Fox's Hannity Draws 1.05 Mil. in Debut

[Logan13]

Every situation is different. I dont think there is much chance of a successful outcome, although I pray for one. You think there will be and we should hedge our bets and wait it out. Thats a respectable position, so we can agree to disagree...

Full retreat did not work in Somalia, it did not work in Vietnam. So where has it worked and why would you think that this time would be any different?

I have now showed you where the money goes. What do you have left to back up your personal views on media bias?

[juicedOUTbrain]

I have now showed you where the money goes. What do you have left to back up your personal views on media bias?

The fact that your source is extremly misleading and inaccurate...

Originally Posted by Logan13
I will show you where the money goes. These are corporate donations, not individual. Corporations are run by a board and shareholders, not by an individual. Corporate donations are voted on.

Actually these donations are from a combination of individuals and their families. Every employee, from valet parking to the security guard.

From your link:
METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving $200 or more. (Only those groups giving $5,000 or more are listed here. Soft money applies only to cycles 1992-2002.) In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. All donations took place during the 2003-2004 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, May 16, 2005. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

To show how misleading these charts are check out Newcorps (FoxNews) donations...74% to democrats??? You yourself admit that Fox has a conservative bias...That link is absolutely useless...

Now Lets look at some other interesting points...Your chart shows Viacom as donating 81% to democrats. Too bad the CEO of Viacom, Sumner Redstone, a self described "liberal democrat" publically endorsed President Bush...

From MSNBC.com
Sumner Redstone, who controls CBS-parent Viacom, enthusiastically endorsed President George W. Bush. From a “Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal,” Redstone told an audience of CEOs in Hong Kong in late September, “because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on.” In the widely-reported remarks, he added: “I vote for what’s good for Viacom.” (Viacom also owns MTV, an assortment of other cable networks and Paramount Pictures.)

Richard Parsons, the chairman of AOL-Time Warner (CNN, Headline News, Warner Bros, Time, etc.) is the former lawyer of Republican Vice President Nelson Rockafellar. He gave 67.7% to the GOP, and around 4.3 % to dems...He has also publicly endorsed Bush.

Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE (MSNBC, NBC, CNBC, etc) personally donated 26% to the GOP and only 7% to dems. The remaining 66% went mainly to republican special interests for media deregulation and defence spending (as GE is a large government defence contractor..

Michael Eisner, another self proclaimed democrat, refused to distribute farenheit 9-11 leading into the election.

From FAIR
Given the considerable amount of right-wing material distributed by Disney, much of it openly promoting Republican candidates and issues, it's impossible to believe that Disney is preventing Miramax from distributing Fahrenheit 911 because, as a Disney executive told the New York Times (5/5/04), "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Disney, in fact, makes a great deal of money off of highly charged partisan political battles, although it generally provides access to only one side of the war.

So what is the real reason it won't distribute Moore's movie? The explanation that Moore's agent said he was offered by Eisner-- that Disney was afraid of losing tax breaks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush-- is more persuasive than Eisner's obviously false public rationale. But more relevant may be Disney's financial involvement with a member of the same Saudi family whose connections to the Bush dynasty are investigated by Moore. Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a billionaire investor who is a grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, became a major investor in Disney's Eurodisney theme park when it was in financial trouble, and may be asked to bail out the troubled project again.

It's not unprecedented for Disney to respond favorably to a political request from its Saudi business partner; when Disney's EPCOT Center planned to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an exhibit on Israeli culture, Al-Walid says that he had personally asked Eisner to intervene in the decision. That same week, Disney announced that the pavilion would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (BBC, 9/14/99).

Whatever the true motive of Disney's decision to reject Moore's film, it's not the one that Eisner and other company spokespersons are advancing in public. Journalists covering the issue should go beyond Disney's transparent PR stance and explore the real motivations involved.

[Logan13]

The fact that your source is extremly misleading and inaccurate...

Originally Posted by Logan13
I will show you where the money goes. These are corporate donations, not individual. Corporations are run by a board and shareholders, not by an individual. Corporate donations are voted on.

Actually these donations are from a combination of individuals and their families. Every employee, from valet parking to the security guard.



To show how misleading these charts are check out Newcorps (FoxNews) donations...74% to democrats??? You yourself admit that Fox has a conservative bias...That link is absolutely useless...

Actually, the only thing useless now is your original arguement as it has been shown to be wrong using many different sources. My sources are far too varied for you to be attacking the sum of their information. The fact that you do not want this to be correct is clouding your judgement.
Time to man-up!

[juicedOUTbrain]

Actually, the only thing useless now is your original arguement as it has been shown to be wrong using many different sources. My sources are far too varied for you to be attacking the sum of their information. The fact that you do not want this to be correct is clouding your judgement.
Time to man-up!

You man up! My judgement is clouded? 3 of the 5 CEOs publicly endorse Bush and personally donated more to the GOP(with the exception of Michael Eisner)... But my judgement is clouded, right?

