# Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch



## billc (Jul 21, 2011)

A great column by Ann Coulter on the current Rupert Murdoch scandal.

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-20.html


----------



## Scott T (Jul 21, 2011)

Well, given the probability that Coulter would be nothing more than a skid-row crack whore without Murdoch, her position isn`t that surprising.

Found this funny, though.



> This is because the CEO is Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch owns Fox News



It`s the British media and pundits who are leading the charge against Murdoch, and I sincerely doubt they give a flying **** about Fox News when he owns plenty of outlets in their own country.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found _The Cornell Review_,[SUP][4][/SUP] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[SUP][5][/SUP] She graduated _cum laude_ from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the _Michigan Law Review_.[SUP][6][/SUP] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[SUP][7]
[/SUP]

yeah, sounds like a crack whore to me......

your comment is uninformed, and sexist




Scott T said:


> Well, given the probability that Coulter would be nothing more than a skid-row crack whore without Murdoch, her position isn`t that surprising.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found _The Cornell Review_,[SUP][4][/SUP] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[SUP][5][/SUP] She graduated _cum laude_ from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the _Michigan Law Review_.[SUP][6][/SUP] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[SUP][7]
> [/SUP]
> 
> yeah, sounds like a crack whore to me......
> ...



Sounds like one of your typical anti-left posts then, huh.

No denying that her credentials are impressive, but:

Her J.D. really doesn't mean much in the outside world. Sure, she prepped for law, but she ain't no lawyer. And even if she were her penchant for fabrication would have had her disbarred a long time ago.

Other than her B.A. in History, everything else is networking tools.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

you said without Murdock she would be  "a skid-row crack whore" that is clearly un-informed, and clearly sexist. it also in denial of the reality of her education and (3 million in book sales) undeniable talent.

your (also undeniable) hatred of her is extreemly suspect, but that is nothing new.

you lose.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

And Coulter's article is, as usual, spot on

the blatant double standards and outright lies of the left is startling, and anyone with a shred of decency or integrity would admitt it.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 21, 2011)

:chuckles:  I know I am from an ocean away but I have to say that sometimes I am struck by how much the vocal American right-wingers (on MT at least) live in an entirely different universe than the one I inhabit.

Anne Coulter's 'credentials' are not as lofty as mine and certainly a good deal worse than Elder's (to pluck another example out of our home firmament ... and yet her 'evil whispers' are more acceptable than plain old opinion?

Don't get me started on Murdoch; the man is a living anagram of "vile".


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

we can debate the value of her education and experience all day, you wont care since you dont like her message, but thats ok, opinions are worth what you pay for them....

the FACT is that she is ONCE AGAIN spot on target.

your opinion is is based on experience Mark, Culter's are backed up with literally PAGES of footnotes to sources for accuracies sake.

I believe her facts before most people's opinions

lots of leftist loons have tried to say she was wrong about this or that, but they never prove it because they cant

she fact checks maticulously


----------



## granfire (Jul 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> we can debate the value of her education and experience all day, you wont care since you dont like her message, but thats ok, opinions are worth what you pay for them....
> 
> the FACT is that she is ONCE AGAIN spot on target.
> 
> ...



the FACT is she resonates with your _opinion.


_


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 21, 2011)

By the way, prompted by John's words, I thought I'd take a scan at some 'anti-Coulter' maunderings on the Net, to see the other side of the mirror, so to speak.  

All I can say is you chaps over there in the Land of the Free certainly have the right to say any old garbage that comes into your heads and make full use of it.  

I don't know yet, without deeper digging, how credible the sources I've looked at yet are but some of the things made out to be 'disgraceful' are certainly in the eye of the beholder i.e. some of the accusations of racism are a bit on the thin and twisted side.

Also, to my startlement, some of the things she has been reported as saying I actually agree with :faints:.  For example:

&#8220;There is one sort of type of criminal that a
public humiliation might work particularly
well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot
of whom consider it a badge of honor to be
sent to juvenile detention. And it might not
be such a cool thing in the Hood to be
flogged publicly.&#8221;


&#8220;It's interesting that Berry makes such a big
deal about being black. She was raised by
her white mother who was beaten and
abandoned by her black father. Clearly,
Berry has calculated that it is more
advantageous for her acting career to
identify with the man who abandoned her
rather than the woman who raised her. &#8220;

Both of these were used as 'ammunition' to 'shoot' Coulter with.  Well, I'm an English Liberal or Labour voter and definitely a rational humanist these days and, with due respect to those taking those statements and using them to make a point, the reported words are expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact.  Scarily, given Coulter's reputation, they're opinions I wouldn't argue against .


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 21, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> we can debate the value of her education and experience all day, you wont care since you dont like her message,



I sincerely hope you know that is not true in my case at least, John.  I might not like what someone has to say but if they have good reason to say it and a good argument as to why they might be right then I wont usually dismiss their stance out of hand.

But that shoe has to fit both of our feet if discussion is ever to be dialogue rather than argument.  Taking only one 'angle' on the truth and forsaking all others is a sure way to be certain that you never see the whole truth of a situation, an idea or an ideology.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

granfire said:


> the FACT is she resonates with your _opinion.
> 
> 
> _



Bull feces

she documents EVERYTHING in minute detail

you may not LIKE her conclusions, but she is seldom factually wrong.And the TRUTH resonates with me

..why am i bothering? there is no point even talking to you, all you ever do is parrot the DNC's latest propaganda


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree with both those quotes myself



Sukerkin said:


> By the way, prompted by John's words, I thought I'd take a scan at some 'anti-Coulter' maunderings on the Net, to see the other side of the mirror, so to speak.
> 
> All I can say is you chaps over there in the Land of the Free certainly have the right to say any old garbage that comes into your heads and make full use of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 21, 2011)

Apologies for the off-topic post, but...



