Would someone please tell me how to permanently stop getting political topics from viewing on my PFF? Politics has finally sickened me enough to stop opening these threads altogether. No longer interested.
IP: Logged
06:03 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
My point about that polls is that many claim the nation doesn't consider Fox a creditable source. However according to these polls and the fact Fox kills all the other networks in ratings provides a pretty good idea of where the nation stands. Our country has always been center right and this data supports that fact.
Thanks for all the links. I'm at work now so can't watch the videos. I've been encouraged to look up Rupert Murdoch and his influences on right-leaning media.
I'll revisit the thread in a few days... I'm pretty busy.
I guess what I don't really get about all this stuff with the birth certificate is that it would just be so easy to put to rest, but Obama just won't do it. I keep thinking about McCain and how his citizenship was called into question (he was born on a military base in Panama) He simply produced a certified paper copy of his certificate, and it was over. No controversy or shadows around the issue. I can only assume that Obama supporters don't WANT to know if he's eligible or not, because if he's not....holy crap, what a black eye for them. Especially given the way they trot out to his defense. They're like kids trying to hide their cigarettes from their parents, and getting defensive about the suspicion.
IP: Logged
10:07 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Thanks for all the links. I'm at work now so can't watch the videos. I've been encouraged to look up Rupert Murdoch and his influences on right-leaning media.
I'll revisit the thread in a few days... I'm pretty busy.
Thanks for all the links. I'm at work now so can't watch the videos. I've been encouraged to look up Rupert Murdoch and his influences on right-leaning media.
I'll revisit the thread in a few days... I'm pretty busy.
For balance go ahead and look up George Soros and his influences on the left-leaning media while you're at it.
Many will tell you that Murdoch started the "Media Bias while claiming balance" with Fox News. But let us not forget that CNN has been around for much, much longer then Fox. I certainly would not argue that Fox news leans right and that they lose much credibility when they use the tagline "Fair and Balanced" but to the objective observer it should be obvious that since they are a latecomer in the Cable News game their leaning is merely in answer to the other news sources (who also lose credibility when they attempt to claim a journalist's objectivity - though they are at least smart enough not to use such an in-your-face tagline) being so far left.
To complete the thought I has when speaking to Boon earlier, when you get all your information from one source, you will always think the "other guys" are lying to you. However, when you look at our current media from outside, you see that they're ALL lying to you. They ALL have an agenda, they ALL claim their brand of "news" is the objective truth but in reality its ALL skewed to sell you on said agenda.
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 06-22-2011).]
Thanks for all the links. I'm at work now so can't watch the videos. I've been encouraged to look up Rupert Murdoch and his influences on right-leaning media.
I'll revisit the thread in a few days... I'm pretty busy.
Stewart had inaccurately called Fox News viewers, "The most consistently misinformed media viewers," but the fact-checking group reports that not every poll lists them as such (Stewart blames his ignorance on watching too much Fox News, naturally).
After that was out of the way, Stewart immediately turned the tables on Fox and went on to list dozens of false statements made by the network. Lies about Obama's healthcare plan and his connection to ACORN, fear mongering about "death panels" and the war on Christmas and talk of a "government takeover" were some of the more familiar subjects.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-22-2011).]
The huffington Post is one of the worst sites I have ever seen for getting anything objective.
I'm not defending or even supporting the huffington Posts reporting, I rarely read it so can't really comment. I used it because I couldn't link the videos from the Comedy Central site as it's not available in my area. I think the video clips speak for themselves, they show examples of recent FoxNews lies/misreporting that were never rescinded (according to Stewart anyways).
And just to clarify: If the "news" you get is from a right wing biased source you are fine with it but not if, in your opinion, it is left of that source?
Or in other words, do you consider FoxNews Objective?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-22-2011).]
I'm not defending or even supporting the huffington Posts reporting, I rarely read it so can't really comment. I used it because I couldn't link the videos from the Comedy Central site as it's not available in my area. I think the video clips speak for themselves, they show examples of recent FoxNews lies/misreporting that were never rescinded (according to Stewart anyways).
And just to clarify: If the "news" you get is from a right wing biased source you are fine with it but if in your opinion it is left of that then it's a problem?
Or in other words, do you consider FoxNews Objective?
I was just pointing out that the Huffington post is a left wing arm of George Soros and is massively funded by him. That depends in what your asking. Your trying to portray Fox news as one way. Fox news has many shows and different people on it. In whole I think Fox is more balanced then other networks yes, but you must keep in context. Fox has many straight news shows like special report with Brit Hume, where at the end there is a panel of various experts and opinions.
Over the weekend there a more straight news shows along with Gerlado's show, who is a liberal, shepherd smith who leans left.
I think Oreilly is fairly objective, way more so then people like keith Oberman or Chris Mathews (who said his job as a journalists was to help Obama).
My point is there is a difference between straight news shows and opinion shows. O'rielly and Hannity are opinion shows. I think Hannity is not very objective and his bias shows. Fox has both Opinion and news shows, and they regular include liberal points of views, strong liberals too, like Bob Beckle, among many professors, shows hosts, etc.
When I try to watch other networks like MSNBC and and CNN, I see childish banter, insults, and comments that for me go beyond the pale. They attack people personally and it is filled with contempt. That level of unprofessional behavior disgust me. of When MSNBC knowingly showed a black man with an AR-15 at a TEA party and cropped it so you could only see his back and weapon, but no skin color, that was bad. When they then said the TEA parties was full of gun toting white people after showing this man cropped, that was just plain propaganda. People like to claim Fox is all conservative but that's simply not true. They are rated number one for a reason. More people go to them for trusted news then anyone else. That is a fact.
I won't sit here and say their perfect, but compared to others, in my opinion they are much better, and their success proves that. Much of the hard left websites like Huffingtong Post or Daily Kos would not exists without the financial banking of left wing tycoons like Soros.
And finally no.....I get my news from left wing sources all the time, just not activists sites like the Huffington post. I do go to CNN for war coverage because they seem to have a fair share more of it then Fox at times.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 06-22-2011).]
People like to claim Fox is all conservative but that's simply not true. They are rated number one for a reason. More people go to them for trusted news then anyone else. That is a fact.
I won't sit here and say their perfect, but compared to others, they are much better, and their success proves that. Much of they hard left websites like Huffingtong Post or Daily Kos would not exists without the financial banking of left wing tycoons like Soros.
And finally no.....I get my news from left wing sources all the time, just not activists sites like the Huffington post. I do go to CNN for war coverage because they seem to have a fair share more of it then Fox at times.
I appreciate your honesty.
Are you aware that FoxNews and many other news organizations are owned by Rupert Murdoch? AFAIK many these sources have admitted their bias and ownership. This new "George Soros" blanket people seem to be using to taint all media they don't like is interesting, can you back up the claims of influence on reporting or is it just a convenient boogie-man?
As for being rated number one, you are correct from what I have seen however getting the best ratings is not something I tend to think goes hand in hand with quality, credibility or trust in news gathering.
well it does go hand in hand with trust. As far as linking Soros, best person who has done that, even though many may not like him is Glenn Beck. He has done a very solid job expsoing the funding and ties to Soros.
As far as Fox and the guy you mentioned, I don't know much about him.
IP: Logged
10:44 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
More people go to them for trusted news then anyone else. .
It's just easier for me to think of all news as opinion pieces to some degree or another. Human nature can't help itself. Even if it's just some slight inflection in the audio or even a look. Every humanbeing puts a little bit of themselves in everything they do. Weather they are writing it, reading it, or speaking it. It's like sublimanal DNA.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 06-22-2011).]
It's just easier for me to think of all news as opinion pieces to some degree or another. Human nature can't help itself. Even if it's just some slight inflection in the audio or even a look. Every humanbeing puts a little bit of themselves in everything they do. Weather they are writing it, reading it, or speaking it. It's like sublimanal DNA.
As far as Fox and the guy you mentioned, I don't know much about him.
Then why keep your head in the sand? Actually make an effort to learn who he is. Don't you want to be informed of ALL the facts and players in politics and media, not just one side?
I am amazed no one has ever heard of the owner of FOX news, The Wall Street Journal, and is a billionaire right wing media "puppetmaster" counterpart to the man Soros you keep mentioning. By the way, Beck is "on" about Soros because Murdoch told him to be. Understand?Anything that happens at FOX news regarding politics is going to fit Murdochs agenda. Soros and he are two sides of the same coin, political enemies but very similiar in tactic and influence.
