It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Threatens Limbaugh Over Obama Criticism

page: 13
42
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well, sorry you can't fathom any other definition of what "on thin ice" might mean...

Rush really is grasping at straws. I love it.




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Only read the first post and source article....but I have to ask:

Where was the "threat" or "hit[ting] hard" part in the presented material????


Really, people, does everything have to be so exaggerated?


[edit on 8-8-2009 by loam]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


Those were the only definitions from official dictionaries.

Call Merriam-Webster if you have issue with it.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

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?

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?


Yes, that was from what Gibbs said, but it ignored the context that made clear "who" he was talking about. He was saying, essentially, that anyone who resorts to Nazi polemic to win an argument is "on thin ice" in terms of their argument and their politics. He is saying whoever evokes that is doing themselves no favor. Quoting him out of context makes it sound much more mysterious and threatening, sure, but methinks the truth is far less exciting.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 



Yes, that was from what Gibbs said, but it ignored the context that made clear "who" he was talking about. He was saying, essentially, that anyone who resorts to Nazi polemic to win an argument is "on thin ice" in terms of their argument and their politics. He is saying whoever evokes that is doing themselves no favor. Quoting him out of context makes it sound much more mysterious and threatening, sure, but methinks the truth is far less exciting.


So I guess Pelosi lost then and everybody else who was calling Bush a Nazi?

I hate to say it, but everything this admin is doing relates to what dictators do when they take over a country.

Silencing opposition, getting people to rat out people for disagreeing with the agenda, demanding what private companies do, sending in Union jackboots to ruff up protesters, etc.

The context is quiet clear actually, it was in reference to Rush and it was a thinly-veiled threat to Rush and anybody who is trying to compare this admin to the Nazi's. Which is completely ridiculous and unacceptable.

It is the ultimate in hypocrisy because these same people had no problems when their ilk were marching through the street doing the same thing to Bush.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
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.


Did you not read the transcript? Watch the video? Let me point out a few things:

* He was answering a question in which the reporter asked him to speculate on Obama's opinions of people who resort to that particular type of polemic.

* He first responded by saying that Obama's stance was that it was possible to have these discussions without ad hominems.

* He was careful to qualify that it was his opinion; he repeated "I think" twice.

* The reporter cited examples of two Democrat politicians in addition to Limbaugh.

It seems quite clear to me that he was suggesting they (even the Democrats! oh wow!) are "on thin ice" in the sense that they are risking their position in the argument, reputations, and possibly careers by dragging the discussion into this territory. In other words, that they were putting themselves or their agendas at risk in some way. This does not require the administration to deliver some shadowy threat. It's sufficient to say these people are looking like idiots before the court of public opinion. This, the simplest of explanations, requires no omission of context or assumption of secret malice to interpret the words. Occam's razor, yeah? And let's say we think this is a serious gaffe (I don't think it was, but hey): even so, Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   


So I guess Pelosi lost then and everybody else who was calling Bush a Nazi?


Give the man a cigar! Yes, he was absolutely saying that!



I hate to say it, but everything this admin is doing relates to what dictators do when they take over a country.


Off-topic, but please do start a thread and let me know. I'd be happy to pitch in.



Silencing opposition, getting people to rat out people for disagreeing with the agenda, demanding what private companies do, sending in Union jackboots to ruff up protesters, etc.


I echo what I said above and add: could you please provide me with some sourced examples of "silenced opposition"? It's off-topic, yes, but I imagine I am not the only one who is curious as to what you are referring.



The context is quiet clear actually, it was in reference to Rush and it was a thinly-veiled threat to Rush and anybody who is trying to compare this admin to the Nazi's. Which is completely ridiculous and unacceptable.


Not at all. Read the reporter's question again. I posted the transcript including the reporter's question earlier in this thread. I cite in a reply I made to you just a moment ago the fact that 2/3 of the people the reporter was referring to were big wig Democrats. Finally, regardless of who may have engaged in the Godwinning of the debate, to say that doing so puts you "on thin ice" does not require a sinister interpretation at all.



It is the ultimate in hypocrisy because these same people had no problems when their ilk were marching through the street doing the same thing to Bush.