Scott T said:


> Her J.D. really doesn't mean much in the outside world. Sure, she prepped for law, but she ain't no lawyer.



So a J.D. is meaningless without Bar membership? I've got my J.D., even passed the state Bar, but for other reasons am not accredited yet. Thanks a ton, pal. :moon:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 21, 2011)

she could have invented the cure for cancer, because of her political opinions, some people will call her a homophobe for not curing AIDS.


----------



## Carol (Jul 21, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Apologies for the off-topic post, but...
> 
> 
> 
> So a J.D. is meaningless without Bar membership? I've got my J.D., even passed the state Bar, but for other reasons am not accredited yet. Thanks a ton, pal. :moon:




No it means a lot.  Plenty of folks in business with a JD whether they are practicing or not.  I wanted to study IP Law at Franklin Pierce.  Did well enough on the LSAT to get an enthusiastic interview with the admission counselors (they like engineers at Frank's )  But....I didn't do well enough for them to wave money at me.   They don't have a part-time program so I would have had to quit my full time job, ABA Rules.   Sigh. 

Never got it.  Glad you earned yours though. :asian:


----------



## Big Don (Jul 21, 2011)

QFT
From Coulter's column: EMPHASIS ADDED
Murdoch is an American who owns television networks, satellite  operations and newspapers all over the world. As he said in his  testimony this week, News Corp. has 53,000 employees and, until its  recent demise, *News of the World amounted to a grand total of 1 percent  of News Corp.'s operations. 
*
     Why wasn't Les Moonves responsible for CBS anchor Dan Rather  trying to throw the 2004 presidential election with phony National Guard  documents one month before the election? Moonves was president, CEO and  director of CBS, a company with half as many employees as News Corp.  *And his rogue employee constituted a much bigger part of CBS' business  than News of the World did of the Murdoch empire. *

     And yet no one asked if Moonves was aware that his network was  about to accuse a sitting president of shirking his National Guard duty.  Moonves wasn't dragged before multiple congressional panels. Nor was  MSNBC tracking his every bowel movement on live TV. No one remembers the  biggest media scandal of the last 30 years as "The Les Moonves  Scandal."


----------



## Carol (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't remember the Dan Rather/Les Moonves/CBS scandal causing a police chief to step down from a world class police force such as Scotland Yard.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 21, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Apologies for the off-topic post, but...
> 
> 
> 
> So a J.D. is meaningless without Bar membership? I've got my J.D., even passed the state Bar, but for other reasons am not accredited yet. Thanks a ton, pal. :moon:



Heh, Since I never utilized my college education Mine is useless as well. There's a difference if you intend to use your education. If you have it only to add some alphagetti behind your name, what's the point?


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2011)

Big Don said:


> QFT
> From Coulter's column: EMPHASIS ADDED
> Murdoch is an American who owns television networks, satellite  operations and newspapers all over the world. As he said in his  testimony this week, News Corp. has 53,000 employees and, until its  recent demise, *News of the World amounted to a grand total of 1 percent  of News Corp.'s operations.
> *
> ...



I guess when you perform the equivalent to necromancy you are being viewed in a dimmer light than when you just follow a false lead....


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2011)

Murdoch is Australian, who took American citizenship only so he could own American television stations, it is a citizenship of conveniencenot because he likes America. And you lot talk about 'anchor babies'. You have enough money it's easy to be a citizen!. His personal view is that he's still Aussie. However he has said he is responsible for what his employees have done, he has apologised profusely to the parents of the murdered girl, personally I think that's fluff but Milly Dowle'rs family do deserve that apology. If he's grovelling then no one can say he doesn't think he's responsible so he is!
It's not just the phone and email hacking that is upsetting us here it's the huge influence Murdoch has over politicians here, and while his views are right wing he's not adverse to supporting the left wing, the Sun newspaper here, a red top, has for a long time supported Labour only changing it's allegiance to the Conservatives recently.The old News of the Wordl was left leaning. There is also the matter of his employees bribing police officers. Now James Murdoch is now being accused of misleading MPs. In my opinion it's high time the Murdoch empire was brought down, Rupert Murdoch's influence has damaged far too much in this country.


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> we can debate the value of her education and experience all day, you wont care since you dont like her message, but thats ok, opinions are worth what you pay for them....
> 
> the FACT is that she is ONCE AGAIN spot on target.
> 
> ...




oh yeah?  Where was this checking of facts when she claimed evolution was false in her book Godless?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922

If only I was convinced that this would lead somewhere and not just be a smoke-and-mirrors excercise fueled by Murdoch greasing some wheels and calling in some 'markers'.  Conspiracy to subvert the political process really should be made a capital offence {mind you that would probably get a few Western governments in trouble if it was an internationally applied law D:}.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2011)

I find Coulter's assertion that the Murdoch story over here is boring to be extremely insensitive and shows a lack of understanding as to the situation here. His employees, erased messages on a dead girls phone leading the family and police to believe she was still alive, his employees hacked into the phones of the relatives of dead servicemen killed in Afghan, his employees have been bribing police officers ( admitted by the said employees), his employees hacked into the then Prime Minister's family medical records to see what was wrong with his son. Now, even Rupert Murdoch admits it's his responsibility, has put whole page ads in the newspapers here saying he is sorry. His employees have said there is more to come. Whether he knew or not about these crimes can be debated ad nausium but how can anyone say this situation is boring is beyond me. 
If Murdoch himself is taking this seriously and has come over to sort the situation out ( which to me means cover up) how can Coulter belittle the situation and say it's boring, Murdoch wouldn't describe it as such I'm sure so why would she? She has misjudged this badly.


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922
> 
> If only I was convinced that this would lead somewhere and not just be a smoke-and-mirrors excercise fueled by Murdoch greasing some wheels and calling in some 'markers'. Conspiracy to subvert the political process really should be made a capital offence {mind you that would probably get a few Western governments in trouble if it was an internationally applied law D:}.



 Yes, perhaps Coulter could explain how this liberal conspiracy against Murdoch is now being taken on by a *Conservative *prime minister of Britain.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> I guess when you perform the equivalent to necromancy you are being viewed in a dimmer light than when you just follow a false lead....




a false lead? htey manufactured documents, it was a BS story from start to finish AND they reported it a week before the election, in a clear attempt to effect said election


a false lead?

what the ****

i guess you think Manson was a "little angry"


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> oh yeah?  Where was this checking of facts when she claimed evolution was false in her book Godless?
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php




it isnt proven and actign like it is "fact" is intellectually dishonest


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

her point, which is pretty damned valid is why is the CEO being called on the carpet over the activities of people 42 steps on the food chain lower than him?

her example of Moonves NOT getting treated the same way is spot on. 


it is a given fact that if Murdoch didnt also happen to own Fox News, that this wanton and flagrant persecution wouldnt be happening.















Tez3 said:


> I find Coulter's assertion that the Murdoch story over here is boring to be extremely insensitive and shows a lack of understanding as to the situation here. His employees, erased messages on a dead girls phone leading the family and police to believe she was still alive, his employees hacked into the phones of the relatives of dead servicemen killed in Afghan, his employees have been bribing police officers ( admitted by the said employees), his employees hacked into the then Prime Minister's family medical records to see what was wrong with his son. Now, even Rupert Murdoch admits it's his responsibility, has put whole page ads in the newspapers here saying he is sorry. His employees have said there is more to come. Whether he knew or not about these crimes can be debated ad nausium but how can anyone say this situation is boring is beyond me.
> If Murdoch himself is taking this seriously and has come over to sort the situation out ( which to me means cover up) how can Coulter belittle the situation and say it's boring, Murdoch wouldn't describe it as such I'm sure so why would she? She has misjudged this badly.


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it isnt proven and actign like it is "fact" is intellectually dishonest



quit being obtuse.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> her point, which is pretty damned valid is why is the CEO being called on the carpet over the activities of people 42 steps on the food chain lower than him?
> 
> her example of Moonves NOT getting treated the same way is spot on.
> 
> ...



That is because she has never held a management or executive position, and she is going for controversial shock value. And Yes, what he did or allowed happen directly or through company culture.  Ms. Coulter is a controversial conservative social and political commentator, and she is paid for that. She says what ever will get the most attention. She has described herself as, a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." This is how she makes a living. She took lessons from Rush, and did him better; more intelligent and a lot more risky.  Her chosen profession doesn't have her being hired for her specialized knowledge or expertise, say like a CEO.  She is a writer who gives her opinion which is published. She does interviews and speaking gigs too. That is her career, "to sir the pot."  Is she a political or social expert? No. She is a controversial writer by choice. More importantly, She is a women working outside of the typical conservative women's stereotype. She has shattered that stereotype all to hell, by being loud, brash, bullish, opinionated, educated, argumentative, controversial. Completely the opposite of the typical conservative women.  She isn' in some kitchen listening to Tammy Waynette's "Stand by your man" barefoot and pregnant, with a baby in one arm and the bible in the other.  She definitely isn't NO Palin or Bachmann. Coulter more than anything is a female activist, a liberator of conservative women who is over-the-top to be heard, in a male run conservative world. I don't take what she says to be the "truth" when she "stirs the pot." The truth lies in what she really means by  what pot she is really stirring. When it comes to Ms. Coulter many don't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> That is because she has never held a management or executive position, and she is going for controversial shock value. And Yes, what he did or allowed happen directly or through company culture.  Ms. Coulter is a controversial conservative social and political commentator, and she is paid for that. She says what ever will get the most attention. She has described herself as, a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." This is how she makes a living. She took lessons from Rush, and did him better; more intelligent and a lot more risky.  Her chosen profession doesn't have her being hired for her specialized knowledge or expertise, say like a CEO.  She is a writer who gives her opinion which is published. She does interviews and speaking gigs too. That is her career, "to sir the pot."  Is she a political or social expert? No. She is a controversial writer by choice. More importantly, She is a women working outside of the typical conservative women's stereotype. She has shattered that stereotype all to hell, by being loud, brash, bullish, opinionated, educated, argumentative, controversial. Completely the opposite of the typical conservative women.  She isn' in some kitchen listening to Tammy Waynette's "Stand by your man" barefoot and pregnant, with a baby in one arm and the bible in the other.  She definitely isn't NO Palin or Bachmann. Coulter more than anything is a female activist, a liberator of conservative women who is over-the-top to be heard, in a male run conservative world. I don't take what she says to be the "truth" when she "stirs the pot." The truth lies in what she really means by  what pot she is really stirring. When it comes to Ms. Coulter many don't see the forest for the trees.


calling her a liberator is maybe taking things too far....


