Let The Army Neocon Shit Bags Defend This

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No Child Left Behind is the biggest piece of shit education legislation since "Seperate-but-Equal."

Propaganda either way.

I've got to take a mean shit.


P

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Viking
Awwwww, the Republicans just conducted Business As Usual in Sodom-On-The-Potomac...

Translation: So ethics and corruption really doesn't matter. As long as it is Republicants, the party of Religious zealots and so-called morality, that are the ones in power, they get a free pass illegally paying ministers of propaganda.

How many talking heads like this fool are spinning bullshit about Iraq?

[diamondD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
"...isn't 100% correct ...."

You sheep can't even bring yourselves to say the words.......

Bush and Co. ws wrong.


Say it.

I dare you.

It's actually not that hard. Bush and Co do some things I don't agree with. And yes, they have done some things the wrong way. It still doesn't mean he wasn't the better choice last Nov.

[ODShowtime]

Repubs expect things like this. They want the world to function like this. Approved propaganda only please

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
It's actually not that hard. Bush and Co do some things I don't agree with. And yes, they have done some things the wrong way. It still doesn't mean he wasn't the better choice last Nov.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio

[ODShowtime]

Armstrong Williams: I Am Not Alone

1 hour, 18 minutes ago

David Corn

It was a rare moment of talk-show unanimity. On the set of the Fox News Washington bureau, host Tony Snow, fellow guest Linda Chavez (a conservative pundit), and I were slamming Armstrong Williams, a rightwing columnist and talk show host. USA Today had reported--as you probably know--that Williams had been paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars by the Bush administration to promote its No Child Left Behind education bill. And Williams, who supported the legislation in his column and as a cable news talking head, had not bothered to inform his audiences or the folks who book him at CNN, Fox, and MSNBC that he was a shill on the Bush payroll.

Snow was shaking his head at Williams' indiscretion, and Chavez was upset and joked that she had received bupkis from the White House. Prior to going on air, she had complained that ArmstrongGate had caused some people to assume that she and other conservative commentators were also riding this gravy train. Since the story broke on Friday, she said, several people had asked her how much she had received from the Bush administration. She was pissed at Williams for conduct that was raising questions about the whole cadre of rightwing pundits. During our non-debate on Williams, I noted that it was a waste of taxpayer money to pay Williams for supporting the Bush administration, which he seemed quite willing to do for free. And I wondered aloud how this contract had come to be.

After our segment finished, Chavez and I headed to the green room, and there he was: Armstrong Williams. He was waiting to go on air to defend himself. I've known him a long time; we've often sparred, in friendly fashion, on these shouting-head shows. I shook my head and said, "Armstrong, Armstrong, Armstrong...." He was quick with his main talking point: "It was bad judgment, Dave. Bad judgment." His phone rang. He answered it, said hello, and then told the person on the other end, "It was bad judgment. You know, just bad judgment." I was reminded that in addition to being a pundit, Williams, a leading African-American conservative and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) protege, is a PR specialist with his own firm. Not too long ago, Michael Jackson called him for advice. Now he had himself for a client, and, heeding conventional crisis-management strategy, he was practicing strict message discipline: bad judgment, bad judgment, bad judgment.

As we chatted, Chavez politely expressed her anger at Williams. This scandal, she noted, would provide ammunition to those who dismiss minority conservatives as race sellouts who have been bought off by the Republicans. (She is Mexican-American.) Williams absorbed her point, acting contrite.

I asked if Williams had yet been conducted by the inspector general at the Education Department, the agency that had awarded the contract that supplied him $241,000 for promoting the NCLB measure within the African-American community. Representative George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the education committee, and other House Democrats had already called for an investigation. Why should the IG contact me? Williams replied, noting he had been merely a subcontractor. Any thorough investigation, I remarked, would include questioning the subcontractor. He scratched his head. "Funny," he said. "I thought this [contract] was a blessing at the time."

And then Williams violated a PR rule: he got off-point. "This happens all the time," he told me. "There are others." Really? I said. Other conservative commentators accept money from the Bush administration? I asked Williams for names. "I'm not going to defend myself that way," he said. The issue right now, he explained, was his own mistake. Well, I said, what if I call you up in a few weeks, after this blows over, and then ask you? No, he said.

