Why I think Rush Limbaugh should be removed from Armed Forces Radio...

[Junkdrawer]

Out of hundreds of long-format talks shows in this country, Limbaugh is currently one of four shows carried by Armed Forces Radio. That, by the way, was only the case for the last 4 years - for 10 years before that Rush had a monopoly on AFR.

His inclusion in the AFR lineup sends a clear message: Rush Limbaugh is part of the mainstream of political opinion. I don't think he is. I think he represents a tiny, shrinking minority of reactionary opinion.

The Abu Ghraib scandal? Rush thinks it was more like fraternity initiation pranks.

Torture at Guantanamo Bay? Rush started a Club Gitmo site complete with t-shirts. He proudly displays pictures of active duty soldiers wearing these t-shirts.

Now, I can understand Bush and Cheney keeping Rush on. They were the authors of the above policies and had an active interest in making it seem that these were mainstream American opinions. Bush had Limbaugh at the White House for several occasions. Cheney was a guest on Limbaugh’s program many, many times.

But Obama is now trying to set a new tone and he clearly wants to assure the world that America will no longer tolerate torture. Having Limbaugh as one of four voices on Armed Forces Radio will make that job much, much harder.

[TNOE]

1. Totally Agree with you

but don't know how it can get done. Boycotting his advertisers hasn't worked - maybe he'll just "die off" (meaning becoming irrelevant and a joke), like what is happening to Bill O'Lielly, Hannity & Faux Noise in general.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Armed Forces Radio is our tax dollars....

If I'm not mistaken, the Pentagon controls AFR and Obama is the Commander in Chief.

[TNOE]

7. Then you are right

if its taxpayer dollars supporting him. They can keep him on - but insist that he have a liberal cohost who would call him on all his bullshit lies.

[NeedleCast]

12. So lets put the shoe on the other foot

Some point in the future, Republican becomes president again and shuts down a left wing talking head on AFN (assuming there were any).

You think thats acceptable?

[Generic Brad]

95. They would do that regardless of Rush being shut down or not

Republicans are petty, vindictive, partisan a-holes. I say shut him down. Why should our government support someone who wants the government to fail?

[4 t 4]

74. dod in in charge of AFR

The person in charge of the Department of Defense is called the Secretary of Defense. The current Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates. The Secretary of Defense answers directly to the President. He report directly to the president.

[GA_ArmyVet]

88. Your tax dollars don't support this show

His show and almost all of the others shows on AFRTS are donated by the Networks and Syndications.

Why not try to get our Liberal/Progressive/Left Wing hosts/owners/ whoever to donate their shows.

[randr]

2. Just the fact that he has shown scorn for the CinC

would seem to disqualify him.
Ignorance is not opinion!

[Junkdrawer]

6. I think Limbaugh did that to preempt what he feared was an inevitable decision....

he wants to make it seem that Obama would be punishing him for dissent.

[blm]

3. Plus, he's a traitor to this country's constitution and wants citizen's to give up their right to

open and accountable government in favor of secrecy and privilege of the powerful elite.

[GA_ArmyVet]

89. So you answer to this is

to remove soldiers rights ....

It is about free speech. it is the epitome of Free Speech to allow.

The whole purpose of Free Speech was to allow dissent and criticism of the Government by the people. Nothing could be more demonstrative of our freedom than a government run radio station broadcasting programming critical of that same government.

[blm]

94. Encouraging FAILURE is not dissent. Rush is STUPID ENTERTAINMENT and STUPID should not be a goal met

and paid for by the rest of us.

[GA_ArmyVet]

97. Again, while I tend to agree with your assessment

what gives you the authority to decide for others what is so stupid that they should not be allowed to watch it.
I personnally think the same of American Idol, Survivor, the Biggest Loser, and any number of asinine quasi reality shows...but should I be allowed to ban those from TV or AFRTS.

[blm]

98. Those shows aren't set up to influence government and fascist political goals.

.

[GA_ArmyVet]

104. Thats is the whole point of the 2nd Amendment

to allow you to be critical of the Government.

If the government silences it critics, the Government proves the point that the Government is abusive. If the Government allows the dissent it proves the freedom of the people.

It amazes me how on a progressive board can so rapidly want to remove the rights of others because the disagree with us. Which is exactly what we were angry with the opposition for doing, trampling on our rights because we disagree with them.

Rights are not guaranteed for the people in power...they don't need the guarentee...Rights are guaranteed for those who are not in power, otherwise we devolve into a chaotic society dependant on the whims of the current power structure.

Rights are rights always and not the abridged lightly.

Having o defend those you disagree with is what make being principled difficult. It is what makes doing the right thing harder to do, but is never the less.

[Enthusiast]

124. Bull shit. Limbaugh was cheerleader for the

Bush Administration.

During an Obama Administration things are different. You can't allow propagandist Rush Limbaugh to continue his attack on the CIC in the theater of operations. He has been on AFN for far too long. It has nothing to do with freedom of speach.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. He should get the heave-ho

Listening to him is a form of torture.

[onenote]

9. Then don't listen to him.

And don't deny those who want to listen to him the right to do so.

That's sort of how the First Amendment works. The government doesn't decide what people get to listen to based on content.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Jeez, what a clever idea.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

[onenote]

11. Glad to be of help!

:hi:

[Pacifist Patriot]

19. The government does not, but Armed Forces Radio can...

In this instance, free speech does not apply. Editorial license still exists. If this network has the mission to educate and entertain the troops, nothing requires them to include Rush Limbaugh in the programming line up. It is possible to provide for honest and rigorous debate without resorting to providing a bombastic drug addicted moron with a pulpit.

[onenote]

24. again, if the reason given is merely a fig leaf for a content based decision

based on the government's disagreement with limbaugh's political speech -- with no evidence that such speech poses any particular threat or harm to the military's operations, then it would indeed be subject to challenge.

When the government makes decisions based on content, it has a higher bar to clear than when private entities make such decisions.

[Junkdrawer]

25. So...once he's on AFR he's on for life as long as he spits in the President's face?

I don't think so....

[onenote]

27. If you think that's what I said, you've got voices in your head.

They can take him off, so long as the reason isn't because he's criticizing the government. If that's the reason, then taking him off is a content based act of censorship by the government that, if it happened to anyone else, we'd be screaming bloody murder about it.

[Junkdrawer]

28. As long as he "spits in the President's face" he can always claim....

that the REAL reason he was dropped was "because he's criticizing the government."

[Enthusiast]

127. He can be taken off at the pleasure

of the CIC. We won't need to rely on your reasoning, thank you. Limbaugh=gone!

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. This is the impression I am getting as well.

Simply because he is on the programming line up now does not mean he should expect to enjoy that position in perpituity. Why in the world do people think replacing his show with something else would constitute abridgment of free speech? Perhaps it is simply a matter of:

editorial license
good taste
competitive ratings
etc.