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it isnt proven and actign like it is "fact" is intellectually dishonest



 No it is intellectually dishonest to say evolution is not a fact when criminals are convicted every day based on DNA evidence, evolution is the whole theory on which things like genetic engineering and DNA evidence and molecular biology is based. It is as robust a theory as quantum mechanics which was used to develop the chips in the very computer you are using right now or relativity which explains why the sun is shining right now.
I guess Ann wasn't too "maticulous" in her research.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

not a fact, sorry


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> not a fact, sorry



your saying so isn't a fact sorry.  Her JD doesn't compare to ph.ds in molecular biology.  You need more "maticulous" research, and perhaps better debating skill than would be found in a school yard.

If it isn't a fact then you will be quite all right with freeing anyone convicted with DNA evidence?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> her point, which is pretty damned valid is why is the CEO being called on the carpet over the activities of people 42 steps on the food chain lower than him?
> 
> her example of Moonves NOT getting treated the same way is spot on.
> 
> ...



This "wanton and flagrant prosecution" is happening over in Brittain, not the U.S. That was Parliament that Murdoch almost got pied in front of, not a Congressional Committee. Fox News maybe the American arm of the Murdoch empire, but it is still only one arm. Saying that the investigation is entirely based on Murdoch's owning Fox News ignores the minor little detail that the investigation is mostly occurring across the pond. 

As for his being a CEO, please note that his main defense is "I didn't know about it", which is the usual line (true or not) given by higher-ups in corporate wrongdoing cases. It's called agency law, and employers can very often be found responsible, partially or fully, for the wrongdoings of their employees. That's why Parliament was grilling him and his son about what they knew, what they should have known, whether it'd been tacitly approved, etc. Also note the frequency with which this wrongdoing was occurring. It's much easier for a corporate higher-up to deny knowledge and/or responsibiliity when it's a few isolated incidences rather than frequent, ongoing actions of employees. 

Face it, TF, this investigation (not persecution) is occurring because BAD **** HAPPENED, not because of the political association of a single branch of Murdoch's empire. I'm pretty sure that if this had occurred within a liberal corporate empire, you'd be screaming for the CEO's head.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 22, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> You need more "maticulous" research, and perhaps better debating skill than would be found in a school yard.



*twitches*

It's m*e*ticulous.


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> *twitches*
> 
> It's m*e*ticulous.



I know......:


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 22, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> .... she is going for controversial shock value...(snipped)   Ms. Coulter is a controversial conservative social and political commentator, and she is paid for that. She says what ever will get the most attention. She has described herself as, a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced,  I don't take what she says to be the "truth" when she "stirs the pot." The truth lies in what she really means by  what pot she is really stirring.



thanks JE.  I've thought the same. One of her closest analogs, oddly, is Howard Stern. 

Not in content, obviously, and without (technically) obscene language but certainly structured for maximum shock effect. And delivered in that droll, un-hysterical tone and phrasing, providing contrast with the vile content of her opinions, similar to Sterns. The tone (auditory and in language choice) both of them use is mocking, deeply sarcastic, mannered and cultivated for shock effect as performance, not persuasion. She's developed a successful delivery based on attacks and smears (embedded in opinion) that is crude and rude - just as Stern has adopted. People who share her view of content are delighted that she flusters some opponents and delivers her viewpoint in deadpan mockery - like Stern and his fans. And presents herself (as Stern does) as courageous and the 'victim' of attacks for her willingness to be 'honest and forthright'.

Her verbal tone/pitch and appearance, like Sterns, functions in deliberate and well-tuned contrast to the snark and content. She is cheerful, humorous, like Stern,  attractive (unlike Stern and with much better hair) and able to rarely become provoked or visibly angered (unless intentional) like Stern. Her 'arguments' are facile and riddled with fallacies and logical dead-ends but nobody much notices or cares, anymore than they notice or care when Stern or Michael Moore does the same. 

and yes, I did lots of review of video (w/no sound) and audio (w/no video) and written transcripts of all these folks (and others) for a linguistic anthropology analysis on the use of  intentional sarcasm/ridicule in public discourse. Without question, Ms. Coulter is one of the most currently successful in her practice of performance celebrity.
Thanks JE for reminding me of that similarity. Though it makes me sad for us all.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jul 22, 2011)

Yea, I was going to use Howard Stern instead of Rush, your right a better choice.Agreed it would be more accurate.   I choose Rush because of the conservative parallel and the relation to the bigger picture of Ms. Coulter.  Thanks for bring up Stern which I can't agree more on.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't think some non Brits are understanding the magnitude of the problem here, it isn't a minor hiccup by a lower ranked employee. The investigation by Parliament ( which is not the Government btw, Parliament is her Majesty's Government *and* Her Majesty's Opposition) is a major inquiry into the actions of News International and the Murdochs. It may well be that Murdoch knew nothing about the hacking and the bribery BUT he launched his own investigation into it and stated that it was only one person. So, it's the internal investigation and Murdoch's involvement in that which is a big part of the Parlimentary and Police investigations.
Here is the Parliamentary site so people can read for themselves the questioning etc from the Select Commitee ( an all party commitee btw)
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-international-executives-respond-to-summons/

This is a nasty mess and don't be fooled for one minute that Murdoch isn't up to his neck in the mire. Murdoch is very closely involved in UK politics and in his newspapers here. I think people forget he's an Australian who came here first to set up his empire then moved to America where he bought his citizenship to enable him to buy media outlets there.
This from The Independent which doesn't lean left or right ( my daily and Sunday paper)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/has-the-old-boy-finally-lost-the-plot-2314922.html


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2011)

But I suppose Anne Coulter's efforts are along the line of 'how can I squeeze my **** in front of the camera and get some attention around here!'