Does Williams really know something about other rightwing pundits? Or was he only trying to minimize his own screw-up with a momentary embrace of a trumped-up everybody-does-it defense? I could not tell. But if the IG at the Department of Education or any other official questions Williams, I suggest he or she ask what Williams meant by this comment. And if Williams is really sorry for this act of "bad judgment" and for besmirching the profession of rightwing punditry, shouldn't he do what he can to guarantee that those who watch pundits on the cable news networks and read political columnists receive conservative views that are independent and untainted by payoffs from the Bush administration or other political outfits?

Armstrong, please, help us all protect the independence of the conservative commentariat. If you are not alone, tell us who else has yielded to bad judgment.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/thenation/20050110/cm_thenation/32114&e=2

[ODShowtime]

No, secret payoffs that deceive the public aren't OK

Mon Jan 10, 8:32 AM ET Op/Ed - USATODAY.com

President Bush is an eloquent advocate of his 2001 education overhaul known as the No Child Left Behind Act. He calls it the "most dramatic reform in public education in a generation" and a powerful remedy for "the soft bigotry of low expectations."

But lately his administration apparently has concluded that the law needs a harder sell based on deceptive practices. Last week, USA TODAY disclosed that the Department of Education had paid conservative pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 to tout the measure on his syndicated talk show and to periodically interview Education Secretary Rod Paige.

Williams promptly received a harsh education in the propriety of taking the government's money while feigning independence. He was widely criticized, and the syndicate that distributes his newspaper column dropped him. (USA TODAY does not carry the syndicated column but has published two commentaries by him in the past five years, neither about education.)

Williams now says he used poor judgment. The Bush administration, however, has shown not even a hint of remorse. The White House referred questions to the Department of Education, which argued that it did nothing wrong in making clandestine payments.

The department called the contract with Williams a "straightforward distribution of information about the department's mission and (the education law) - a permissible use of taxpayer funds."

In fact, there is nothing straightforward or appropriate about using taxpayer money to make secret payments for the purpose of manipulating the public. And it is not straightforward or appropriate to use taxpayer money to reward a friend of the administration.

The administration can and should advocate its policies. It has capable spokesmen in Bush and Paige. Both are passionate advocates of the education law.

But by paying off Williams, the administration chose a different course: opting to advance its policies through deception, rather than illumination.

The Williams episode is just the latest of many efforts throughout the administration to use trickery in pursuit of policy goals. To announce a new anti-drug campaign last year, the Office of National Drug Control Policy sent out video news releases designed to look like independently produced news reports.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, concluded that these bogus news reports - which were similar to some used by the Clinton administration - constituted illegal "covert propaganda."

The office reached a similar conclusion about spots created in 2003 by the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) to promote the new Medicare drug law.

These campaigns raise a disturbing question: How can the public be confident in policies the administration feels compelled to sell on the basis of deception? The best answer from the administration would come in the form of an admission of its errors, a scolding of the Education Department for its tactics, and a promise to reform its ways.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=2&u=/usatoday/20050110/cm_usatoday/nosecretpayoffsthatdeceivethepublicarentok

[ODShowtime]

So... who else is on the payroll?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
So... who else is on the payroll?

[ODShowtime]

most likely. funny point.

luckily I never advocated for him or his policies so I don't give a shit.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Can you be specific? Which one of Clinton's fuck ups are you talking about?

Here, try this dumbass cunt!

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/facts.htm

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian

You better hope not..... Because if Clinton were BCE, that would mean the last real President was Jimmy Carter, and that we've been under a dictatorship for a quarter-century instead of just the last 4 years

[ODShowtime]

Clinton just got on the payroll recently it seems.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
You better hope not..... Because if Clinton were BCE, that would mean the last real President was Jimmy Carter, and that we've been under a dictatorship for a quarter-century instead of just the last 4 years

At least you finally acknowledge that we weren't under one during Reagan and Bush 1. Maybe the meds are starting to take effect.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Here, try this dumbass cunt!

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/facts.htm

Good God Almighty!?! That's your mom's "art" site blaming Clinton for 911. That's a laugh! Do you blame Clinton for your speeding tickets too?

Can you go ahead point me to a more legitimate news source?