first Rupert Murdoch and also many others i wouldn't have expected, but now Karl Rove!?
all is not as it seems.


also, this conversation seems staged.
the supposed difficult question o'reilly sprung on Rove was all ready to be answered.. karl rove is a contributor to fox, a member of the bush adminstration, these two guys are really chums

>> ^thinker247:
Think about the phrase "redistribution of wealth." Taking money from everyone, and giving it back to everyone in the form of infrastructure. Sound familiar? It should. Because it's called TAXES.
How many times do I need to say that taxes are socialist in nature? ALL OF THEM. If you pay taxes, it goes to funding roads and schools and hospitals that you may or may not use. Thus, you are paying for someone else's necessities. SOCIALISM.
So if you have a job in America, you are a socialist, whether you like it or not. If you weren't, you'd keep all of your money and there would only be schools that you attend, hospitals where you are treated, and roads upon which only you can drive. Everyone would have their own life, separate from any type of government, and this country would look like a third world chaotic mess.
Fox News perpetuates the McCain/Palin talking-point about "redistribution of wealth" without explaining that all taxes are socialist. Thus, Fox News loses credibility and becomes yet another network of talking-heads and fallacious drug-pushers. The ignorant public needs their drug to survive the onslaught of "liberal blahblahblah," and Fox is always in steady supply.
So everyone can shut the fuck up about Obama and his socialism, because every word given toward that lie just digs us deeper into the grave that Rupert Murdoch has set up.


Son, son, son...maybe go to dictionary.com or something and rethink that awful waste of words you just had. The taxes we pay are figured out by a bunch of people that we the Mario van Peoples elect. We choose to pay taxes for things like infrastructure and oh wait, defense and stuff. Chosen taxes for necessities aren't socialistic. Your argument for Obama fails miserably. Go look up lots of government word definitions.

Think about the phrase "redistribution of wealth." Taking money from everyone, and giving it back to everyone in the form of infrastructure. Sound familiar? It should. Because it's called TAXES.

How many times do I need to say that taxes are socialist in nature? ALL OF THEM. If you pay taxes, it goes to funding roads and schools and hospitals that you may or may not use. Thus, you are paying for someone else's necessities. SOCIALISM.

So if you have a job in America, you are a socialist, whether you like it or not. If you weren't, you'd keep all of your money and there would only be schools that you attend, hospitals where you are treated, and roads upon which only you can drive. Everyone would have their own life, separate from any type of government, and this country would look like a third world chaotic mess.

Fox News perpetuates the McCain/Palin talking-point about "redistribution of wealth" without explaining that all taxes are socialist. Thus, Fox News loses credibility and becomes yet another network of talking-heads and fallacious drug-pushers. The ignorant public needs their drug to survive the onslaught of "liberal blahblahblah," and Fox is always in steady supply.

So everyone can shut the fuck up about Obama and his socialism, because every word given toward that lie just digs us deeper into the grave that Rupert Murdoch has set up.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Fox, News, media, mergers, control, information, dissemination' to 'Fox, News, media, mergers, control, information, dissemination, rupert murdoch' - edited by kronosposeidon

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ Much as it pains me - I have to admit that MSNBC is just as biased as FNC. These two channels are not news at all - more like competing OpEd stations.

Of course I watch MSNBC because I agree with it. Just like heartlanders watch FNC.

I can't help but think that both of these stations are just playing sycophantically to our comfort spots.

MSNBC is owned by GE, FOX by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp. There is only one thing that both of these companies care about ... hint ... it's not journalistic integrity.

^ I agree, the Rupert Murdoch one in particular is too much, especially with the "arrr" thing he keeps doing.

"Left-wing media" is a term of abuse used by movement conservatives to refer to just about any published or broadcast matter that isn't funded by Roger Ailes and/or Rupert Murdoch.

It's a term of "abuse" only because excepting overt failures like Al Franken, liberals always hide who they really are, especially when trying to get elected. Just about every media source outside of talk radio, FOX cable and a handful of newspapers is liberally-biased. The average liberal has PLENTY of choices for their own brand of bias, and that's not even counting the morons in Hollywood and knuckleheads being spat out the government school system.