Good heavens, shows get bumped or dumped all the time. Whoever thinks Rush is "quality" programming for our troops clearly hasn't given the plethora of alternatives a listen.

[onenote]

58. shows get bumped all the time

Yes - shows put on by private entities. The first amendment doesn't apply to their actions. It does apply to the government when it makes decisions based on the content of an individual's speech. A lot of folks, me included, were understandably outraged when bush and his gang tried to dictate what PBS could air (such as a show involving a gay character) based on the content of that programming.

Again, like or not (and I don't like it a bit), limbaugh's show is the most popular talk radio program in AMerica and any decision to remove it would be immediately suspect.

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. When they make decisions based upon quality and relevancy of content the bar is quite high enough.

[Enthusiast]

126. We don't need no stinkin' evidence

Limbaugh is gone! Now, go lick your wounds, your side lost. Obama won.

[frylock]

35. this has nothing to do with the first amendment in any way, shape or form

[onenote]

59. want to elaborate?

[frylock]

64. rush is free to spew his crap whenever he likes..

nobody is preventing him from doing that. perhaps you can elaborate on the section of the first amendment that guarantees a venue to run your seditious bullshit to a captive audience?

on edit: your username is quite fitting. squawk.

[onenote]

68. the part of the first amendment that requires the government to be content neutral

when it comes to speech.

And I don't think you know what sedition is.

And the audience isn't captive. No one forces anyone to listen to AFN, not during the hour that rush is on or the hour that Tom Joyner is on or the hour that NPR is on.


Oh, and I like your username too. It fits you. A cartoon, not anything based in reality.

[Zynx]

100. The 1st Amendment does not apply in the military.

[GA_ArmyVet]

117. Since when and where in Constitution

or in what supreme court ruling do you base that legal opinion on.

We are restricted in some things. In order to maintain discipline we are not allowed to be disrespectful of elected officials or personnel senior in rank to us. However, I have the right to express my opinion and to listen to anything I want.

[Zynx]

120. So you have a heavily modified speech code? That does not contradict what I said.

[GA_ArmyVet]

134. Umm..Yes it does

You said and I quote "The 1st Amendment does not apply in the military."


I said "yes it does" implying We in the military have a Constitutional right to free speech.

I admitted that we have a few additional restrictions, however tose restrictions are very limited and only apply to Commisioned Officers.

I then asked you to point to, direct me to, show me something that overrides the Bill of Rights which limits, removes and negates that right.

You then said "That does not contradict what I said".

So all I can say is yes it does, it directly contradicts your statment.

Please by all means show me a link to some regulation or law which takes away my right to free speech.

[Enthusiast]

125. You could not be more mistaken

Limbaugh is a threat to morale. His entire aim is to undermine support for the Commander In Chief. This cannot be allowed in the theater of operations. AFN is not the same as commercial radio.

[onenote]

8. Not if the reason is that he is critical of the government

That would be censorship. And yes, I know that AFN is government funded -- although I've yet to see any evidence of what, if anything, AFN pays for limbaugh's program. Most of the programming on AFN is provided by rights holders at no cost -- don't know if that's the case for limbaugh, but until the facts are known, I'm not assuming that he's paid much if anything.

And its a fact -- a shitty fact, but a fact nonetheless -- that limpbaugh's program has the largest radio audience in the country. Back when it was upholding the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine, the SCOTUS made the point that it is the rights of the listeners, not the broadcasters, that are paramount. If there is demand for limpbaugh's show on AFN -- and I have no reason to assume that there isn't -- then taking it off because of its content would be denying the rights of those listeners who want to hear him. Just as taking off various highly rated NPR programs from AFN because of their content would be denying the rights of those listeners who want to hear that programming.

I hate limbaugh, but given his ratings, I don't see how his show gets taken off if the reason is anything other than content neutral.

[Junkdrawer]

13. Are you trying to say that the Constitution would force AFR to carry Limbaugh?

If so, I think you're wrong. Obama could give an order and he'd be gone tomorrow.

Now, would such an order have an undesirable political price? That's a more realistic question.

[onenote]

22. if the reason for the decision was the content of the programming, I think

that it could be problematic for the show to be taken off. If there was a content neutral reason -- no problem.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. Hmmm.....

>>>I hate limbaugh, but given his ratings, I don't see how his show gets taken off if the reason is anything other than content neutral.>>>

He was regularly whupped by Al Franken when the two went head to head in NYC. Rush had the superstation flagship WABC. Al had the rinky dink AAR afiliate. Franken beat him anyway.


>>>And its a fact -- a shitty fact, but a fact nonetheless -- that limpbaugh's program has the largest radio audience in the country.>>>>

It's large, I'm sure. But is it large because he's popular or because there are no alternatives in most areas?

[onenote]

26. No alternatives?

Are people forced to listen to the radio? And do they only get one channel?

I hate that he's popular. But he is. And AFN generally tries to get the rights to the most popular shows in various programming categories-- that includes not only limpbaugh but also Tom Joyner and NPR, and even Ed Schultz (and remember, when it looked like Schultz was being precluded from AFN based on content, many of us howled bloody murder about it).

[Johonny]

29. I agree

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. It's funny

He openly hates our president. If anyone who hated Bush had been on AFR, they would be removed, and he'd be leading the charge.

I hope he drops dead.

[Pacifist Patriot]

15. I have heard the free speech argument, but I do not think it applies here.

Editorial license is as applicable in this instance as with any other media outlet. They can choose which voices they feel appropriate to disseminate information and entertainment.

Personally, I think Rush Limbaugh is neither information nor entertainment. If opposing viewpoints are necessary than develop a program that provides for a rational and courteous debate.

There is absolutely no reason why irrational hate mongering need be supported by Armed Forces Radio.

I do not believe it either necessary nor healthy for all programming to unconditionally support the current administration whatever it may be, but I do believe we owe it to our troops to supply quality programming. Rush Limbaugh does not fill that need.

[jberryhill]

38. As a legal question, no. As a moral question... hmmm...

On the one hand, he clearly promotes disrespect of the Commander in Chief.

On the other hand, removing a "dissenting" voice may not be the right tone, albeit Rush is not a paragon of reasoned dissent.

To the extent he may have fans in that audience, I don't see the harm in letting them listen to what they want on their down time. It's not as if Rush changes anyone's mind on anything.

[Pacifist Patriot]

41. Removing a "dissenting" voice simply to eradicate dissenting opinions is one thing.

Removing a jackass and replacing him with respectable and reasonable dissenting opinions is quite another. I am all in favor of a wide range of opinions, but that does not mean that Rush is a sacred cow. Removing his show and replacing it with another is not equivalent to government censorship.

[jberryhill]

52. Yeah.... I was trying to think of what would be a reasonable equivalent...

But drew a blank.

[Pacifist Patriot]

56. Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for up and coming new talent.

