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

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

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.

As i mentioned countless times, they only commented when pressed and attempted to use the situation to calm down ALL of the rhetoric.. probably related to the town hall meetings.

I believe you knew you started from a losing situation and hoped to either trip me up or bait me into a hypothetical situation which you could then relate back to the original situation... no matter how flawed that relationship might actually be.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

What exactly is your argument and line of reasoning?

What exactly do you think happened and why?

Please spell it all out clearly.

I believe i have adequately stated my position multiple times and believe you have a clear understanding of the why and how.

Now its your turn.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

As i mentioned countless times, they only commented when pressed and attempted to use the situation to calm down ALL of the rhetoric.. probably related to the town hall meetings.

I guess that is where we will agree. The comment was insignificant in the scheme of things and this thread blew something meaningless way out of proportion. I assume conservative talk radio will do the same.

However, my hypothetical argument is real...and was debated upon several times when I was in undergrad (before Obama was on the radar)...and to be honest, I don't have a firm stance either way.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

What exactly is your argument and line of reasoning?
What exactly do you think happened and why?

Please spell it all out clearly.

I believe i have adequately stated my position multiple times and believe you have a clear understanding of the why and how.

Now its your turn.

I already have. We are talking past each other.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

btw flip i am also a little disappointed you didnt respond to my "99% of you wont read this but flip might" political economy thread before it was deleted.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

btw flip i am also a little disappointed you didnt respond to my "99% of you wont read this but flip might" political economy thread before it was deleted.

I probably didn't read it.

I don't go here much on the weekends...just during the week.

Re-post it?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I already have. We are talking past each other.

I want to make sure i have a clear understanding.

Please explain the following:

Why the white house made the statement they did and what their goal in making such a statement was.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

I probably didn't read it.
I don't go here much on the weekends...just during the week.

Re-post it?

bah there was too much to repost it all.. maybe a mod can undelete it?

 

[AlterEgo99 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/popcorn.gif.32dd9e22fd77e77bc3c907062768fcd2.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

bbl lunch :nomnom:

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/popcorn.gif.32dd9e22fd77e77bc3c907062768fcd2.gif

x2, but who really gives a shit about the fat fuck to start with.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I want to make sure i have a clear understanding.
Please explain the following:

Why the white house made the statement they did and what their goal in making such a statement was.

I do not know what their goal was. I am trying to find out.

I certainly don't think it's an attempt at censorship.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I won't bbl...Maybe tonight sometime, but hopefully my past post made my position crystal clear.

 

[dr_peeb 10+ year member]

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

Obommer could call up the ol' Eye Are Ess and tell 'em to spend a little time examining the tax records of Rush. That would sure be fun.

 

[TurdFergueson2 5,000+ posts]

It is what it is, but why is the White House even paying attention to what he is saying? If this were a congressman or someone OF IMPORTANCE spewing his hot garbage that's one thing. But this is a guy who is paid to stir up shit. An old, fat, white version of 50 cent is how I see him. LOL this the same dude that pops pills and was talking shit about football players.

To me he's a jagoff that gets off on hearing himself talk, but let him. People want to hear what he has to say no matter how stupid it might be.