So, "nobody" knows who Murdoch is, who he owns, and who he employs? I am truly stunned how seemingly willfully ignorant some people remain when the truth does not fit their world view. (Not you in particular, Nick.) Get a grip people, all the facts in the world are not going to be spoonfed to you by your favorite talk show host. You are only getting their point of view on everything, how is that objective? There's more going on than what Beck is spoon feeding you guys, I am absolutely surprised so many people here have said they have no idea who Murdoch is.. unbelievable. Won't hear Beck complain about his boss.
This is in no way any kind of attack on anyone,so if I get negged so be it, but seriously.. as I have pointed out to others, you cannot even have a conversation about the implications of biased media without knowing who ALL the players are, that includes Murdoch, a BIG player.
I recommend EVERYONE take alittle time to look him up.. you might be surprised how much an Australian billionaire businessman influences our country's politics as well as the stock market.
I did some reading on Murdoch, but I don't see what the big deal is. I get the fact he is involved with much of the networks, but that doesn't bother me. It wouldn't bother me about Soros either except for one thing, Soros to me seems like a very evil man, and that is where I take issue. This Murdoch seems to have power, is a conservative, and has his opinions yes....but I haven't found anything damning on him....except for the progressive left websites claiming hes manipulating Fox...but again, lets say that he is.....what is his message? I will agree that all news is skewed in one way or another, and one should always take it all with a grain of salt.
Murdoch may want to use his power to influence his views or project a message. Ok....but I care more about the root of the man. Is he evil? Is he good? where does his heart lie? Does he believe in individual freedom? or does he promote oppressive government? These things matter to me more then what he chooses to invest his money in.
With Soros...he messes with currencies and dabbles in the collapses of governments. He says at times he feels like God. Soros, a Jew himself said during WWII in Hungary helped the Nazis by going to his neighbors and turning in Jews. He said he had no remorse for turning on his neighbors and having them taken away. This chilled me to the bone.
"Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes asked him that. Was it difficult? “Not at all,” Soros answered. “No feeling of guilt?” asked Kroft. “No,” said Soros. “There was no sense that I shouldn’t be there. If I wasn’t doing it, somebody else would be taking it away anyhow. Whether I was there or not. So I had no sense of guilt.”
I Feel this man has a dark soul and anything he promotes with his money to further the progressive cause to shape the world how he sees it concerns me greatly.
Murdcoh?........ok, he may try to use his money and influence to try and shape the world his way...but so what? do we not try to shape the world with our vote on election today? I don't like idea that one person has this much influence in media, but unfortunately, both sides has this factor, so we must look to sift through the BS and find the middle truth.
All I can find on Murdoch is Left wing sites screaming bloody murder because Murdochs funds a network they don't like ideologically. I dont see that as a big deal. You take a man like Soros however who speaks of no remorse for killing fellow Jews and world domination......yeah...I have a major problem with that. I don't care to live in his world.
If Murdoch was a Constitutionalits and spent all his billions on promoting the constitution and found values I wouldn't care what he funded. Now if he changed the truth around to propagate...that's different and should be noted.
Basically, their both tycoons battling each other......ok.....Soros has proven to me he is a despicable man....do you have anything to show me that Murdoch is a evil man? other then the typical he funds fox and right wing sights?..... Thats not evil. If Murdoch was behind the funding of the Aryan Nation....then ok....lets start there. So far Soros supports: world power bigger government nanny state control censored media intrusive legislation with UN influence has no remorse of killing his fellow Jews with the Nazis and continues to push for anti-constitutional values, i.e. the fairness act, etc.
This man goes against everything I believe in to the core.
with Murdoch, this is what the website American progress, a left wing progressive website complains about "MURDOCH THE WAR MONGER ." The Guardian reported before the war Murdoch gave "his full backing to war, praising George Bush as acting 'morally' and 'correctly' and describing Tony Blair as 'full of guts'" for his support of the war. Murdoch said just before the war, "We can't back down now – I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly."
SO?......I am a counter terror major, Myself, most of the military, and more then half the nation felt it was moral and correct to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. So did Congress, Australia, Israel, Canada, Poland and England to name a few. What the hell is their point? other then the fact they don't like the war and are against it, how is this a big deal? oooh. he supported Bush's actions on the war lol. Yeah and?........
MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST: "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."
ok..again, is this wrong? If cheaper oil did result from the war, would this not be a good thing economically? Anyone can agree that cheaper oil at the pump is a good thing.
I love this one "MURDOCH THE BUSH SUPPORTER: Murdoch told Newsweek before the war, Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1…One senses he is a man of great character and deep humility."
OMG he's a Bush Supporter!????? big deal. I supported Bush and still do. what he said is right, he will go down as a great president or he will crash and burn. I think History will serve Bush well and show he was a good man and noble president who did what he thought was necessary.
MURDOCH THE CORPORATE TAX EVADER: "The BBC reported that "Mr. Murdoch's die-hard loyalty to the tax loophole has drawn wide criticism" after a report found that in the four years prior to June 30, 1998, "Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only $325 million in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the $5.4 billion consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period…By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp. operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr. Murdoch's main British holding company, News Corp. Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly $3 billion."
Ok...this one I find funny. All business savvy men and corporations use loopholes to save money. Timothy Geitner doesnt pay his Taxes, and John Kerry was just found using a loophole to avoid paying taxes on his yacht. If Murdoch did something illegal ok, I am against. complaining that he uses a loop hole to avoid paying taxes to governments that push some of the highest corporate taxes in the world is a bit bland. not only is it the pot calling the kettle black, but its like complaining that the blue car is doing 15 over the speed limit when all the other color cars are doing the same speed, you just happen to dislike the color blue.
Se a pattern here? they keep labeling him as if he is bad simply because they don't like his positions, but I haven't yet seen anything that shows me he is an evil man. There may be something out there damning, but labeling someone as a gasp!......Bush supporter!? lol come on.
I guess my point is that is doesn't surprise me there are wealthy people behind the networks, I want to know more about who these people are,what they believe in, and do they have any malfeasance. thanks for the info though, its been fun reading up.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 06-23-2011).]
Don't forget Soro's funding of IANSA (the UN group that works tirelessly to strip the right to having guns in private ownership), and his comment that the only thing blocking the "New World Order" is the United States.
The man does not promote anything that I believe in.
Originally posted by NickD3.4: Murdcoh?........ok, he may try to use his money and influence to try and shape the world his way...but so what? do we not try to shape the world with our vote on election today
That's all good until you run a news station touted as fair and balanced, isn't it? I think that is the issue most have with him.. you want to be involved in politics? Fine. Just stop stacking political news and bending the truth and sensationalize to only make people you don't agree with look bad. Yeah, I DO have a problem with that, and I may try to shape the world with my vote on election day, but I don't run a "news" channel, either. Owners of news stations should not have political agendas that effect the truth of the news they are providing, especially if the owner is a foreigner and trying to effect political outcomes in our country.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 06-23-2011).]
That's all good until you run a news station touted as fair and balanced, isn't it? I think that is the issue most have with him.. you want to be involved in politics? Fine. Just stop stacking political news and bending the truth and sensationalize to only make people you don't agree with look bad. Yeah, I DO have a problem with that...
Me too. This is why I asked the questions I did earlier in the thread. I still don't have time to sit down and research everything. What I'm going to do is actually organize thoughts and do research on many different sources. I figure I will gather more information if I just do the research myself. About 5 minutes ago I was given way more work than I previously had, which was already a bit. It looks like my research project is gonna have to wait for awhile; but don't worry, I haven't forgotten our conversation.
IP: Logged
11:56 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
And just to clarify: If the "news" you get is from a right wing biased source you are fine with it but not if, in your opinion, it is left of that source?
How about if the "news" you get is from "Comedy Central?"
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:29 PM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18047 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
Owners of news stations should not have political agendas that effect the truth of the news they are providing, especially if the owner is a foreigner and trying to effect political outcomes in our country.
This statement is very true - but it also applies to the national media outlets funded by left-leaning owners.
In particular, a self described "citizen of the world" named George Soros.
ABC, NBC, CBS, Time magazine and other outlets in the mainstream media are also pushing the political views of their owners. FOX News does as well, but their slant is toward the conservative side.
Maybe they should change their 'Fair and Balanced' to 'Working to Restore Some Semblence of Balance to the National News Media'.
