Aurielius Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) Classic little M"Says the man who would have voted for someone who went against civil right." Your arrogance of assumption is only equaled by your ignorance of the subject, you have no knowledge of whom I have or would have voted for, my assumption is that this is a reference to comments I made on Goldwater's honesty in campaigning, where you make the leap of logic that I did or would have voted for him which is presumptuous in the extreme. In absolutely no post did I indicate who I would have voted for. If this is the best you can do for an intellectual slam, it's pathetic. Since this thread is about the impact in the UK, you might actually want to have some grounding in British politics instead of attempting to veer it off in some comparison to the US which is extraneous. Edited July 25, 2011 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 It's daft arguing our use of "the left" when everyone who had a clue in this thread was well aware that "the left" meant the Labour party, and the left-wing publications like the BBC, Guardian, etc.. Stop the derailment of this thread on this pointless semantic issue and lets get back to the crux of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) @ Rusty "A" Why would you use GOLDWATER as a example, and then completely ignore it afterwards? You were making the assumption he lost since he was following his morals, not that he lost because his ideas were completely screwed up. To be back on topic, my question is why is it a big deal that the left are being hypocritical towards Murdoch? My point at first was that Murdoch was directly involved, and it was also partly a News Crop issue. Why does the left being hypocritical change that? Edited July 25, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I wasn't aware that it had been proven that Murdock was directly involved. (of course, I haven't been following this either....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I wasn't aware that it had been proven that Murdock was directly involved. (of course, I haven't been following this either....) Well, to be honest HeyYou, neither have I; although I think I have a somewhat better grasp than some of our younger (to be unnamed) posters over on this side of the pond. I do at least understand who the Labour Party is, etc. However, that being neither here nor there, in response to your post, remember what old Harry S. Truman had to say? "The buck stops here." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Marharth, the left being hypocritical is a big deal because they are using it to make political capital and potentially to bring the Government down if they can, which would be a little bit ripe considering that under both Phoney Blair and Gordon Brown, spin and toadying up to both News Corp and other media moguls was par for the course. Pots and kettles, as they say... And Murdoch is directly involved by dint of heading up News Corp. The buck stops, as Granny quoted. He cannot claim "non est factum..." (this is not my deed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Marharth, the left being hypocritical is a big deal because they are using it to make political capital and potentially to bring the Government down if they can, which would be a little bit ripe considering that under both Phoney Blair and Gordon Brown, spin and toadying up to both News Corp and other media moguls was par for the course. Pots and kettles, as they say... And Murdoch is directly involved by dint of heading up News Corp. The buck stops, as Granny quoted. He cannot claim "non est factum..." (this is not my deed.) Both sides are hypocritical, it is just the lefts turn to get raked over the coals. Trying to hold Murdoch responsible for what some employee on another continent did is a bit of a stretch in my book....... Sure, it is his company, he owns it. But don't you think that holding him responsible for anything anyone that works for him does is just a tad unreasonable? He isn't in the Military, he isn't the commander of some ship. By this reasoning, the heads of Goldman/Sachs, and a few other financial institutions should be brought up on charges for tanking the world economy. I heard some whispers about investigations, but, that has been a bit ago, and absolutely nothing has been heard since then...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Marharth, the left being hypocritical is a big deal because they are using it to make political capital and potentially to bring the Government down if they can, which would be a little bit ripe considering that under both Phoney Blair and Gordon Brown, spin and toadying up to both News Corp and other media moguls was par for the course. Pots and kettles, as they say... And Murdoch is directly involved by dint of heading up News Corp. The buck stops, as Granny quoted. He cannot claim "non est factum..." (this is not my deed.) Both sides are hypocritical, it is just the lefts turn to get raked over the coals. Trying to hold Murdoch responsible for what some employee on another continent did is a bit of a stretch in my book....... Sure, it is his company, he owns it. But don't you think that holding him responsible for anything anyone that works for him does is just a tad unreasonable? He isn't in the Military, he isn't the commander of some ship. By this reasoning, the heads of Goldman/Sachs, and a few other financial institutions should be brought up on charges for tanking the world economy. I heard some whispers about investigations, but, that has been a bit ago, and absolutely nothing has been heard since then...... Hmmmm. Interesting proposition, but one for another thread I guess...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) I posted multiple links that showed Murdoch was directly involved, as well as some other links that showed it wasn't just a small time employe. I believe that post is on the previous page, if anyone wants to read it. @Granny, THEY SHOULD be brought up on charges for tanking the world economy imo... Edited July 25, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 I posted multiple links that showed Murdoch was directly involved, as well as some other links that showed it wasn't just a small time employe. I believe that post is on the previous page, if anyone wants to read it. @Granny, THEY SHOULD be brought up on charges for tanking the world economy imo... Articles are back on page 7. All they show is that Murdoch tried to bury the investigation after it came to the attention of various folks. Nowhere does it state that he knew it was going on at the time it happened. True, a fair collection of higher-ups at NoW are currently implicated, one of which was given a government position..... Ooops. I suspect that there is yet more fecal matter to hit the rotary oscillating device before all is said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now