Posted on 08/04/2004 2:59:00 PM PDT by mhking
Well, he did appear today at Kerry's economic summit in Davenport, IA, where he did in fact endorse Kerry.
And assuming that's true, someone should inform him that 31 nations have had troops on the ground in Iraq. .....a coalition that Peter and his ilk do their very best to ignore.
mean = meant
Everything you say is very true.
Now here comes the however.
However: I consider democrats. liberals, greens, socialists, and other associated vermin to pose such a danger to our country and our way of life that I have absolutely no patience any longer for anyone or anything that supports them.
I have to admit that this attitude is an unreasonable, unbalanced, and totally subjective quirk of mine, but I've learned to live with it.
He will be fired within 100 days.
I hope so. Murdoch supported Al Gore in 2000. Do you know if Murdoch has contributed to either Kerry or the DNC?
He did? Do you have a link to the relevant quotes from his blog? I seriously doubt that Roger Ailes is voting for Kerry.
President Bush ballooned the Dept. Of Ed. budget, and still it isn't enough? Jessie Ventura had one thing right, public education is a black hole. How much money will ever be enough?
Here is a record of his contributions.
http://newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Murdoch&first=Rupert
Pretty interesting. He supported Kerry as a Senator, but not for President. He has also supported other Democrat candidates and Republican candidates at different times.
I'll answer your question with another one: Should a newspaper endorse candidates on its editorial page? Most do. I don't think terms of employment invalidate the
First Amendment. I think it speaks well of a company that allows its employees to take political positions that might be considered "out of line" with the company's. (It also might be good PR as well!)
Those big guys support both sides, generally. The big business types here will contribute to both parties. For many of them, ideology is irrelevant, they're just after access.
If you're referring to rogerailesblogspot.com I think you've been taken in. I just visited there and am 99% certain it's a Dummycrat front. Did you read the disclaimer? The best proof is that it's amateurishly done, and the real Ailes is anything but an amateur! I can't find anything on whois but I'll write Fox and try to pin it all down.
LOL! I have a few of those unreasonable, subjective attitudes too -- and far be it from me to try to talk another guy out of his! For what it's worth, I think you'll miss a lot of good info by avoiding Fox.
according to opensecrets.org, Murdoch donated the maximum amount of $2000 to Gore in 2000.
I think you may be right, but I'd love to know for sure. Please let us know if you find anything out.
You know a lot of my post was bluster. I had pretty well stopped using any TV for my news source a couple of years ago. I tend to like a lot of richness in the detail of my news and it seems that only the I'net can supply that anymore.
When I do watch TV for info I always default to FNS and will because, as you correctly opined, the content still tends to be the most objective of that medium.
Thank God for Free Republic, talk radio, and the blogosphere.
That's what I thought. I imagine they do anything to protect their businesses.
Yeah, I knew. Going a bit over the top for effect is my style of humor and I'm always surprised at how many people take me seriously.
You're absolutely right about how great it is to finally have alternative sources of news. But I'm also an admirer of most of the folks at Fox. One proof of how much good it's doing is listening to the howls of the politicians and competing media that want to censor it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.