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I'm pretty sure that if this had occurred within a liberal corporate empire, you'd be screaming for the CEO's head.




and you would be wrong, i wasnt after Les Moonves' head when his people FLAT OUT CREATED EVIDENCE in an attempt to influence an election

so you are wrong.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

i spelled a word wrong, simple mistake, you keep harping on it, thats being an ***. What are you? 12?

also, doesnt matter how much you blather on, 1) i dont care what you think and 2) it still isnt a fact




Ramirez said:


> your saying so isn't a fact sorry.  Her JD doesn't compare to ph.ds in molecular biology.  You need more "maticulous" research, and perhaps better debating skill than would be found in a school yard.
> 
> If it isn't a fact then you will be quite all right with freeing anyone convicted with DNA evidence?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i spelled a word wrong, simple mistake,


 Aye, something we've all done at sometime or other.



Twin Fist said:


> also, doesnt matter how much you blather on, 1) i dont care what you think


  That's perfectly within your rights :nods:.



Twin Fist said:


> and 2) it still isnt a fact


 Er, kind of is, John.  As much as anything is and rather more rigorously investigated than many things {assuming that this was directed at the theory of Evolution}.  Sadly, even if Homo Erectus and Neaderthal were still around to tell you so, I get the feeling that even that wouldn't be enough to sway you.  The power of rational thought is not yet sufficient to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination ...

... but with the application of a little magnetic field to the brain that can be sorted out {cue evil villain laughter}.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 22, 2011)

Sukerkin;1415077Don't get me started on Murdoch; the man is a living anagram of "vile".[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> And Soros isn't?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2011)

Can't say - I know the name but I am much more aware of the corrupting media machinations of Mr. Murdoch.  Is it worth my time to dig into Soros?  Or would it just depress me even more about the parlous state of the human spirit?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

hold on Mark

I have no doubt at all about the validity of the evolutionary theory

but

to dog on someone, as Ramirez did, becasue they say it isnt a "fact" is horse crap because it isnt a fact

we dont KNOW how it works and we cant replicate it, we can barely observe it, and most of that comes from the fossil record which is, by any standard, almost entirely incomplete.


i have no doubt it is true, but it isnt a proven fact. My belief in it not withstanding





Sukerkin said:


> Aye, something we've all done at sometime or other.
> 
> That's perfectly within your rights :nods:.
> 
> ...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

you seriously dont know who george soros is?


wow

do some reading




Sukerkin said:


> Can't say - I know the name but I am much more aware of the corrupting media machinations of Mr. Murdoch.  Is it worth my time to dig into Soros?  Or would it just depress me even more about the parlous state of the human spirit?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2011)

I should have used a comma rather than a dash there I think .  I meant to say that I couldn't judge whether Mr. Soros was worse or not than Mr. Murdoch as, altho' I know the name, that about delimits the extent of my knowledge about him .


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 22, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Can't say - I know the name but I am much more aware of the corrupting media machinations of Mr. Murdoch. Is it worth my time to dig into Soros? Or would it just depress me even more about the parlous state of the human spirit?



Well put. It would deffinately depress you more about the sad state of affairs in our world. :tink:

But just in case you have an interest.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 22, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> Well put. It would deffinately depress you more about the sad state of affairs in our world. :tink:
> 
> But just in case you have an interest.



Opps pasted wrong url. http://gulagbound.com/6356/on-being-god-from-the-mouth-of-george-soros/

Basically He thinks he's a God, and likes to play with national economies for sport.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2011)

:chuckles:  Is that the link you meant to put in there MaxiMe?

Ahh - corrected it as I typed :tup:.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 22, 2011)

Unlike Murdoch, George Soros doesn't have tentacles stretching into several of the worlds major governments with the intention of influencing policy, so it's not really an apt comparison.


----------



## MaxiMe (Jul 22, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Unlike Murdoch, George Soros doesn't have tentacles stretching into several of the worlds major governments with the intention of influencing policy, so it's not really an apt comparison.



Ahh I think messing with their enonomy might be a tenticle that deffinately influences policy.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

you are either dishonest or WOEFULLY uninformed.

Soros has donated BILLIONS to political causes and groups.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

 Since 1979, Soros's foundation network -- whose flagship is theOpen Society Institute (OSI) -- has dispensed more than $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups. Following is a sampling of the major agendas advanced by groups that Soros and OSI support financially. Listed under each category heading are a few OSI donees fitting that description.

read it and weap




So, which is it?

are you dishonest or uninformed?



Scott T said:


> Unlike Murdoch, George Soros doesn't have tentacles stretching into several of the worlds major governments with the intention of influencing policy, so it's not really an apt comparison.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 22, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Unlike Murdoch, George Soros doesn't have tentacles stretching into several of the worlds major governments with the intention of influencing policy, so it's not really an apt comparison.





> In an interview with _The Washington Post_ on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush  from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life  and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat  President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it."[SUP][48][/SUP] Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[SUP][49][/SUP] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election. On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: _Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush_[SUP][50][/SUP] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site.[SUP][51][/SUP] Asked in 2006 about his statement in _The Age of Fallibility_  that "the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United  States", Soros responded that "it happens to coincide with the  prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that's rather shocking for  Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And  the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a 'war  on terror' after September 11, we set the wrong agenda for the world.  [...] when you wage war, you inevitably create innocent victims."[SUP][52][/SUP]


[h=4][/h] According to Neil Clark in the _New Statesman_, Soros's role was crucial in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.[SUP][55][/SUP] From 1979, as an advocate of 'open societies', Soros financially supported dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union[SUP][44][/SUP] donating $3 million a year according to Clark.[SUP][55][/SUP] In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute  in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and  independent media. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Soros' funding  has continued to play an important role in the former Soviet sphere. His  funding of pro-democratic programs in of Georgia was considered by Russian and Western observers to be crucial to the success of the Rose Revolution, although Soros has said that his role has been "greatly exaggerated



> Some Soros-backed pro-democracy initiatives have been banned in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan


No, no tentacles at all...


----------



## Big Don (Jul 22, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> Ahh I think messing with their enonomy might be a tenticle that deffinately influences policy.


Click here: The Man Who Broke The Bank of England


----------



## Scott T (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> you are either dishonest or WOEFULLY uninformed.
> 
> Soros has donated BILLIONS to political causes and groups.
> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589
> ...



Neither. 

Anyone can give money to political groups that support their agenda, so that's irrelevent. Through his media empire, Murdoch had the British government by the balls to the the extent of Brooke 'suggesting' who should be the Prime Minister's comms director ( a NewsCorp stooge, naturally). Compared to Murdoch, Soros' tentacle is about the size of a gnat's pecker on the international stage

And yeah, I know about his shorting of the British Pound just prior to a devaluation (gotta love Google).


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 22, 2011)

Ah, *that'll* be why his name was familiar to me!  I knew that in my memory it was being said by Paxman in a Newsnight type setting  :tup:.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

That facts are non-debatable

the trail is proven, Soros, and BILLIONS of dollars into progressive agencies around the world, all pushing an agenda, and all buying power and influence

and you say it is "a gnats pecker"

not sure if it is dishonesty or the other one, but its one of the two with you. 

here is another term you can google


"Partisan hack"



Scott T said:


> Neither.
> 
> Anyone can give money to political groups that support their agenda, so that's irrelevent. Through his media empire, Murdoch had the British government by the balls to the the extent of Brooke 'suggesting' who should be the Prime Minister's comms director ( a NewsCorp stooge, naturally). Compared to Murdoch, Soros' tentacle is about the size of a gnat's pecker on the international stage
> 
> And yeah, I know about his shorting of the British Pound just prior to a devaluation (gotta love Google).


----------



## Scott T (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> That facts are non-debatable
> 
> the trail is proven, Soros, and BILLIONS of dollars into progressive agencies around the world, all pushing an agenda, and all buying power and influence
> 
> ...



Looking in the mirror again, are you?

Are you critical of entities like the Koch Brothers or any other conservative entity from doing the same thing. God knows you apparently support Murdoch's spying game, as you think the media is being to hard on him. Considering his employees hacked a dead girl's cell phone and deleted messages that could have aided the police in their investigation, he'd be getting off easy if he were to go to jail.

To paraphrase one of your former presidents, the buck stops with him.


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> That facts are non-debatable



 Did you observe Soros doing any of this? I assume not, so it's not a fact is it?


----------



## Scott T (Jul 22, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Did you observe Soros doing any of this? I assume not, so it's not a fact is it?


Anything Twinny says is a fact. Just ask him.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

your pants are on pants on fire dude

there is NO evidence out there that it is Murdoch's game, no matter how many lies you make up, if there is any evidence that Rupert Murdoch KNEW and SUPPORTED this operation, then post it, otherwise? we all know you are dishonest and a hack, and you are proving it once again by posting yet more attacks and lies about what you imagine I support.....

if you have to lie to make a point, you dont have one

the koch brothers dont tank an entire nations currency for kicks.....

so, comeback when you actually HAVE something, k?


Scott T said:


> Looking in the mirror again, are you?
> 
> Are you critical of entities like the Koch Brothers or any other conservative entity from doing the same thing. God knows you apparently support Murdoch's spying game, as you think the media is being to hard on him. Considering his employees hacked a dead girl's cell phone and deleted messages that could have aided the police in their investigation, he'd be getting off easy if he were to go to jail.
> 
> To paraphrase one of your former presidents, the buck stops with him.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Did you observe Soros doing any of this? I assume not, so it's not a fact is it?




it has been observed and proven, your distraction tactics not withstanding.


typical leftist, when confronted with damning facts, attack the person, to distract from the facts......


people like you make me laugh, .


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

> lots
> 
> simple measuring stick too
> 
> ...



 your own words on what constitutes a fact....if you didn't observe it , it's not a fact.