I keep hearing this refrain, but I suspect it only sounds melodic to your particular choir.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 



He was answering a question in which the reporter asked him to speculate on Obama's opinions of people who resort to that particular type of polemic.


I hate to say it, but I don't believe it. Nothing they have said so far has been the truth. They have always done the opposite of what they said they were going to do.

The fact is nobody from the administration should answer a question like this in the manner that they did. The Obama admin is trying to control the media there is proof of this.

Then you factor in the fact that the Obama admin, whats people to report people for spreading "disinfo" about their health care agenda, sending in Union jackboots to ruff up protesters, arguing in the supreme court that people don't have standing to challenge his agenda, singling out private citizens.

Sorry, but people aren't buying it and they shouldn't. These are the same tactics that dictators use to take over the country. People have a right to free speech in this country and a phrase that has universal meaning as a threat should not becoming from the White House press secretary.

The Admin has no right to comment on the arguments people use defend or argue an agenda, especially when the reporter that asked the question specifically singled out Rush.

Also if you listen to what Rush said, Rush has a point, I don't listen to him, but the things this admin is doing can be compared to the stuff Mousalini(sp?), Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. used when they came to power. That is written history.

edit to add -

Here ya go

Do you also need the threads about Obama wanting people to turn in people for stuff they think is "disinfo" to?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 



He was answering a question in which the reporter asked him to speculate on Obama's opinions of people who resort to that particular type of polemic.


I hate to say it, but I don't believe it. Nothing they have said so far has been the truth. They have always done the opposite of what they said they were going to do.


If you've read the transcript, then what you don't believe would appear to be your own eyes. It is clear as day.



The fact is nobody from the administration should answer a question like this in the manner that they did. The Obama admin is trying to control the media there is proof of this.


Why? I happen to agree. Anyone in a position of power and influence like that ought to be very careful about using the Nazis to win arguments. I dare say so doing so puts one in this position of treading on thin ice!



Then you factor in the fact that the Obama admin, whats people to report people for spreading "disinfo" about their health care agenda, sending in Union jackboots to ruff up protesters, arguing in the supreme court that people don't have standing to challenge his agenda, singling out private citizens.


This is another matter and one for which I haven't seen any convincing proof. If you wish, collate your evidence and make an argument with your own thread.



Sorry, but people aren't buying it and they shouldn't. These are the same tactics that dictators use to take over the country. People have a right to free speech in this country and a phrase that has universal meaning as a threat should not becoming from the White House press secretary.


Aren't buying what? Read the words. That's all I'm asking. There is nothing for people to "buy", aside from the desperate attempt to quote this fellow out of context and imply something was said that simply wasn't said. If you want a conspiracy, check that out. Whose idea was this?



The Admin has no right to comment on the arguments people use defend or argue an agenda, especially when the reporter that asked the question specifically singled out Rush.


I'll say it one more time: he was answering the question he was asked.



Also if you listen to what Rush said, Rush has a point, I don't listen to him, but the things this admin is doing can be compared to the stuff Mousalini(sp?), Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. used when they came to power. That is written history.


Frankly, no. Rush sounds discombobulated in the extreme to me. He is arguing that Obama is Hitler reincarnate because Hitler wanted restaurants to cook crabs more humanely? Seriously?



Do you also need the threads about Obama wanting people to turn in people for stuff
they think is "disinfo" to?


How about legitimate citations accompanied by a cogent argument expressed in your own words instead of links to threads full of very upset people having it out?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 



Why? I happen to agree. Anyone in a position of power and influence like that ought to be very careful about using the Nazis to win arguments. I dare say so doing so puts one in this position of treading on thin ice!


Yep, puts them on Thin-ice with you. Exactly my point.

Then your next argument just proves I,m just :bnghd:

The proof is all over the place you just refuse to see it. Sorry but there is no point in continuing this conversation with you any longer.

Pick up a history book and look at the facts.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 



Why? I happen to agree. Anyone in a position of power and influence like that ought to be very careful about using the Nazis to win arguments. I dare say so doing so puts one in this position of treading on thin ice!


Yep, puts them on Thin-ice with you. Exactly my point.

Then your next argument just proves I,m just :bnghd:

The proof is all over the place you just refuse to see it. Sorry but there is no point in continuing this conversation with you any longer.

