Denounced By an Idiot

[100meters]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY= [/quote]

“The next day, September 28, Limbaugh used his program to explain the �??phony soldiers�?? remark at some length. As part of that explanation, he played a tape of the original September 26 program. He cut some extraneous material out �?? �??for space and relevance reasons, not to hide anything,�?? he told me �?? and then found himself again under attack from Media Matters for �??selectively edit[ing]�?? the clip. Media Matters did not claim that Limbaugh had cut anything substantive out �?? he did not �?? and in fact his cuts were similar to the cuts Media Matters itself made when it published an edited version of the transcript of Limbaugh�??s original broadcast. But it was one more dart to throw at Limbaugh.”

Of course on his show he didn’t tell listeners there was a two minute gap, and instead lied and said he was playing the tape in context, “the whole transcript”, so yeah limbaugh’s a shameless liar, and of course York could have informed readers, but naturally doesn’t respect readers intelligence.

Neither I’m sure will apologize to Media Matters…

At least its reassuring that both York and Limbaugh realize it might be wrong to call soldiers (decorated even) phony—otherwise why lie about it now?

[100meters]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Magnate wrote:
As I understand it he did not reference that specific soldier for a few minutes after making the “phony soldier” comments. So was he addressing the “phony soldier” comment directly at that soldier, or more towards all soldiers that disagree with the war?

Its obvious to any one listening what he meant.

Rush says that you have to listen to him for at least 6 weeks before what he says makes sense. Before then, he sounds like how the libs portray him.

If you are a short-term thinker and unable to think using concepts, listening to him will be a mystery. Since libs think that way, they don’t understand him.

[/quote]
6 weeks for lies to become truth?
I’ve listened for laughs for years, but still know he’s a shameless liar who openly scorns his listeners intelligence. His books are great laughs too.

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=

100meters wrote:
“The next day, September 28, Limbaugh used his program to explain the �??phony soldiers�?? remark at some length. As part of that explanation, he played a tape of the original September 26 program. He cut some extraneous material out �?? �??for space and relevance reasons, not to hide anything,�?? he told me �?? and then found himself again under attack from Media Matters for �??selectively edit[ing]�?? the clip. Media Matters did not claim that Limbaugh had cut anything substantive out �?? he did not �?? and in fact his cuts were similar to the cuts Media Matters itself made when it published an edited version of the transcript of Limbaugh�??s original broadcast. But it was one more dart to throw at Limbaugh.”

Of course on his show he didn’t tell listeners there was a two minute gap, and instead lied and said he was playing the tape in context, “the whole transcript”, so yeah limbaugh’s a shameless liar, and of course York could have informed readers, but naturally doesn’t respect readers intelligence.

Neither I’m sure will apologize to Media Matters…

At least its reassuring that both York and Limbaugh realize it might be wrong to call soldiers (decorated even) phony—otherwise why lie about it now?

Are you saying there was relevant information in what was removed?

[100meters]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=

100meters wrote:
“The next day, September 28, Limbaugh used his program to explain the �??phony soldiers�?? remark at some length. As part of that explanation, he played a tape of the original September 26 program. He cut some extraneous material out �?? �??for space and relevance reasons, not to hide anything,�?? he told me �?? and then found himself again under attack from Media Matters for �??selectively edit[ing]�?? the clip. Media Matters did not claim that Limbaugh had cut anything substantive out �?? he did not �?? and in fact his cuts were similar to the cuts Media Matters itself made when it published an edited version of the transcript of Limbaugh�??s original broadcast. But it was one more dart to throw at Limbaugh.”

Of course on his show he didn’t tell listeners there was a two minute gap, and instead lied and said he was playing the tape in context, “the whole transcript”, so yeah limbaugh’s a shameless liar, and of course York could have informed readers, but naturally doesn’t respect readers intelligence.

Neither I’m sure will apologize to Media Matters…

At least its reassuring that both York and Limbaugh realize it might be wrong to call soldiers (decorated even) phony—otherwise why lie about it now?

Are you saying there was relevant information in what was removed?[/quote]

The relevant information is the duration… In other words, editing the “whole transcript” to remove the 1 minute 50 second gap between “phony soldiers” and the first mention of Macbeth’s name is badly misleading (deliberate). Telling your listeners that this is the whole transcript in context is obviously lying, and then to go on and slander Media Matters as misleading the left while he misleads his listeners…

Note: the transcript on his site is now edited in addition to the audio he plays.

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=

100meters wrote:
“The next day, September 28, Limbaugh used his program to explain the �??phony soldiers�?? remark at some length. As part of that explanation, he played a tape of the original September 26 program. He cut some extraneous material out �?? �??for space and relevance reasons, not to hide anything,�?? he told me �?? and then found himself again under attack from Media Matters for �??selectively edit[ing]�?? the clip. Media Matters did not claim that Limbaugh had cut anything substantive out �?? he did not �?? and in fact his cuts were similar to the cuts Media Matters itself made when it published an edited version of the transcript of Limbaugh�??s original broadcast. But it was one more dart to throw at Limbaugh.”

Of course on his show he didn’t tell listeners there was a two minute gap, and instead lied and said he was playing the tape in context, “the whole transcript”, so yeah limbaugh’s a shameless liar, and of course York could have informed readers, but naturally doesn’t respect readers intelligence.

Neither I’m sure will apologize to Media Matters…

At least its reassuring that both York and Limbaugh realize it might be wrong to call soldiers (decorated even) phony—otherwise why lie about it now?

BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you saying there was relevant information in what was removed?

100meters wrote:
The relevant information is the duration… In other words, editing the “whole transcript” to remove the 1 minute 50 second gap between “phony soldiers” and the first mention of Macbeth’s name is badly misleading (deliberate). Telling your listeners that this is the whole transcript in context is obviously lying, and then to go on and slander Media Matters as misleading the left while he misleads his listeners…

Note: the transcript on his site is now edited in addition to the audio he plays.

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

[Sloth]

Why are the Dems upset Rush used Macbeth as an example of a Phony Soldier? Are they defending Macbeth? And, didn’t ABC do a story (I believe only 2 days earlier) in which they used the phrase “Phony Soldiers?” Didn’t that story also mention Macbeth? I’ll double check that later, but I’m pretty sure they used the exact same phrase and context as rush.

You want to know the scary part about all this, in my mind? The Dems realize media matters screwed up on this. They realize Limbaugh was speaking very specifically about guys like Macbeth (after all, Macbeth was the example given). It doesn’t matter to them though. Congressmen are knowingly using a lie to smear a citizen.

[John_S1]

I’m sorry to go off topic here but could someone tell me about this phoney soldier, I am interested to hear why he washed out of basic, and what do you mean was lying about being a ranger?

[Sloth]

[quote]John S. wrote:
I’m sorry to go off topic here but could someone tell me about this phoney soldier, I am interested to hear why he washed out of basic, and what do you mean was lying about being a ranger?[/quote]

Here you go John S. This clip on ABC discusses none other than…wait for it…PHONY SOLDIERS and Macbeth! In it you’ll see mention of Macbeth and exactly what it was he did. This is the guy Limbaugh went on to discuss as being a phony soldier. Yep, the same exact guy ABC reported as being a phony. Oh, and one interesting tidbit. This clip, yeah, it appeared on ABC two days PRIOR to Rush’s comments. Any resolution against ABC in the works Senators?

Now, here’s the kicker, the democrats in congress know this. This information has been disseminated to their offices by Rush supporters. See, if I understand correctly, Media Matters at first only reported Rush using the phrase “Phony soldiers.” Again, my understanding is that they never even mentioned that Rush went on to discuss Macbeth as a phony soldier.

There is no way the Democrats in congress haven’t been made aware of this by now. That’s impossible to believe. At this point they are knowingly marching on with a proven lie, hoping that most people won’t go looking for the other side of the story. Congressmen using the influential power of their government positions to smear a private citizen with a lie. Wow, and dems complain about Rush? At least he isn’t an elected representative. Scary stuff.

Oh, and I have never visited this site before, so don’t hold me responsible for anything on it. It just happens to be right up at the top on the Google list, and provides an actual clip of the ABC footage.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/09/rush-limbaugh-phony-soldiers-flap-abc.html

[100meters]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

[/quote]

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s:

[Sloth]

[quote]100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s: [/quote]

100 meters, ok, so you admit that 2 minutes isn’t the gotcha. You’re saying that the phrase “Phony Soldiers” is the gotcha. Now, who did Rush use as an example of the “Phony Soldier?”

