cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
mortal fiber
Examples of GOP Leadership
- Thread starter injinji
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
I can see why someone like murdoch wouldn't want this becoming well known, it kind of ruins his reputation.
From Slate
Rupert Murdoch Is Not Some Puppetmaster
Ben Mathis-Lilley
The Most Shocking Part of the Fox Election Lawsuit Is That It Depicts Rupert Murdoch as an Ineffectual Chump
An explosive revelation that the world’s most widely feared and reviled tycoon can be as powerless over events as anyone else.
Murdoch, seen at a tilted angle in the stands at a tennis match, stares forward with a grumpy expression.
Rupert Murdoch has earned his reputation as a ruthless, larger-than-life tycoon. At age 91, he’s worth an estimated $8 billion and still has a hand in the day-to-day operations of his media companies. His outlets are known for inflammatory manipulation of racial and religious prejudice, while his executives and stars have been repeatedly accused (and sometimes convicted in court) of engaging in some of the crudest, least ethical behavior possible.
The voting machine company Dominion is suing Murdoch’s Fox News network for defamation because of unproven and frequently outlandish allegations made on the channel about Dominion’s purported role in “rigging” the 2020 election against Donald Trump. Legal filings released Monday and in mid-February lay out the company’s case, citing internal text and email conversations between Fox stars and executives in which they privately disparage the claims about election-rigging—and the figures making them, like Rudy Giuliani—that were being aired on the network at the time. (Fox says its activities regarding the allegation constitute reporting and commentary protected by the First Amendment.)
A filing released Monday quotes from a deposition in which Murdoch agreed that some of his network’s leading anchors had “endorsed” stolen-election arguments that Murdoch did not, personally, believe to have merit. The revelation has been covered by left-leaning outlets as stunning evidence of cynicism and greed, which, to be fair, it is. It’s also, though, a blow to Murdoch’s reputation as a brutal, calculating operator.
Consider the order of events the lawsuit lays out:
• Even before Joe Biden was widely projected as the winner of the election, Murdoch emailed a Fox executive to say that Trump would likely not be able to “credibly cry foul everywhere,” i.e., claim that fraud had taken place in every key state he lost. He added that “if Trump becomes a sore loser, we should watch Sean especially,” by which he seems to have meant something like prevent Fox anchor Sean Hannity from cheerleading an effort to overturn the results of the election on the basis of specious conspiracy theories.
• Murdoch emailed one of his sons on the day that the election was widely called in Biden’s favor to express relief that Fox had not been the first outlet to make such a call, writing that it would save them from a “Trump explosion.” As late as Nov. 16, Murdoch was privately writing to a Fox executive that “Trump will concede eventually.”
• Trump “cried foul” and never conceded. The Republican Party largely supported him in this, and he attacked Fox News in particular for its early acknowledgement of his loss.
• As the New York Times put it, a “frantic scramble” took place at Fox, whose ratings “collapsed” after its initial reaction to Trump’s loss. Hannity (among other Fox stars) cheerled Trump’s effort to overturn the election, even as behind the scenes, Murdoch and other executives emailed each other their misgivings about the “evidence” of fraud that was being aired.
• Murdoch, apparently alarmed by the mounting political chaos and unrest, suggested on Jan. 5, 2021, that Hannity and other prime-time stars should declare that Biden had won a fair election. That didn’t take place. Two days after the Jan. 6 riot, Murdoch then sent an email in which he promised that Fox was “pivoting” to “make Trump a non person.”
Ah, nevertheless. Trump, still demonstrably a person, is currently leading 2024 Republican presidential polls.
In short, Murdoch was wrong about what Trump would be able to get away with, wrong about how Trump would react to Fox’s coverage, and unable to impose his wishes on either Fox’s talent or its viewers. The record, moreover, shows Murdoch to have been as alarmed personally by Trump’s post-election behavior as any number of other self-deluding or willfully naïve observers were.
There’s something almost touching about the human drive to believe there are people who know secret, stunning truths about the world—and have a steely control over it in the way the rest of us, perpetually confused and lacking in agency over even our own small lives, do not. But in this case, at least, Rupert Murdoch was not one of those masters of the universe. He wasn’t even a master of Sean Hannity.
From Slate
Rupert Murdoch Is Not Some Puppetmaster
Ben Mathis-Lilley
The Most Shocking Part of the Fox Election Lawsuit Is That It Depicts Rupert Murdoch as an Ineffectual Chump
An explosive revelation that the world’s most widely feared and reviled tycoon can be as powerless over events as anyone else.
Murdoch, seen at a tilted angle in the stands at a tennis match, stares forward with a grumpy expression.
Rupert Murdoch has earned his reputation as a ruthless, larger-than-life tycoon. At age 91, he’s worth an estimated $8 billion and still has a hand in the day-to-day operations of his media companies. His outlets are known for inflammatory manipulation of racial and religious prejudice, while his executives and stars have been repeatedly accused (and sometimes convicted in court) of engaging in some of the crudest, least ethical behavior possible.