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7497 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
That's all good until you run a news station touted as fair and balanced, isn't it? I think that is the issue most have with him.. you want to be involved in politics? Fine. Just stop stacking political news and bending the truth and sensationalize to only make people you don't agree with look bad. Yeah, I DO have a problem with that, and I may try to shape the world with my vote on election day, but I don't run a "news" channel, either. Owners of news stations should not have political agendas that effect the truth of the news they are providing, especially if the owner is a foreigner and trying to effect political outcomes in our country.
Again, I don't necessarily like that myself... although what has be bending the truth on? what is he sensationalizing? I don't see Fox sensationalizing anything more so the the other networks. What about the tireless efforts by the other networks to attack Palin and her family unfairly. recently they asked for regular people to voluteer to help go through her e-mail....nice journalism.
What about the constant race baiting and dishonest reporting by the other networks about the tea parties? What about Dan Rather and his false reporting on Bush which was proven a hoax? What about the recent NBC sports omission of underdog in the pledge on national TV? You see, I'm not getting why all the focus is on fox. someone show me a scandal on Fox that was proven false and is an example of sloppy deceitful journalism like the examples I just pointed out. I don't care about the little gaffs made by personalities, all networks have that. I'm talking about huge deliberate acts of maleficence by fox like these other networks have shamelessly perpetrated.
From what I read, what Murdochseems to stand for at least is not malicious and counter to the founding principles of this country. Is it ever ok to slant the news and bend the truth? not in my opinion no. However from what I ave read and seen, comparing Soros to Murdoch is like comparing a shoplifter to charlie Manson. Soros is a certified man of evil and spends billions to tear down this nation and its constitution. I have yet to see such an agenda by Murdoch. The lefts only complain of Murdoch like you said is that he is using his influence in the media. ......well, him ans every other liberal Hollywood actor does this as well. remember all the actors lining up and using their influence to get Obama elected? Spending millions to sway for support and launching programs to sway public opinion?
If Murdoch's sin is spending his money and using his influence to push for Conservative no wonder he drives the left crazy. If its true he changes the truth to push an agenda, I don't like this at all, but I don't get this from the mainstream networks either, their all pushing their agenda...Mr. I have a tingling up my leg Chris Mathews.
So people want to compare a guy who may push his influence on networks he owns to a guys like Soros who killed his fellow Jews, has no remorse, relishes at thought of new world order and control, and pisses on our constitution?
What hypocrisy of the left. If the left wing cared anything for this nation they would wash their hands of this evil man, but they just love his money.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 06-23-2011).]
Again, I don't necessarily like that myself. But what he seems to stand for at least is not malicious and counter to the founding principles of this country. Is it ever ok to slant the news and bend the truth? not in my opinion no. However from what I ave read and seen, comparing Soros to Murdoch is like comparing a shoplifter to charlie Manson. Soros is a certified man of evil and spends billions to tear down this nation and its constitution. I have yet to see such an agenda by Murdoch. The lefts only complain of Murdoch like you said is that he is using his influence in the media. ......well, him ans every other liberal Hollywood actor does this as well. remember all the actors lining up and using their influence to get Obama elected? Spending millions to sway for support and launching programs to sway public opinion?
If Murdoch's sin is spending his money and using his influence to push for Conservative no wonder he drives the left crazy. If its true he changes the truth to push an agenda, I don't like this at all, but I don't get this from the mainstream networks either, their all pushing their agenda...Mr. I have a tingling up my leg Chris Mathews.
So people want to compare a guy who may push his influence on networks he owns to a guys like Soros who killed his fellow Jews, has no remorse, relishes at thought of new world order and control, and pisses on our constitution?
What hypocrisy of the left. If the left wing cared anything for this nation they would wash their hands of this evil man, but they just love his money.
Where did you get all your "facts" about George Soros? How much is he contributing to all these media outlets? Which ones? Is it in exchange for pushing an agenda?
Sounds like you are willing to disregard anything you feel the "leftest" media has to say about Murdoch but willing to believe whatever the "right wing" media says about Soros. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that itself?
If you are saying that it's only your opinion and that you are no more correct than someone who believes Murdoch is evil and Soros is a teddy bear then I can see it but surely you can't just assume you are right and anyone that believes otherwise is wrong....can you?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 06-23-2011).]
Where did you get all your "facts" about George Soros? How much is he contributing to all these media outlets? Which ones? Is it in exchange for puching an agenda?
Sounds like you are willing to disregard anything you feel the "leftest" media has to say about Murdoch but willing to believe whatever the "right wing" media says about Soros. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that itself?
If you are saying that it's only your opinion and that you are no more correct than someone who believes Murdoch is evil and Soros is a teddy bear then I can see it but surely you can't just assume you are right and anyone that believes otherwise is wrong....can you?
are you kidding me? I just said I take issue with certain things, but if their claim to Murdoch being a bad guys is the fact he is a Bush supporter and believes low oil prices would be a good thing lol! then yeah I dismiss that. that's absurd.
Here are direct quotes of Soros with dates of when where they were said. This alone is enough for me to not want this man anywhere near the shaping of this nation. he is a evil evil person.
- “It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,” (The Independent, June 3, 1993)
- “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance –to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein,” (The Alchemy of Finance, George Soros)
- According to friend Byron Wien (now with the Blackstone Group), “You must understand he thinks he’s been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems. The proof is that he has been so successful at making so much. He therefore thinks he has a responsibility to give money away,” (Time Magazine, Sept 1, 1997)
- “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood which I felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin. But when I made my way in the world I wanted to indulge myself in my fantasies to the extent that I could afford.”
- George Soros 60 Minutes Interview - 12/20/98 / Transcript:
KROFT: Are you religious? Mr. SOROS: No. KROFT: Do you believe in God? Mr. SOROS: No. KROFT: (Voiceover) Soros told us he believes God was created by man, not the other way around, which may be why he thinks he can smooth out the world's imperfections.
In a 1998 interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilty about confiscating property from Jews as a teenager. He responded, “No.”
1998 transcript of Kroft interview on 60 minutes KROFT: (Voiceover) To understand the complexities and contradictions in his personality, you have to go back to the very beginning: to Budapest, where George Soros was born 68 years ago to parents who were wealthy, well-educated and Jewish.
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew...
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) ... by -- by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and -- and anticipate events and when -- when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a -- a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's -- that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no -- no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
- "I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence--but I don't want to be part of it." That experience notwithstanding, Soros has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes, by and large, from his massive philanthropy-a decision that has caused comment among one of his colleagues in the financial community, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. In Hungary, Soros has been subject to anti-Semitic attacks. Referring to being a target, Soros, in his book "Underwriting Democracy," wrote, "I am ready to stand up and be counted." When I mentioned that rather suggestive line to Soros during one of several extended interviews with him, he responded quickly, "Right. It took me a long time."
He continued, "My mother was quite anti-Semitic, and ashamed of being Jewish. Given the culture in which one lived, being Jewish was a clear-cut stigma, disadvantage, a handicap-and, therefore, there was always the desire to transcend it, to escape it." He confirmed what someone had told me-that his family name had long ago been changed from Schwartz. "So the assimilationist Jews of Hungary had a deep sense of inferiority and it took me a long time to work through that," he said, adding, however, that he succeeded in doing so many years ago… "I am escaping the particular. I think I am doing exactly that by espousing this universal concept"-of open society. "In other words, I don't think that you can ever overcome anti-Semitism if you behave as a tribe… the only way you can overcome it is if you give up the tribalness."
Source: THE WORLD ACCORDING TO SOROS by CONNIE BRUC, The New Yorker, January 23, 1995,)
- “As I looked around me for a worthy cause. I ran into difficulties. I did not belong to any community. As a Hungarian Jew I had never quite become an American. I had left Hungary behind and my Jewishness did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led me to support Israel,”
got it Newf? .......this man is not what America is. as an American, I take great concern with him influencing a base in this country. Do you have anything useful to ad besides constant probing, poking, and accusations of be two sided? Is Murdoch an evil man? you tell me...I haven't see any evidence he is. I'm not saying I'm a fan of his either, however when the left's main complain is that he is a bush supporter and though Iraq was a morally right conflict, whoopdy doo. over half the nation believes that. Their trying to make a boogy man out of Murdoch while at the same time taking money from real world monster.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 06-23-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:59 PM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18047 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
are you kidding me? I just said I take issue with certain things, but if their claim to Murdoch being a bad guys is the fact he is a Bush supporter and believes low oil prices would be a good thing lol! then yeah I dismiss that. that's absurd.
Here are direct quotes of Soros with dates of when where they were said. This alone is enough for me to not want this man anywhere near the shaping of this nation. he is a evil evil person.
- “It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,” (The Independent, June 3, 1993)
- “I admit that I have always harbored an exaggerated view of self-importance –to put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes or, even better, a scientist like Einstein,” (The Alchemy of Finance, George Soros)
- According to friend Byron Wien (now with the Blackstone Group), “You must understand he thinks he’s been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems. The proof is that he has been so successful at making so much. He therefore thinks he has a responsibility to give money away,” (Time Magazine, Sept 1, 1997)
- “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood which I felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin. But when I made my way in the world I wanted to indulge myself in my fantasies to the extent that I could afford.”
- George Soros 60 Minutes Interview - 12/20/98 / Transcript:
KROFT: Are you religious? Mr. SOROS: No. KROFT: Do you believe in God? Mr. SOROS: No. KROFT: (Voiceover) Soros told us he believes God was created by man, not the other way around, which may be why he thinks he can smooth out the world's imperfections.
In a 1998 interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilty about confiscating property from Jews as a teenager. He responded, “No.”
1998 transcript of Kroft interview on 60 minutes KROFT: (Voiceover) To understand the complexities and contradictions in his personality, you have to go back to the very beginning: to Budapest, where George Soros was born 68 years ago to parents who were wealthy, well-educated and Jewish.
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew...
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) ...who escaped the Holocaust...
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) ... by -- by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and -- and anticipate events and when -- when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a -- a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's -- that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not -- not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't -- you don't see the connection. But it was -- it created no -- no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
- "I don't deny the Jews their right to a national existence--but I don't want to be part of it." That experience notwithstanding, Soros has chosen to exclude Israel and Jewish causes, by and large, from his massive philanthropy-a decision that has caused comment among one of his colleagues in the financial community, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel. In Hungary, Soros has been subject to anti-Semitic attacks. Referring to being a target, Soros, in his book "Underwriting Democracy," wrote, "I am ready to stand up and be counted." When I mentioned that rather suggestive line to Soros during one of several extended interviews with him, he responded quickly, "Right. It took me a long time."
He continued, "My mother was quite anti-Semitic, and ashamed of being Jewish. Given the culture in which one lived, being Jewish was a clear-cut stigma, disadvantage, a handicap-and, therefore, there was always the desire to transcend it, to escape it." He confirmed what someone had told me-that his family name had long ago been changed from Schwartz. "So the assimilationist Jews of Hungary had a deep sense of inferiority and it took me a long time to work through that," he said, adding, however, that he succeeded in doing so many years ago… "I am escaping the particular. I think I am doing exactly that by espousing this universal concept"-of open society. "In other words, I don't think that you can ever overcome anti-Semitism if you behave as a tribe… the only way you can overcome it is if you give up the tribalness."
Source: THE WORLD ACCORDING TO SOROS by CONNIE BRUC, The New Yorker, January 23, 1995,)
- “As I looked around me for a worthy cause. I ran into difficulties. I did not belong to any community. As a Hungarian Jew I had never quite become an American. I had left Hungary behind and my Jewishness did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led me to support Israel,” got it Newf? .......this man is not what America is. as an American, I take great concern with him influencing a base in this country. Do you have anything useful to ad besides constant probing, poking, and accusations of be two sided? Is Murdoch an evil man? you tell me...I haven't see any evidence he is. I'm not saying I'm a fan of his either, however when the left's main complain is that he is a bush supporter and though Iraq was a morally right conflict, whoopdy doo. over half the nation believes that. Their trying to make a boogy man out of Murdoch while at the same time taking money from real world monster.
You seem to have missed my question. I'll try again.
If you are saying that it's only your opinion and that you are no more correct than someone who believes Murdoch is evil and Soros is a teddy bear then I can see it but surely you can't just assume you are right and anyone that believes otherwise is wrong....can you?
You seem to have missed my question. I'll try again.
If you are saying that it's only your opinion and that you are no more correct than someone who believes Murdoch is evil and Soros is a teddy bear then I can see it but surely you can't just assume you are right and anyone that believes otherwise is wrong....can you?
Ok Newf, we'll play that game. Your right, a man who sees no shame in killing his fellow Jew is a teddy bear, and a man who supports Bush is true evil. For me, Ill go with the Nazi collaborator, he gets my vote. Who ever wants to vote for the guy who supports Bush as evil can go ahead.
you can play that philosophical game all day long. you either believe in basic human decency or you don't. Next your going to tell me that there is nothing morally wrong with Muslims in the U.S. who Honor kill their daughters because its their "view".
p.s. perhaps this is a bit abrasive, but the political correctness of your question is disingenuous and only attempts draw a parallel comparison of two men on clearly different plains.
your right about one thing, if you believe in the collapse of the U.S., a New world order, United Nations supremacy over nation sovereignty, and feel no remorse for sending Jews to their death, then Soros is you guy.
If you feel however that Soros is ok, and the real evil Murdoch because he believes that low oil prices a good thing, promotes the war as moral, and supports tony Blair and Bush, then I guess Murdoch is the evil one.
For me I don't see a parallel. I see an attempt to deflect away from the very real threat of Soros and refocus attention on Murdoch.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 06-23-2011).]
My point has been that BOTH Soros and Murdoch? Not very nice people and influencing the media in bad ways, slanting the truth. But it is clear to see here that you cannot mention Murdoch without one of these two reactions:
1) Who's that? 2) What about Soros?! He does/did this that and the other..
I think its sad that if you don't know who Murdoch is, and you want to have a partially uninformed conversation about media influencing billionaire puppetmasters without even knowing everyone in the game.
And I think its equally sad that when someone discusses FOX or Murdoch in a non-comparison way, Soros suddenly becomes the only answer to any question about Murdoch. Look, I know/We know collectively who he is, because Beck has been beating the drum on him for years (funny, he never discusses Rupert..) and his local parrots echo his rhetoric. But when the discussion is about Rupert Murdoch, every answer cannot be "What about Soros?!" It's a non-legitimate response that is also not germane to what is actually being discussed. If I ask you how many stations Murdoch controls, the answer is not "What about Soros? He has money in MSNBC ..."
My point has been that BOTH Soros and Murdoch? Not very nice people and influencing the media in bad ways, slanting the truth. But it is clear to see here that you cannot mention Murdoch without one of these two reactions:
1) Who's that? 2) What about Soros?! He does/did this that and the other..
I think its sad that if you don't know who Murdoch is, and you want to have a partially uninformed conversation about media influencing billionaire puppetmasters without even knowing everyone in the game.
And I think its equally sad that when someone discusses FOX or Murdoch in a non-comparison way, Soros suddenly becomes the only answer to any question about Murdoch. Look, I know/We know collectively who he is, because Beck has been beating the drum on him for years (funny, he never discusses Rupert..) and his local parrots echo his rhetoric. But when the discussion is about Rupert Murdoch, every answer cannot be "What about Soros?!" It's a non-legitimate response that is also not germane to what is actually being discussed. If I ask you how many stations Murdoch controls, the answer is not "What about Soros? He has money in MSNBC ..."
You know?
except the fact I acknowledged Murdoch, his influence, and the things I don't like. Why did I bring up Soros when talking about Murdoch? because you brought up Murdoch when talking about Soros!
people on the left use Murdoch as a comparison to the right and Soros. My pointis that other then the fact they both have money and influence, I don't see much of a comparison. One is clearly a dark person, where as the other is guilty of influencing the media? Again, I don't like anyone having control over the media, but how is it logical to focus on Murdoch when the same people are backed by Sorors?
My only quarrel between the two is that one is a powerful business man with influence while the other is a power business man with influence and has malicious objectives that will hurt this country.
While I may not like either, one certainly raises concern over the other.
except the fact I acknowledged Murdoch, his influence, and the things I don't like. Why did I bring up Soros when talking about Murdoch? because you brought up Murdoch when talking about Soros!
I didnt bring him up, Newf did. You said you did not know who he was, and I responded to that and only then. Please keep that straight.
My pointis that other then the fact they both have money and influence, I don't see much of a comparison. One is clearly a dark person, where as the other is guilty of influencing the media? Again, I don't like anyone having control over the media, but how is it logical to focus on Murdoch when the same people are backed by Sorors?
My only quarrel between the two is that one is a powerful business man with influence while the other is a power business man with influence and has malicious objectives that will hurt this country.
This is my point, where are you getting this information? You seem willing to believe Soros is evil while saying Murdoch is not, both (according to you) are influencing the media but you agree with it depending on why or how you feel about them as people? Bizarre.
