nice sentiments. It is worth asking in both the British and American contexts why people who regard themselves as believers in free speech and liberal democracy can be so openly eager to close off – silence, kill, extinguish – different political views from their own. This is the question that is at the heart of the matter and which will remain long after every News International executive who may possibly be incriminated in the current scandal has been purged. There is scarcely any outfit on the Right – be it political party, or media outlet – which demands the outright abolition of a Left-wing voice, as opposed to simply recommending restraint on its dominance (as I am with the BBC). That is because those of us on the Right are inclined to believe that our antagonists on the Left are simply wrong-headed – sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes malevolent but basically just mistaken. Whereas the Left believes that we are evil incarnate. Their demonic view of people who express even mildly Right-of-centre opinions (that lower taxes or less state control might be desirable, for example) would be risible if it were not so pernicious. The Left does not want a debate or an open market in ideas. It wants to extirpate its opponents – to remove them from the field. It actually seems to believe that it is justified in snuffing out any possibility of our arguments reaching the impressionable masses – and bizarrely, it defends this stance in the name of fairness. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...BBC-Left-is-using-hacking-to-get-revenge.html
BAHAHAHAHA weinergate Hey, guess who voted against the reinstatement of the Patriot Act? spitzer Hey, guess who was doing the most work persecuting Wall Street executives BEFORE the subprime s**t hit the fan? strauss-khan Hey, guess who's a socialist who thinks Wall Street deserves heavier punishment? yeah, it's always nice to see the right-wing get all prickly over character assassinations. oh me oh my, this is hilarious. "please, just one part of our FINE organization was devoted to hacking into dead children's phones, that shouldn't be important or reflect on us in any way. WAIT, you sent a picture of your dick somewhere? OH YOU JUST WAIT A MINUTE." I don't want to see Fox News abolished, far from it, I will defend their First Amendment rights to the hilt...but nowadays, someone needs to run a caveat next to it---Fox News is owned by someone who has no objections hiring immoral scumbags, and firing journalists who actually do real reporting (Monsanto case) or censuring people who disagree with the Fox premise. It's only fair, given how their news channel delights in the moral foibles of others.
based on a demand from a few congresscritters, requested by 9/11 families, based on an anonymous, uncorroborated source in a UK newspaper. excellent use of government resources. now, can we get a similar investigation of operation fast and furious? 150 mexican agents died, along w/ 2 ATF agents. surely that's at least worth some FBI time.
Right. Because I'm the guy who go goes into every thread around here screaming partisan fury, speaking only in refutations and endlessly quotes regurgitations of those-more-eloquent-than-i's writings. Forget about me, or my posts. Basso, you are a known, unabashed, hit-and-run cheerleader of the red who inundates this board with floods of attacks of liberals and anything against your own ideas. Calling anyone else out for blind partisan defense, is not really your bag.
For those of you who have basso on ignore, I want to relay this to you: basso wishes to express that he thinks this is NO BIG DEAL and that NOBODY SHOULD DISCUSS IT. Meanwhile the rest of us will go on watching one of the world's largest media companies implode after allegations of them running a criminal racketeering enterprise, while possibly dragging the UK government down with it. It's quite fascinating, really. Outside of Enron it's rare to see a corporate scandal go viral so quickly. even though it's NO BIG DEAL and we SHOULD NOT DISCUSS IT.
Fascinating how regardless of the staggering immoral, and illegal, conduct of the powers that be of Radical Right, there are those that defend their actions, regardless of what they are, and then toss out, again, the canard that "the other side does it," when it isn't comparable behavior, even assuming there was anything to "the comparison," which there is not. I clicked on basso's post (I have him on ignore, thank goodness), and for a guy who bellows at the top of his lungs (in his "deep voice") about 9/11, that he's willing to make excuses for Murdock's media pawns apparently using the survivors of the victims of that unspeakable tragedy for profit astonishes me. I'm sorry I "looked" at that post. I'm long past making excuses for the guy, which I was foolish enough to do in the past.
Hey everybody! Look! Basso, thinks not only that allowing the presence of competing ideas is a credit to his fairness, virtue, and political magnanimity, but that you should thank him for it too. Bravo sir. No spin zone indeed. Fun playing the basso game for a moment today, but I think that's enough feeding the troll.
You cannot win an argument against basso. You cannot convince him of anything one way or the other (without the proper party credentials, in which case it's quite easy to convince him of anything). You cannot appeal to his rationality, his sense of fairness, or even his sense of absurdity (because he has none). That is because basso is a cheerleader. He has added his energies to what he perceives as the sum total of energies for a team. There is no right or wrong, true or false, fair or unfair when you are cheering for your team. You are just cheering for your team, and you support your team no matter what your team does or doesn't do, no matter what it says or fails to say, no matter anything. Conversely, anyone who isn't on his team is automatically against his team - and therefore on the other team (because at any team event, there are never more than two teams competing simultaneously). Rationality will always fail. This isn't about truth, or logic, or anything. It is solely and simply about supporting the team. ...and basso is the internet-embodiment of this type of partisan. He posts scads of low-value articles and attacks against one side because they're 'the other team'. He posts graggles of support articles for one side because they're 'his team.' I make the mistake, just as everyone else here is doing, of thinking that when basso actually engages in a debate that there is some possibility of communication. There isn't. There never is. There never was. basso cheers for his team, and boos the other team. That's all he does. That's all he ever does.
Too bad this is NO BIG DEAL, or else this footage of a man trying to attack Murdoch with a pie in the face while testifying before parliament, complete with Wendy jumping up and trying to slap the attacker upside the head, before tumblign to the floor, would be pretty goddamned awesome. <embed src="http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf" scale="noscale" salign="lt" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" background="#333333" width="425" height="279" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" FlashVars="si=254&&contentValue=50108148&shareUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7373767n" /> But really, it's no biggie. And you shouldn't discuss it in this thread.
A pie? That is hilarious....those crazy brits.... Some of those questions the MPs are asking though are just stupid.....the ones about nepotism etc.....good lord. DD
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jhUkGIsKvn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Funny to watch Murdoch's wife as being the most proactive person, didn't think money could buy loyalty.
Perfect, now the only thing that will be reported on from here on out is "his awesome wife pie blah blah." It must be nice to own every media outlet and get to influence the headlines. I have no idea why it's even news - of course gold-digger will protect her investment Boosts his image? Charlie's Angel?? Saaaaaaayyyy whattttttttttt??
