The White House says Rush is "on thin ice."

[hoss 5,000+ posts]

I had no idea Rush was still putting out new music, are they on tour?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I had no idea Rush was still putting out new music, are they on tour?

Are they Candaian?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

I had no idea Rush was still putting out new music, are they on tour?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/hilarious.gif.02a037aad04aa96f19982b298a3d70a8.gif

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

I am curious what he means by "on thin ice"? What can the White House do except limit his speech?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/violent.gif.ccf64f7a34b20886d220db2fbff36f3b.gif//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/sneaky.gif.7189749b3a3f769e8815b47e8ae87f88.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I am curious what he means by "on thin ice"? What can the White House do except limit his speech?

i think he is referencing the metaphor.

The holocaust is serious business and the Jews don't like it when you make light of it.

That's why he's on thin ice.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

i think he is referencing the metaphor.
The holocaust is serious business and the Jews don't like it when you make light of it.

That's why he's on thin ice.

It is still an empty threat. There is nothing the WH can do besides censorship...and I am certain that wouldn't go over well. Hell, if they do it a poster of Ronald Reagan would beat Obama. (Lord knows the right doesn't have a candidate better than a poster of Ronald Reagan).

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

i dont think its a threat about what the white house will do.. you're missing the point.. its about the way the comments are interpreted by society.. remember the Imus incident? how about the Dave letterman and Palin's daughter?

That's what he meant.

I'm a little concerned you cant see that flip and instead think they are threatening his freedom of speech.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

i dont think its a threat about what the white house will do.. you're missing the point.. its about the way the comments are interpreted by society.. remember the Imus incident? how about the Dave letterman and Palin's daughter?
That's what he meant.

I'm a little concerned you cant see that flip and instead think they are threatening his freedom of speech.

When someone tells you, "you are on thin ice". It is perceived as a threat. Do you think Rush cares that his comments would cause an uproar in the Jewish community? I don't think so.This is different than Imus. David Letterman tries to appease society and has concern over how society perceives him. Rush doesn't, in a moderate sense. His appeal lies with angry white people.

The Holocaust is used as a barometer (of sorts). Rush was simply using the Holocaust as a tool for comparison.

"Nappy Headed Hoes" is not meant to draw comparison.

Furthermore, Rush has a reputation for being extreme. It should come to no surprise that Rush compared Obama to Hitler. It doesn't me...which is why the conservative movement has lost much of it's steam.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

When someone tells you, "you are on thin ice". It is perceived as a threat. Do you think Rush cares that his comments would cause an uproar in the Jewish community? I don't think so.This is different than Imus. David Letterman tries to appease society and has concern over how society perceives him. Rush doesn't, in a moderate sense. His appeal lies with angry white people.
The Holocaust is used as a barometer (of sorts). Rush was simply using the Holocaust as a tool for comparison.

"Nappy Headed Hoes" is not meant to draw comparison.

Furthermore, Rush has a reputation for being extreme. It should come to no surprise that Rush compared Obama to Hitler. It doesn't me...which is why the conservative movement has lost much of it's steam.

I think i will let Rush speak for himself on this one:

"that creates a moral parallel ... and also diminishes the Horror that was the holocaust"

(audio clip) http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906110015

His basic point is that you shouldn't desensitize people to the holocaust. The same point the White House made. The holocaust shouldn't be used as a barometer.

To know if Rush cares what Jews think i would need to know how much influence they hold with his advertisers. That's all that matters to Rush. There are groups he cannot afford to alienate and thus far, as with most conservatives, he has been a supporter of Israel as far as i know.

I was in no way comparing the actual comments made by each individual, as you well know, but instead was making a comparison of the reaction Imus and Letterman received.

Perhaps the likelihood of Rush getting the same reaction is lower, because everyone already views him as an extreme nutjob, but there is a line he cannot cross and he knows it. Nonetheless he is good at walking right up to it.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

and i still dont really believe you've drank enough koolaid to believe they used a press conference to threaten his freedom of speech.

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I thought Harrison Ford was the president //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[bw_audio 10+ year member]

..

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

fat guy + thin ice = no good

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Further, "on thin ice" isnt a threat its a warning.

Its a warning that dangerous territory is being treaded upon and there could be consequences for actions.

Danger is implied, but the source of the danger is either environmental or implied by the situation.

If you believe that that the white house would use such a forum to threaten the free speech of an outspoken individual such as Rush you're a fool.

The source of danger in the WH hyperbole is environmental IE societal.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

and i still dont really believe you've drank enough koolaid to believe they used a press conference to threaten his freedom of speech.

Further, "on thin ice" isnt a threat its a warning.
Its a warning that dangerous territory is being treaded upon and there could be consequences for actions.

Danger is implied, but the source of the danger is either environmental or implied by the situation.

If you believe that that the white house would use such a forum to threaten the free speech of an outspoken individual such as Rush you're a fool.

The source of danger in the WH hyperbole is environmental IE societal.

Not with Rush, it isn't.

Why would WH want to send Rush a friendly reminded that his comments may be eschewed by society? Why wouldn't they rather give Rush enough rope to hang himself?

If you are correct, and that the WH is just warning Rush of going too far, then what is the gain? Unless you think they are all in bed with each other, but even then...they'd address such issues privately.

Perhaps the press conference isn't a warning for Rush as it is for less known (or even private) entities.