Nothing says he needs to be replaced by another established show.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Limbaugh is divisive. It interferes with the military mission if your

soldiers don't trust each other. Worse, even, if they create social subsets from little tests of loyalty.

Undermines everything.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Yep. Would AFR tolerate a member of a fringe Left Wing party that...

called for military desertions? If a commercial station could find an audience for such speech, then it would be protected.

But Armed Forces Radio?

[GA_ArmyVet]

43. What an utter load of crap

We don't have "little tests of Loyalty" nor does the show make us not trust each other.
We are a very diverse crowd and we accept it.
In my unit, we had die hard Rightest of the right and the some of most left wing people ever.
Most of us are somewhere in between. We accept our difference and our right to it.
In fact as I was working on the Inauguration, on our detail, we had a Repub speak out wishing Obama well and that while he disagreed with him and he was now the CIC and everyone will show him the respect he was due.

All that to say this, I don't listen to his show, but I'll be damn if I will let you tell me I cant listen to it just because you don't like. Offensive speech is the only speech that has to be protected. No one tries to bar speech they agree with.
And if this speech is barred it is only a matter of time before something you care about or like is considered offensive and is removed.

[Cid_B]

53. Right here with you Vet

Next thing is blocking my internet because I could find out negative things about the current party in power... Then my books ( which cover the political spectrum )... then monitor my phone calls to make sure Im not saying anything that could cause anyone to have a bad impression.

I love how they think we have little "On, Off, Kill" switches.

Hooah.

LT Cid_B

[The Backlash Cometh]

57. Let's see the Fairness Act be applied to your radio waves.

Let's get a left-wing extremist have as much freedom to speak on your airwaves and you'll see just how divisive Limbaugh becomes when your right-wing friends reveal they don't share your tolerance level.

[GA_ArmyVet]

73. Lets see the left side radio shows

donate their shows to AFRTS and it will be on.

[The Backlash Cometh]

80. Who is financing the right-wing radio pundits?

Someone is paying Limbaugh 400 million dollars. I doubt it's goodwill that's behind the effort.

[GA_ArmyVet]

86. Yes, he is being paid

I did not say he donates his show all across America. He is in syndication and like it or not he is the highest rated talk show on the air. He draws the crowd and he is paid for it. He, however, donates his show for free to AFRTS. The military does not pay for his show. Nor do we pay for TV shows or other broadcasts. They are donated by the Network or owner. It how it has operated for as long as I have been in.

[The Backlash Cometh]

91. I'm sure, that if that were all the hang-up, it wouldn't be difficult to find

someone willing to donate.

I grew up on a military base, back in the 60s, overseas. Everything that came over their propaganda t.v. (yes, it was propaganda) were positive tones as you can imagine it would have been when they were trying to take out the racial rancor out of the formula. I've read about it since then,like it was a social experiment. The most conservative voice I heard down there was Paul Harvey. We grew up ignorant of the racial problems that are still a problem today in this country. (On edit: they were presented, but they were made to sound like they were very isolated cases in areas were there were still racist hang-outs.)

My dad was proud of the Army because it was a true representation of America. No corners cut in that branch.

I also took Leadership training in JROTC. Had some phenomenal sergeants training us. Though I knew some of them may have had a tinge of prejudice, which was the norm for the time, they were disciplined and knew not to show it. I find the kind of shit that Limbaugh spouts, unpardonable and very undisciplined. Precisely the opposite of what I would expect from a military soldier.

But, if you demand to have him, then be aware that there are soldiers that could use a vent to counter him. I know I wouldn't have lasted listening to that son of a bitch around the barracks.

[GA_ArmyVet]

96. Your experience in the 60's

bears little resemblance to life in todays army.

When I came in 20 years ago, we had shared 12 man bay barracks, communal showers, and daily inspections.


None of that is true now..that in only 20 years of change ..I appreciate your 60's experience, I too am a child of the 60's and 70's...but its like comparing computers from the 80s to computers today.

[The Backlash Cometh]

99. And I'm saying, that the changes haven't improved anything,

if the mainstream still thinks that the military represents right-wing ideology. It's wrong because people might get the mistaken idea that the military IS America.

I use to live in a country where the military made the rules, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not what people want in this country.

[GA_ArmyVet]

103. Well I am pretty sure

people dont want to live in a country where someone else gets to decide what they can listen to..

You decide on Rush, then someone else will decide on Air America, and someone else will decide on Mike Savage, and so on and so on, pretty soon, no one will be allowed to say anything that is remotely controversial for fear of offending someone and legitmate debate and dissenting opinions dissappear...and I am pretty sure that is what I took an oath to defend against.

[The Backlash Cometh]

107. Because God knows, that in the age of the internet, soldiers can't

find a way to hear American AM radio, 99% of which is right-wing owned.

And by the way, there are places in the US were people are keeping their left-leaning views to themselves because they know the kind of retaliation they can expect in the way of jobs or loss of business.

You are not debating from a position of strength, since, right now, it's the right-wingers who have the upper hand on the military radio waves. I wouldn't mind seeing some consistency in your argument. All or nothing. That's consistent. You said it once, let's see you stick to it.

[GA_ArmyVet]

109. I have been consistent and the debate is

not who has the upper hand on on the airwaves.

I would welcome a more diverse set of programs, however I just doubt the way of doing that is to ban them. I think we should encourage as many views as possible.

As for availability of the internet, try being stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, or any of the other marvelous places I have been stationed. None had a great deal of internet access.

The consistency in my argument is not that I am for Rush. It is that I am against Censorship, and Restricting my right to listen to what ever I want. Not what you think I should hear.

And if there are people who live in fear retaliation, then perhaps the Military is much more tolerant than you believe. If anyone were to discriminate based on political views, it would end the career of that person.

I don't doubt what you are saying, I just ask who and where those people are, because I have never seen it. Of course, I have always been up for a fight anyway if I felt my rights were being trampled on and be damned the consequences, however, I realize that may not be the case for everyone else.

[The Backlash Cometh]

114. I leave it at the one statement we agree on. All or nothing.

[GA_ArmyVet]

115. Fair enough and thank you the gentlemanly exchange of

ideas. I truly enjoy a good round polite discussions especially if the person I am having the discussion can offer insightful and intelligent responses.

[CitizenPatriot]

102. he makes money off that arrangement

in other ways as well -- he pushes things like his "Adopt a Soldier" program at the "reduced price of 49.95".

However, in an article from HuffPo, they state that tax dollars pay to run AFN, which is a very good point. but what would I, as a "liberatard" know anyway? I get called that a few times a day, due to his show...and it gets old. He is full of hate and rage and misinformation. If they want to label his show as "comedy hour", that's another story. But it strikes me as propaganda since he carries water for the GOP and lies about facts constantly and people listening are under the misguided idea that he is telling them the truth, as in facts -- not opinions. And since when did ignorance become an opinion???? I guess when he popped his first illegally gotten Oxy-contin.

And remember his "phony soldiers" remark that he claimed he never said?

Media Matters has it

http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200710020002


Loved this comment from a poster, playing on Rush's "apology" on behalf of Media Matters for their "lies":

"Since you will never get an admission from Rush Limpaugh for characterizing him as a pompous windbag; since you'll never get an admission from Bill O'Really?; since you won't get an admission from Fox News or anybody who works there -- to all of you with half a brain -- I want to admit to you for them for the, again, denial over something that you already damn well know regarding their honesty and their commitment to falsification and misrepresentation last week on their programs. I really regret that it happens, and I admit it to you on their behalf since they won't. "

[GA_ArmyVet]

106. Yes AFRTS as it is now called

is run by tax dollars, everything in the military is.

Your tax dollars(and mine for that matter) pay for AFN, Nuclear weapons, cars, tanks, planes , ships and so forth.

However, his specific show is donated to AFRTS. No Cost, as are most of the SitComs, News Shows, Dramas, and so forth. In fact, we know which shows would not donate as those are usually the popular shows that are not shown.

I also beleive you are using the same argument that Prolifers use, when the complain about tax dollars spent on Abortion Education and clinics. It is a non-argument.

My point is you can't argue one point without strengthening point of view of the other.

At any rate, I am in the military and I dont particularly care for show, but I can turn it off. I dont need you or any other person who beleives he knows what is best for me or my fellow soldiers telling me what I can and cannot listen to.

Thanks anyway, but I will decide for myself.

[CitizenPatriot]

108. How many choices are there for you, then?

I mean, a point has been made by some in the military that they don't get a choice. Are you saying that the majority wants to listen to Rush? Only 4% of the military even wanted any kind of talk radio, so why shouldn't they get what they want to listen to, instead of the government choosing for them? That's the real issue.

I don't believe I tried to tell you what you could watch -- but I do believe that propaganda should be labeled as such. That is the American way, the very thing that our military is defending. Our freedom of speech and fourth estate have deeper meanings than allowing hate and propaganda to pass for news.

This isn't the issue, but I have to ask if there were a liberal radio personality such as Rush (there isn't), and on Day One of Bush's first term, this person said he hoped your CiC failed, would you still feel this way? I've worked with some high up people in the military and they tell me they aren't supposed to even criticize the CiC in public.

[GA_ArmyVet]

110. There are usually two and sometimes 3 channels

on AFRTS.

They tend to change formats to let everyone get some of what they want.

For a few hours it will be Rock, then Rap, then Jazz, then New, then Talk radio, then back around again and don't forget the live sports programs.

Now this will be done on all 3 channels at different times so that usually find a program that suits your taste.

I think that was the first question..(I am trying to hit them all so bear with me if I miss one)

2. No you did not tell me what I can watch, but you are trying to stop me from having the choice to listen to garbage if I want. And I will agree to label programs we are provided, if that is broadcast to all other americans on all other radio stations. My question to you is why do you think that we in the service need a special notice? Are we too dumb to understand and need the Government to tell us what us truth and lie to protect us from forming our own opinions? Because that my friend is really propaganda. I mean really we hear bullshit everyday, from super hooah (sorry Army word) rhetoric to ultra patriotic scary crap, but we like to know what others are saying and the debate. Whether we agree or not, I like to know what the everyone is thinking. Helps me understand. The real story not just one side of it.

3. I heard a lot of critical discussions of the Former POTUS. Most of the NPR shows were highly critical. They were never pulled.
So yes, I would in fact feel the same way. My whole point is that is exactly the speech that has to be protected. If everyone agreed with the Government there would be no need for protected speech. Is the speech offensive, yes. Is it unpopular, yes. Do it deserve to be protected, Yes. I would hate a world where no one was allowed to voice an opposing, critical or even stupid opinion.

4. Yes, it is true, Commissioned Officers are forbidden by law from making any remarks that are disrespectful or disparaging about the POTUS, VPOTUS and most elected officials. By law, and rightfully so, we are subordinate to the civilian authority. The military is no where in the Presidential chain of succession (not sure if I spelled that right)
So no matter how badly, I believed a president acted, I cannot say it publicly, in or out of uniform. However, I am allowed to disagree with him, respectfully. (honestly it would be nice if people followed this rule with each other)

[CitizenPatriot]

111. Glad to hear you have some choices

No, I don't think the military needs to label programs "in some special notice because you're too dumb....."
that was a real leap you took there -- but I'll respond to it because you have clearly put a lot of thought into your answer. The notion that liberals think troops are ignorant or whatever is simply not true. If you spend a lot of time here, you'll encounter plenty of liberal vets and others who get it. We are not as we are portrayed by the conservative, neo-con media. In fact, we are as diverse group as any -- but never have I read a post on here denigrating our troops. And as I've seen up close some of the sacrifices made, I'm a very strong advocate for our troops. I've seen some horrible, tragic things, as I happen to live near two bases.

I have been making the argument that all propaganda should be labeled as such on ALL media for quite a while. Anyone on DU who is familiar with my posts can tell you that. I happen to work in the media, so this is an issue I take pretty seriously. What currently passes for the 4th estate has been exposed as propaganda. We have the bush admin spying on journalists, we have Fox news repeating WH talking points WITHOUT sourcing them as such, and we have the bush WH giving talking points to returned generals, etc who made the rounds on TV shows repeating the talking points but not admitting that they are doing this. That is propaganda. All in all, Americans have not had the opportunity to be properly informed for a long time now. When that happens, democracy fails. Propaganda is the death of democracy. THAT is my issue with Rush et al.

btw, your bit about how you hear propaganda all of the time cracked me up. I'm well aware of that -- and YES, you do. Good God, when I was first introduced to that culture, I felt as if I had been dropped into a different universe. Anyone who had managed to maintain their independence of thought deserves to listen to whatever they choose, for sure.

Sadly, while many Americans have both the time and desire to search out the truth, there are many more who do NOT have that time and as such, in spite of their good intentions, they believe what they hear on the MSM. You can see that on here, for example! Just yesterday, everyone was up in arms about the stimulus plan. Turns out that the plan the media were reporting on was a leaked version of a report that does NOT exist, leaked by a Republican. Americans may tune in to Fox news and think they are hearing simply conservative news, when in fact, they are often being deliberately misinformed. That is my issue.

In order to have a functioning 4th estate, news needs to be objective, commentators should label themselves as such, and reporters should be FREE to ask questions without being spied on.

It's great that you enjoy hearing all "sides" and engage in vigorous good debate. I wish I knew more people like that.I was very disturbed to hear a friend from military intelligence tell me that Fox is always on in their office, as it 's the most "fair and balanced" news, and hence the news channel of choice for their boss. I attempted to engage this person in debate and was horrified to discover the things they believed based on what they watched. So, it's not harmless for all. Not everyone is able to discern the truth, unfortunately and YES, that makes me especially nervous when those people are in charge of things like intelligence.

