Williams shouldn't have accepted that money, you're right. But this is the GOVERNMENT we're talking about. They never should have been offering him that money in the first place.Originally Posted by Chip R
I find it much more appalling that the government is pushing propaganda in this manner than I do this columnist accepting money.
only the french
All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.
But the point of my story was that you should expect the government to do something like that. They are trying to get elected/re-elected any way they can and if paying off a columnist is a way to achieve that goal then they are going to do it. If they lose, nobody cares. If they win, their guy is in office and he can protect you. It's like when gamblers paid off the White Sox in 1919 to throw the Series. Sure it was dirty pool for those gamblers to do that but what do you expect from them? They were criminals, crooks, ne'er-do-wells. They wanted to set things up so that they made money. They could have cared less if the Series was on the level. They wanted to ensure the Reds would win so they could clean up. To them the ends justified the means. Same thing for the Bushies - and probably any other administration.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't expect the government to do things like this.But the point of my story was that you should expect the government to do something like that.
And I really don't think there's any question that the Bush administration is more corrupt than Clinton's. Clinton had to deal with a strong opposition, and the opposite party leading Congress. Not to mention an independent prosecutor that went way beyond what he was meant to do, as he's admitted.
Democrats have been spineless for the past few years. Republicans have controlled all three branches of government. For such a secretive administration it's been shocking how little investigative reporting has been done.
And yet we've still had scandal after scandal. Most have just gotten far less attention than Clinton's.
Look at the Valerie Plume leak. That alone probably trumps any scandal from Clinton's administration - and you hardly ever hear anything about it.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
What happened was probably wrong. Evidence of a huge conspiracy or corruption? Pretty far-fetched. But I knew that as soon as I read this news on the internet, that it wouldn't be long before it would be posted on Redszone, with accusations by some, that this is proof that this is the most corrupt adminstration ever.
You didn't let me down guys. Run with it!
Now I know that some will not want to believe that that was the Education Dept's intent, and that there is a wider, and more nefarious motive, behind all this. Because after all, the Education Dept is actually a underground, covert arm of the Bush administration, bent on indoctrinating this country to their fascist ideology.The Education Department defended its decision as a "permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures." The point was to help parents, particularly in poor and minority communities, understand the benefits of the law, the department said.
And just last week on here, conservatives were accused of being the new Joe McCarthys.
If some are really so concerned about how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent (and wasted), then there are far greater areas of concern within our government, and by our illustrious politicians, that ranges in the hundreds of millions in waste, then the Education Dept paying some radio talk show host for advertising and promoting the No Child Left Behind Act, which is already law by the way.
But when you're grasping for straws anything will do.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
maybe i'm naive, by i don't expect government to abide by laws when the public choses to leave them on their own as such.
the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop
yes, this really is how we make our living.
So if this No Child Left Behind act is so great, why did the Bush administration have to pay Williams to pimp it? And if Williams thought it was so pretty, why did he even need to take the money? Why didn't he just say, "You know, I think the NCLB act is such a good law, I will promote it for free. Keep the money and spend it on something else." It's a huge conflict of interest when someone does this. What would you think if Hal McCoy started saying that everything the Reds were doing was right and never criticized them no matter how stupid the moves seemed and then later you found out that the Reds had paid McCoy to praise whatever they did? He'd have no credibility left as a journalist because you wouldn't know if those were his views or those views were bought and paid for.What happened was probably wrong. Evidence of a huge conspiracy or corruption? Pretty far-fetched. But I knew that as soon as I read this news on the internet, that it wouldn't be long before it would be posted on Redszone, with accusations by some, that this is proof that this is the most corrupt adminstration ever.
You didn't let me down guys. Run with it!
Now I know that some will not want to believe that that was the Education Dept's intent, and that there is a wider, and more nefarious motive, behind all this. Because after all, the Education Dept is actually a underground, covert arm of the Bush administration, bent on indoctrinating this country to their fascist ideology.
And just last week on here, conservatives were accused of being the new Joe McCarthys.
If some are really so concerned about how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent (and wasted), then there are far greater areas of concern within our government, and by our illustrious politicians, that ranges in the hundreds of millions in waste, then the Education Dept paying some radio talk show host for advertising and promoting the No Child Left Behind Act, which is already law by the way.
But when you're grasping for straws anything will do.
I knew as soon as I seen this story a few days ago that those on the right here will spin it as possibly illegal, but they were only trying to spread an important message.
I wasn't dissappointed by "the party of the buck stops nowhere"
Most people like to think and assume this. And most people, including myself, are pretty naive in thinking thus.
"absolute power corrupts absolute" - I firmly believe this because I have a different ideology then you do when it comes to human nature.
