White House Threatens Limbaugh Over Obama Criticism

I absolutely agree, you can't just liken our president to a tyranical ruler who killed millions. Yes, some of his policies have socialist undertones but I haven't seen any sectioning out of any sort of specific race; which was the key to making hitler... hitler. Jeez people come on this day and age you can't just call somebody hitler and in all honesty the men doing the name calling are usually the radicals you need to worry about.

reply to post by aero56

This is not necessairly a threat. It is possible that if these disruptions and chaos continue, it could lead to civil war, all brought on by the people themselves.

Can nobody recognize the "let's you and he fight" being staged??? Both the democratic and republican parties are stirring this kettle.

ATS has been talking about FEMA camps, loss of Posse Comitatus, homegrown terrorist watch lists and wondering what the trigger will be. Open your eyes. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party represent the American citizen. TPTB want this fight and are already moving troops into American cities to supposedly help with vaccination. More worrying is Muslims of America, paramilitary trained assault weapon bearing ex-cons, have gone missing from training camps throughout the USA and Canada. Check outIslamberg

*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC AND STOP DISCUSSING EACH OTHER AND LEAVE THE MODERATING TO THE OFFICIAL STAFF.

THIS IS YOUR WARNING.

Okey, a couple things. The tyranical ruler part. Remember people calling President Bush hitler, ect? Why was it okey then an not now?
Sectioning out race/people. What about obama targeting the rich? I'm not rich by any means but you can see obama pitting the poor against people that have money.



"I absolutely agree, you can't just liken our president to a tyranical ruler who killed millions. Yes, some of his policies have socialist undertones but I haven't seen any sectioning out of any sort of specific race; which was the key to making hitler... hitler. Jeez people come on this day and age you can't just call somebody hitler and in all honesty the men doing the name calling are usually the radicals you need to worry about."
reply to post by NoJoker13

Originally posted by Wimbly
reply to post by jd140

 

Either Gibbs is speaking off the cuff and should be fired or he is really relaying Obamas thoughts.

I hope Rush runs with the Obama politc nazi thing. He doesn't care to ruffle a few feathers. It would nice to see someone go toe to toe with Obama.

Rush has a theory that he often repeats, "put a pile of crap in front of democrats and they'll step in it every time". Gibbs is the perfect example of this. The guy is the most bumbling moron I've ever seen in position.

What about the various mouthpieces from the previous administration? They had to cover for quite a few blatant lies.

reply to post by lee anoma


Seriously? It sounds more like an argument of victimization to whine tongue-in-cheek about Rush's financial position. Attacking the man in question is not the purpose of this thread. No one (well almost no one) is attacking Obama or Rush personally. The President and his, for a lack of a better word, cronies, making thretening statements in response to a citizen's comments are unfavorable at best. For the most part, Bush was just as bad at bringing the downfall of this country to fruition, but I don't remember if he actually threatened citizens directly or not. And if he did, then I am sure there were plenty of haters to call him on it.

But the point is this: "Mr. President, you are employed by the people (in theory) and this is a freeman's capitalist republic wherein there is freedom of expression, the right to bear arms, and the right to overthrow a governing body when and if said body no longer conducts the purpose for which it was created, namely, the protection of the constitution in policy and in arms."

I'd say it's Obama that's on thin ice.

reply to post by TheAftermath


But once again, you're plan of "Either you can cure your disease on your own or you'll die" is not a valid plan, seeing the majority of Americans wouldn't be able to do that...

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


It's not government spending that almost killed my mom.

It was the insurance companies.

The companies that you're supporting, they almost killed my mom by not wanting to do the operations...

What Rush said was a reaction to Palosi,and to give credit to Palosi by even reacting to her takes away Rush's standing,bad move once again Rush,like ORilly you are way to full of yourself and are really no longer effective.

What Gibbs said was typical Obama "street talk" no class no control or frothought,just react,shoot your mouth off and think about what you said latter.

The agenda here is to fragment this country to the point of no return,where no one can or will agree on anything,in my opinion this is how you kill a free country and bring it down to the level of the rest of the world.Excuse me,not to say we are better off but take a look around you.

When you can't answer the peoples questions you call them mobs and controled thugs,Obama knows this ,he educated AAcorn on this for years.

You all say Obama is doing a bad job,he is doing an exceptional job,its all in how you look at it.Townhall meetings first,in to the streets next.

reply to post by NoJoker13

Originally posted by NoJoker13
... but I haven't seen any sectioning out of any sort of specific race; which was the key to making hitler... hitler. Jeez people come on this day and age you can't just call somebody hitler ...

Many know EXACTLY what "race" is - secretively - being targeted. And I'm pretty sure you do too. So quit playing the innocent, buddy.

And stop trying to deny your own signature.


[edit on 8-8-2009 by WonderfulWorld]

Rush is a showman. He gets paid for his ability to take the extreme opposite side of issues in the most loud, brash way possible. He certainly does a good job at it. As a politician, it would be a stupid comment. As a talk show host, it was clever. By making such a ludicrous, over-the-top statement, he gives the Whitehouse no choice but to respond. Of course, they could ignore it, but then we'd get the masses talking about how the administration clearly ARE Nazis, since they wouldn't rebut the comments by Rush. Clever all around.

Yup.. Rush certainly knows how to earn his pay.

although im not a fan of limbaugh, i can agree with his comparision. this however, doesnt matter. regardless of my opinion on the matter he should be able to say what he wants. i have a feeling we have only just begun to see how the obama admin trys to quiet us. i feel that as people get more upset, which i honestly see happening, they will push us harder to stay quiet. i wont listen, i hope others chose to speak out as well

Well let's see here... You have Pelosi accusing "Right wing extremist mobs" of "Carry swastikas". You have Robert Hill, Democrat County Chair, calling the protestors "Brown Shirts". Hmmmm... dish it, but can't take it!?

Hrrmmmm... who is mobalizing the Union thugs? Who is mobilizing "Community activists"!? Who is starting a "Ministry of Truth"!? Who is compliling a list of "political enemies"!?!? Now YOU tell me, does any of this sound like 1930's Germany!?

Next you have the media shilling for Obama and his Sociliast plans - feeding the fire regarding these protestors being "Right wing extremists." The sad reality is that these are ordinary Americans. If you look at the polls, the vast majority of them are Independents - not Republicans!

What Obama and his jackboots, brownshirts and obama youth squads had better realize is that is THEY who are on thin ice. There are a number of us that know our history and will NOT be lulled into their lies. They want to pretend that they are the majority, when in fact, they are grossly out numbered. They would do well to remember that. The American is public is being pushed waaaaaay too far! Soon we will snap!!!

reply to post by NoJoker13


Wow. Just wow. Are you really reading the words you typed? Do you really think this is about the facet of Hitler's reign that included killing millions of his own people and starting a war with the world? No. It's about encouraging the populace to turn in "suspected dissenters", threatening talk-show people and ordinary citizens for speaking out against the administration's actions and policies, encouraging local and state police to be more aggressive in "weeding out" possible "terrorists"; it's about branding vets and those that speak in defense of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as terrorists. All these things are tactics similar to those used by the early Nazi party in preparation for what followed (I say similar because they didn't have a Constitution like we have).

Will Obama take over as dictator and start wars and genocides? I doubt it. But he has and continues to do things that Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler were all guilty of, and that understandably worries those of us that still stand and will fight for true American-style freedom. If you don't like the Constitution with all its protections and the way we Americans do things, have your say. After all, it protects your right to say how much you hate it.

Originally posted by Dbriefed
Hey Obama, Pelosi,

ONLY DICTATORS NATIONALIZE

So Canada, France, UK, all have Dictators?

Duh.

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.

reply to post by GingerR


Not in name, but in action. Ever been to any of these countries? If you have then by all means let me know how comforting it felt to be watched all the time or to realize that if you were there to start business, that you cannot fire an employee (French mandate). Canada not so bad yet, but boy there health care is top notch!

How anyone can form an opinion without a foundation of historical perspective is beyond me.

Rush lays it out pretty brilliantly here in about a minute. Hes talking about Hillary, but it applies perfectly to Obama.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by Wimbly]

Originally posted by kozmo
Well let's see here... You have Pelosi accusing "Right wing extremist mobs" of "Carry swastikas". You have Robert Hill, Democrat County Chair, calling the protestors "Brown Shirts". Hmmmm... dish it, but can't take it!?

Hrrmmmm... who is mobalizing the Union thugs? Who is mobilizing "Community activists"!? Who is starting a "Ministry of Truth"!? Who is compliling a list of "political enemies"!?!? Now YOU tell me, does any of this sound like 1930's Germany!?

Next you have the media shilling for Obama and his Sociliast plans - feeding the fire regarding these protestors being "Right wing extremists." The sad reality is that these are ordinary Americans. If you look at the polls, the vast majority of them are Independents - not Republicans!

What Obama and his jackboots, brownshirts and obama youth squads had better realize is that is THEY who are on thin ice. There are a number of us that know our history and will NOT be lulled into their lies. They want to pretend that they are the majority, when in fact, they are grossly out numbered. They would do well to remember that. The American is public is being pushed waaaaaay too far!

Soon we will snap!!!

Kozmo, could it be a lie that some people have have been carrying swastikas at these town hall meetings? After what Limbaugh said, I wouldn't be surprised!

Perhaps a picture of Obama with a swastika on his face.

This actually helps her! If Limbaugh is comparing Obama to Hitler, why is it so dumb that she saw swastikas at a town hall meeting?

I'm thinking she's telling the truth.

I think someone wants us all divided. Sure, we have have a difference in opinion. Protesting is an American tradition. Obama is not a person who fights for unity. Evidence of this can be seen in his response to the Gates event. Instead of taking a step back for a moment, he jumped at giving his opinion without the facts. As a result of not trying to lay the steps down for unity, he caused a larger rift between groups of individuals. I think he wanted us all divided.

I don't think Obama is an intellectual. If he was a heavily educated individual, he would have taken a more calm and collective approach to selling policies. He seems to be on a high speed train leading towards a reckless ending. Obama needs to sit back for a moment, breath, examine his message, and then clearly explain his policies. People hear the word 'change' and they think positive; however, the word is not exclusive to positive outcomes. What I am getting at is that Obama needs to thoroughly define what he means by using the word 'change'. What types of 'changes' specifically will be brought upon us by signing these health care bills into affect? You do not sign your name on the dotted line without reading a contract.

People voted for Obama because he used the word 'change' and 'hope'; however, he never defined the words 'change and 'hope'. Since several people have caught onto this factor, he does not like when people question his definitions. You get it?

If I had to ask him questions:
(1) What type of 'change' will this cause on everyday life?
(2) What type of affect will this have on my current health care?
(3) What did you mean by wanting to get everyone off of their employment health care and onto a federal system?
(4) ...

Confusion is also being cause by Obama saying two different things. During his campaigning to become president, he supported a single payer system. Once he got into office, we see an Obama who supports a separate public system. We have two Obamas fighting each other. As a result of saying two different things, he is being hypocritical from what he originally said to get elected. My question is: Who is Obama? Which one is Obama? Are people protesting because he is selling two sides of himself?

We could be divide because we have several different interpretations of what 'change' means. Its a subjective word that has multiple collations.

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Pathos]