posted July 22, 2011 01:45 PM            

but please choose which of these statements you stand by?

Leaks which damage the United States are applauded by the America hating Socialist left

or

O'Bomber says Manning broke the law

posted July 22, 2011 02:39 PM            

Yes katatonic, America hating leftists applaude any act which damages the United States...Assange releasing secret documents is just one example.

The NY Times releasing secret documents detailing how the US was tracking Terrorists was another.

Then katatonic, there were the Ellsberg caper, otherwise known as the release of the "Pentagon Papers" which were top secret files and which was roundly applauded by America hating leftists.

The only sure way to get applause from the America hating left...is to damage the United States.

O'Bomber is..cough..burp...belch...Commander in Chief of US military forces. Of course he must say Manning broke the law...because Manning clearly did break the law. It's not even a close issue open to debate...which could be covered up by the Holder Injustice Dept.

posted July 22, 2011 11:44 PM            

i take it you are admitting that obama is NOT an america hating socialist leftist then?

i repeat, assange is in custody. murdoch's choirboys around the world are a) making as little of his consistently nefarious practices as possible and b) getting the violins out and trying to deflect this as a "leftist" issue. he is not anywhere NEAR being in custody.

posted July 23, 2011 12:06 AM            

(2)..Whose consistently nefarious practices are you talking about? If you're talking about Murdock then perhaps you should furnish some evidence.

(3)..O'Bomber is most certainly a leftist Socialist. I don't know if O'Bomber hates America but as I recall, O'Bomber refused to wear an America flag pin and O'Bomber stood with his hands down in front of his body instead of placing his right hand over his heart...like everyone else...when the National Anthem was played.

posted July 23, 2011 12:25 AM            

no, YOU didn't say assange was in custody, i did. currently "house arrest" but in the dock trying to avert extradition - not to the US on charges due to the leaks, but to sweden on SEX charges by two women, at least one of whom has said she was wrong to so charge him AFTER he was arrested...murdoch has not yet been arrested but he's been at it since the 60s!

The Guardian newspaper reported last September from the UK: "Cross-party committee allegedly abandoned plans to force News International chief to testify after being warned their lives would be investigated." This was not the trigger for the current outrage, but a window into News Corporation's operations -- not some rogue reporter, but executives

maybe it actually was A trigger for the current brouhaha...maybe those british politicians, unlike our freshfaced tea partiers, were tired of being treated like so many rag dolls whose heads could be twisted off if they ever tried to do their job? i wonder what advantage to this kind of manipulator can be seen in the current push from FOX et al for unseasoned members of congress? it takes awhile for most people to realize just how bought they have allowed themselves to become.

rupert is relatively NEW in america. the english - and aussies - have been aware of his machinations for a long time.

posted July 23, 2011 10:24 AM            

Not for the Murdoch case, but against it. In the 60's we did not have a record of every keystroke....today we do.
If the investigation gets to the point where cyber records tell us the story of [the] who, what, where, when, and how-- of a media mogul, launching a coup de tat over multiple countries... The technology might make that easier for any future prosecution.

from the top to the bottom of governemt, to the venerable Scotland Yard to every level of power in the U.S.

posted July 23, 2011 10:29 AM            

Maybe the cow jumped over the Moon.
Maybe Jimmy Hoffa is buried under Giants Stadium.
Maybe George W Bush is a space alien.
Maybe that really was Elvis in Vegas.

So far, the only evidence presented here..or any place else, shows Murdock is guilty of Capitalism.

posted July 23, 2011 02:31 PM            

That was pre-Murdock and leftists can't stand the thought of other views being presented to the public...and prevailing.

posted July 23, 2011 04:29 PM            

and while it may be true that the press tended to the left pre murdoch (that is going back decades, mind you) they were not ALL OWNED BY THE SAME person, but tended that way NATURALLY. however when one corporation owns large percentages of the english speaking press globally, you have a somewhat different pickle.

posted July 23, 2011 06:15 PM            

i am beginning to think you are dyslexic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html

illegal? maybe, maybe not. did rupert dirty his own hands? seldom! does that make it ok? all's fair in capitalism and war?

as i've said, the rupert machine has exposed some pretty tawdry characters and goings-on in its time. but if you mess around in enough garbage you will usually find some salvageable bits. that doesn't make it anything other than garbage.

he backed obama in 08 with the ny post, because he was sure the man was going to win and he wanted to be in position to collect favours, just as he did with several other leaders in britain, australia and the US. obama didn't play "rupert-ball!" and it is no surprise to many onlookers that the propaganda machine has cranked up the volume and the vitriol against the duly elected president.

posted July 26, 2011 10:23 AM            

You still haven't produced a particle of evidence that Murdoch did anything wrong..illegal.

Now, you allege that Murdoch threatened politicians...again, without a particle of evidence.

We understand your fear of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, both owned by Murdoch.
These outlets threaten your world and domestic view and tell the truth about your leftist Socialist icon, O'Bomber.

posted July 26, 2011 01:09 PM            

perhaps you have not read my links. i haven't exactly been researching murdoch for the last 30 years, but his "fixer" during the thatcher years is squawking now...hopefully he will live to actually give evidence!

but i am not here to try him, just discuss his sleazy methods of getting what he wants, which is basically a monopoly on the english speaking press/media, to which he is well on his way, or was...

posted July 26, 2011 01:34 PM            

If you have any proof of Murdoch "illegality", then post it right here.

posted July 26, 2011 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

Otherwise what you're saying can be easily written off as howling, screeching, whining and shrieking about someone you dislike.

---

posted July 27, 2011 01:22 AM            

because its capitalism, it must be ok.

because the journalists in this country(and most countries where free speech is allowed) tend to be liberal, DESPITE the fact that they are NOT owned by monopolist would-be kings, they are scurrilous dogs depicted as "drooling" over the president...

yet in a "news" company where people are fired or forced to quit if they won't tell blatant lies, it's all good because it's capitalism.

posted July 27, 2011 10:41 AM            

What I don't see is any evidence whatsoever that Murdoch broke any laws.

If you've got that evidence...trot it out right here and let's have a look at it.

posted July 27, 2011 01:09 PM            

but i am under no compulsion to satisfy you as to the reasons for my opinion. nor do i need to duck or evade, since it is my prerogative to draw whatever conclusions i have - which just so happen to be the same conclusions drawn by people who have been watching murdoch build his machine by hook or crook over the past 50 years or so.

since the anti-trust regulations were waived by reagan much of what rupert does is NOT strictly illegal. that doesn't make it good for the "free press" and the fact that many journalists are liberals - thinking people tend that way! - doesn't mean they are OWNED by the same master as each other. which ruperts "journalists" are.