White House Threatens Limbaugh Over Obama Criticism

page: 18
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


Hey, have you ever even bothered to look into the facts? I guess you are one of those follower types, you ASSume what your hear.




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1
The libral media takes everything Limbaugh (or any conservative voice) says and makes it seem like Rebulicans are bad and we are acting crazy.


Well, if Limbaugh's such a reasonable voice, then he should have no objection to the idea of having a show where he actually has to discuss whatever he's talking about with someone with an opposing view.

After all, if he's right, then he has nothing to worry about, right?


If you are not on their side then you are wrong! Who the hell are they to silence anybody or say who is right and wrong. You know who does that SOCIALISTS!!


Is this multiple choice? Because I know who says if you're not on their side you're wrong...

Limbaugh.... Hannity.... O'Reilly.... Beck.... Savage.... Coulter.... Etc.

Who silences people they say are wrong?... O'Reilly, for one. I'd have to check to see if anyone else does that bit with the fuming and the mic cutting and so forth..

Hmmmm..... what's that over there? Huh... it looks like a kettle. Why, yes, it is - it is a kettle. Funny thing - that kettle is just as black as this pot.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Its Usurper Obama that has appointed Czars to his cabinet and has spoken facist, socialist remarks way before he was elected by the brain dead mass of people that slowly awaken.

First off, Obama's hardly a 'usurper'. He won the election 52% to 46%, a pretty clear margin, and certainly greater than the 50-48% that Bush called a 'mandate.'



not a fan of Bush or Obama, but if you insist on putting quotes around a mandate for Bush (50%) then you can do the same, as an extra 2% is hardly cause for a difference


2%, no. 6%, a bit more.... not an overwhelming majority, which although it isn't the strict definition of mandate, seems to be how Georgie Jr. and the Fox news echo chamber interpreted it.

At best, Bush League had a slim mandate. Obama had a better one.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1
reply to post by Nightflyer28
 


Hey, have you ever even bothered to look into the facts? I guess you are one of those follower types, you ASSume what your hear.


Wow, the ASSume cliché, that is so awesome! I haven't heard anyone use that since, what, 7th grade I think it was. Sure takes me back....


And yes, I am actually familiar with the facts on this stuff. Considerably.

I guess you are one of those follower types, you ASSume what your hear.(huh?)



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
someone ought to shut that fat (Snip) up

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by asala]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
someone ought to shut that (Snip) up


I'm actually hoping the insane freak just plain keels over during his show. Someone'd put the vid up on YouTube, and I'd download it and put it on continuous loop...




[edit on 17-8-2009 by asala]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Victoria 1
The libral media takes everything Limbaugh (or any conservative voice) says and makes it seem like Rebulicans are bad and we are acting crazy.


From your post, it is quite clear, no help is necessary. You seem to be doing a fine job on your very own. Not sure any "acting" is involved.

Rush seems to be one of the last codpieces in the unraveling Republican Party. A rudderless regime lacking course or leadership.

With the likes of Palin driving over her career to nowhere bridge and the soon to be ousted Beck, Limbaugh represents one of the last bigots of a faded era. The nostalgia of days gone by harkens the last remaining few who cling to the rose-colored notion of what once was, and have neglected to embrace the diverse and youthful melting pot that America has become.

They've become bitter, vocal, divisive and militant. Throwing a tantrum and blabbing incessantly is all they have left to do.

Perhaps Santorum will save 'em.
Next!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


glenn beck and rush limbaugh are professional political entertainers just like jon stewart and stephen colbert are. stop pretending beck and limbaugh are elected officials who need to be "ousted". you appear to be terrified of palin, otherwise why constantly ridicule her? At the moment she holds no office. nor is she a professional entertainer. you might reasonably fear that she will become a professional political entertainer because she appears to have a huge audience, but that hasn't happened yet.

you might try to distinguish between elected officials and professional entertainers for your own peace of mind.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
I'm actually hoping the insane freak just plain keels over during his show. Someone'd put the vid up on YouTube, and I'd download it and put it on continuous loop...

Wow

Classy!

No wonder liberalism is a mental disorder.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
Since taking office the Obama administration has tried in various ways to implement the "fairness doctrine" which would be their best opportunity to silence Rush and other broadcast voices of dissent. Make no mistake they are working hard on getting that done.


I really don't see a problem with bringing back a requirement that if you have commentators discussing a controversial, complex issue, you should include someone to provide an opposing viewpoint, rather than just a steady stream of one point of view only.

If Limbaugh can't handle actual debate rather than spewing without opposition, that's hardly impressive. Any idiot can just babble on for a few hours.

I mean, that's no better than Bush having pre-screened audiences who spent more time fawning over him than asking even slightly probing, pertinent question.


How about the freedom of a privately owned radio station to air what they want?