Yes your source(s) are misleading...not wrong, but misleading...You use the same site as a link for almost all of your information and the donations you site are from all individuals in the company combined, not the CEOs or BOD's... whos more important in terms of policy, the owner or CEO, or the other low level employees?

Ive layed out in detail who the CEOs endorse from a buisness stand point...including their own public endorsments.

Again according to your source, Fox News donated 70% to democrats ...does that refelct the leaning of the leadership? common, that right there should show you the flaw in the source...

[Logan13]

You man up! My judgement is clouded? 3 of the 5 CEOs publically endorse Bush and personally donated more to the GOP(with the exception of Michael Eisner)...

Yes your source(s) are misleading...not wrong, but misleading...You use the same site as a link for almost all of your information and the donations you site are from all individuals in the company combined, not the CEOs or BOD's... whos more important in terms of policy, the owner or CEO, or the other low level employees?

Ive layed out in detail who the CEOs endorse from a buisness stand point...including their own public endorsments.

Again according to your source, Fox News donated 70% to democrats ...does that refelct the leaning of the leadership? common, that right there should show you the flaw in the source...

I guess that this did not happen either.........
Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faa**e-deb...0779e2340.html
Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose New York Post tabloid savaged Hillary Clinton’s initial aspirations to become a US senator for New York, has agreed to host a political fundraiser for her re-election campaign.

The decision underlines an incongruous thawing of relations between Mr Murdoch and Mrs Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase “vast rightwing conspiracy” to denounce critics of her husband, such as Fox News, the conservative cable channel owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr Murdoch will host the fundraiser, due to be held by July, on behalf of News Corp.

One person involved in the event said it reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate. “They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn’t say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together.”

Bush in move to placate opponents of CIA nominee

Click here
The decision reflects an assiduous courtship by Mrs Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. Last month Mrs Clinton surprised Washington by attending the “Fox News Sunday” 10th anniversary party, where she chatted with Mr Murdoch.

Mr Clinton has encouraged Mr Murdoch’s involvement with his Global Initiative and has invited him to speak again at the second forum in September. The former president will also address News Corp’s summer conference.

The fundraiser for Ms Clinton’s re-election is in stark contrast to the brutal coverage from the New York Post of her first Senate campaign.

The partisan tabloid ran unflattering pictures, and frontpage headlines pleading: “DON’T RUN”. A poll from the Post’s website during the campaign identified her as the sixth “most evil” person of the millennium, ahead of Benito Mussolini and Vlad the Impaler. Her husband ranked second.

One media lobbyist said: “Murdoch will be for the Republicans but he is also smart enough to know that the Republicans might not win. At some level, whether nationally or in New York, Hillary is the future and what savvy businessman would not want to put a line of interest in someone who will be the future?”

[Logan13]

You man up! My judgement is clouded? 3 of the 5 CEOs publically endorse Bush and personally donated more to the GOP(with the exception of Michael Eisner)...

Yes your source(s) are misleading...not wrong, but misleading...You use the same site as a link for almost all of your information and the donations you site are from all individuals in the company combined, not the CEOs or BOD's... whos more important in terms of policy, the owner or CEO, or the other low level employees?
You need to sharpen your reading skills. I gave donation figures of soft money through 2002 as well as election donations in 2004 and 2006 by both corporations and their individuals. Can't get much more thorough than that.
Ive layed out in detail who the CEOs endorse from a buisness stand point...including their own public endorsments.

Again according to your source, Fox News donated 70% to democrats ...does that refelct the leaning of the leadership? common, that right there should show you the flaw in the source...

Again, there is no need debating with you since you are biased in your own assumptions. Regardless of sourcing, even if God were to come down and tell you, I fear that you still could not bring yourself to embrace the truth. It's OK, I remember when I was 22 years old and thought that I knew everything too.........In your whole 4 years of voting eligibility, have you ever even voted?
check this sight out, it seriously may help you.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...m=sandy+vagina

[juicedOUTbrain]

I guess that this did not happen either.........
Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

In-case you dont remember, Im the one who showed you that link in the first place...after you confidently asserted that Murdoch would never help hillary

Originally Posted by Logan13
Again, there is no need debating with you since you are biased in your own assumptions. Regardless of sourcing, even if God were to come down and tell you, I fear that you still could not bring yourself to embrace the truth.

Damn right Im biased against corporate interest controlling our media, and a president who led us into a war with no exit strategy...For you to stand there and act as if you dont have a bias is laughable. BTW, I used many of those same sources you speak of to prove you wrong. I showed you that 3 of the 5 CEOs publicly back bush, but you cant except it...and Im not embracing the truth?

I remember when I was 22 years old and thought that I knew everything too.........In your whole 4 years of voting eligibility, have you ever even voted?

Sorry bro, It must suck to have your assertions checked by a 22 year old...And you dont know everything?, I dont care how old you are, it sure sounds like you think you do...

Im not gonna lie, you argued dilligently and backed up most of your points well...but on the issue of media bias and the war, I think I proved my point and anyone who actually reads the posts carefully and checks the links will see that.