Pick up a history book and look at the facts.


It would appear we are ships in the night. I think I made my point pretty succinctly, but indeed we have arrived at a juncture where I truly cannot understand how you interpreted my words to support your argument. Voodoo. Your pure convictions might prove something to you, but an uninterested third party should at least see that your interpretation is not the interpretation. Hand-waving such as "go read a history book" does not turn socks under the bed into demons in the night no matter how much you might wish it would. Wish you all the best, regardless.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Conservapedia

If you don't understand where the hell conservative nuts (I'm talking about republican "extremists") get all their crap, refer to sites like the Conservapedia. The title alone should tell you enough lol.

*sigh*

[edit on 8/8/09 by MoothyKnight]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The Government has no place threatening Limbaugh. He IS stepping over the line by comparing Obama to Hitler and pretty much half the filth that comes from his mouth, but that should be the point where intelligent people turn him off. Howard Stern has been allowed to say ridiculously stupid crap for years, so no playing favorites. Yes... Limbaugh is the conservative version of Howard Stern.

He can compare the United States to Nazi Germany. He can go on and on about how much better a conservative president would be. He can tell everyone how right he was about this or that. He can scream and throw a tantrum whenever he gets proven wrong. As long as he does NOT tell his supporters to assassinate government officials, to attack and riot, or to harm others, the government should just leave the self righteous piece of trash alone.

When Limbaugh does cross that fine line, ordering hit squads and civil war,they owe it to the American people to arrest him for treason and a multitude of other crimes. Until then, he's just entertainment for the select few who can stomach him.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DemonicAngelZero
The Government has no place threatening Limbaugh. He IS stepping over the line by comparing Obama to Hitler and pretty much half the filth that comes from his mouth, but that should be the point where intelligent people turn him off. Howard Stern has been allowed to say ridiculously stupid crap for years, so no playing favorites. Yes... Limbaugh is the conservative version of Howard Stern.

He can compare the United States to Nazi Germany. He can go on and on about how much better a conservative president would be. He can tell everyone how right he was about this or that. He can scream and throw a tantrum whenever he gets proven wrong. As long as he does NOT tell his supporters to assassinate government officials, to attack and riot, or to harm others, the government should just leave the self righteous piece of trash alone.

When Limbaugh does cross that fine line, ordering hit squads and civil war,they owe it to the American people to arrest him for treason and a multitude of other crimes. Until then, he's just entertainment for the select few who can stomach him.


You make a great point comparing Limbaugh to Stern. You are correct they both make money by being shock jocks, no more, no less. And I am of the belief that this was not a threat but just a general opinion about the use of comparing anyone to Hitler. Its not as though, they held a press conference to address this specific issue. A reporter point blank asked the question about what the white house thought of ANYONE(Dems, repubs, whomever) using a comparison to Hitler to make an argument. And I believe that the "thin ice" comment is directed at the credibility of that argument and not a veiled threat to that person.

We absolutely have free speech but when you say ignorant things, it hurts your own argument and doesnt produce an intelligent debate. You can say it, you are free to do that but when I'm having a discussion with someone and they are merely attacking the person, with name calling and unsubstantiated rhetoric, i usually realize that they no longer have a valid argument and are stooping to the lowest form debate in the form ad hominem attacks.

Anyone who sees the comments here as attempting to control free speech or threaten the people who made these claims, is seriously digging deep for a non-issue.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 



Why? I happen to agree. Anyone in a position of power and influence like that ought to be very careful about using the Nazis to win arguments. I dare say so doing so puts one in this position of treading on thin ice!


Yep, puts them on Thin-ice with you. Exactly my point.

Then your next argument just proves I,m just :bnghd:

The proof is all over the place you just refuse to see it. Sorry but there is no point in continuing this conversation with you any longer.

Pick up a history book and look at the facts.


It would appear we are ships in the night. I think I made my point pretty succinctly, but indeed we have arrived at a juncture where I truly cannot understand how you interpreted my words to support your argument. Voodoo. Your pure convictions might prove something to you, but an uninterested third party should at least see that your interpretation is not the interpretation. Hand-waving such as "go read a history book" does not turn socks under the bed into demons in the night no matter how much you might wish it would. Wish you all the best, regardless.