It has already been proven that left wing radio cannot exist on its own, since no one would bother to listen to it.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

At best, Bush League had a slim mandate. Obama had a better one.


But not for long ...

article


Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Nightflyer28

At best, Bush League had a slim mandate. Obama had a better one.


But not for long ...

article


Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.



And yet, Bush had to be appointed president by the supreme court as both his elections were so close and Obama was elected with a far greater majority - thus no months of recounts. I guess that means that conservatives voted for him? Of course, you also forget that the word "conservative" means different things to different people. To me it means not taking my hard earned money and using it to prop up failing financial institutions. To me it means not wasting money and lives on a war we were never supposed to be in (Iraq.) Being conservative means not blowing all our money on corporate welfare but...tomato tomato.

[edit on 8/17/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAftermath
 


i know the fairness doctrine only addresses radio, but the entire mainstream media plus public television and NPR is distinctly liberal. they present the liberal viewpoint as the one and only correct view. fox news really does present both sides. i know many people can't bear to hear the conservative view presented at all because they have been conditioned by mainstream media to allow only one viewpoint but the fact is if you get rid of conservative talk radio and if obama wins his war with fox, there will be no one at all presenting dissenting views. how did the word liberal come to mean: my way only?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


glenn beck and rush limbaugh are professional political entertainers just like jon stewart and stephen colbert are.


Just for the sake of clarity and since YOU brought it up, have you noticed that Stewart and Colbert are on this silly little network called COMEDY CENTRAL?

Beck,for one, airs until cancelled on FOX NEWS NETWORK. See any difference?

I don't know what, if any, network the wind bag airs on because none of my cars contain an AM radio.

Limbaugh for one claims to be the mouthpiece for Republicans and attends the party's functions and conventions.

I not aware that Stewart nor Colbert attend any. They are satirists. The main difference I can see is that 2 incite laughter and 2 incite hate.




[edit on 17-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
So what was the threat that was made?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Just for the sake of clarity and since YOU brought it up, have you noticed that Stewart and Colbert are on this silly little network called COMEDY CENTRAL?

Beck,for one, airs until cancelled on FOX NEWS NETWORK. See any difference?

I don't know what, if any, network the wind bag airs on because none of my cars contain an AM radio.

Limbaugh for one claims to be the mouthpiece for Republicans and attends the party's functions and conventions.

I not aware that Stewart nor Colbert attend any. They are satirists. The main difference I can see is that 2 incite laughter and 2 incite hate.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by kinda kurious]


stewart and colbert do mostly political commentary. yes they call it satire but the majority of their talk about bush and palin is ridicule. obama is never ridiculed. it might be comedy central but they are deadly serious in their agenda. i've long been fans of stewart and colbert but find the endless ridicule of palin ridiculous.

i don't happen to listen to limbaugh but i have watched beck. they are also political commentators who must entertain if they are to keep an audience and therefore a show. whatever station it is, getting paid depends on the audience numbers. they must please the audience. they found their audience and play to it. they are not news anchors. don't pretend to be. you need to pay better attention.

there are some news presenters on fox news, and many commentators. which news presenters on any network were favorable toward bush? which are now favorable toward obama? you need to learn to recognize the difference between a commentator and a presenter. presenters purport to be objective. commentators don't.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


Perhaps this clip will illustrate your point and prove me wrong. . .


But I can't tell, I'm laughing too hard.
Pure comedy genius at work.

BTW, happy to be YOUR NEW FOE.

Regards. . . KK



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
LOL!

Oh, man, I love Stephen Colbert!

He knows how to take the punches from O'Reilly and throw them right back!



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

glenn beck and rush limbaugh are professional political entertainers just like jon stewart and stephen colbert are. stop pretending beck and limbaugh are elected officials who need to be


Uh, not quite.

Beck and Limberger are propaganda artists. They're not there to joke about current events; they're there to push a political agenda.

Stewart and Colbert are entertainers. THey joke about current events, while bring out points that sometimes get glossed over.

On any given day, listening to Beck or Rush, there's going to be at least one point in the show where you're pretty sure they're borderline psychotic.

You don't get that level of extreme with Stewart or Colbert.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Nightflyer28
I'm actually hoping the insane freak just plain keels over during his show. Someone'd put the vid up on YouTube, and I'd download it and put it on continuous loop...

Wow

Classy!

No wonder liberalism is a mental disorder.


I wasn't aiming for class, genius.

And you can't honestly tell me that whenever the subject of a liberal commentator or entertainer comes up, there haven't been a few times you've had a similar response.

Well, okay - probably can't. For all I know, you might be one of rarities on the far-right who don't foam at the mouth because a liberal is speaking out for health care or increasing minimum wage or running for office or whatever else it is that upsets you guys...

But I wouldn't put money on that one...





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join