GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
GPS_Flex said:Federal Funds Diverted To Air America : Air America's Dirty Dough
Stinger said:So not only do they benifit from millions of dollars worth of free publicity in the news media, they are now ripping off the government and the needy in order to keep their little failed radio network alive.
How disgraceful and where is the outrage?
Actually, Evan Cohen is the guy who is in the center (no pun intended) of this. He's the one who did whatever was done with the money, and that is THE reason he had to resign. He allegedly personally took and misused funds from various sources, including banks.Pacridge said:Something sure smells bad. I don't think the excuse of "well it happen before we took over" is gonna wash. Even if the current owners were not involved (which I would seriously question) they'd still be responsible for the debt. I'm no expert on business but it would make sense to me that when you buy a business you own both the assets and the debts of that business. Isn't this why when large mergers occurs there's such a huge investigation into the companies debt ratio? If Air America took funds from charities they should repay the charities in short order. And who ever is responsible should be held accountable.
26 X World Champs said:Actually, Evan Cohen is the guy who is in the center (no pun intended) of this. He's the one who did whatever was done with the money, and that is THE reason he had to resign. He allegedly personally took and misused funds from various sources, including banks.
BTW - It is not automatic that new ownership becomes responsible for old debt incurred before they took over. That is determined by the terms of the transfer of ownership. It is a point of negotiation.
Another example of criminal liability: if RICHARD M. SCRUSHY had been found guilty of misstating Health South's earnings he and the people responsible for the crimes would have been convicted. The other employees would not have been equally guilty.
Evan Cohen was a real scummy, nasty, and it is very likely (IMHO) guilty of various crimes. I guess then it is up to whatever courts it would be adjudicated in to decide the final outcome.
What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. I am confident that if Evan Cohen et al is indicted that it would receive widespread coverage.
It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's scandal, as if the two are somehow equal in their scope.
If you want someone to focus on it should be Evan Cohen AND the charity itself that lent money to Cohen / Air America. The act of the loan is under investigation for it is an apparent misuse of their funds. The founder of the charity, Charles Rosen is also under investigation for violating certain laws.
I wrote recently that with Rove we should all wait and see the outcome of the investigation before judging right or wrong. I think the same logic applies to this investigation.
faminedynasty said:How dare you people even comment on an ongoing investiagation!?
26 X World Champs said:Evan Cohen was a real scummy, nasty, and it is very likely (IMHO) guilty of various crimes. I guess then it is up to whatever courts it would be adjudicated in to decide the final outcome.
What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. I am confident that if Evan Cohen et al is indicted that it would receive widespread coverage.
It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's scandal, as if the two are somehow equal in their scope.
If you would take the time to read my previous posts you would know that I said the exact same thing about Rove that I'm now saying about Cohen, that we should let the investigation conclude before making a judgement. I do not see how that is bias? Maybe you're just biased against me and anything that I write?gordontravels said:Your bias is so evident here. Karl Rove has no indictment and even has the word from the Special Prosecutor after hearing testimony that Mr. Rove isn't even a subject of the investigation.
Yeah, I do. Don't you think the Rove investigation is a lot more newsworthy than the Air America investigation? Are you suggesting that the press treat them as equal stories? Do you think outing a CIA spy and her contacts is the same thing as half a million dollars illegally funneled into a business?gordontravels said:I can agree that Evan Cohen hasn't been indicted but you don't see the difference in Karl Rove being actually called "allegedly guilty" in the media while you are willing to await Evan Cohen's indictment? Karl Rove hasn't been indicted. You actually see a difference here?
In a word, DUH!:thinkinggordontravels said:I repeat, if you think the unindicted should be availed the Criminal Justice System are you saying that opportunity shouldn't be equal?
26 X World Champs said:If you would take the time to read my previous posts you would know that I said the exact same thing about Rove that I'm now saying about Cohen, that we should let the investigation conclude before making a judgement. I do not see how that is bias? Maybe you're just biased against me and anything that I write?
Yeah, I do. Don't you think the Rove investigation is a lot more newsworthy than the Air America investigation? Are you suggesting that the press treat them as equal stories? Do you think outing a CIA spy and her contacts is the same thing as half a million dollars illegally funneled into a business?
I believe it's safe to say that the Rove investigation is a much bigger story and that the press will treat it as such. Surely you can see that the AA story doesn't have the cache that the Rove story does? It's so obvious!
In a word, DUH!:thinking
I never said it shouldn't be equal, please do not make up stuff about me....
I thought you were going to wait and see, but it appears that you've changed your mind and are now passing judgement? Interesting.gordontravels said:May I ask? Where do you get the "Rove Investigation"? You do know that I'm not just making something up when I say the Special Prosecutor says "Karl Rove isn't a subject of the investigation."
26 X World Champs said:I thought you were going to wait and see, but it appears that you've changed your mind and are now passing judgement? Interesting.
Your spin into semantics is just that spin, and it is transparent.
How about we just wait and see?
How come you appear unable to grasp that the Rove "story" is much tastier to the press than the AA story?
The semantics stuff is a waste of my time, sorry. Come up with something to debate or let's let it go for now....
gordontravels said:I haven't ignored the press at all. Even you use the term "tastier" after having accused me of spin. You can accuse all you want instead of facing the question and answering. I have posted nothing but "let's see where the investigation goes" on any thread about both of these stories. So I'll make it easy and just make it the object of this post:
You have referred to the "Rove investigation". There is no such thing. Are you so ill informed that you think I am the one spinning and am the source of this information? Do you deny what the Special Prosecutor has said in the Valerie Plame investigation in regard to Karl Rove? In fact, what are you saying? Please explain even if you have to be transparent to do so. I surely wouldn't hold that against you if you would just make sense.
I can't see anywhere in my referenced post that I have passed judgement at all. Are you ok? :duel
cnredd said:gordontravels,
You're involved in an unwinnable debate with someone who has been previously proven to be a liar who doesn't live up to his own standards of debate that he accuses others of...may I refer you to the thread "Bias In the Media - Air America"...Post #109...
Stop banging your head against the wall...Trying to involve him in a debate is an excercise in futility.
Pacridge said:Something sure smells bad. I don't think the excuse of "well it happen before we took over" is gonna wash. Even if the current owners were not involved (which I would seriously question) they'd still be responsible for the debt. I'm no expert on business but it would make sense to me that when you buy a business you own both the assets and the debts of that business. Isn't this why when large mergers occurs there's such a huge investigation into the companies debt ratio? If Air America took funds from charities they should repay the charities in short order. And who ever is responsible should be held accountable.
26 X World Champs said:BTW - It is not automatic that new ownership becomes responsible for old debt incurred before they took over. That is determined by the terms of the transfer of ownership. It is a point of negotiation.........................
What's so interesting is that it is up to the Criminal Justice system, not the media to decide who is guilty of whatever crimes yet when I read comments like "where is the outrage" I feel that this is bias being expressed by the poster. ...................
=It seems to me that there's an expectation that the "outrage" should be on a par with Rove's
If you want someone to focus on it should be Evan Cohen AND the charity itself that lent money to Cohen / Air America.
I wrote recently that with Rove we should all wait and see the outcome of the investigation before judging right or wrong. I think the same logic applies to this investigation.
Stinger said:A few problems with your defense. The loan was made to Air America (AA) not Cohen. He was not the owner of AA when the loan was made, he persuade Gloria Wise B&GCs to make the loan to AA. AA knew they were getting a loan from a group whose money was suppose to help little children. They denied it at first by have now admitted they took the money. Now they refuse to repay it.
It seems to me you are trying to drop a bomb in order to divert the discussion. Very telling.
Cohen left AA after the first month or so, the loan was just made last year.
There's nothing wrong with discussing known facts.
Middleground said:Not to steal the topic of this thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. I know this deserves a thread of it's own, but how do y'all feel about Halliburton?
gordontravels said:Either I must disagree here or see the evidence.[/quote]
What evidence are you lacking? At the least it is a gross conflict of interest. AA has done it's 180 and says it will "eventually" pay the money back. Why was money loaned in the first place, that was federal money given in a grant to help little children why is it being funneled to a privately owned politically bias'd company? If AA is such a successful venture then it should have no problem luring private money, but no they had to go the back channel route and get it's hands on taxpayer money.
I've seen many salesmen ...........
This has nothing to do with any salesman you have ever seen or any trival stories you try to post.
As for knowing the money came from someone that "was supposed to help little children". Please. I seriously doubt there was a conspiracy where Al and company sat in a dark room rubbing their hands together in contemplation of stealing from the mouths of babes.
At the least taxpayer money, typical of leftist.
I'll do my search. They are known facts to you so you know where they are. Thanks.
I would do so it is clear the loan was made, it was made under ethical questions at the least possible criminal we'll have to wait and see. But even if there is no criminal it is still outrageous that they have gone to such a non-profit organization and taken federal money meant for kids and at first refused to repay it and now are saying it may be several years. What happens if, as it is seeming more and more everyday, they go under? What happens to the money meant for those kids, paid for by us taxpayers?
Middleground said:Not to steal the topic of this thread, but my curiosity has got the better of me. I know this deserves a thread of it's own, but how do y'all feel about Halliburton?
gordontravels said:Threads very often go off topic but at least you show the courtesy to ask. I'd go start a Haliburton thread if you want. :duel
Stinger said:It's a great company that hires thousands of great people paying good wages and offers a good return for the investors both big and small. They do a good job at what they do. Why do you feel a need to interject them in this subject line?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?