As for the substance of QM's comment, why is it incumbent on CBS or anyone else to be a "fan" of Israel or of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Figure of speech. You would have to live in a vacuum not to understand that media choose sides, if only to sell, sell, sell. Big Media is a business, therefore lazy reporting that makes money leads the way. The drive-by media has a total "good news blackout" on Iraq and pretends the surge failed. Fk 'em. They deserve to lose ratings to Fox.

The answer, I surmise, is that the U.S. media aren't supposed to exercise independent judgement; they're not supposed to investigate stories and report them on the merits; rather, they're supposed to be a cheering section for whatever the U.S. government (as long as it's a Republican government, at that) and its allies want.

If you really believe that, can you explain why 99% of the "Republican cheering squad" drive-by media is pushing the Obamessiah, the biggest nothing and empty suit ever to make headway towards the Presidency?

As the liberal says, "WHAT liberal media?" the fish says, "WHAT water?"

You have a right to your own opinions--even you no-star n00bs--but not your own facts, and the fact is Ammadinnawackjob is a corrupt "leader," terrorist and Holocaust denier. You libs can go on amusing yourselves trying to pick up this turd by the clean end.

Wing seat? Aisle seat? The liberal pretends to accept all points-of-view, then is horrified to discover there are other points-of-view. hahahaha.

"Left-wing media" is a term of abuse used by movement conservatives to refer to just about any published or broadcast matter that isn't funded by Roger Ailes and/or Rupert Murdoch. The fact that people let themselves be cowed by transparent bullying like this is mystifying, but they do, which explains how travesties like this not only can happen, but happen systematically.

As for the substance of QM's comment, why is it incumbent on CBS or anyone else to be a "fan" of Israel or of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq? The answer, I surmise, is that the U.S. media aren't supposed to exercise independent judgement; they're not supposed to investigate stories and report them on the merits; rather, they're supposed to be a cheering section for whatever the U.S. government (as long as it's a Republican government, at that) and its allies want.

Sorry. Its duped.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rupert-Murdoch-admits-to-shaping-Public-opinion-on-Iraq

*discard

i am somewhat amazed upon the number of recent disclosures and dissenting statements from former white house and pentagon insiders and other characters associated with the current administration, on number of issues. it's like the dam broke and people are no longer afraid of to speak out, especialy now when it's obvious obama will be the democratic choice in the 2008 election and that he is likely to beat mccain. i mean, even rupert murdoch came out and basicaly said he's the better candidate. also a number of talking heads, academics, military and propaganda officials, economists and other professionals have come to the conclusion that some of the policies and actions they recently supported or even helped implement, failed and actualy harmed the US (iraq, economy, personal freedom, war on terror etc.) does that mean there's a real shift in overall mentality within the power circles or is that just my perception due to the whole election frenzy and throwing ashes on one's head to account for the past sins and prepare for (at least) 4 years of democratic rule? in short - is "change" just a cunning PR tool?

Fox news is Rupert Murdoch's Ministry of Fascist Propaganda

Al could sue them for libel to do his part in putting Rupert Murdoch out of business.

Hrrm, seems like most of them just want sensationalist headlines, and should really be more responsible in how they are reporting this.

Except for Fox of course, who seem to really be trying to convince their viewers that a war with Iran is the best course of action for the US. God damn that bloody Rupert Murdoch.

I wonder what the Bush administration's new buzzword for this campaign will be (they will of course do what they want, regardless of condemnation). "Weapons Of Mass Destruction", "Global Terrorism", "Al Qaeida", "Axis Of Evil". Bush's supporters need phrases like these they can fling about. I really hope the new one will be better, those were rather cheesy and sounded like they came from an action movie.

Imedi is owned by Rupert Murdoch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imedi_Media_Holding

Rupert Murdoch owns FOX and MySpace. He intends to make MySpace competitive with YouTube. There was an article I posted here that he will eventually make video editing software available to the MySpace users.