I gotta say, I haven't many repubs that know there shit like you do...So we can agree to disagree... Its nice to have a real debate on the issues, no name calling, or BS...Im not used to these anymore...Its been fun

And BTW, Check out this Link: It may help you out...specifically number 2

[juicedOUTbrain]

As for voting I knew Bush was an asshole before I was old enough to vote against him the first time around...Since then Ive volunteered for the democratic party and even met Bill Clinton at a local campaign rally...

Yes, Ive voted in every election since Ive been eligable...and Ive done more than that by volunteering my time at various fund raisers, events, and rallies...

[juicedOUTbrain]

double post

[Logan13]

As for voting I knew Bush was an asshole before I was old enough to vote against him the first time around...Since then Ive volunteered for the democratic party and even met Bill Clinton at a local campaign rally...

Yes, Ive voted in every election since Ive been eligable...and Ive done more than that by volunteering my time at various fund raisers, events, and rallies...

I was a registered Democrat in my college years, and I voted for Clinton twice. Glad to hear that you are involved.

[Logan13]

In-case you dont remember, Im the one who showed you that link in the first place...after you confidently asserted that Murdoch would never help hillary



Damn right Im biased against corporate interest controlling our media, and a president who led us into a war with no exit strategy...For you to stand there and act as if you dont have a bias is laughable. BTW, I used many of those same sources you speak of to prove you wrong. I showed you that 3 of the 5 CEOs publicly back bush, but you cant except it...and Im not embracing the truth?



Sorry bro, It must suck to have your assertions checked by a 22 year old...And you dont know everything?, I dont care how old you are, it sure sounds like you think you do...

Im not gonna lie, you argued dilligently and backed up most of your points well...but on the issue of media bias and the war, I think I proved my point and anyone who actually reads the posts carefully and checks the links will see that.

I gotta say, I haven't many repubs that know there shit like you do...So we can agree to disagree... Its nice to have a real debate on the issues, no name calling, or BS...Im not used to these anymore...Its been fun

And BTW, Check out this Link: It may help you out...specifically number 2

Lively debate. No offense with the whole sand in the vagina thing, I just love that saying.

[Kärnfysikern]

Iraq may have increased localized radicalism. It is not so much that more individuals have been turned radical, it is more to the point that the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate. It is in everyone's best interest to secure Iraq, not just the US's.

I agree.

But if Bush hadnt pushed for the Invasion there wouldnt have been any need to stabilise anything. Sadam held the fanatics at bay. The USA went against the worlds wishes and dragged the world into a mess we never needed or wanted to be a part of.

And before you say anything about war on terror involving everyone. Remember that everyone supported going after afghanistan. That was a justified war. Hell there are even swedish tropps in afghanistan.

[Logan13]

And before you say anything about war on terror involving everyone. Remember that everyone supported going after afghanistan. That was a justified war. Hell there are even swedish tropps in afghanistan.

Yes, they are there to cook the real soldiers dinners..............

lol, could not resist.

[Logan13]

I agree.

But if Bush hadnt pushed for the Invasion there wouldnt have been any need to stabilise anything. Sadam held the fanatics at bay. The USA went against the worlds wishes and dragged the world into a mess we never needed or wanted to be a part of.

And before you say anything about war on terror involving everyone. Remember that everyone supported going after afghanistan. That was a justified war. Hell there are even swedish tropps in afghanistan.

I agree, but Johan, we are already there. Would haves and should haves do not solve current problems. We shouldn't have been isolationists and we should not have tried diplomacy for so long with Hitler. But we did, with the hope that the world would learn from it's mistakes. Unfortunately, we have not, Sweden and the US included.

[Kärnfysikern]

Yes, they are there to cook the real soldiers dinners..............

lol, could not resist.

It wouldnt be to popular sweden isnt famous for our food except the meatballs perhaps.

I agree, but Johan, we are already there. Would haves and should haves do not solve current problems. We shouldn't have been isolationists and we should not have tried diplomacy for so long with Hitler. But we did, with the hope that the world would learn from it's mistakes. Unfortunately, we have not, Sweden and the US included.

I think that in order to get the EU to enter Iraq big time the next US president needs to be a damn master of diplomacy and be ready to let this tounge slip in betwen european ass cheeks. Its going to take a miracle.
I hope it will happen though.
You wont pull it off alone and I dont want europe to have to deal with the next generation of pissed of suicide bombers beeing trained in Iraq right now.

[Logan13]

I think that in order to get the EU to enter Iraq big time the next US president needs to be a damn master of diplomacy and be ready to let this tounge slip in betwen european ass cheeks. Its going to take a miracle.
I hope it will happen though.
You wont pull it off alone and I dont want europe to have to deal with the next generation of pissed of suicide bombers beeing trained in Iraq right now.

On this we do agree. But kissing the ass of socialist countries will not go over well with Americans, outside of the far left which is a small minority. It will be a sad day when the US makes policy based on what other countries want. Does Sweden make policy on what the US wants? I do believe that John McCain is a man of convictions, and he would be more inclined to negotiations before taking the offensive.

[mcpeepants]

Yes, they are there to cook the real soldiers dinners..............

lol, could not resist.