I wonder if you think that NPR is equivalent in misinformation /bias as Rush? I've read a lot of media studies which prove that Fox, for example, disseminates the most misinformation of any TV show, including comedy TV shows. So, while I take your point, it strikes me as a false equivalency to compare NPR to Rush in terms of bias and facts presented. Yes, NPR has guests and hosts who were critical of a President AFTER he had violated the law repeatedly and started a war without congressional approval, which is a violation of the constitution. I can't see how that is equivalent to wishing failure on a new president simply because you don't like his ideas because they aren't your ideas, as Rush does. In other words, President Obama has not violated the law or the constitution, so what is the reason for the criticism? Partisan ideology being put over the good of the country -- obstructing in a very real way the appointment of an AG because he agrees that torture is a violation of the constitution. That is unproductive and frankly, the country has spoken. Legitimate criticism should be based on fact and questions, not on sore feelings over a lost election and lies about socialist agendas, etc. His use of the word "liberatard" etc is another example of the level of discourse which is not comparable to NPR.

I'm not sure if I've ever heard anyone on NPR say they wished Bush would fail as a President. In my opinion, that's simply unAmerican and really poor form on Day One. Do I like knowing that our troops are listening to that? Not really. but that's not because I question their intelligence, but rather because it strikes me as demoralizing. However, I recognize that my opinion on that is not relevant.

I agree with you 100% on freedom of speech and the right to choose what you listen to. My over-arching issue is with the misrepresentation of shows such as Fox News, Rush, etc. I'd like to see an elevation of the discourse, as you hinted at, instead of a lowering to lies, rumors, un-sourced talking points, etc. The last 8 years have been exceptionally dangerous to the foundation of this country.

[GA_ArmyVet]

118. Thanks for the response

I have been on for a few years here, since 2003, though not sure when I joined. I jsut dont write much as I find I learn more from reading than I do by writing. I usually only respond if something particularly hits me, or if I have some intrinsic knowledge of it.

I think I finally hit triple digits in posts.

[CitizenPatriot]

123. Oh! cool....Sorry I assumed you were newer here. take care. nt.

[Enthusiast]

131. And you love him.

Just tell the truth.

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. They're taking advantage of YOUR tolerance.

Do you think they're learning any tolerance in return? Not at all. They BELIEVE our military is right-wing in orientation. And when my father served, where they understood they were fighting for our freedoms, ALL of our freedoms, they now believe they are fighting for right-wing ideology.

Take a good look at your Air Force, for example. There's no tolerance for Liberals in that branch. Take a look at how ex-military in community positions think it's okay to cut corners if they think it pushes whatever ideals their group represents. Where did they get the idea that it was okay to override democracy? Who teaches them this bullshit?

[onenote]

60. funny how similar that sounds to the defense the repubs made of waterboarding

If we dont' torture, the bad guys will take advantage of our "tolerance" -- isn't that basically the repubs argument?

[GA_ArmyVet]

72. Isnt it amazing how intolerant

of others opinions we can become once our party is in power....To abuse your power on the premise that the other side did is the one of the problems. Sorry that argument is exactly what I said initially a load of crap.

Either the Principles and rights of the constitution apply to everyone or they don't.

My prinicples don't change simply because the other side does not abide by them.

Stand by your principles that got us into the game, thats one of the reasons the repubs are out of power. They abandoned their principles that they ran on (small government, lower taxes, big economy) then abandoned it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

82. Couldn't have said it better:

"Either the Principles and rights of the constitution apply to everyone or they don't."

Now let's find out who is financing those right-wing pundits on your radio waves, and let's see what we can do about getting YOUR politics and principles equal time.

[Enthusiast]

130. You won't be listening to it on AFN

I'm a taxpayer. I am your employer. The Obama Administration will decide if Limbaugh will continue his lies on AFN. Freedom of speach does not extend to AFN.

[Enthusiast]

128. +1, Backlash nt

[madrchsod]

18. they need big ed on the arm forces radio...

he can talk hunting and fishing mixed in with what we are going to do to fix things.limpballs tells them how fucked up things are but they want to hear how things are going to be fixed.

big ed is the man to do it

[Zookeeper]

23. Excellent choice! Didn't he have a deal in the works with them...

a couple of years ago and BushCo shot it down?

[specimenfred1984]

21. AFR is just like Pravda and everyone knows it

Lameballs is a tool, a high paid whore and everyone knows that as well.

[1776Forever]

30. In 2007 Gen. Wes Clark tried to do just that. Maybe with Pres. Obama it can happen now!

Take Rush Limbaugh Off Armed Forces Radio
Gen. Wes Clark
Posted October 2, 2007

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gen-wesley-clark/take-rush-limbaugh-off-ar_b_66826.html

Last week, Rush Limbaugh labeled any American soldier who supports an end to the war in Iraq as "phony." We challenged Limbaugh through an email campaign to invite VoteVets.org's Jon Soltz to his show and repeat these same insults to an Iraq war veteran's face. Over 10,000 people responded and emailed Rush -- but to our disappointment, he has refused to respond to our request.

........

Let's hope so!

:argh: Rush in Trash out!

[Divine Discontent]

33. he's swine, & hurtful to fair discussion. he's not like the honest repubs who argue their opinions

he maliciously taunts, dehumanizes, mocks, and is a racist, bigoted, homophobe that pollutes the airwaves - and oh, he wants the CinC to FAIL - that right there should make him an immmediate axed program!

[1776Forever]

37. Wow that was profoundly true! Did you ever think about writing for President Obama?

Awesome!:headbang: :yourock: :headbang:

[Divine Discontent]

46. Well...

sometimes I feel I may be more suited to be in the senior staff than some there, ha. After hearing the entire room repeat VP Biden's words where he tells the staff the line in their oath, "do solemnly swear OR affirm" and they all seemed to say, "do solemnly swear or affirm", I felt I deserved one of those jobs! They should choose one or the other, as Biden intoned in his voice, that it was a choice to to say affirm if you didn't want to say you swear anything!

I was so glad another DUer noticed that too right after I posted it. They made the joke, "let's just hope none of them said, "I, state your name", as Biden instructed them in their oath!

[Zodiak]

31. You know what?

I'm not really keen anyone but the troops being able to determine what they get to listen to on the radio. Their entertainment should not be a political football to be kicking around. If they want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, then they should be allowed to vote for that (whether through focus-group study or popular vote). If the gasbag was being forced upon them and they want to hear something else, they should be able to determine that, as well.

These dudes (and dudettes) risk their life in defense of this country. Entertainment is not a military function, in my opinion. Let them be normal Americans in that respect and determine their entertainment themselves.

My guess is that political crap would not be their first choice.

[Junkdrawer]

32. In 1993, only 4% of soldiers wanted talk radio. Most wanted continuous music...

...

Eleven years ago it was Republican members of Congress whose pressure put Limbaugh on American Forces Radio in the first place. In 1993, then Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., along with 69 other Republican House members, sent a letter to President Clinton's first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, demanding that both Limbaugh's radio show and his syndicated television show (on which Limbaugh compared preteen Chelsea Clinton to a dog) be broadcast to the military. "Limbaugh has been called by his liberal critics 'the most dangerous man in America.' It appears the liberal leadership at the Pentagon agrees with that ridiculous assertion," Dornan wrote. "The bottom line is that the troops want Rush Limbaugh, and you should see to it that they at least have that opportunity."

The Pentagon responded by pointing to an internal survey of 50,000 military listeners that found that only 4 percent requested more long-format talk radio. Most respondents overwhelmingly requested continuous music. The Pentagon also said that Limbaugh's daily three-hour radio program would monopolize too much of the network's limited airtime.

Notably, on Nov. 29, 1993, American Forces Radio and Television Services issued this statement: "The Rush Limbaugh Show makes no pretense that his show is balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point of view."

...


http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/26/rush_limbaugh/print.html

[Zodiak]

34. Thanks.....I rest my case n/t

[Life Long Dem]

36. No one in the media caused Bush's failure.

Rush is talking propaganda for Obama's failure. That's a big difference and I see a safety issue. What kind of military failure is Rush talking about? Not another Iraq war I hope? Would the media jump in on this one as well?

[TheKentuckian]

40. Because he's a treasonous snake that is hell bent on destroying America

and subverting the Constitution?

[eridani]

44. How about equal time for Air America?

That would make Rush barely tolerable.

[GA_ArmyVet]

50. Air America is

a radio station. AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio Television Services) broadcasts shows that are in syndication. I have to be honest I don't listen to the radio often..I have to listen to communications gear and other noises interfere with that, so I can not be sure that left leaning shows are not on or not. I know that we get a lot of NPR, and a lot lot lot lot lot of CNN.

I don't believe it is some sort of conspiracy to push CNN values on us though, it just happens that the shows are provided free of charge. If Randi, or Al (when he was on) made their shows free to them they might be on. In fairness I don't know if they have offered it or not. I did read that Al Franken was asked but would not let them broadcast his show without charge. I don't know if that was from Al or the owners investors in his show, or if it was a contractual dispute. I just remember it being kicked around a few years back.

[eridani]

65. I'll bet that Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz could afford this

Maybe we should ask them.

[GA_ArmyVet]

85. We should

That I would welcome, a push to broaden the programming, is always better receieved than attempting to prevent access to something.

[mzmolly]

45. Some history on Limbaugh getting on AFRATS

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Forces_Radio_and_Television_Service

http://afrts.dodmedia.osd.mil/">Here is the official website if anyone is interested?

[Malikshah]

47. He is a latter day Lord HawHaw, Tokyo Rose w/ regard to the state of the

Armed forces.

A blight.

Prothero from V for Vendetta...along with Billo and Sean.

[Sanctified]

48. I don't listen to Armed Forces Radio and have no plans to in the future, so...

I could really care less if he is on their programming or not.

[jmj217]

49. Think about this

How many of you are in the military or have ever listened to AFN. Holy Crap, do you really think any service men or women are going to commit treason because of a talk radio show? We are not civillians...most of us don't have tons of free time to give a crap about BS political agendas then waste time pontificating our opinions on a Blog (like I am right now :).) We don't care about the political stupidity that blows in from the Right or Left. We have a job and it's part of something bigger than a political party. It's about taking care of the guy that fights beside us and trying to make sure we get through the day.

The fact that anyone cares about what we listens to on the radio is pretty pathetic. It isn't forced on us, we have ipods, computers and personal entertainment. It's not some sort of "re-education network". We can find entertainment elsewhere if we like. Sometimes we even read books! Pantera is pretty violent music...do I have your permission to listen to it or do I have to listen to the Dixie Chicks instead? Pantera might make me mad and then what would happen?

AFN does not affect good order or discipline. It does not make soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen want to torture POW's or kill innocent civilians or hurt puppies. It's a distraction and if the content affects the mission the commanders in the field will handle it appropriately.

Really...Wow

[DainBramaged]

51. Wow, I guess we should just shut up then?

:eyes:

[Junkdrawer]

54. Military listeners did not CHOOSE Limbaugh. In fact, only 4% wanted talk radio of any kind....

Limbaugh was FORCED onto AFR by a minority group of Right Wing Congress members:

...

Eleven years ago it was Republican members of Congress whose pressure put Limbaugh on American Forces Radio in the first place. In 1993, then Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., along with 69 other Republican House members, sent a letter to President Clinton's first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, demanding that both Limbaugh's radio show and his syndicated television show (on which Limbaugh compared preteen Chelsea Clinton to a dog) be broadcast to the military. "Limbaugh has been called by his liberal critics 'the most dangerous man in America.' It appears the liberal leadership at the Pentagon agrees with that ridiculous assertion," Dornan wrote. "The bottom line is that the troops want Rush Limbaugh, and you should see to it that they at least have that opportunity."

The Pentagon responded by pointing to an internal survey of 50,000 military listeners that found that only 4 percent requested more long-format talk radio. Most respondents overwhelmingly requested continuous music. The Pentagon also said that Limbaugh's daily three-hour radio program would monopolize too much of the network's limited airtime.

Notably, on Nov. 29, 1993, American Forces Radio and Television Services issued this statement: "The Rush Limbaugh Show makes no pretense that his show is balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point of view."

...

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/26/rush_limbaugh/print.html

[eShirl]

63. k&r

[D23MIURG23]

61. Why not just diversify the content available on AFR?

If he was one of 10 or 20 different voices then he wouldn't seem so prominent, and the move would actually improve the content available.

[onenote]

79. he is one of many voices

Ed Schultz is on. NPR programming is on. Tom Joyner is on. THe goal of AFN is to offer programming that reflects what is available to be heard back home. You and I might not like rush -- I certainly don't and I refuse to listen to him, going so far as to ask cabbies to change the station if he's on a cab I get into -- but its undeniable that his programming fits exactly the mission of AFN. I wish he wasn't popular and someday hopefully his popularity will wane. But I am appalled at suggestions that we treat our troops (and their families) as if they were second class citizens when it comes to hearing views that are legal,and while offensive to many, approved of by many as well.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

62. If AFR

had a balanced format It would be one thing - Then there would be a choice - but there is not a single alternative -Unless you consider Sean Hannity an alternative.

This is paid for by you and me and every other tax payer. Ask yourself this, why isn't there liberal voices on AFR? Why are people who openly and aggressivly hope that our new president fails the only voices heard on AFR?

It is not a first amendment question at all. If it was a private radio station funded by advertising dollars, fine - have at it... Play the fucktard 24/7 --- But it is funded by TAX DOLLARS.

