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

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

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.

Why dont we return to the original article to answer your questions.

White House Warns Rush: Nazi Talk Puts You On "Thin Ice"
The White House struck back hard on Friday against conservative pundits and town hall protesters who have compared the President to Hitler and his policies to Nazism, saying that the critics are "on thin ice" and should "take that temperature down a bit."

Asked about the breakout of boisterous and occasionally violent protests at Democratic town hall events throughout the country, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declared that the demonstrators were showing less civility and manners than his six-year-old child.

"Behave yourselves like your mom would probably tell you to do," Gibbs said when asked what piece of advice he would give to the demonstrators.

But it wasn't all fun and games for the Obama spokesman. Pressed on the analogies between Obama and Hitler that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made during Thursday's program, Gibbs' voice turned stern.

So he only commented upon it when his interlocutor "pressed" him on the issue. They certainly didnt hold the press conference to address Rush's comments nor threaten his free speech.

"I know the president feels strongly that we can discuss these issues without personally maligning... that we are doing so in a way that respects the dignity of each individual," he said. "I think anytime you make references to what happened in Germany in the 30's and 40's, I think you are talking about an event that has no equivalent. And I think anytime anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they are on thin ice, and it is best not employed."

Further substantiating the argument, and the one used by Rush, that the holocaust should not be used as a barometer as you put it.

"But I think what the most important thing is, is that we can have a discussion in our democracy about where we want to go," he added. "The president strongly believes we can do so without yelling at each other, pushing at each other or degrading each other. We have seen some stuff, I mentioned it a week ago, we have all seen imagery that just shocks and surprises us and I think the best thing to do is just take that temperature down a bit."

I think its clear he is trying to calm down the rhetoric.

Answer your questions?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I think its clear he is trying to calm down the rhetoric.

Answer your questions?

I can see what is happening. I don't understand why. What advantage does it give to the WH that are "warning Rush of the dangers" of using the Holocaust (or like events) as a barometer? Unless they are pre-emptively trying to take the high road. Even if they were, why would they comment at all?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

You say the words "on thin ice" represent a danger.

A danger of what? That Jews won't listen to Rush? How is that bad of WH? How is that bad for Rush?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I can see what is happening. I don't understand why. What advantage does it give to the WH that are "warning Rush of the dangers" of using the Holocaust (or like events) as a barometer? Unless they are pre-emptively trying to take the high road. Even if they were, why would they comment at all?

Because they were pressed for a comment.

To continually refuse would just make it a bigger deal.

 

[DriftGirl 10+ year member]

Rush is an idiot, loud mouth and wannabe....and has every right to be that way...if I hate him or not....which I do //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

You say the words "on thin ice" represent a danger.
A danger of what? That Jews won't listen to Rush? How is that bad of WH? How is that bad for Rush?

As i already said, a societal danger.

Rush is capable of creating a storm even he cannot survive. Is this it? I highly doubt it, but the danger is societal and when forced to comment they choose to remind him of it.

You're returning to ground we already covered here flip.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

As i already said, a societal danger.
Rush is capable of creating a storm even he cannot survive. Is this it? I highly doubt it, but the danger is societal and when forced to comment they choose to remind him of it.

You're returning to ground we already covered here flip.

When pressed, they assist Rush.

Does the WH thing Rush's comments going to start rioting in the streets?

But more importantly, what are they gonna do if Rush doesn't STFU?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

When pressed, they assist Rush.

this no more helps rush than it does hurt the WH.

Does the WH thing Rush's comments going to start rioting in the streets?

Doubtful, but they certainly would like to see the town halls calmed down a bit. Which is probably why, when pressed, they mentioned bring down the overall temperature of the rhetoric down.

But more importantly, what are they gonna do if Rush doesn't STFU?

nothing.. there was no implication otherwise.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The point being, if the WH became fearful that a talkshow host started a shitstorm that they themselves couldn't contain and perhaps would lead to "violence in the streets", should the government attempt to censor?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I am not concerned about Rush or Obama.

I am concerned with pre-emptive censorship. Not saying this is what is happening here...but with talks of "The Fairness Doctrine" and other nonsense, perhaps it could be an issue.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The point being, if the WH became fearful that a talkshow host started a shitstorm that they themselves couldn't contain and perhaps would lead to "violence in the streets", should the government attempt to censor?

I am not concerned about Rush or Obama.
I am concerned with pre-emptive censorship. Not saying this is what is happening here...but with talks of "The Fairness Doctrine" and other nonsense, perhaps it could be an issue.

I'd like to point out that you have long ago abandoned, without ever even trying to defend, the argument that they were threatening his freedom of speech.

You've failed at trying to pick apart my argument and have now moved onto hypothetical situation in which the WH might try to limit freedom of speech.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I'd like to point out that you have long ago abandoned, without ever even trying to defend, the argument that they were threatening his freedom of speech.
You've failed at trying to pick apart my argument and have now moved onto hypothetical situation in which the WH might try to limit freedom of speech.

That was my argument the entire time. I argue in steps...I don't just go for the kill.

I never, at any point, attempted to pick apart your argument. I actually didn't even care what your argument was...which is why you commented on my lack of response to your argument.

 

[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.

Sure looks like you're trying to pick it apart here..

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.

Again.

I can see what is happening. I don't understand why. What advantage does it give to the WH that are "warning Rush of the dangers" of using the Holocaust (or like events) as a barometer? Unless they are pre-emptively trying to take the high road. Even if they were, why would they comment at all?

Again trying to pick it apart.. but you switched emphasis once I posted a link to Rush warning against using the holocaust as a barometer.

When pressed, they assist Rush.
Does the WH thing Rush's comments going to start rioting in the streets?

But more importantly, what are they gonna do if Rush doesn't STFU?

Finally, once failing to pick it apart you move onto a hypothetical..

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I at least provided logical arguments and even Rush himself supporting my claims.

If your argument was about limiting his freedom of speech you never once supported it.. instead you just asked questions.. Socratic method doesnt offer any support .. you just tried to discredit my argument.. and failed..

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I at least provided logical arguments and even Rush himself supporting my claims.
If your argument was about limiting his freedom of speech you never once supported it.. instead you just asked questions.. Socratic method doesnt offer any support .. you just tried to discredit my argument.. and failed..

My questions weren't to discredit your argument, but rather gain a perspective.

My WHAT vs. WHY comment was based on you not acknowleging I was asking a question. You keep listing a series of events. I read the same article you did, so I know what happened. I was curious WHY he made the comment about "on thin ice".

You claim there is a danger of societial impact. I am curious why the WH would be concerned for Rush's wellbeing. I have made it abundantly clear that I don't understand why the WH would be looking out for Rush. The only conclusion I can come too, is the one you mentioned, where Rush may start a storm he cannot control/contain and would require the WH to clean up the mess. If the WH is fearful of this, it makes me curious to see if they would pre-emptively censor him to prevent such a situtation.

Again, in nearly each of my posts, my concern was why would the WH point out the danger of using the Holocaust as a barometer to Rush. It would make more sense to allow Rush to go so extreme he loses the little credibiity and (most importantly) listenership he has left.