More paid propagandists outed

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Damn, how'd you know? You spying on me again? bwhahahaha.
Anyway, I did have one more gem to comment on (before I head up to Sugarloaf for some skiing ):

Then there are morons like conjur in this thread who are adding nothing but smarm. No surprise there though.

The outright bias displayed in this forum is disgusting.

IRONY ALERT, IRONY ALERT!!

I see.

I asked a question previously about proving what "Bush" did with Armstrong Williams was illegal. It was a promotion of an existing law, which is perfectly legal and happens all the time ("Spped Kills." "Just Say No." etc.). After I asked that question, it got very quiet in here. So, would you care to provide some input about that Dan?

And I don't need to spy on you. You've admitted it in this very forum, so it's not like it's a secret.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I see.

I asked a question previously about proving what Bush did with Armstrong Williams was illegal. It was a promotion of an existing law, which is perfectly legal and happens all the time (Spped Kills. Just Say No. etc.). After I asked that question, it got very quiet in here. So, would you care to provide some input about that Dan?

Happy to oblige. Thank you, DonVito for your legal expertise.



47 U.S.C. 317

quote:
(1) All matter broadcast by any radio station for which any money, service or other valuable consideration is directly or indirectly paid, or promised to or charged or accepted by, the station so broadcasting, from any person, shall, at the time the same is so broadcast, be announced as paid for or furnished, as the case may be, by such person: Provided, That ?service or other valuable consideration? shall not include any service or property furnished without charge or at a nominal charge for use on, or in connection with, a broadcast unless it is so furnished in consideration for an identification in a broadcast of any person, product, service, trademark, or brand name beyond an identification which is reasonably related to the use of such service or property on the broadcast.

Don Vito and I have been discussing this already.

Basically, it's William's fault for non-disclosure. Has Bush done anything illegal in this though (which is my question)? So far the answer seems to be - no.

Of course, just posting a law is niot saying much Dan. Care to provide your opinion on how Bush is doing anything illegal related to this law?

You said, show where a law has been broken, a lawyer shared that info with me (and you) and I posted it. A day later you respond with some double talk and evasion.
Paying journalists to support a position is a bad thing, IMO. You think it's a good thing, apparently. So, we disagree. End of story.

No, it's not the end, Dan.

I asked you to show me where Bush violated the law. You responded by posting the text of a law that proved absolutely nothing in the way of Bush breaking a law, then leaving no comment except the implication that a law was broken. Now you come back yammering about how a lawyer provided this to you, as if that meaningful in any way in answering my query.

You proved, NOTHING. The fact is that Bush is not implicated in any way of doing anything illegal. Oooh, but I'm surely a Bush apologist for actually mentioning this fact and clearing the air. :roll: And then some liberal third-rate bozo with 300 posts will surely pop in making some inane comments about how they read this forum all the time and just don't get this TastesLikeChicken guy and how he's so full of sh!t.

You people need to get some reading comprehension and some honesty as well. I doubt that will happen though as you all seem so happy in your hypocritical comforters dogpiling people and all regurgitating the same stupid sh!t thinking somehow the numbers alone makes you all right.

Quite the ship of fools in here. Sail on, boys.

 

[Jhhnn]

I understand the Kos situation quite well. The guy was paid by the Dean campaign, and made full disclosure of the fact at the time. How this can be represented as any sort of ethical breach, as you did in the referenced thread, is definitely a stretch, regardless of what the Dean campaign has been represented as trying to accomplish with that employment.

Gallagher's protestations about "research" are a little bit thin, too, when such "research" doesn't follow any sort of generally accepted scientific methodologies... and basically amounts to expressing educated opinion...

As for the rest of it, I'm all in favor of any and all govt payments being public, other than some narrowly defined national security situations. And hey, if that's some kind of privacy issue, then don't take the money.

And to be very honest, failure to disclose govt payments by prominent figures like Gallagher tends to give the impression of wrongdoing, even when it may be perfectly innocent, just as she claims. Something along the lines of having been commissioned to write certain materials and offer her opinion and guidance through personal appearances at meetings would be quite sufficient...

I rather suspect, however, that there's a lot of this stuff going on under the surface. Whether it's benign or malignant, we really won't know until we see what it is... Wiin's linked Newsmax article is just the kind of diversionary and pre-emptive self defense strategy we've come to expect from the far Right when they've got something to hide... try to make the other guy look bad just to soften the blow in case of one's own unfortunate exposure...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I rather suspect, however, that there's a lot of this stuff going on under the surface. Whether it's benign or malignant, we really won't know until we see what it is... Wiin's linked Newsmax article is just the kind of diversionary and pre-emptive self defense strategy we've come to expect from the far Right when they've got something to hide... try to make the other guy look bad just to soften the blow in case of one's own unfortunate exposure...

Actually, it's just showing that both sides do it so why harp only on one side doing it?

iow, are you really being critical of the practice, or are you merely being critical of the opposition in a kind of opportunistic and partisan manner?

 

[Jhhnn]

Both sides do exactly what, TLC?

The News max article attempts to infer wrongdoing on the basis of what one spouse does but not the other, and on the basis of what one spouse in one couple did to cast aspersions on their friends... Might as well blame Iraq on Carville, since he's married to Matlin...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I rather suspect, however, that there's a lot of this stuff going on under the surface. Whether it's benign or malignant, we really won't know until we see what it is... Wiin's linked Newsmax article is just the kind of diversionary and pre-emptive self defense strategy we've come to expect from the far Right when they've got something to hide... try to make the other guy look bad just to soften the blow in case of one's own unfortunate exposure...

Actually, it's just showing that both sides do it so why harp only on one side doing it?

iow, are you really being critical of the practice, or are you merely being critical of the opposition in a kind of opportunistic and partisan manner?

And yet that's the very "worsterest" argument I've been railing against all along! And the very thing that Cad is so vocal about unless it also happens to be a poor reflection on the GOP/Republicans and then he mysteriously clams up.

Every time a thread is started about a particular president, do we need to examine every other president in U.S. history? Every time a thread is started about Iraq, must we also examine and discuss every other war that came before it? Do two wrongs make a right?

Of course not! That's a ridiculous assumption as these threads can examine a particular issue and stand entirely on their own. If you're paying even the least bit of attention to the threads in this forum, you'd quite easily notice that they're designed to discuss current events. In other words, what's happening now. There is no need to go back into the past and find some similar example of wrong-doing and declare, "Oh! Everything's OK because I found a similar example from the last decade!"

Beyond the failure in logic, what's the point? Except to be a complete apologist?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I rather suspect, however, that there's a lot of this stuff going on under the surface. Whether it's benign or malignant, we really won't know until we see what it is... Wiin's linked Newsmax article is just the kind of diversionary and pre-emptive self defense strategy we've come to expect from the far Right when they've got something to hide... try to make the other guy look bad just to soften the blow in case of one's own unfortunate exposure...

Actually, it's just showing that both sides do it so why harp only on one side doing it?

iow, are you really being critical of the practice, or are you merely being critical of the opposition in a kind of opportunistic and partisan manner?

And yet that's the very "worsterest" argument I've been railing against all along! And the very thing that Cad is so vocal about unless it also happens to be a poor reflection on the GOP/Republicans and then he mysteriously clams up.

Every time a thread is started about a particular president, do we need to examine every other president in U.S. history? Every time a thread is started about Iraq, must we also examine and discuss every other war that came before it? Do two wrongs make a right?

Of course not! That's a ridiculous assumption as these threads can examine a particular issue and stand entirely on their own. If you're paying even the least bit of attention to the threads in this forum, you'd quite easily notice that they're designed to discuss current events. In other words, what's happening now. There is no need to go back into the past and find some similar example of wrong-doing and declare, "Oh! Everything's OK because I found a similar example from the last decade!"

Beyond the failure in logic, what's the point? Except to be a complete apologist?

What is the point in railing against one party in particular, unless it's to be a partisan wacko?

Let's face the truth here. This is not about logic, it's about emotion; the emotion of hate. Those that hate Bush bring up these topics so the like minded can all gather round and furiously stroke themslves. If it truly was a discussion of the principles involved instead of dart throwing at those they despise, those who slam Bush would readily recognize that others are just as guilty of the practice.

But they don't. And the fact that they don't is very telling.

 

[slash196]

Uh, no one cares about bloggers. I sure as hell don't read blogs. Also, and this is the funny part, I don't see anything wrong with paying bloggers to essentially talk about a candidate. It's called hiring public relations people, and everyone does it. Scott McClellan gets paid by Bush to not say anything bad. Does that mean the position of Press Secretary is corrupt? No. However, when a journalist gets paid to lie, or at least tilt the tables in favor of one side, that compromises journalistic integrity. Seriously. And when the readers are not informed that the source is no longer unbiased, but rather is being paid to express one side of the story and not the other, that's where problems arise. And this is NOT an isolated incident.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Read the thread and wondered:

Are any posters in the AT forums employed by, full-time or part-time (including consultancy), the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green party or any other political party that has been on the ballot of at least one US state, and/or any political party of a foreign nation?

You must disclose now, because the AT forums could be considered a form of mass media.

P.S. I strongly disagree with CsG on some topics, but he argued in a civil manner.

 

[wiin]

conjur:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: wiin
Journalists on Clinton White House Payroll?

Apparently Mr. Kurtz and the rest of the media ethics posse slept through the 1990s, when a number of reporters with much higher profiles than Williams and Gallagher supplemented their incomes with checks from the Clinton White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spewsmax?!?!? BWA HA HA HA HA HA


Find that info in something other than the RW version of the Weekly World News and then we'll talk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical conjur response if the news is not coming from the NYT or CBS. But, instead of spewing garbage, why don't you refute the story with facts? I guess it is a lot easier to spew garbage and you do a lot of that. Enuff said.