• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News shareholder funded ‘Ground Zero mosque’ imam: report

jallman said:
Ok...if that's how you see it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The way I see it, If he was trying to just outright smear them, he wouldn't of referred to his previous segment at all.
 
jallman said:
You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about, but that's beside the point.

The heart of the issue here is that Fox is not liable for it's shareholders. Clearly, they aren't letting their shareholder affect their ethics if they are reporting bad **** about him.

Satire is only funny when it rings true.
Click to expand...

What if NewsCorp owned a significant part of this guy's media company?

They are responsible for that, right?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It's a good thing they aren't building it on the site of the Twin Towers then.
Click to expand...

Close enough that other Muslims and Harry Reid think it is a bad idea...but **** them for being racist hatemongers...
 
jallman said:
I'm sorry...I don't get my news from comedians on comedy central. :shrug:

I also don't really understand how a shareholder is the responsibility of the organization as it is traded publically.
Click to expand...

It isn't - that's the point. The daily show segment shows clips from some fox morning show where they link the mosque to terrorism because it's being funded by some shadowy figure who runs the Kingdom Foundation. However that person, the one they're using to link the mosque to terrorism, is their second biggest shareholder. In the clip they repeatedly demonize the guy without ever mentioning his name. The implication is that either they're so stupid that they didn't realize that this "terror link" is actually one of their owners, or that they entire fox segment was blatant fear-mongering.

I couldn't care less about Fox and usually don't give these threads more than a passing glance. This one is a serious knock on Fox, though
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

independent_thinker2002 said:
leftpanel_alwaleed.JPG


You may want to tone down your rhetoric as it may reduce the sting from self pwnage.
Click to expand...

Ya I have a picture of JFK shaking hands with Krushev too.

JFK_Khrushchev_Handshake_1961.jpg


It's a publicly traded company, Hitler could buy stock and it wouldn't mean a ****ing thing.

And it wasn't my rhetoric, it was a direct reference to the Daily Show episode in question.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Close enough that other Muslims and Harry Reid think it is a bad idea...but **** them for being racist hatemongers...
Click to expand...

Harry Reid is up for reelection and his constituency doesn't contain a lot of Muslims. He's spineless like that.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
It isn't - that's the point. The daily show segment shows clips from some fox morning show where they link the mosque to terrorism because it's being funded by some shadowy figure who runs the Kingdom Foundation. However that person, the one they're using to link the mosque to terrorism, is their second biggest shareholder. In the clip they repeatedly demonize the guy without ever mentioning his name. The implication is that either they're so stupid that they didn't realize that this "terror link" is actually one of their owners, or that they entire fox segment was blatant fear-mongering.

I couldn't care less about Fox and usually don't give these threads more than a passing glance. This one is a serious knock on Fox, though
Click to expand...

I also dont care about Fox News...but honestly...if they were smart Fox News would separate their programming...Fox News on one channel and their opinion and 'show' programs on another. Lord knows they have enough money to do it. I mean...hell...if they can afford to fund the construction of the new mosque...
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

independent_thinker2002 said:
leftpanel_alwaleed.JPG


You may want to tone down your rhetoric as it may reduce the sting from self pwnage.
Click to expand...

Come on, IT; you're better than that. You know this is a game that can be played all day, right?

obama-chavez-handshake-121.jpg


It's rather like cricket that way. What should we conclude from this photo?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
What if NewsCorp owned a significant part of this guy's media company?

They are responsible for that, right?
Click to expand...

Not really. See, most people have no idea how interconnected corporations are.

Let me ask you this...who, at Fox, do you think should be responsible for that?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Harry Reid is up for reelection and his constituency doesn't contain a lot of Muslims. He's spineless like that.
Click to expand...

So he is just a shill? And all those muslims that think its a bad idea...they must be self loathing people...riddled with brown guilt...no one has honest disagreements with you...they are all either racist or corrupt or spineless cowards...
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

Agent Ferris said:
Ya I have a picture of JFK shaking hands with Krushev too.