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
…
I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to … [/quote]

A PHONY SOLDIER!!!

[100meters]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why are the Dems upset Rush used Macbeth as an example of a Phony Soldier? Are they defending Macbeth? And, didn’t ABC do a story (I believe only 2 days earlier) in which they used the phrase “Phony Soldiers?” Didn’t that story also mention Macbeth? I’ll double check that later, but I’m pretty sure they used the exact same phrase and context as rush.

You want to know the scary part about all this, in my mind? The Dems realize media matters screwed up on this. They realize Limbaugh was speaking very specifically about guys like Macbeth (after all, Macbeth was the example given). It doesn’t matter to them though. Congressmen are knowingly using a lie to smear a citizen. [/quote]

Media Matters screwed up by quoting him?

Uhhh…Dems aren’t upset Rush used Macbeth as an example of a phony soldier, this actual issue is calling phony the “soldiers” that speak out against the war. And very obviously he wasn’t speaking “specifically about guys like Macbeth”, I mean he’s railing initially against a republican soldier who called in to say we should leave Iraq , then has the next caller who says

"No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

Rush: “the phony soldiers”

Guy on the phone:“The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they’re willing to sacrifice for their country.”

Then 2 minutes later he gets to:

"Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta – let me see – got something – here is a “Morning Update” that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities.

One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a “corporal,” I say in quotes – 23 years old.

Note that MacBeth was an example of a “fake soldier”.
Phony soldiers referred to those soldiers speaking out against the war to the media. It has also been used by him to describe Kerry, and Murtha.

So it’s realllllllllyyyyyyy stretching(factually incorrect) to say they’re (congressmen) using a lie to slander him(rush) when factually Rush is using a lie(“phony soldiers”=only macbeth) to slander Media Matters

Again I don’t care, just had to point out you are totally wrong ( as you can clearly see now right?)

[100meters]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s:

100 meters, ok, so you admit that 2 minutes isn’t the gotcha. You’re saying that the phrase “Phony Soldiers” is the gotcha. Now, who did Rush use as an example of the “Phony Soldier?” [/quote]

So I admit…? so dramatic I feel like I’m on Law and Order or something…
but to answer…“phony soldiers” (the actual comment—you clearly want to keep saying “phony soldier”, but the actual issue is the “PHONY SOLDIERS” which factually was the response to:

Caller:"No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

See now?

[100meters]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to …

A PHONY SOLDIER!!![/quote]

Again clearly the soldiers speaking our against the war the caller referred to weren’t phony soldiers(fake soldiers) nor was the previous caller who was a soldier speaking out against the war, which the second caller was responding too.

Jeebus, you guys aren’t real quick today.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

100meters wrote:

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s: [/quote]

So then you’re not disputing his claim that he was referencing the likes of Macbeth with the comment then?

ADDENDUM:

OK, I saw your post above, which hadn’t hit yet when I originally posted.

The context of the entire show, the previous day’s taping and the topic were the relevant contexts for the comment. Limbaugh’s focus had been on the individuals lying about their military records and claiming to be war heroes protesting the war.

[Sloth]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s:

100 meters, ok, so you admit that 2 minutes isn’t the gotcha. You’re saying that the phrase “Phony Soldiers” is the gotcha. Now, who did Rush use as an example of the “Phony Soldier?”

So I admit…? so dramatic I feel like I’m on Law and Order or something…
but to answer…“phony soldiers” (the actual comment—you clearly want to keep saying “phony soldier”, but the actual issue is the “PHONY SOLDIERS” which factually was the response to:

Caller:"No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

See now?[/quote]

Once more. Who did Rush use as the example of a Phony Soldier? Did this Phony soldier talk to media? Did ABC do a feature on Phony soldiers and Heroes 2 days prior? Did they mention the same exact guy Rush used as an example? Can you answer directly?

[John_S1]

Alright that shit pisses me off, This guy quits the army, and then try’s to say he’s a veteran… what’s this world coming too.

[Sloth]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s:

100 meters, ok, so you admit that 2 minutes isn’t the gotcha. You’re saying that the phrase “Phony Soldiers” is the gotcha. Now, who did Rush use as an example of the “Phony Soldier?”

So I admit…? so dramatic I feel like I’m on Law and Order or something…
but to answer…“phony soldiers” (the actual comment—you clearly want to keep saying “phony soldier”, but the actual issue is the “PHONY SOLDIERS” which factually was the response to:

Caller:"No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

See now?[/quote]

And to be clear. I’m not trying to ignore the “Phony Soldiers” and pass it off as he only said “Phony Soldier.” After all, there is a real problem with “Phony Soldiers,” as in the plural.

Some of these Phony Soldiers have made there way into the Anti-war movement. Watch the ABC clip I provided, presented two days prior, which used Macbeth as an example of just such a thing.

The only reason I’ve continued to repeat “Phony Soldier,” the singular, is because Rush only used one soldier as an example of being phony. Macbeth…

Look, at this point, I’m convinced you don’t actually believe this charge leveled at him. Why? Because the only example of a phony soldier that Rush has given, was actually a phony soldier. And you know this. You know what would be cool? For you to admit that Media Matters and the Dems screwed up.

[Sloth]

[quote]John S. wrote:
Alright that shit pisses me off, This guy quits the army, and then try’s to say he’s a veteran… what’s this world coming too.[/quote]

Yep. This is a guy that claimed he and his fellow soldiers were routinely hanging Iraqis and slaughtering women and children. As he confessed later, he was never in Iraq. He duped certain media, and many in the Anti-war movement.

It’s mind boggling. It really is. This is the sort of thing Democrats should be able to agree with Rush on. That is, make sure your soldier is actually a soldier. But instead, they’ve tried to turn this whole thing into something it wasn’t. When Rush went into discussion on who a Phony Soldier was, it was a phony soldier. Period. End of story.

[100meters]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Was there something in that almost 2 minutes of material that would indicate he wasn’t referencing Macbeth? Particularly given the amount of attention that had been paid to Macbeth during the week on the show, and the fact that he did, in fact, mention Macbeth within 2 minutes of the interaction with the caller in which the he uttered the phrase “fake soldiers.” Mind you, not two minutes after the end of the caller’s speaking, but two minutes from that point in the middle of the call.

I’ve read the argument that two minutes is “an eternity” of airtime, and I’m not convinced at all. It was the middle of a segment, not a correction after a break. It was one train of thought, one topic – and the idea seemed to flow naturally, not be a correction or a whoops moment.

In general, there’s no “there” there. The “gotcha” that he edited the tape to make himself sound even better doesn’t prove the original accusation.

I’m not saying the 2 minutes is the gotcha? I mean the gotcha I guess would be his comment “phony soldiers” which referred to the caller’s:

100 meters, ok, so you admit that 2 minutes isn’t the gotcha. You’re saying that the phrase “Phony Soldiers” is the gotcha. Now, who did Rush use as an example of the “Phony Soldier?”

So I admit…? so dramatic I feel like I’m on Law and Order or something…
but to answer…“phony soldiers” (the actual comment—you clearly want to keep saying “phony soldier”, but the actual issue is the “PHONY SOLDIERS” which factually was the response to:

Caller:"No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

See now?

Once more. Who did Rush use as the example of a Phony Soldier? Did this Phony soldier talk to media? Did ABC do a feature on Phony soldiers and Heroes 2 days prior? Did they mention the same exact guy Rush used as an example? Can you answer directly?
[/quote]

I answered directly with quotes.
Rush didn’t use macbeth as example of a 'phony soldiers" immediatedly after the 2 callers instead he said “fake soldier”—but I’ll admit later he did use him as an example of a phony soldlier, along with Murtha and Beauchamp:

"How about this guy Scott Thomas who was writing fraudulent, phony things in The New Republic about atrocities he saw that never happened? How about Jack Murtha blanketly accepting the notion that Marines at Haditha engaged in wanton murder of innocent children and civilians? "

but that only goes to make my case, that phony is a blanket statement covering those speaking out against anything Rush currently believes in.

Are Murtha and Beauchamp actual FAKE soldiers? I didn’t think so either.
Was the second caller really referring to actual FAKE soldiers? Doesn’t seem like it.
Was the first caller talking about FAKE soldiers? uhh…no. He was a soldier speaking out against the war…EXACTLY what the second caller was dissing.