Very well spoke.




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MOFreemason
I just got through watching multiple YouTube videos from this week's townhall meetings from throughout the country. Violence is now starting to become the norm, a police state in ensuing, and the politicians are now beginning to avoid the citizens and a conversation entirely.

I'm fuming right now.

I'm assuming I'm not alone.


As I have mentioned in the past, it is almost time for me to head
for the hills, and it is just gonna take a few more winners like
S.787, NAIS, and Codex Alimentarius...



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOFreemason


I just got through watching multiple YouTube videos from this week's townhall meetings from throughout the country. Violence is now starting to become the norm, a police state in ensuing, and the politicians are now beginning to avoid the citizens and a conversation entirely.

I'm fuming right now.

I'm assuming I'm not alone.



Removing disruptive people from a local function, is violent? If anything, they were escorted out I believe.

While you're watching youtube, search common sense.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
One thing that occured to me, at least for me. When I think of Obama, I don't picture the seal of the POTUS all I see is his symbol. Yeah Bush was associated with the W and I still see those bumberstickers, but Obama puts his logo still on everything. In my opinion he's placing his symbol above the Presidency and on various levels want's people to only see his symbol. I find that to be very concerning. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's how I see it.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoothyKnight
Conservapedia

If you don't understand where the hell conservative nuts (I'm talking about republican "extremists") get all their crap, refer to sites like the Conservapedia. The title alone should tell you enough lol.

*sigh*

[edit on 8/8/09 by MoothyKnight]


Not sorry to say MoothyKnight that this quote above is not far removed from labeling people Nazis. It hints at a moral high ground which is also...to people not like this line of thinking by default..."entitlement". This is one of the main problems sensed by the public about this administration and the political party which represents them...that they are entitled...by automatic default.

The problem this administration has ..as did previous administrations as well...is that the American Public is not as liberal as they would like to take for granted that we are. Not as liberal as they would like to default through on our backs and pocketbooks.

Many of us ...both Democrats and Republicans are not interested in becoming part of the "World System." We actucally think that the World System Sucks and dont want to follow that template or default over to it.

The other very huge mistake made by both Democrats and Republicans is thinking that most conservatives out here are Republicans. This is done so as to put any opposition into a box for proper political "Handling."
It is a con job by both major political parties.

I have seen both Republicans and Democrats make this mistake.

What is not being told to the public... by both political parties and or the whorish media who shill for them...is that people are slowly awakening to the concept and practice that the two party system represents someone or something but not the public as a whole.

Much of the public is also becoming dubious about all the major medias/networks....including the much fabled Fox News. They too do not tell the whole story..especially when thier candidates are in office.

I will tell you now MoothyKnight..many Americans found it just as insulting to watch and or listen to Randi Rhodes and Al Frankin on Air America. It is obvious by the history that most Americans voted with their remote controllers and thus demonstrating clearly that most Americans are not as left leaning as some would like to take for granted.

Do not take for granted that all conservatives are Repubicans or nuts...or that Americans are as left leaning as some would like to assume or default.
What is obvious as well by many posts on here is that any Conservative must be a Republican and by this assigned default or fingerprint..a nut/extreamist.

Extreamist is the clue and cue..just like Hitler..that people are to become automtically engaged and yield...cede...default through on emotions/entitlement..to a pre gone/pre digested conclusion...by a political machine expecting to default through on carefully groomed and cultivated emotions.
This is exactly what a whorish media...all of it..does with the use or the word..."Hitler." Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this and many peoples out here are catching on and getting tired of it no matter who is using it. And both parties will use it to whore out their voters and or the public.

Some of us will make up our own minids on this and other whoredoms of the body politic. Both political parties and even the new ones springing up.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 9-8-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
First post, but long time troll (sorry if this is an reiteration)...

Not that I'm a big fan of the W era, but doesn't it seem that when good ol' George W was in office, his comparison to Hitler was consider acceptable some among anti-Bush groups and not many people batted an eyelid to this...

Yet, when Rush makes a comparison on his show to the symbols of Obama's health care plan to that of the Nazi swaztika, all the sudden everybody is willing to jump down this throat at this accusation?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join