• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Boycott the Wall Street Journal

What makes you imply he isn't?

Conspi, I know you know better than this. You know how it works: you made the claim he's a megalomaniac.

Now I don't know much about the guy, but he seems no different than any other business tycoon out there. What makes you say he's a megalomaniac, besides the fact that you don't agree with his political views?
 
And THAT, my friend, is why you don't ever want - NOT EVER - to allow a megalomaniac that much influence and power. You know what I want Rupie to do? I want him to spend ONE HOUR with each of those 3,651 American families and explain to them why he promoted the Iraq War.

Well you actually have to show that his support for the Iraq war was instrumental in achieving anything.

And number 2 is Cindy Sheehan.

What about the parents of dead soldiers who did and still do support the war? Will he be allowed to visit them too?
 
Conspi, I know you know better than this. You know how it works: you made the claim he's a megalomaniac.

Now I don't know much about the guy, but he seems no different than any other business tycoon out there. What makes you say he's a megalomaniac, besides the fact that you don't agree with his political views?
No.

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".
 
No.

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

I guess I'll come back when you're less upset. :(
 
if your on the internet and you have to be reading this, than you have no reason to complain about media conglomerates or Rupert Murdoch. Anyone has the power to publish anything they want in spite of government censorship. Of course most people just use the internet to bash anyone and anything they don't like. What a waste.
 
your buddy Rupie

How do you know he is my buddy?

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

Nope. You made the claim that his assets are unacceptable and a cause for concern. You show why.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

Actually I disagree.

Peerages are not that hard to come by for business people in the UK. Had he wanted to, I am sure he could have arranged his affairs so that he was eligible for a peerage.
 
Nope. You made the claim that his assets are unacceptable and a cause for concern. You show why.
Selective reading. That's what you're doing.

I already gave a very clear, extremly lucid example of the effect Murdoch's media empire has had on loss of American life and limb in Iraq.

Are you British? That would explain it. Brit losses are far, far less than what we Yanks have had to pay. So either you are ignorant of the human cost of that war - or you really don't care.

I don't care who it is: Mother Teresa. The Dad Of The Year. The Mom Of The Year. You. Me. James Randi. When one person is in control of that much influence and power - everyone loses. There are no exceptions. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You know that.
 
Selective reading. That's what you're doing.

Sorry, my mistake. I read your post again and what you said was 'what he is doing' is unacceptable.

I already gave a very clear, extremly lucid example of the effect Murdoch's media empire has had on loss of American life and limb in Iraq.

You actually haven't shown that it had any effect whatsoever. What you have shown is that he supported the war and that he owns media assets. You have to show that without his support the war would not have occurred.

Are you British?

No, Australian.

That would explain it.

No it wouldn't.

Brit losses are far, far less than what we Yanks have had to pay.

So either you are ignorant of the human cost of that war - or you really don't care.

Are they the only two possibilities?

I don't care who it is: Mother Teresa. The Dad Of The Year. The Mom Of The Year. You. Me. James Randi. When one person is in control of that much influence and power - everyone loses. There are no exceptions. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Prove it.
 
No.

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

He would own a much greater concentration of media in Australia if the laws didn't stop him from doing so.
 
What makes you imply he isn't?

Probably because you did not present any evidence that he was.

Megalomania is a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur.

Emphasis mine. I'd suggest that in Rupert's case, that is certainly not the case. No delusions there.
 
The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.

What is you problem with Rupert Murdoch?
Is it because he owns FOX News?
Is it because he is a powerful media mogle?
Is it because he has sold-out to the Jews?
 
From today's Wall Street Journal editorial page:

Business success is vital to editorial independence, precisely because it provides the resources to report and comment in ways that might offend advertisers or governments.

We also believe the reverse is true: Editorial independence enhances the prospects for business success. The more credible a publication is, especially one that specializes in financial and economic reporting, the more readers and advertisers it is likely to have. We like to think our readers buy the Journal because of the credibility built over a century, and we believe this is the heart of the "value proposition" that Mr. Murdoch is willing to pay $5 billion to purchase. No sane businessman pays a premium of 67% over the market price for an asset he intends to ruin.

There are nonetheless critics, especially in the journalism world, who claim this is precisely what Mr. Murdoch will proceed to do. And they have certainly had a merry time bashing him and the Journal these past few months. Some of these voices, however, are commercial or ideological competitors who have their own interest in undermining the Journal's credibility.

Both the New York Times and the Financial Times have been especially aggressive in assailing the potential News Corp. purchase of the Journal. These also happen to be the two publications that Mr. Murdoch has explicitly said he might invest more to compete against. Readers can judge if the tears these papers and their writers claim to shed for the Journal's future are real, or of the crocodile variety.

The nastiest attacks have come from our friends on the political left. They can't decide whose views they hate most -- ours, or Mr. Murdoch's. We're especially amused by those who say Mr. Murdoch might tug us to the political left. Don't count on it. More than one liberal commentator has actually rejoiced at the takeover bid, on the perverse grounds that this will ruin the Journal's news coverage, which in turn will reduce the audience for the editorial page. Don't count on that either.

Such an expectation overlooks that the principle of "free people and free markets" promoted in these columns has an appeal far beyond this newspaper. We fill a market niche for such commentary that is too little met by other newspapers and media outlets. But we have every confidence that if we vanished, or let our standards fall, the marketplace would find an alternative. What ultimately matters are the ideas, and their basic truth.
 
I have subscribed to the WSJ for approx 10 years. Unless the quality suffers as a result of Murdoch's purchase, I will continue to do so.
 
Now I am just confused.

Should I hate Murdoch because he wants to be a feudal lord or should I hate him because he is soft on the Jews?
 

Back
Top Bottom