There are some “phony soldiers” out there. This was the whole gist of Gibsons story called “Phony soldiers”. For Limbaugh to reference that phrase coined two days earlier by a major media news program seems accptable, no matter how much he is disliked. After all, his conversation was with a soldier who was complaining about the media not using real soldiers in interviews, the soldier used the word “fake soldiers” , Rush interjected the phrase “phony soldiers” ( and only those two words, mind you) while the SOLDIER himself complained about the phenomenon of these guy poising as veterans. You’d think the soldier would certianly bring perspective to the conversation.

That is….

Unless you think he was a phony soldier.

Let’s be careful of this slippery slope, we don’t need censorship, we don’t need Congress condemning speech like this. It’s what the soldiers fight to defend in the first place.

either remove him from armed forces radio, because while he has the inherent right to free speech, he does NOT have an inherent right to a broadcast license; or reinstitute the fairness doctrine, and balance his program with someone like Randi Rhodes, Sam Seder, or someone like that.

What a pustule Rusty is.

Actually, the Ed Schultz show is now broadcast on Armed Forces Radio – thanks to Wes Clark, who drove the initiative to get Ed on AFR. For years there was no voice from the Progressive side being broadcast to the troops.

Just another reason to be thankful that Wes Clark didn’t retire from public service when he retired from the military.

Everyone knows what Rush was saying yet everyone is happy to perpetuate the lie for political purposes.

The Democrats were happy to quote phony soldier Jesse MacBeth and his accusations of atrocities in Iraq, when in fact he never went to Iraq and was kicked out in basic training. Phony soldiers are people who lie about their status as soldiers. They are not real soldiers who are against the war.

Do not ever think that the left cares about free speech. That is a lie–at universities, on the radio, in print. They only care about their speech.

How could a Democrat run this country if they can’t ever decipher what a talk show host is saying? How could they ever every understand the complexities of a national health care system, or decifer Bin Laden’s next video.

Eventually this will backfire on the left, because they lack the intellectual honesty to compete in the political process.

I’m part of “We the People” and I’m looking for accountable representation.

If the majority of Congress cannot represent We the People, then We the People will cast them aside and elect reps that will represent the People.

Is it time for the wake up call yet?

That said, is taxpayer money being spent to pay for the programming? If it is, then I think a good argument can be made for withdrawing funding from the show.

Harmony works this way in a bidirectional environment. Opposing signals thus avoid contention. Bus hogging is mitigated by the arbiter. Fairness is achieved through request queueing in a round robin regime. It is therefore impossible to maintain message continuity when multiple requestors indicate the need for service.

Transactional fairness balances the data flow and maximizes bandwidth to the field.

ALL WE ASK IS TRANSACTIONAL FAIRNESS.

perris @ 40

the problem is this ISN’T free speech SINCEA he is inproportionately represented on military radio

Exactly. If you think AFN is like NPR or other talk radio, think again. It is not. Just like the newspaper we got overseas, depending upon your service: Army, AF, Marines, etc. It wasn’t a mix of the NYT and the Daily Herald. I actually PAID for newspapers every morning to get what the Army Times didn’t print, and read the German papers. The deck is stacked. It’s propagandistic.

My point above at 37 was not about what a just world or decent world would look like. My point is about what would be a strategically useful response which keeps progressive themes in the forefront of how it is discussed.

Keep in mind that much of the target of such an effort is to make some inroads with what are sometimes called “low-information voters” — people who will see maybe headlines or hear soundbites, but not delve deeply into the details of any of these issues. If we back proposals that have the clear appearance of being censorship, that’s what the low-information voter will likely associate with the progressive movement. If we back proposals that convey diversity and balance, then that will be the take-away. I prefer the latter values to be associated with progressive proposals, and think that this is ultimately the more important part of the possible outcome.

Best wishes,

Ump.

Did all the other Dem senators who did not sign the letter, also vote “no” on the MoveOn resolution?

only one senator voted “no” on both moveon resolutions – senator feingold.