 months to have a history of anything, this is just not proven, not backed up, not true. It is however a really good job of repeating the lies you hear on talk radio.

I doubt I will ever cease to be amazed by people listening to a man hopped up on illegal drugs can talk about how all drug addicts are criminals that need to be locked up. Take some more illegal pills and tell us all about it, Rush.

The far left is just one step closer to kicking the Fairness Doctrine back into high gear. They are licking their chops at this moment. This bullying by Obama must stop. His lemmings are probably placing phone calls to key advertisers on Obama's program.

Idle threats from an inadequate President. He can't handle criticism!!

reply to post by MOFreemason


Wow.. Rush actually said that?

"Adolph Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate!"


That does sound like Rush is on thin ice.

reply to post by evil incarnate

Thin ice with the U.S. people, the FCC, the president, who cares.

Who cares? WHO CARES?

Rush isn't on thin-ice with the American people, oh but you bring up two very good examples.

The FCC, government organization, and the President, no explanation needed about that one.

So Rush is on thin-ice with the government, last time I checked we had freedom of speech and this clearly is violating that amendment.

Last time I checked we weren't in Nazi Germany, or the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, or Cuba.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Whats false about what Rush said?

Obama firing CEO's of private corporations, GM, telling the congress we must get this done by this date, telling companies where they can and can't go for corporate events, putting a muzzle on the media, etc.

What is false about what he said?

Edit to add -

I almost forgot this one too,

Arguing the Supreme Court that people don't have standing to challenge his plans?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by kinda kurious


My parents used to tell me I was walking on thin ice when I was about to get my butt whooped.

I did not know there was 50,000 alternate meanings.

This might help you out a bit:

— on thin ice : in a precarious or risky situation

Merriam-Webster

Adjective: on thin ice

1. (idiomatic) in a dangerous, hazardous, or delicate situation; at risk

WordWebOnline

on thin ice
In a precarious position.

The Free Dictionary