----------



## Ramirez (Jul 22, 2011)

> people like you make me laugh, and puke, depending on the day.



 you should really see a doctor or psychiatrist about that brother.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 22, 2011)

It is passingly entertaining how, since Coulter's facts are so meticulously documented, they attack her appearance, education, vocation, etc.
Almost like watching George W Bush get blamed for everything up to and including the fall of man...


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

liberals cant take citique, so they attack the critic. When it is a woman, it is fiar game to attack everything about her, since she is a traitor to "real women" by being a conservative. Look at how Palin and Bachman are treated.....


----------



## Scott T (Jul 22, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> your pants are on pants on fire dude
> 
> there is NO evidence out there that it is Murdoch's game, no matter how many lies you make up, if there is any evidence that Rupert Murdoch KNEW and SUPPORTED this operation, then post it, otherwise? we all know you are dishonest and a hack, and you are proving it once again by posting yet more attacks and lies about what you imagine I support.....
> 
> ...



God damn, you are so ****ing EASY!!! :soapbox:

You can't even recognize that I'm using techniques and tactics perfected and frequently used by you, even on this thread!

Thanks, Twinney, you made my day! It was fun playing with your hypocrisy.

Coulter has made it a long way. My only beef with her is that she is quite capable of lying in an attempt to make a point.

And Bob, I know I deserve your righteous wrath over this, but I warned you while we waited almost an hour for our ribs. :lol:


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

you just make **** up as you go along dont you?

you LIED, you made **** up out of whole cloth, and passed it out as fact, when it wasnt

i pointed it out.

you can call it whatever, but you just look worse the more you carry on.


----------



## Scott T (Jul 22, 2011)

> you just make **** up as you go along dont you?


Not generally. Just when mocking a master.


> you LIED, you made **** up out of whole cloth, and passed it out as fact, when it wasnt


 Kind of familiar, isn't it



> i pointed it out.
> 
> you can call it whatever, but you just look worse the more you carry on.



Think about that. Just A. Little. Bit.


----------



## billc (Jul 22, 2011)

Bottom line, Ann Coulter is great.  Her latest book is really good, she makes great points, doesn't cave to the liberal pressure groups, doesn't back down to the liberal bullies, she drives the right people nuts and she is out there trying to teach the feckless republicans in political office that they don't have to roll over for the democrats.  Love her and the work she does.  That is all there is to it.  So there.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Think about that. Just A. Little. Bit.




please post ANY lie i have posted

not opinions you disagree with, but LIES

if you can, 

or do you just accuse people of doing exactly what you do in some wierd, albiet LAME attempt to confuse the issue?

that would be guess since it is an other classic liberal tactic. Tell lies, and accuse others of lying, to cover up your lie......Classic Alynsky


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 22, 2011)

perfect summation of why leftists lie do damned much
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_shot_at_stirring_up_anti-truth_outrage.html

As for leftist "watchdogs" such as MM, there's a good reason why they lie:
Because the right generally doesn't.
While there are exceptions, the right is more likely to seek Truth and be accurate in its reportage and commentary.  Thus,* the left can't demonize the right without using deception.*
_And the left does this without batting an eye_.  As I often point out, leftists are relativists, meaning that they don't believe in Absolute Truth.  Because of this, *the Truth means nothing to them, and they lie like they breathe.*  And the more relativism has imbued them on a visceral level, the more they'll be able to lie without compunction, without reservation, without guilt.
This mindset is hard for many people to grasp.  After all, the average person isn't a moral philosopher; he may not even be able to define moral relativism.  But the Truth likely occupies a special place in his mind.  Oh, he may sometimes lie, but he nevertheless senses that Truth possesses special value.
To a hard-core relativistic leftist, there is no Truth, only "truths."  And a person's "truth" is just his own perspective. * It thus possesses no special status.*  This failure to recognize transcendent Truth - that great author of morality - causes the leftist to become his own source of right and wrong.  His desires then take on the character of Truth in his own mind, and, consequently, whatever contradicts them takes on the character of a lie.  This is what enables a leftist to condemn those who speak the Truth as liars.  They have contradicted the only god the leftist knows - himself.


----------



## granfire (Jul 22, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Bottom line, Ann Coulter is great.  Her latest book is really good, she makes great points, doesn't cave to the liberal pressure groups, doesn't back down to the liberal bullies, she drives the right people nuts and she is out there trying to teach the feckless republicans in political office that they don't have to roll over for the democrats.  Love her and the work she does.  That is all there is to it.  So there.



 Ann Coulter is Great


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 23, 2011)

According to news releases today, the whistleblower who helped the Brits with thier inviestigation said that Mr murdoch's son knew about and approved of the tactices being used.  Supposedly, this is backed up by emails.  If this is true, then at least one member of high management should be prosecuted.

If a political commentator goes on a national show and states that we bombed Egypt, then back tracks to say we threatened to bomb Egypt and that is why there was regime change there, they lose tons of credability with me.  It doesn't matter who's side they represent.  Falshoods are falshoods, no matter how deprately you want to make your point.  Coulter did this on Bill Mahr's show.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jul 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Bottom line, Ann Coulter is great.  Her latest book is really good, she makes great points, doesn't cave to the liberal pressure groups, doesn't back down to the liberal bullies, she drives the right people nuts and she is out there trying to teach the feckless republicans in political office that they don't have to roll over for the democrats.  Love her and the work she does.  That is all there is to it.  So there.



Many people disagree with that notably Piers Morgan, Rick Sanchez, and many who agree might be sporting a crush on Ms. Coulter....Only if Howard Stern was as pretty.  The good thing is she is out there for people to cheer or jeer. It makes the game of politics interesting, distracting from the dirty, real world politics. And the left has their shock pundits too that do the real same thing.  Most evidently the saddest thing that can be said about our modern day politics, it's a game that is entertaining. Partisan fans (voters with party affiliation) taking sides and cheering or jeer bombastic shock pundits. I repeat an era far beyond Orwell's imagination.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 23, 2011)

piers morgana nd rick sanchez are both idiots.....


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 23, 2011)

You'll get no argument from me about Mr. Morgan.  Happily, he might be pulled into the mire along with his erstwhile boss:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8635674/Hacking-scandal-Piers-Morgan-should-face-questions-say-MPs.html

Mr. Sanchez I don't know about - a brief Net search reveals a typical self-important Yank TV 'anchor' {also known as a "news reader", why do they get such an inflated view of themselves?}.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> According to news releases today, the whistleblower who helped the Brits with thier inviestigation said that Mr murdoch's son knew about and approved of the tactices being used. Supposedly, this is backed up by emails. If this is true, then at least one member of high management should be prosecuted.
> 
> If a political commentator goes on a national show and states that we bombed Egypt, then back tracks to say we threatened to bomb Egypt and that is why there was regime change there, they lose tons of credability with me. It doesn't matter who's side they represent. Falshoods are falshoods, no matter how deprately you want to make your point. Coulter did this on Bill Mahr's show.




It's actually one of Murdoch's lawyers and one of his editors who are saying he knew, the whistleblower died this week under unknown circumstances.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 23, 2011)

IF he knew, then he should be prosecuted

if there is no proof he knew, it should be dropped

very simple


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> IF he knew, then he should be prosecuted
> 
> if there is no proof he knew, it should be dropped
> 
> very simple



Agreed, but that's kind of what the investigations and Parliamentary hearings are for.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> IF he knew, then he should be prosecuted
> 
> if there is no proof he knew, it should be dropped
> 
> very simple



It isn't quite that simple when it comes to heads of companies.  Even if they don't know about something that has been done by their subordinates the chain of responsibility and authority says that they should know.  Part of why they take home the big salaries (and tend to get even huger golden handshakes when they leave) is that they are supposed to accept responsibility when things go wrong, just as they bask in glory when things go right.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 23, 2011)

then why wasnt les moonves investigated when dan rather tried to interfere with an election?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 23, 2011)

I don't know.  A question you should perhaps put to the legislators and politicians in charge at the time?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 23, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> then why wasnt les moonves investigated when dan rather tried to interfere with an election?



Those are two entirely separate situations, and getting bogged down in arguing over a red herring isn't worth it.  Murdoch owns the company, his employees committed widespread malfeasance, and there is question as to whether Murdoch approved, knew, or should have known about it.  An investigation into such a widespread scandal is only natural.  

You said earlier that his owning Fox news is the only reason he's being persecuted.  Personally, I think that's the only real reason you're defending him.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 23, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> You said earlier that his owning Fox news is the only reason he's being persecuted.



Did John really say that in this thread?  I missed that if he did.  I can assure him that over here whether he owns Fox News is not why he (or his son at least) is going to be before a Parliamentary committee.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2011)

Murdoch has owned media outlets here long before he bought any in America, it's his actions or lack of them and his knowledge of what went on he is being questioned about. The fact that he owns Fox is of no interest to the British as it has no bearing on the proceedings here.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 23, 2011)

i hope that is true.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Did John really say that in this thread? I missed that if he did. I can assure him that over here whether he owns Fox News is not why he (or his son at least) is going to be before a Parliamentary committee.



See post #28:



> it is a given fact that if Murdoch didnt also happen to own Fox News, that this wanton and flagrant persecution wouldnt be happening.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 23, 2011)

'Fox' has only come up when Murdoch's companies are noted, most Brits don't actually know what Fox is other than a 'television company', we have a Conservative government and it's hardly likely to pick on rich Conservative supporter Murdoch just for the fun of it. We don't have despite what some might to think, politically angled news stations or TV companies here.


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> 'Fox' has only come up when Murdoch's companies are noted, most Brits don't actually know what Fox is other than a 'television company', we have a Conservative government and it's hardly likely to pick on rich Conservative supporter Murdoch just for the fun of it. We don't have despite what some might to think, politically angled news stations or TV companies here.



Shucks, actually reporting _news_ what a novel concept!


----------



## SensibleManiac (Jul 23, 2011)

Oh, I actually thought this was a post with a picture of Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch. Literally.  

My bad.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 23, 2011)

:chuckles: Have you seen his wife?  Amazing what a huge bank balance can buy you.


----------



## granfire (Jul 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles: Have you seen his wife?  Amazing what a huge bank balance can buy you.



LOL, yeah, like 'The Donald' arm candy....

(though, I am sure she was protecting her meal ticket)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles: Have you seen his wife? Amazing what a huge bank balance can buy you.



Package deal, trophy wife and bodyguard.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 23, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> Oh, I actually thought this was a post with a picture of Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch. Literally.
> 
> My bad.


That is so friggin wrong eww eww eww
that stick figure and that OLD man eww


----------



## billc (Jul 24, 2011)

No one here believes in true love?  Love at first sight?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 24, 2011)

I believe lots of women see a millionaire and it is love at first sight, yes


----------