I get the impression that you're trying to contend that "corruption" is more aligned to political affiliation - i.e. Republican, in this instance.
I don't think that way at all.
People love authority and power. It's a dangerous combination - especially when one enters the political world within Washington D.C.
You're talking of a world of closed door meetings, secret deals, kickbacks, favors, etc. And all for the sake of securing power and position for oneself.
And I've seen it affect and also destroy both Repubs and Dems.
How? Not saying either was more corrupt then the other.And I really don't think there's any question that the Bush administration is more corrupt than Clinton's.
What "scandal after scandal" have you seen? I guess it depends on how you define scandal? Are you referrring to scandals that occurred within the private sector, and were exposed during his first term (Enron, etc)? Because if so, then one can hardly contend then that that is the fault of the Bush adminstration. No more then I'd contend that the Terry McAuliffe and World Com, or any other scandals that came to light during Clinton's tenure, were his fault and evidence of corruption within that respectve administration.
For crying out loud. The Clnton's railed about the greed of the 80's and the S&L scandals.... then it was uncovered they, and their friends, were up to their necks in just such a scandal.
"ab****e power corrupts absloute"
Clinton was no worse, or different, then any other poltician I have experienced coming to Washington. He just got caught more often then the others.
Last edited by GAC; 01-09-2005 at 10:02 AM.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
Bush administration scandals:
This one
Jessica Lynch
Lack of WMD
Yellowcake uranium
Plume
DUI
Ken Lay and Enron (this wasn't nearly as private sector as you think GAC - Lay and Cheney are pretty intertwined)
Rumsfeld auto-signatures
Halliburton and war profiteering
Lying about Medicare reform
Bribes to Rep. Nick Smith for Medicare vote
Abu-Ghraib and torture authorization by Rumsfeld
Cozying up to Chalabi
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I've probably forgotten things.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
I'm sure you could If you define those as "scandals". You could have page after page on every previous administration if we followed your criteria.
Clinton would have three pages alone on all the women, and nanny's that hired ilegal aliens. Oh...those arent scandals, but private matters.
Rumsfeld not personally signing those letters is a scandal?? Bad judgment maybe. But no scandal.
Jessica Lynch? propaganda by the military brass...yes. But no scandal.
WMD...has this been proven as a scandal? This was never implied by the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission. Why not? I think most people, who have any objectivity at all, saw this as a huge failure on the part of our government and our intelligence gathering community/coordination. But if you are going to say it is a scandal, then you had better indict every politician on both sides who served on the various intelligence committees, saw the same things that this adminstration did, and came to the same conclusions (so says Joe Biden and Joe Leiberman).
Has anyone yet to show any evidence of a connection between Cheney and Haliburton since Cheney resigned to run on the ticket? I know guys like you love to throw out assumptions as all the evidence one needs; but it has never been shown or proven. Especiallly when Haliburton was caught and investigated.
And Bush did punish/fine Haliburton for overcharging the taxpayers.
Question? When Clinton and other adminstrations were handing Haliburton no-bid contracts, do you think they knew that the taxpayers were being over charged/gouged? And do you think thet cared? And if you think they weren't RF, then you are more naive then I have thought.
And it's not just Haliburton that does it. Look at organizations such as Rockwell and thousands of other defense contractors and suppliers. I worked in military supply/requistioning. We, the taxpayers, have ben getting gouged for decades.
And until you show more on the Ken Lay/Bush adminstration, and how this is a scandal directly tied to this administration, then you have no argument. Ken Lay also had influential friends/ties within the Democratic Party also, and gave them quite a bit of money too.
And I have no idea what "DUI" is that you list.
"In my day you had musicians who experimented with drugs. Now it's druggies experimenting with music" - Alfred G Clark (circa 1972)
I'm not going to post all the scnadals the Bush Administrations has been involved in, because I don't think the RedsZone server can handle all that data.
I am almost convince that GAC is on the Bush Administration payroll. At least he should be.
This ain't your daddy's GOP.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
"As for the Bush administration being the most crooked in US history, I'm no supporter of the Bushies but as far as crookedness goes, it doesn't even hold a candle to the Clinton administration, the Reagan administration or the Nixon administration."
No offense, but I feel as though I've fallen down the white rabbit hole when I read something like this--up is up, right? down is down?
Just checking.
I'll just have to assume your definition of scandal is far, far different from mine.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
One thing you have to realize is that the GOP has the government controlled right now. During the Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton years one side contolled the house while the other controlled the white house which naturally creates an environment in which one side is shining the spotlite on the other, be that right or wrong. If there was a democratic house right now I think that the amount of "scandal" investigations would easily equal those of the other presidencies you mentioned.
School's out. What did you expect?
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote
