Armed Forces Radio will only let Limbaugh talk to the troops.

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals? :roll:
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?


Anyway, it's always fun to see how liberals get riled up at the mere mention of Rush.:laugh:

uhmm, because it was prevented...

That doesn't answer my question. Try again.

"And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?"

I edited my post.
It was said by many press released that Ed was to be on Armed forces radio. It was not jumping the gun.

[/quote]

Actually it seems they did jump the gun.

Late last month, Manny Levy, chief of the radio division for Armed Forces Network, told Schultz's distributor, Jones Radio, by e-mail: "AFN Radio has squared away everything on our end to begin carrying the first hour of 'The Ed Schultz Show' each day, beginning Monday, October 17, 2005."

Levy added: "I'm sorry that there were so many panicked, 'I need an answer soon' calls, false starts and unexpected delays on our end. An awful lot of people in the government had (or tried to have) a hand in [the] program selection process that ended with the decision to add 'The Ed Schultz Show.' "

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said last night that Levy "got ahead of the process" and that no decision had been made in a review of which programming to add to the network.

From a link in the OP

Now are you going to answer my question?

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals? :roll:
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?


Anyway, it's always fun to see how liberals get riled up at the mere mention of Rush.:laugh:

uhmm, because it was prevented...

That doesn't answer my question. Try again.

"And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?
How about a more reasonable answer to the Ed Schultz issue, like someone jumping the gun and saying things were going to happen before it was finalized?"

I edited my post.
It was said by many press released that Ed was to be on Armed forces radio. It was not jumping the gun.

Actually it seems they did jump the gun.

Late last month, Manny Levy, chief of the radio division for Armed Forces Network, told Schultz's distributor, Jones Radio, by e-mail: "AFN Radio has squared away everything on our end to begin carrying the first hour of 'The Ed Schultz Show' each day, beginning Monday, October 17, 2005."

Levy added: "I'm sorry that there were so many panicked, 'I need an answer soon' calls, false starts and unexpected delays on our end. An awful lot of people in the government had (or tried to have) a hand in [the] program selection process that ended with the decision to add 'The Ed Schultz Show.' "

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said last night that Levy "got ahead of the process" and that no decision had been made in a review of which programming to add to the network.

From a link in the OP

Now are you going to answer my question?[/quote]

Does it really matter? You have your mind made up and so do I. Neither of us will change each others view.
This is about our tax dollars paying for partisan-ship. If I'm paying for Rush to be on the air for our troops then I want someone like Ed to also be aired also. If they don't want Ed to be aired then take Rush off. It's pretty simple math.

 

[dahunan]

Truth is.. Rush probably should be in prison for his heavy drug abuse and purchasing habits - unless he is a hypocrite?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled
Does it really matter? You have your mind made up and so do I. Neither of us will change each others view.
This is about our tax dollars paying for partisan-ship. If I'm paying for Rush to be on the air for our troops then I want someone like Ed to also be aired also. If they don't want Ed to be aired then take Rush off. It's pretty simple math.

You still didn't answer my question about why you think "they" are "preventing" it.

But sure, if you want to make this about taxpayer money. I don't want my tax money to be spent airing NPR unless they air FOX news.:roll: Especially since we already foot the bill for NPR over here.

 

[aircooled]

Lets break this down:

Rush: Right wing extremest = Ok for our tax dollars to pay for being on Armed Forces Radio.

Ed: Moderate left winger = No way we can put him on Armed Forces Radio.

What is wrong with this scenario?

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
Does it really matter? You have your mind made up and so do I. Neither of us will change each others view.
This is about our tax dollars paying for partisan-ship. If I'm paying for Rush to be on the air for our troops then I want someone like Ed to also be aired also. If they don't want Ed to be aired then take Rush off. It's pretty simple math.

You still didn't answer my question about why you think "they" are "preventing" it.

But sure, if you want to make this about taxpayer money. I don't want my tax money to be spent airing NPR unless they air FOX news.:roll: Especially since we already foot the bill for NPR over here.

"They" said no to Ed's show which compares/competes to Rush's show, You really compare NPR to Rush or Ed??

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled
Lets break this down:

Rush: Right wing extremest = Ok for our tax dollars to pay for being on Armed Forces Radio.

Ed: Moderate left winger = No way we can put him on Armed Forces Radio.

What is wrong with this scenario?

So you are saying he isn't on AFRTS because he is a "left winger"? Have anything to back that up?

Answer the question: "And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?"

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
Lets break this down:

Rush: Right wing extremest = Ok for our tax dollars to pay for being on Armed Forces Radio.

Ed: Moderate left winger = No way we can put him on Armed Forces Radio.

What is wrong with this scenario?

So you are saying he isn't on AFRTS because he is a "left winger"? Have anything to back that up?

Answer the question: "And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?"

Yes

Now you answer why they wont let someone left of Rush air on Armed forces radio...

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
Does it really matter? You have your mind made up and so do I. Neither of us will change each others view.
This is about our tax dollars paying for partisan-ship. If I'm paying for Rush to be on the air for our troops then I want someone like Ed to also be aired also. If they don't want Ed to be aired then take Rush off. It's pretty simple math.

You still didn't answer my question about why you think "they" are "preventing" it.

But sure, if you want to make this about taxpayer money. I don't want my tax money to be spent airing NPR unless they air FOX news.:roll: Especially since we already foot the bill for NPR over here.

"They" said no to Ed's show which compares/competes to Rush's show, You really compare NPR to Rush or Ed??

No, I compared NPR to FOX news.

Again, WHY do you think "they" said no to adding Ed's show? Conspiracy?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
Lets break this down:

Rush: Right wing extremest = Ok for our tax dollars to pay for being on Armed Forces Radio.

Ed: Moderate left winger = No way we can put him on Armed Forces Radio.

What is wrong with this scenario?

So you are saying he isn't on AFRTS because he is a "left winger"? Have anything to back that up?

Answer the question: "And why do you think it "seems like it is being prevented"? Conspiracy against liberals?"

Yes

Now you answer why they wont let someone left of Rush air on Armed forces radio...

I didn't make the claim that they won't let someone on the network, that was your charge. You haven't offered any explaination of why you think that, unless you are saying it is a conspiracy but where is your evidence of that?

 

[aircooled]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: aircooled
Does it really matter? You have your mind made up and so do I. Neither of us will change each others view.
This is about our tax dollars paying for partisan-ship. If I'm paying for Rush to be on the air for our troops then I want someone like Ed to also be aired also. If they don't want Ed to be aired then take Rush off. It's pretty simple math.

You still didn't answer my question about why you think "they" are "preventing" it.

But sure, if you want to make this about taxpayer money. I don't want my tax money to be spent airing NPR unless they air FOX news.:roll: Especially since we already foot the bill for NPR over here.

"They" said no to Ed's show which compares/competes to Rush's show, You really compare NPR to Rush or Ed??

No, I compared NPR to FOX news.

Again, WHY do you think "they" said no to adding Ed's show? Conspiracy?

Maybe "they" should give us a reason:

"Armed Forces Radio notified us that we were supposed to start on (Monday)," said Schultz, who broadcasts from Fargo, N.D. "Then my producer got a call from Allison Barber at 6 a.m. saying it's not going to happen. I don't know now if it's ever going to happen. They never gave us a reason."

 

[irwincur]

That's all fine and dandy in the private sector. This is taxpayer funded. It shouldn't be deliberately discrimatory.

But I guess you don't mind that NPR is a crap a$$ leftist circle jerk...

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
This is the second Rush thread here, is he getting your panties in a bind?:laugh:

Did any of you realize that the total of 5 hours per week of Rush(one hour a day) is less than 1% of the weekly programming aired on AFRTS?

Holy crap, that's 5 hours too much. Says nothing about the balance issue

Does anyone know how they pick the shows they air?

OMG!!!!!!! NPR is on AFRTS? Get Harkin on the phone - STAT!

You people are great entertainment.:laugh:

NPR is a neutral news source, which Repubs are trying to use as a Republican mouthpiece.

You may not like Rush( I don't listen to him either) but who are you to say AFRTS shouldn't have him on the air when he is one of the most requested programs by soldiers?

I am a taxpayer who pays for AFRTS.

As to your NPR comment, I am sure you believe that NPR is "neutral". Some of us disagree. Should we be able to have our Senator play politics and grandstand on the Senate floor about NPR having too much air time on AFRTS?

Rove has already been implicated in controlling the way NPR works. Repubs are trying to turn it conservative.