[onenote]

67. Isn't Ed Schultz on?

His website says he is.

And you have your first amendment jurisprudence totally backwards. If it was a private radio station, there would be no first amendment issue in whether they decided to carry rush's programmming or to drop it.

But when the government gets in the business of presenting speech, it has to be content neutral in its decision making. If there is a content neutral reason for dropping rush, then there's no issue. But just as it was wrong when the righties tried to dictate what could and couldn't be on PBS based on the content of teh programming, it would be suspect to try to ditch rush -- who by the objective measure of ratings is the most popular talk show in the country -- because of what he says.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

105. That is what I said

that if it is a private station I have no problem - I think you read my post incorrectly.

If Ed Schultz is on, I am happy for that - I have been out of touch with liberal radio since they pulled the plug on us in San Diego a year and a half ago - We have no liberal radio here any more. I can however listen to several inane sports stations and 24/7 rightwing shit. :crazy:

[GA_ArmyVet]

75. So are our pastors, and Rabbis and even a

Satanic Priests

if you can selectively choose not to send you tax dollars to programs you dont like
then the Right Wingers will argue that their tax dollar should not go to Abortion Procdures in our hospitals

You cant have selective freedoms or selectively removes rights of the soldiers unless it goes all around.

[hologram]

66. Spreading seditious ideas about the CinC

among the troops. No legitimate military organization would allow it as it can lead to morale and disciplinary problems as well as desertion.

[onenote]

69. Please give an example of "sedition" spread by rush

He's a tool. A big fat tool. But if what he did was spread sedition, then a lot of us that have protested the iraq war from day one are guilty of the same thing, I guess.

[hologram]

71. Not at all.

Harsh, well-deserved criticism is one thing.

Wishing FAILURE upon the Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces, and by implication the troops under his command, is quite another. It's no different than saying you wished FDR would fail (in his war against the Nazis or Japan or pulling the country out of the depression)--it implies the failure of him AND his troops/subordinates.

Planting those ideas in the minds of (relatively captive) U.S. troops under oath to obey the orders of their chain of command is yet another thing. It does not have to be tolerated and should not be.

[onenote]

76. even wishing failure is not sedition; second, its not what rush, for all is idiocy, did

Publicly expressing a hope that the President fails to accomplish his goals, whether those goals involve domestic policy or foreign policy, is not a crime, at least not today (and hopefully not ever). Once upon a time, in the early days of the nation, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts -- acts which do not represent a high point in our nation's history. Under the sedition act, which ultimately expired, it was a crime for anyone to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. Any attempt to reinstitute such a ridiculously broad prohibition would of a certainty be struck down as unconsititutional today.

The closest thing to a sedition law that remains on the books today is the Smith Act, which makes it illegal to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.

Whatever stupidity has spewed from rush's mouth as of late, it certainly falls far short of what is described in the Smith Act.

Finally, what limbbaugh said, at least from what I've read, since I don't listen to him, is that he wants Obama's policies to fail -- that he wants "liberalism" to fail. That is a far cry from advocating that our troops fail, just as those that characterized those on the left during Vietnam (or more recently during the iraq war) for not fully supporting -- for wanting us to leave without "victory" for example -- were somehow engaging in some sort of traitorous, seditious or otherwise unprotected speech. It was bullshit when the right said it and it is bullshit when it comes from the left.

Our troops listen to radio and read newspapers, books, mail, etc. that they receive from sources other than AFN. I doubt you are prepared to say that any criticism of the president -- and expression of less than full support for his policies and decisions -- should be banned. But if you are advocating the suppression of limbaugh's speech because the troops might hear it (and they are not a captive audience -- no one makes them listen to AFN at all, let alone to rush) then that's what you are, in effect, saying.

And as far as determinig what criticisim is "well deserved" -- I sure as hell don't want legal rights dependant on whether the government thinks that criticisim of the government is well deserved.

[hologram]

90. You're approaching this

from a civilian point of view as if military personnel have all the rights that you have as a civilian. They don't. The military command and its overseers have lots of ways of dealing with disruptive, demoralizing, or "seditious" influences (including advocating failure of the CinC) whether from within or without military ranks. I'm not so sure you understand what a controlled environment the military really is (and has to be).

[GA_ArmyVet]

133. I appreciate you concern for mind

but we are not even "relatively captive" as no one is force to listen to him. And when I have have heard him (tent mates do like him) I have not been miraculously converted to mindless drone.

SO thanks you for you concern for my mental well being but I choose to have all voices on the radio and let me and my fellow soldiers decide what we want to turn on.

[Zynx]

101. He spreads doubt as to the legitimacy of the president and undermines military support for our

policies. That's a serious problem.

[onenote]

119. bullshit

ITs no more of a serious problem than the eight years I spent questioning the legitimacy of chimpy's presidency, or the opoposition, also quite vocal here and elsewhere, challenging chimpy's decision to go to war, his conduct of the war, the surge, etc --- in other words, "our policies".

It wasn't a serious problem for me and millions of other to question and challenge chimpy. And its not a serious problem for some blowhard to challenge Obama's policies. My criticism didn't make chimpy's policies fail -- they failed on their own account. We simply pointed out what we saw and tried to get people to see it as well. Obama's policies hopefully will succeed based on their merits -- our support and sometimes our criticisms will help keep those policies on the right track. BUt they won't faail because rush spews about them to a million or two listeners a day.

[GA_ArmyVet]

136. Interesting thought

This site was not banned and it spread doubt about the legitmacy of the the Last POTUS. Additionally, I remember quite a few thread openly suggesting military members disobey order, refuse to enforce the policies of the last POTUS.

Not trying to get caught up in debate over the last POTUS's legitmacy, my point from it is that you should not ban what you dont like. We have not been banned. But if you ban the rights voice, then the lefts voice will be shortly there after. And then what was intended to be a morale boost for the troops becomes a political tool where the only information we can get is whatever the current Administration allows..that my friend is true propaganda and censorship.

[Major Hogwash]

70. I totally agree. Contact your Democratic representatives in Congress today.

Tell them we have had enough and to yank Rush off of AFR radio now.

His constant whining about Obama is just going to lower the morale of the troops serving overseas - he needs to be shitcanned immediately.

[onenote]

78. how do you feel about blocking troops access to the internet?

Should troops be able to access sites on the internet like DU where criticism of the decision to go to war have been expressed, where actions by the military have been questioned and condemened, where the president has been criticized in the most unforgiving terms? Should all mail and phone calls be censored to make sure no member of the military hears a disparaging word about the government and its policies? When our troops come home on leave, should we lock them away to avoid them hearing the criticisms that apparently you would allow be expressed within earshot of non-military persons -- or do you propose that everyone be required to never utter an unsupportive word about the government for fear of reducing morale?

