Hoo Boy.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:59 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... promotelaw

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:02 pm

How is this different from any other governmental advertisement?

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:08 pm

You mean besides the fact that is not an advertisement and has nothing to do with advertising.

Akhbar

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:09 pm

Because Congress is apparently prohibited by law from lobbying for their own programs.

Dd

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:20 pm

Come now gentlemen, since when did annoying laws stop "good" politics? =D

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:26 pm

The Bush administration doing something unethical with taxpayer money? I don't believe it.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:43 pm

It is one thing to advertise a bill that has not become law.

It is another to advertise what the law is after it has already passed.

For example advertisements for the Senior Drug Card Program is an advertisement for a law.

And did the article not say that the money came from the Whitehouse rather then congress?

Are there similar laws on the books prohibiting the Whitehouse from advertising current laws?

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:16 pm

Perhaps the Bush04 campaign fund can be usewd to repay the treasury for this innovative form of payola.

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:02 pm

Time out, what's the scandal?

Rsak wrote:Are there similar laws on the books prohibiting the Whitehouse from advertising current laws?

No. In fact they do it all the fucking time. They do it before a bill is passed or killed and they do it with motions put before voters who decide on it.

I dont see what's the big deal here. So the White House spent money probably unnecessarily. Where's the newsflash and / or big deal with that?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:03 pm

It's a form of payola, which IS illegal.

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:07 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:It's a form of payola, which IS illegal.

So you're only bitching because Bush and Co did it? Because we all know this shit doesn't happen in greater amounts on a daily basis all over the fucking place in DC?

I'm not for corruption anywhere, but it seems you and others just use ANY excuse to smack around this Administration. It's tiresome.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:09 pm

Show me an example where the Dems did it, I'll trash them too.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:14 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:The Bush administration doing something unethical with taxpayer money? I don't believe it.

Like paying an intern to suck the Presidential dick?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:42 pm

Woo!

Let's see here. We have the "Everybody does it" deflection, we have the "CLINTON WAS BAD BAD BAD" deflection... this one must have the neocons running scared!

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:50 am

Relbeek Einre wrote:Let's see here. We have the "Everybody does it" deflection, we have the "CLINTON WAS BAD BAD BAD" deflection... this one must have the neocons running scared!

Or shaking their collective heads in your general direction with pity. Whichever placates your ego the best.

The deflection is an appropriate defense. Money in government, payoffs, etc, are commonplace. But you're acting as if this particular instance, which is completely harmless, is something worth giving a shit about.

Hey, have your fun if you wanna.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:00 am

You idiots.

You're arguing like the administration paid for advertising time.

They didn't. People know an advertisement when they see one. They paid a "journalist" a quarter mil to support their position.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:08 am

And this is not analogous to payola, either, where a radio station gets money to play a particular song.

This is a type of scandal I can't recall ever happening before. I don't believe even Hearst was paid off by the government for starting the Spanish-American war.

ZanypherCocoapuffs · Post by **ZanypherCocoapuffs** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:59 pm

SicTimMitchell wrote:They didn't. People know an advertisement when they see one. They paid a "journalist" a quarter mil to support their position.

They also pay campaign managers and other people a lot of money to believe that one candidate or another is worth a shit. They then spend a lot of money on ads stating their positions and damning their opponents.

Yep, paying people to make whatever it is you're doing sound good is evil. EVIL I SAY!

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 11:27 pm

ZanypherCocoapuffs wrote:
SicTimMitchell wrote:They didn't. People know an advertisement when they see one. They paid a "journalist" a quarter mil to support their position.
They also pay campaign managers and other people a lot of money to believe that one candidate or another is worth a shit. They then spend a lot of money on ads stating their positions and damning their opponents.

Yep, paying people to make whatever it is you're doing sound good is evil. EVIL I SAY!

We are not discussing campaign funds or funding here Zany, get with the program.

I don't know enough to comment about the legality (apparently the GAO chastised them for similar behavior in the past and they agreed to stop) but the stunnig lack of ethics is pretty unquestionable. Someone claiming to be one a journalist is not suppossed to accept money from a person or entiity that they are allegedly "reporting" on. This is essentially rule #1 in the business. Regardless of what happens to the Stooges that devised this plan for the govt. this guys credibility as a journalist should be completely destroyed. He will survive on AM radio but I assume serious publications will never touch him again.

Akhbar

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:46 am

What if the DNC had paid Dan Rather, himself, personally, $250,000 to support one of their positions on the air? Now do you get it?