Media "Control" of the Elections?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

" From articles i've read, it is believed that Rupert Murdoch is a liberal,"

This was in the post immediately prior to mine, from a raving dave. It's complete nonsense, unworthy of further comment.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Murdoch is a liberal

Post by ravingdave »

jgarry wrote:Murdoch is a liberal? This nonsense speaks for itself.
Sometimes nonsense requires a spokesman. A more diplomatic approach, Nay, a more Reasonable approach would be "Show me your Evidence. "



Well, he's from Australia, and they tend to not be socially conservative.
He's VERY wealthy, and they tend to not be socially, and often not Fiscally conservative. (At least not with their own money. )


And there ARE Stories out there that hint he is not a conservative.


http://www.newser.com/story/36407/ruper ... beral.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/books ... .html?_r=1


"Now, with about six weeks to go before publication, Mr. Murdoch has raised objections with Mr. Wolff and his publisher about portions of the book, titled “The Man Who Owns the News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch,” that suggest that Mr. Murdoch is at times embarrassed by Fox News, which he owns, and its chief executive, Roger Ailes, and that he often shares “the general liberal apoplexy,” as Mr. Wolff writes in the book, toward Fox News and its perceived conservative slant. "


http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelca ... illy_.html



In any case, what I said is still true.

RavingDave wrote:" From articles i've read, it is believed that Rupert Murdoch is a liberal,"



David


I have edited this message by deleting one of the links I initialy posted. It had some good information in it, but reading further into the article I found material that I deem offensive, and at the very least provacative.

The title of the article was "FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch: "Lay Off Obama" if anyone wants to research it themselves.
Last edited by ravingdave on Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

I'm sorry to be rude, but if we're going to have reasonable discourse, we're going to have to have at least some respect for... reason.

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

I withdraw my previous apology. The sky is green, grass is red, Murdoch is liberal.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

scareduck wrote: 2) John McCain and the GOP selected someone as a VP candidate who was and is a complete ignoramus.
Come on. You show your own ignorance by saying something that ridiculous. She is most obviously not an idiot or even close to it.

She is an intelligent woman with who has a proven track record as an administrator. She runs a state and in doing so has been able to accomplish a great deal of things that have never been done before.

The fact that she wasn't able to answer a question about a media name for a unclear policy doesn't make her stupid - just uninformed. This is a woman who focusses on the interests of her constituents. The fact that you buy into the idea of tying her lack of information into her lack of intellectual ability shows a lot more about you than her.

She has strong political views and an innate ability to deliver her messages in simple terms that are both endearing and easy to understand. She has a bright political future. Be careful underestimating this one.

Questioning whether she was qualified to be vice president because of her lack of international experience or knowledge is a reasonable position to take. Questioning her intelligence is not.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

jgarry wrote:I withdraw my previous apology. The sky is green, grass is red, Murdoch is liberal.
Okay, i'll be fair. I have posted examples of why I think he's Liberal, why don't you tell me why you think he isn't ?


David

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

OMG

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

I think that saying Palin was unintelligent is pushing it, yes. Maybe a better question, in general, was whether or not she was an effective candidate. Choice of a Vice President is fairly important in an election, in terms of who gets elected. And I think, while Palin certainly energized a certain portion of the conservative electorate, those voters were probably already in the can for the most part (some few who didn't like some of McCain's more liberal social stances, notwithstanding). On the other hand, she pretty well alienated a considerable portion of swing voters.

Worse, McCain, whose best attribute was his honorable nature, didn't seem to have been invested in the choice. This was, overall, quite damaging to his candidacy... the fact that in the face of the election his principles seemed to give way a bit. Including allowing staffers to chose Palin, despite her not being a really what he would have wanted. The fact that she was a woman alone seemed very calculating (get Hilary's disaffected voters!).

Not the best choice in recent elections, at least from a tactical POV towards getting elected. I think McCain's staff did more to sabotage his election than anyone else. He'd have been better off without advisors following his own direction. Probably not possible in a modern election, however.

Yes the media made hay with Palin. I think some of it was valid, however. Obama, I think to his credit (at the very least tactically), immediately dismissed Palin's family matters as immaterial.

Mike

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jgarry wrote:OMG
A very reasoned intelligent argument. Perhaps you can give us some hints about plasma physics in your next discourse. I think

WTF?

Should cover it.

You know, R. Dave and I have our disagreements. We differ politically on a number of points. But I have always found his discourse reasoned.

Mr. j on the other hand presents discourse worthy of DU. I won't mention KOS because although I violently disagree with some of their positions there is occasional argument behind them. You sir have nothing.

Pity.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

MSimon wrote:You cheated. You should have quoted the opening of the wikipedia piece which said that there were a number of evolving doctrines of which a few had been codified. I quoted Froomkin because he made that point clearer.

So yeah. I had looked at the wiki first and Froomkin is not a revisionist. He reflects what the wiki says in more detail.

As I said: the media got to you first and told you a story and now you are attached to it because it fits your world view and not the facts. A dangerous place for a scientist or an engineer.
Does it really matter? The parts used to justify the Iraq war, the biggest blunder in the country's history, did not change. You're complaining about filigrees.
BTW as much as I have had apprehensions about the new guy he seems a lot different than what my understanding of him was during the campaign. I thought he was lying to the people in the center to get their votes. It turns out he was lying to the people on the left to get their votes. And are they ever howling. Well I'm cheering.
Mainly because they were in love with the rock-star version of Obama. They rarely bothered to ask what their pull would be if he did something to alienate them. They're finding out how limited their options are now.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Mike,

Biden.

A plagiarist. Wrong on dividing Iraq. In fact he is an expert on foreign policy. What ever he suggests - don't do it.

And the biggest foot in mouth guy in politics. And that is saying something.

The new guy would be sending him to Grant's Tomb to live if he could get away with it.

We are very lucky the VP isn't worth a bucket of yellow liquid excrement.

A lot of people consider him the New Guy's insurance policy.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

Well since we can't agree agree on first principles, let's just end it with a hearty kiss off, then. I have no intention of debating the obvious with stubborn fools. Murdoch is a liberal? Please.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Mike Holmes wrote:

Yes the media made hay with Palin. I think some of it was valid, however. Obama, I think to his credit (at the very least tactically), immediately dismissed Palin's family matters as immaterial.

Mike
Obama's telling everyone to lay off Palin's family, I must admit was very classy. Unfortunatly they didn't do it. They are still rag-ing on them till this day.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

jgarry wrote:Well since we can't agree agree on first principles, let's just end it with a hearty kiss off, then. I have no intention of debating the obvious with stubborn fools. Murdoch is a liberal? Please.
Oh come on ! It's Fun! Just don't take it too seriously. :)



David

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

seedload wrote:
scareduck wrote: 2) John McCain and the GOP selected someone as a VP candidate who was and is a complete ignoramus.
Come on. You show your own ignorance by saying something that ridiculous. She is most obviously not an idiot or even close to it.
She couldn't answer a simple question about what newspapers she read. That's just ridiculous; in this era, when lots of people get their news via the Internet, she could have easily answered, "online", and people would have been fine with that. Instead, she choked:
Katie Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious: what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
Sarah Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
KC: But, like, what ones specifically? I'm curious.
SP: All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years.
KC: Can you name a few?
SP: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where, it's kind of suggested and it seems like, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
At the very least, this suggests she can't think on her feet. She didn't answer the question! And that was a softball. Sorry.

She couldn't come up with a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade -- which is hilarious, because there was a significant decision that directly affected Alaska she railed against only months before. Link:
Couric asked Palin: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

"Well, let's see,'' Palin said. "There's --of course --in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but...''

"Can you think of any?'' Couric asked.

"Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level -- maybe I would take issue with,'' Palin said. "But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.''
Incompetent. Incurious. Unqualified.

Post Reply