"Net Neutrality protects free market and doesn't allow someone to regulate content on the net."

well, no, net neutrality regulation restricts the free market. apparently in a free market there would be no net neutrality because that's not what the market wants. (whether or not that is bad is another argument)

"Its called bandwidth, the more you have the faster the site loads. You are confusing amount of bandwidth in content versus speed of more bandwidth."

I certainly am confused... what's the difference, rich people can afford more, nike can have a bigger flashier faster website than my local shoe shop, you get what you pay for, and theoretically in a free market everybody gets more for less.

There is definitely an issue with competition, I for example have no choice of provider, therefore shitty expensive connection. I would think activists would worry more about that than about rupert murdoch buying the whole internet.

Remember that these big companies don't give a shit how they make money, meaning if millions of people make interesting websites, they will sell access to that at a competitive rate, they don't really care about spreading the NWO, it's just that in the old world of TV and press they got tempted to control things and make more money, NWO is where the money was.

Now i think they realise (for example) that they don't know shit about music, and they are trying to find ways to monetize independent music. They will change to whatever is most profitable. I think they would find it hard to convince everyone to buy into a fucked up corporate internet... it was much easier with TV and press. They tried with the internet, but I don't think they can succeed, and it think they will always fail. The internet was built to survive nuclear war ffs! wooha!

I have to say that up until seasons 9-10, I was a huge fan of the Simpsons. It was my favorite show (along with Mystery Science Theater 3000). Sadly, the quality of writing and animation greatly declined in what has become arguably the greatest disappointment of my life. I was not looking forward to watching the movie but went anyway. The first 15 minutes were quite funny, and I thought that maybe this would usher in a new era of greatness for the series, but my hopes were dashed shortly thereafter. The rest of the movie was like the last 9 seasons, unfunny and trite writing with a chuckle here or there. Although I am not a fan of Fox or Rupert Murdoch, I don't believe they have anything to do with the quality of the show (in fact, they are responsible for producing some of the greatest shows ever) so they are off the hook on this. I just want to validate some of the opinions expressed by GuyIncognito (although I disagree with others of his). We don't dislike the Simpsons because doing so is hip or non-conformist, we dislike that a hilarious and touching program of great nostalgic value has been reduced to a sham of its former self. It's like watching a good friend or loved one die of a slow and debilitating disease, and it's hurtful.

Oh, I have a tremendous sense of humor. I'm sure I'll "illegally" download it, but there's no way I'm paying money to watch this. I look at it this way. If you find the direction America has been led disturbing, then you must acknowledge what has contributed to this rot. One major contributor has been Fox News. I don't watch Fox television anymore. And I'll download high quality versions of Fox properties, like the X-Files and older Simpsons seasons, off private trackers. I even avoid IGN now, and I wouldn't touch myspace with a 10 foot pole.

Rupert Murdoch is not going to get my support. I demonstrate some of my outrage, through small things like that.

what do you expect from Rupert Murdoch.

sigh... what do you expect from a web site owned by Rupert Murdoch? That he wouldn't use it to push his own agendas?

...the two year old acted perfectly...fox news (shudder) attempted to tell this cute story with the desired effect being, "aww crap! we're buddhists, so we just gotta take it with a smile"...while people comment on parenting skills, the terrible two's, and how much it would suck to have to start over...

...meanwhile they are missing the lesson...the sand arts destruction is kinda the point, or at least a large part of the point...living in the present in action...any true adept would not be phased by it...but...basically a two year old got the monks on fox news, which probably increased the donations ten fold...way to go deuce-zilla...

ps. rupert murdoch needs to stop buying media outlets...

Rupert Murdoch loves Ronald Reagen, thats why you get so much tertiary coverage of that on Fox News.

I suppose it all comes down to how much damage a selfish 'zerosum' society, government or individiual (e.g. Rupert Murdoch) can cause. Can they turn back the tide of civilisation if they have enough influence or, more worryingly if their 'greed is good' ideologies catch on with others?

Talk about BOUGHT media.

Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly.

FOX News - We Report, You Decide.

It's getting more Kafkaesque every single day.

I was kinda hoping that they'd take a swipe at Rupert Murdoch.

Another good documentary was "OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

Sadly the full version was pulled from google, an edited version still 1hr,18min long is up but it had all but the interviews edited out, inbetween the interviews with former employees was clips supporting the claims in the interviews along with internal memoranda.

The edited version:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428

QM, No.. Insight Magazine is owned by Washington (Moonie) Times. Rev. Crazy-ass Moon is a media mogul, just like Rupert Murdoch.

Fact is that any reasonable "news" outlet has two sources, or at least does 5 minutes of googling and/or research to confirm the BREAKING STORY. But what Faux News does is report any crazy crap and have fifteen minute speculation tirades (how is this news?) on completely fictional made-up crap. Do they call Obama campaign? Do they call Insight? Do they try to find out anything about the school / terrist training center? Do they read one of his two books? No, of course, you are right, it is the CommieNews folks fault. Clearly.

When FoxNews has two of its programs covering FauxNews(tm) of some made up smear campaign... and no other network is talking about said Earth-shattering journalistic breaking story.. That tells me Murdoch planned his ooops-how-could-we-know smear. And to say Moonie Times and Murdoch are not lock-step with der fuehrer is just as stupid as your assessment of Bush.

lmao! that is just crazy!! i'm quite pleased his reprehensible project was cancelled ...

NEW YORK (AP) -- After a firestorm of criticism, News. Corp. said Monday that it has canceled the O.J. Simpson book and television special "If I Did It."

"I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project," said Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. chairman. "We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

Clearly quantumushroom is a politically genius, through quoting the New York Post he has defeated all our arguments. The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch, a stuanch supporter of the republican party (the man loves Reagen so much he forced FOX News to cover his incidental birthdays).

Never mind that Murdoch's Post has been criticized from the beginning for its lurid headlines, sensationalism, and blatant advocacy. Nor that according to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the New York Post was rated the least credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible.

Never mind the fact that the story is written by the always unreliable Amir Taheri, who in 2005/2006 has faced charges of fabricating and falsifying stories. Never mind that Amir Taheri actually works for the Benador Associates which is a public relations firm and speaker's bureau that promotes expert writers and speakers focusing primarily on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly those from a neoconservative point of view.

===============================================================================================

Now for Economics part of this part which besides all the BS is the one I want people to understand fully and see beyond the actual lie, because this is a bipartisan issue and will affect you, your kids and your grandkids. The video states that the '$260 Billion dollar budget deficit represents 2% of our 13 Trillion dollar economy'. Now unless you just believe what you see, you will see that number looks awfully small, because in reality that doesn't count the GROSS FEDERAL DEBT which stands currently at more than $8.5 trillion.

According to David M. Walker, head of Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government. He along with Diane Lim Rogers, a liberal economist from the Brookings Institution, and Alison Acosta Fraser, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank say that their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation. This is because we spend nearly a billion dollars a day in Iraq, and the first baby boomers become eligible for Social Security in 2008 and for Medicare in 2011, the expenses of those two programs are about to increase drastically because of demographic pressures.

More information and a live clock of US Debt is avialble here at http://www.brillig.com/

UberLegion, debating is not about hollering and cutting peoples mics off. And that's what O'Reilly does, he doesn't come to an interview to discuss a topic, he's there to sound off on his agenda and screw whatever the other party says.

The real story is that O'Reilly is a Fox show, which is owned by News Corp which is run by Rupert Murdoch, a man who believes that there is no room in the world for journalism that simply reports the news, that all news should really be an oppinion.