[Junkdrawer]

83. You are a trip...

Denying Limbaugh the PRIVILEGE of being one of four talk show hosts beamed to the troops = blocking troops access to the Internet.

Once again:

"The troops" did not ask for Limbaugh. Bob Dornan said the troops had to get Limbaugh. "The troops" wanted more music.

...

Eleven years ago it was Republican members of Congress whose pressure put Limbaugh on American Forces Radio in the first place. In 1993, then Rep. Robert Dornan, R-Calif., along with 69 other Republican House members, sent a letter to President Clinton's first secretary of defense, Les Aspin, demanding that both Limbaugh's radio show and his syndicated television show (on which Limbaugh compared preteen Chelsea Clinton to a dog) be broadcast to the military. "Limbaugh has been called by his liberal critics 'the most dangerous man in America.' It appears the liberal leadership at the Pentagon agrees with that ridiculous assertion," Dornan wrote. "The bottom line is that the troops want Rush Limbaugh, and you should see to it that they at least have that opportunity."

The Pentagon responded by pointing to an internal survey of 50,000 military listeners that found that only 4 percent requested more long-format talk radio. Most respondents overwhelmingly requested continuous music. The Pentagon also said that Limbaugh's daily three-hour radio program would monopolize too much of the network's limited airtime.

Notably, on Nov. 29, 1993, American Forces Radio and Television Services issued this statement: "The Rush Limbaugh Show makes no pretense that his show is balanced. If AFRTS scheduled a program of personal commentary without balancing it with another viewpoint, we would be open to broad criticism that we are supporting a particular point of view."

...

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/26/rush_limbaugh/print.html

[onenote]

84. non responsive

If the complaint is that there is no demand for his programming, that's one thing.

But I was responding to the suggestion that what makes his presence on AFN objectionable is not the lack of demand, but the content -- specifically content that allegedly is lowering morale.

Also, for what its worth, do you know what percentage of the AFN audience wanted Ed Schultz, or NPR, or Tom JOyner before they were added? Do you know the percentage that wants them now (as opposed to, in teh case of limpbaugh, 15 years ago?)

And do you know what AFN's stated programming mission is? Its to reflect what is available stateside. And rush, as odious as he is, is pretty reflective of what is available stateside, given that he's the number one talk radio show. I wish that wasn't the case and one day it won't and there will be reason for shitcanning him. But not agreeing with him, or posturing that he's harming morale, is a particularly bad reason for wanting him off unless you're prepared to have the same thing happen in the future when a president or Congress does something you don't like and you don't think our forces can handle hearing criticism of their government.

[Orsino]

77. Because his working to destroy the Constitution doesn't quite fit the programming? n/t

[jmondine]

81. Obama is commander in chief of the Armed Forces, and Limbaugh wants him to fail

He has therefore advocated the failure of the U.S. military and is a traitor.

[GA_ArmyVet]

87. One question

are you now or have you ever served in the Armed Forces?

[TWiley]

113. one answer ..... go fuck yourself

who gives a shit that you served in the armed forces, and why is that a pre-requisite to this discussion? If you have not noticed, there is civil authority over the military

[GA_ArmyVet]

116. I was curious because I wanted to understand your basis of

understanding of how AFRTS operates. It is fairly clear from the tone of your response that you a bit defensive and unable to form thoughtful, reasoned responses to the simplest of questions.

I am well aware that the military is subordinate to civil authority, I pointed it out in one of the post in the "take whoever off AFRTS" threads, it is quite clear in our regulations. That does not mean however as an individual I can not question you. Nor do I recognize you as a Civil Authority, in fact I am quite sure you were not civil in your response. Perhaps, you are unaware of the meaning.

I assumed since you posted on a discussion board you were interested in discussion, my mistake for making an assumption. It appears however you are offended by anyone that disagrees or questions your opinion and based on your post I can only assume you would like for me to be censored as well.

So thank you for your opinion and I will have mine.

[TWiley]

121. Well, instead of taking that tone ...

Why not simply state the question, or simply state your comment? So, what the fuck does this mean, and what does it have to do with Limbaugh on AFRTS?

Quote: I am well aware that the military is subordinate to civil authority, I pointed it out in one of the post in the "take whoever off AFRTS" threads, it is quite clear in our regulations. That does not mean however as an individual I can not question you. Nor do I recognize you as a Civil Authority, in fact I am quite sure you were not civil in your response. Perhaps, you are unaware of the meaning." End Quote

So, you are well aware of something you cannot explain? If you have a comment, simply make it. Skip the "worship me horseshit" because I signed up and got paid $$ to do my job crap.

[GA_ArmyVet]

132. I did not start the tone. I asked a question

You responded with a "fuck You", to which I responded.

I did not asked to be worshipped.

You appear to have a chip on you shoulder and you replies are nonsensical.

Therefore, I will not respond to you further, as it is apparent you simply wish to avoid discussion and have your opinions a face value without question.

Good night and have a nice life.

[Clear Blue Sky]

92. Here is the Armed Forces Radio schedule

http://www.afneurope.net/DynamicMenu/Radio/AFNPowerNetworkSchedule/tabid/702/Default.aspx

Limbaugh gets only one hour a day. So does Ed Schultz. NPR gets 6 hours a day.

I don't think we have much to complain about. Besides, the soldiers should get to listen to whatever they want.

[TWiley]

112. Comparing Limbaugh to NPR? Holy shit

first of all, Limbaugh is a liar. Acually, he is worse. He is a radical propagandist. He gets away with it because he calls his show "entertainment"

You are comparing lemonaid in the park to a brutal rape and murder in the park. Oh they have to be the same because both are in the park !!!

[CitizenPatriot]

129. couldn't agree more

wrote an essay (unintentionally) about it upthread.

False equivalencies -- proven by independent media studies.

NPR is hardly Rush Limbaugh. Come the fuck on. NPR uses facts.

This is a right wing talking point that I've had to debunk quite a few times with my friends in the military. Another reason why this is such an issue, frankly -- esp at the higher levels, where people are making decisions that impact this nation. Yes, I'd like them to be informed.

[iamthebandfanman]

93. i think he should be removed because...

hes irrational , egotistical, and full of rage.
all three combined tend to be a lil dangerous in my opinion...
my sense is that he would do and or say anything in an attempt to glorify himself to the people who actually like him.
i keep waiting on him to flee to a compound in the woods somewhere, stock full of guns and ammo.
the guy is on the edge of insanity, and drug abuse is only to keep it in check.

[marshall]

122. What do the soldiers want?

Is there any poll of what they want to listen to? Are ratings taken into account (if they are recorded)?
Ultimately it's all about ratings and what the people in the field want to listen to.

[Egalitariat]

135. I think AFR programming should reflect the troops' wishes

If they don't want Rush, then kick him off. If they do want him, so be it.

We're going to legislate him off all the airways anyways, so it won't matter at all at that point.