Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Education Dept. paid commentator to promote; No Child Left Behind Law
Topic Started: Jan 8 2005, 11:24 PM (545 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ANOVA
Jan 9 2005, 01:07 PM
Dwayne:

Everyone involved was wrong.
When major corporations hire a spokesperson (usually a sprots prsonality) there is an announcement or kickoff for the market drive.

When the government has gone to spokes people in the past, they have used them in commercials.

The marketying campaign lacks ethics, the government lacked proper oversight and the spokesperson lacked moral courage.

Like I said, if this had occurred under Clinton's watch you'd be building a bonfire and hunting for witches.

A proper investigation is in order. My tax dollars were wasted.

ANOVA
if its such a "non issue" why are you still whining about it?

Setting your normal Anova bombast aside, the only thing I can see that's blatantly wrong is that Armstrong Williams did not reveal to producers and others that he was paid to tout the merits of the NCLB program.

And your blanket accusation that your "tax dollars were wasted" is specious. Mr. Williams didn't take the money and then not speak in favor of the NCLB program and the simple fact Mr. Williams never revealed he was being paid to speak in favor of this program does not detract from the program itself.

And Mr. Williams is speaking honestly about this issue, and as far as I can tell, is not denying anything, admits he was in the wrong, and does not seek to blame others, therefor your charge that Mr. Williams "lacked moral courage" is also specious.

And I really don't give a flying FU@K what you think my reaction would have been had this been Mr. Clinton. The fact is, you've never seen me speak ill of Mr. or Mrs. Clinton and have no concrete examples in which to use to as a basis for your comments. You're simply trying to goad me into a pointless argument.

Minuet
Jan 9 2005, 01:15 PM
I'm not sure if there is government wrongdoing here, but if the government is ethical they will fire the PR firm and never use them again. And if the stations running the man's programs are ethical they will boot him off the air.

I pretty much agree with you here Minuet.

Damn you Canadians! You sneak in a start being agreable just when I was ready to declare war against you! ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^We Canadians can see both sides of the coin and pick the best on a non partisan basis (polititicians excluded :P )

That's what makes this the greatest country in the world ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Jan 9 2005, 02:57 PM
That's what makes this the greatest country in the world ;)

The greatest ice skating rink? Probably, but nation? NEVER!!! :D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Jan 9 2005, 12:51 PM
^^^
And if that's the case, isn't Williams the one in the wrong here?

Nothing .... NOTHING Williams has said suggests a condition of him taking the money was that he remain silent about that money.

So what you've suggested is that so far we haven't heard real evidence that the Bush administration has done wrong. And I agree. However, you're awefully quick to conclude that Williams is the only one in the wrong. (Now I realize I put the word "only" in there, but if that isn't what you meant I really don't see the point in your statement at all.) The story just broke. I would rephrase your statement as "Williams is in the wrong. Although there may be others, the jury is still out."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I am disappointed that Armstrong Williams was not more open about this, but I'm not outraged.

Nor was I outraged when the Clinton Administration contracted with Stan Greenburg and Associates to poll such things as "where to go on vacation that voters would best approve of."

This is no big deal.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ANOVA
Jan 9 2005, 12:33 PM
Its the difference between an advertisement and a news piece. If I try yo dress up the former as the latter I'm being intellectually dishonest. That's what occurred in this case.

Williams isn’t a news man, he is a conservative mouth peace - the disclaimer comes from the every essence of what he is. No one should expect the news form such a man they should expect conservative advertisement.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Dwayne
Jan 9 2005, 10:50 AM
that will certainly result in some new ethics rule that will only apply to republicans and not democrats.

Considering this is a Republican Administration, if any discrimination in implementing the said rules takes place (which would be illegal I might add) it will probably be the other way around. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Intrepid2002
Jan 9 2005, 01:00 AM
Lot's of "IF's" in the story 24. I think Trent Duffy's statement that the "White House is not involved in departments' contracts" pretty much covers the BushCo's rear end IF IF IF IF they were involved at all.