The voting machine company Dominion is suing Murdoch’s Fox News network for defamation because of unproven and frequently outlandish allegations made on the channel about Dominion’s purported role in “rigging” the 2020 election against Donald Trump. Legal filings released Monday and in mid-February lay out the company’s case, citing internal text and email conversations between Fox stars and executives in which they privately disparage the claims about election-rigging—and the figures making them, like Rudy Giuliani—that were being aired on the network at the time. (Fox says its activities regarding the allegation constitute reporting and commentary protected by the First Amendment.)
A filing released Monday quotes from a deposition in which Murdoch agreed that some of his network’s leading anchors had “endorsed” stolen-election arguments that Murdoch did not, personally, believe to have merit. The revelation has been covered by left-leaning outlets as stunning evidence of cynicism and greed, which, to be fair, it is. It’s also, though, a blow to Murdoch’s reputation as a brutal, calculating operator.
Consider the order of events the lawsuit lays out:
• Even before Joe Biden was widely projected as the winner of the election, Murdoch emailed a Fox executive to say that Trump would likely not be able to “credibly cry foul everywhere,” i.e., claim that fraud had taken place in every key state he lost. He added that “if Trump becomes a sore loser, we should watch Sean especially,” by which he seems to have meant something like prevent Fox anchor Sean Hannity from cheerleading an effort to overturn the results of the election on the basis of specious conspiracy theories.
• Murdoch emailed one of his sons on the day that the election was widely called in Biden’s favor to express relief that Fox had not been the first outlet to make such a call, writing that it would save them from a “Trump explosion.” As late as Nov. 16, Murdoch was privately writing to a Fox executive that “Trump will concede eventually.”
• Trump “cried foul” and never conceded. The Republican Party largely supported him in this, and he attacked Fox News in particular for its early acknowledgement of his loss.
• As the New York Times put it, a “frantic scramble” took place at Fox, whose ratings “collapsed” after its initial reaction to Trump’s loss. Hannity (among other Fox stars) cheerled Trump’s effort to overturn the election, even as behind the scenes, Murdoch and other executives emailed each other their misgivings about the “evidence” of fraud that was being aired.
• Murdoch, apparently alarmed by the mounting political chaos and unrest, suggested on Jan. 5, 2021, that Hannity and other prime-time stars should declare that Biden had won a fair election. That didn’t take place. Two days after the Jan. 6 riot, Murdoch then sent an email in which he promised that Fox was “pivoting” to “make Trump a non person.”
Ah, nevertheless. Trump, still demonstrably a person, is currently leading 2024 Republican presidential polls.
In short, Murdoch was wrong about what Trump would be able to get away with, wrong about how Trump would react to Fox’s coverage, and unable to impose his wishes on either Fox’s talent or its viewers. The record, moreover, shows Murdoch to have been as alarmed personally by Trump’s post-election behavior as any number of other self-deluding or willfully naïve observers were.
There’s something almost touching about the human drive to believe there are people who know secret, stunning truths about the world—and have a steely control over it in the way the rest of us, perpetually confused and lacking in agency over even our own small lives, do not. But in this case, at least, Rupert Murdoch was not one of those masters of the universe. He wasn’t even a master of Sean Hannity.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3879951-more-americans-disapprove-of-mccarthy-sharing-jan-6-footage-with-carlson-than-approve-poll/
Now they have to pay people to sit in a room and review 42,000 hours of video so fucker carlson can then use it to tell more lies?
42,000 hours is 1750 days...250 weeks...a little over 4 years and 9 months of video to review.
i realize they will be using some kind of process, but that is still a MASSIVE amount of video to review, and they will have to have someone with the ability to say whether or not a piece of video contains something sensitive...I'm guessing those qualified to make such judgements don't do it for free, or cheaply.
So just how much is mccarthy the clown's "promise" going to cost the tax payers that republicans are SOOO concerned about saving some money?
I don't know, i looked, but no mention of the cost...
Now they have to pay people to sit in a room and review 42,000 hours of video so fucker carlson can then use it to tell more lies?
42,000 hours is 1750 days...250 weeks...a little over 4 years and 9 months of video to review.
i realize they will be using some kind of process, but that is still a MASSIVE amount of video to review, and they will have to have someone with the ability to say whether or not a piece of video contains something sensitive...I'm guessing those qualified to make such judgements don't do it for free, or cheaply.
So just how much is mccarthy the clown's "promise" going to cost the tax payers that republicans are SOOO concerned about saving some money?
I don't know, i looked, but no mention of the cost...
Until 2024. We'll have a whole other new Congress and I have a feeling with what The House is up to, they're going to hang themselves. Other than being an annoying shit show? Nothing will advance from them.
It's the deep fakes they'll put together that will be concerning.
Regarding cost? the GOP will have one regret card coming..gotta pound on that wound..THE COST and pound on it now!
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
If fox has one person left with one fucking wit, they won't make anything even close to a deep fake...the democrats WILL be watching what they do with that footage, and the first time they see something like that from it, they'll not only jerk it and carlson off the air, they'll ram it up mccarthy's ass so hard it'll come out of his nose.
I'm actually half convinced that this will pull the last tooth fox has, and turn them into the shit show they have always deserved to be.
They won't be able to call it fox news anymore, they'll have to call it fox infotainment and change "most watched, most trusted." to just "most watched by fucking morons who believe our outrageous stupidity."
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Trump Stiffed Local Cops. Now It’s Coming Back to Bite Him.
Months or even years later, the Trump campaign still hasn't paid some local departments for the overtime pay they earned after working his rallies.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
at first I thought the image cartooned a reptile brain.Trump Stiffed Local Cops. Now It’s Coming Back to Bite Him.
Months or even years later, the Trump campaign still hasn't paid some local departments for the overtime pay they earned after working his rallies.www.thedailybeast.com
~shrug~ same-o
Well, ya got me there, so I looked it all up. There
are some nations that are racially diverse, but there're some that
are not ethnically diverse. But not many at all.
So, it would appear that it is only the USA where racism is a problem.
And why, well, i was just looking for a reason, and was guessing
that probably we're so racist, and such a hating population of
human beings, was because we were forced to live with such a
diverse racial population, unlike other countries. but that's out.
We, unlike the rest of the world, have no excuse. we're just a bunch
of haters for no reason, period. Makes you proud to be an ameriKKKan.
Problem is, I kind of always thought that racism wasn't just the sole
part of White America. That Black America, and Every-Other-Race America
also contains bigots, haters, and racists. It's kind of like the old saying,
"The only thing that never changes is that everything changes.", where
in this case you could say that where ever there are people who live together,
they will always hate one another. Nice thot, eh?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
have you been to Europe? South America? Asia?....It does NOT appear that the USA is the only country with a racism problem...It's rampant worldwide, Everyone hates someone else based on what they look like, where they were born, what religion they believe in...It's a human problem, even though we're all different, we're all the same, too...
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/combating-racism-and-racial-discrimination-europe
https://thediplomat.com/2022/06/asia-has-its-own-strands-of-racism-its-time-to-take-them-seriously/
https://www.amacad.org/publication/myth-latin-american-multiracialism
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2022.2130458
The entire world is a dark ride....keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times, and do not feed the animals, no matter what they say.
Well, then, w/the exception of NewsCorp., the USA's the only country that discusses it.
I thot my quote here expressed the above succinctly enough:
"...you could say that where ever there are people who live together,
they will always hate one another."
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I remember in my hometown there used to be two solitudes between protestants and Catholics and bigotry a generation or two ago, a protestant marrying a Catholic was a thing of note! However, since religion is less important than it used to be in society, those differences have largely disappeared. Bigotry and racism are learned behaviors and it is only when a larger modern society is divided into "tribes", based on actual tribes, religions or looks, that there is trouble. People have a propensity to go tribal when they are faced with a big problem or threat, a very human propensity to organize ourselves into groups and dehumanize those not within that group, if the problem is with them. We evolved to shut off empathy for the other to make it easier to kill them, with humans it is the group's survival not the individual's that is important to evolution and men are expendable. We will kill others while sacrificing our own lives for the perceived greater good of our group. That can mean battle in Ukraine or closing down a public swimming pool so the black people can't get some too, or not wanting government medical care, even if they desperately need it. How many threw themselves under the tanks of democracy for Trump and the "cause", whatever fuzzyheaded thing that is.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Racism is the belief that race determines a persons character, abilities and all that makes them who they are. At the individual level anybody can believe that. So, anybody can be personally racist using that definition. When that concept is implemented at the social level, racism causes the unequal distribution of privilege, income, property, civil rights and status in society. When racism is looked at in terms of its effects, In the US, collectively, only whites can be racist.
Just looking at how Chinese society are treating the Tibetans and Uyghurs, I'd say there is a fair amount of racism going on there too. Same elsewhere, like Myanmar.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LOLTrump Stiffed Local Cops. Now It’s Coming Back to Bite Him.
Months or even years later, the Trump campaign still hasn't paid some local departments for the overtime pay they earned after working his rallies.
Sleep with dogs and wake up with fleas.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
In Ukraine they needed to use colored tape to "other" the other side, they both looked and spoke the same and, in some cases, wore the same uniform. A uniform is another device humans use to "other", and it tends to erase race in many cases, at least on the battlefield, or even on the football field.
Yeah, I'm a racist...I hate the human race.
I'll google bigotry and hatred, and then get back to ya on the above.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Not the same thing as racism but othering seems necessary to enable mass slaughtering. Picturing Russian soldiers as Orcs dehumanizes them and makes it easier to talk about killing them. But that's not racism.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
A skin color is a uniform you can't take off and makes tribalism and othering easier, then there is history and culture on top of that. Racism, bigotry and xenophobia are all related and occur in the same kinds of people as a cluster. Some individuals are more vulnerable to these general human propensities than others, it's a mix between our genes and conditioned or learned behaviors and beliefs. Not much we can do about human nature, but there is something to be done about the conditioning and learning part, but many ideas and a lot of conditioning must die with the generations who hold them.
I generally reframe from calling them orcs, but their behavior is orcish, and they seem to have earned the nickname from their atrocities. Republicans have picked up nicknames based on their behavior too, like "Deadbeat Donald" and fascist! Generalizing is another thing we do in such circumstances...