JFK_Khrushchev_Handshake_1961.jpg


It's a publicly traded company, Hitler could buy stock and it wouldn't mean a ****ing thing.

And it wasn't my rhetoric, it was a direct reference to the Daily Show episode in question.
Click to expand...

And you still ignore the important point. NewsCorp owns 9% of Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate.

Please tell me how they are not responsible for that.
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

Harshaw said:
Come on, IT; you're better than that. You know this is a game that can be played all day, right?

obama-chavez-handshake-121.jpg


It's rather like cricket that way. What should we conclude from this photo?
Click to expand...

America owns 9% of Nicaragua? :lol:

I wasn't just posting a picture to make some false association. The association is legit. He was trying to say that they couldn't control who owns their stock, but they can control who's stock they own.
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

independent_thinker2002 said:
America owns 9% of Nicaragua? :lol:

I wasn't just posting a picture to make some false association. The association is legit. He was trying to say that they couldn't control who owns their stock, but they can control who's stock they own.
Click to expand...

That photo had nothing to do with that ownership, and you posted it, as people always do with that kind of thing, to "prove" that they're chummy.
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

independent_thinker2002 said:
And you still ignore the important point. NewsCorp owns 9% of Rotana, Al-Waleed's Saudi media conglomerate.

Please tell me how they are not responsible for that.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence he has influenced Fox News or News Corp in any way?
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

texmaster said:
Do you have any evidence he has influenced Fox News or News Corp in any way?
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to say that 9% ownership of a corporation doesn't necessarily constitute influence? You're being entirely disingenuous, or else you don't understand how corporations work.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Not really. See, most people have no idea how interconnected corporations are.

Let me ask you this...who, at Fox, do you think should be responsible for that?
Click to expand...

I believe that Rupert Murdoch is well aware that his company put 78 million dollars into his company in February. They've met at his headquarters.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I believe that Rupert Murdoch is well aware that his company put 78 million dollars into his company in February. They've met at his headquarters.
Click to expand...

And do you think Rupert Murdoch is responsible for knowing every interconnection between a business associate's corporation?
 
Re: News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner

texmaster said:
Do you have any evidence he has influenced Fox News or News Corp in any way?
Click to expand...

In a corporation, voting is done by the shareholders. Al-Waleed is News Corp's second largest shareholder. Of course FOX News owns 9% of Al-Waleed's media company. So here's the deal: If FOX News rams any planes into American buildings, then Al-Waleed's company can always avenge that by sabotaging the Saudi Oil fields. :mrgreen:
 
jallman said:
And do you think Rupert Murdoch is responsible for knowing every interconnection between a business associate's corporation?
Click to expand...

Do you think the News is responsible for knowing their own corporate connections?
 
LimeLight said:
Do you think the News is responsible for knowing their own corporate connections?
Click to expand...

Who is this "The News" you speak of? Is this applicable to all news networks or just a standard you are going to apply to Fox.

But to answer your question succinctly: No.
 
jallman said:
Your paraphrase was utter bull**** and the single most idiotic thing I have read so far this week.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't read your own posts. Actually, that doesn't surprise me at all.

The last thing you said in this thread is that Fox has no responsibility to know their own corporate connections. HA!

Yeah, I'm sure Rupert Murdoch isn't aware of Fox's connections to the Kingdom Foundation.

leftpanel_alwaleed.JPG


I mean... well... uh... nevermind

And while this isn't relevant, you're using the word "interconnected" incorrectly
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
Probably because you've exhibited a talent for failing to comprehend anything you've read thus far...
Click to expand...

I think I can't comprehend what you're saying because it's utter rubbish. You said: "The heart of the issue here is that Fox is not liable for it's shareholders. Clearly, they aren't letting their shareholder affect their ethics if they are reporting bad **** about him." So you're saying that Fox's reports about him have been accurate, even though you've also said that you don't watch Fox AND you didn't watch the Daily Show segment. So you know nothing about the story but feel qualified to discuss the issue? Why are you even participating in this thread if you're the first to admit that you don't know the facts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom