Armstrong Williams: A Quarter Million Dollar Bush Spokesman

[Czarcasm]

@Brutus

Ya, but a Republican will never win on American Idol, so we just stopped trying.

Did you always believe that the ends justify the means, or was there some tragic incident in your past that caused you to throw morality out the window and start worshiping might?

[Merijeek]

@Czarcasm

Did you always believe that the ends justify the means, or was there some tragic incident in your past that caused you to throw morality out the window and start worshiping might?

He’ll do it until his side is no longer the winner.

Then he’ll support his guys in their formation of some sort of ‘ethical committee’.

Once ethics become incovenient (ie, his side is the winner again) he’ll get a wet spot in his pants while defending their decision to eviscerate said committee.

I would think it’s clear from O-L-B’s continued evasions.

-Joe

[Jackmannii]

@Merijeek

Pfft. Attack the messenger because you don’t like message and then contribute nothing.

Reading comprehension is evidently not your forte, or you would have noticed that I agreed with the substance of the OP that the Williams payoff was a scummy breach of ethics on all sides.

Then we get Reeder with a condescending “It doesn’t matter people, Americans accept torture” hijack. Evidently he was too lazy to start another in his endless series of “Bushco” threads.

He is an ass (nothing new there), and you need lessons in reading. And formatting. :wally

[Little_Nemo]

Reading comprehension is evidently not your forte, or you would have noticed that I agreed with the substance of the OP that the Williams payoff was a scummy breach of ethics on all sides.

Then we get Reeder with a condescending “It doesn’t matter people, Americans accept torture” hijack. Evidently he was too lazy to start another in his endless series of “Bushco” threads.

So the theory is that you acknowledge a “breach of ethics” occurred. And then having manfully done so you figure the matter should be dropped. Nobody should go on to suggest that the people who committed this breach of ethics should be punished in any way or that anything should be done to prevent them from committing future breachs.

[Jackmannii]

@Little Nemo

So the theory is that you acknowledge a “breach of ethics” occurred. And then having manfully done so you figure the matter should be dropped. Nobody should go on to suggest that the people who committed this breach of ethics should be punished in any way or that anything should be done to prevent them from committing future breachs.

@Jackmannii

(from earlier in this thread): The current scandal…is disgustingly unethical on the part of all involved, and heads should roll.
First and foremost, there is Armstrong Williams, whose credibility should be shot to hell at this point. I can’t imagine what justification any of his employers would have in keeping him on.

I await your retraction.

Dolt. :rolleyes:

[Evil_Captor]

@Jackmannii

Reading comprehension is evidently not your forte, or you would have noticed that I agreed with the substance of the OP that the Williams payoff was a scummy breach of ethics on all sides.

Then we get Reeder with a condescending “It doesn’t matter people, Americans accept torture” hijack. y

But Reeder does have a point here. Americans elected Bush and his cohorts (I’ll just call 'em “Bushco” for short) KNOWING that they were into torturing prisoners. A little thing like bribing pundits with taxpayer money? A mere trifle.

[Evil_Captor]

Y’know, if the Pubbies are paying that much for B-level pundits, you gotta wonder … maybe they’ve got funds for people who … you know … post on message boards. I mean, it’s NOT like the Dems. Bastids won’t even send me a box of candy or flowers or ANYTHING! ::::

[Frank]

@Evil Captor

Y’know, if the Pubbies are paying that much for B-level pundits, you gotta wonder … maybe they’ve got funds for people who … you know … post on message boards. I mean, it’s NOT like the Dems. Bastids won’t even send me a box of candy or flowers or ANYTHING! ::::

Your next impassioned defense of the No Child Left Behind Act is going to be viewed with a very jaundiced eye from this precinct.

At any rate, it does seem that Mr. Williams is rapidly losing all his employers.

[Squink]

@This Year's Model

At any rate, it does seem that Mr. Williams is rapidly losing all his employers.

Bush’ll keep him on though, right? Ya gotta stand by your friends when they’re down!

[ElvisL1ves]

@edwino

Williams is a B-level pundit and got paid $240,000. I wonder what the A-list guys are making. For that matter, if they are going all the way down to Williams, I wonder who else is on the payroll…

Williams was smart enough to get himself paid, give him that at least. As for the others, you’re not a whore if you just give it away. Gotta keep up your ethical standards.

[Revtim]

I thought there were laws against covert propoganda. Am I wrong about this? If not, shouldn’t the Dems be making a stink about this? Is it too soon or are they just cowardly fucks?

[Squink]

Too soon. Congress has just started making noises about an investigation.

[Revtim]

Ah, but some Dems did write the Bush a letter asking him to please kindly stop :rolleyes:
http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0107-09.htm
What strong leadership!

When the fuck is the Democratic Karl Rove going to show up?

[Brutus]

@Squink

Too soon. Congress has just started making noises about an investigation.

Heh, sure. I for believe it will have the stunning impact of the ‘OMG SECRET ENERGY COMMITTEE!!@@!’ investigations, if not less. That is, if said investigations are even going to happen; I haven’t heard said ‘noise’.

[Bricker]

I don’t know what the law is on this issue.

But from an ethical standpoint, the failure to disclose the payments is absolutely inexcusable. This is all kinds of wrong. What appears to be a neutral third-party analysis of an issue, and support of that issue on the merits, is nothing more than paid advocacy.

I don’t see any reason that the government can’t pay for ads to encourage acceptance of the law… but the ads should clearly identify that they are paid for by the government. The failure to do that here is simply wrong, and a clear ethical breach.

[Reeder]

Not according to Brutus.

Whatever Bushco does. From lying, to torture, to misrepresentation is ok by him.

[Frank]

@Bricker

I don’t see any reason that the government can’t pay for ads to encourage acceptance of the law… but the ads should clearly identify that they are paid for by the government. The failure to do that here is simply wrong, and a clear ethical breach.

Thank you, Bricker. It would be nice if there were other conservative posters in this thread whose names begin with “B” that also recognized that ethics exist separately from the law.

[monstro]

@Brutus

Heh, sure. I for believe it will have the stunning impact of the ‘OMG SECRET ENERGY COMMITTEE!!@@!’ investigations, if not less. That is, if said investigations are even going to happen; I haven’t heard said ‘noise’.

Just curious, but do you think investigations should happen?

[you_with_the_face]

Uh, the above post was written by moi and not monstro.

[Mr.Moto]

Please let’s not go off on the kick that all conservatives are slavish Bush lackeys. Like Bricker, I can’t support this practice at all.

Besides, as a mere poster on a message board, all I was able to rate was an in-ground swimming pool. Thanks, Army Corps of Engineers.