Yeah, I don't doubt the President's butt has been covered with Teflon by now to ensure that this <is it too early to call this a scandal? :lol: > doesn't make Bush look bad.

That is the nature of politics though. All Presidents have people from the average supporter to the Chief of Staff who will rally around to deflect negativity from the president.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
ANOVA
Jan 9 2005, 01:07 PM
A proper investigation is in order.

Couldn't agree with you more ANOVA.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^

Agreeing with my typical ANOVA bombast?!

This was handled poorly from the start, by all participants.

Dante:

If Donna Shalala had hired a PR firm to push the Clinton HealthCare measure and Al Frankin had been hired as the mouthpiece I'd be want to know why my money was being spent in such a way. And why a loack of prorper disclosure.

Not a bambastic tirade as some would whine, but a demend from my government to use my tax money in a frugal manner without the appearance of impropriety.

ANOVA
silver medalist in typical bambasts
gold went to Dwayne many threads ago. Say, the battle of the bulge bombast.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
ANOVA
Jan 9 2005, 06:43 PM
^^^

Agreeing with my typical ANOVA bombast?!

Yes, and damn proud of it. No matter how much of a pariah it makes me on this board for having done so. ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
Jan 9 2005, 04:22 PM
Dwayne
Jan 9 2005, 12:51 PM
^^^
And if that's the case, isn't Williams the one in the wrong here?

Nothing .... NOTHING Williams has said suggests a condition of him taking the money was that he remain silent about that money.

So what you've suggested is that so far we haven't heard real evidence that the Bush administration has done wrong. And I agree. However, you're awefully quick to conclude that Williams is the only one in the wrong. (Now I realize I put the word "only" in there, but if that isn't what you meant I really don't see the point in your statement at all.) The story just broke. I would rephrase your statement as "Williams is in the wrong. Although there may be others, the jury is still out."

I have no need to rephase my statement, but you need to not put words in my mouth.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
24thcenstfan
Jan 9 2005, 06:14 PM
Intrepid2002
Jan 9 2005, 01:00 AM
Lot's of "IF's" in the story 24.  I think Trent Duffy's statement that the "White House is not involved in departments' contracts" pretty much covers the BushCo's rear end IF IF IF IF they were involved at all.

Yeah, I don't doubt the President's butt has been covered with Teflon by now to ensure that this <is it too early to call this a scandal? :lol: > doesn't make Bush look bad.

That is the nature of politics though. All Presidents have people from the average supporter to the Chief of Staff who will rally around to deflect negativity from the president.

None of this is negative ... it's just another example of how low Bush Bashers will stoop in an effort to score political points.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
24thcenstfan
Jan 9 2005, 06:58 PM
ANOVA
Jan 9 2005, 06:43 PM
^^^

Agreeing with my typical ANOVA bombast?!

Yes, and damn proud of it. No matter how much of a pariah it makes me on this board for having done so. ;)

And Dwayne agreed with my comments :wow:

Is there a full moon out today? :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Jan 9 2005, 08:33 PM
24thcenstfan
Jan 9 2005, 06:14 PM
Intrepid2002
Jan 9 2005, 01:00 AM
Lot's of "IF's" in the story 24.  I think Trent Duffy's statement that the "White House is not involved in departments' contracts" pretty much covers the BushCo's rear end IF IF IF IF they were involved at all.

Yeah, I don't doubt the President's butt has been covered with Teflon by now to ensure that this <is it too early to call this a scandal? :lol: > doesn't make Bush look bad.

That is the nature of politics though. All Presidents have people from the average supporter to the Chief of Staff who will rally around to deflect negativity from the president.

None of this is negative ... it's just another example of how low Bush Bashers will stoop in an effort to score political points.

Dwayne - I don't understand your comments here.

Where is anyone "Bush bashing"? Is it now "Bush bashing" to say that this president's supporters are acting in a manner typical of the supporters of past presidents?

I think it is you trying to score political points. You have actually proved an excellent example of what 24 was trying to say.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus