BF2S Forums Fox News, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and the NYC Mosque

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

what the fuck are you on about?  man you are weird.

Right wing loonies being manipulated by a media source partially owned by a Saudi billionaire...  It is pretty funny.

in a cold economic sense, it's brilliant. incredibly smart.

identify a consumer-trend --> american right-wing xenophobia, terrorism paranoia, racism/bigotry

invest in american right-wing television station after recent terrorist attacks/conflict in middle east

???

PROFIT

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

what the fuck are you on about?  man you are weird.

Right wing loonies being manipulated by a media source partially owned by a Saudi billionaire...  It is pretty funny.

yes i know turq.  only you and a couple others here are the only true sources of info and are the unmanipulated.

  hey, you said it...  not me  j/k

11 Bravo wrote:

i would really like to know why nobody cries about msnbc as much as they do fox?  guess you dont mind left manipulation, eh turq?

sound like sheep to me if you dont tbh

I don't know...  Some of our conservative members have mentioned MSNBC quite a bit.  Olbermann and Maddow might be good for entertainment, but I certainly don't consider them journalists.  They're commentators.

And yes, MSNBC overall is about as liberal as Fox is conservative, which is why I don't take them as gospel.  Cross referencing is the best method to inform yourself.

I've even used a Fox source in another thread recently, but the reason I did was because it matched other sources which I was less suspect of.

11 Bravo wrote:

what the fuck are you on about?  man you are weird.

Thank you. I really mean it

probably for the obvious reason that this forum is full of right-wing conservative nutjobs, and not many bleeding-heart liberals.

if it was full of liberals making pansy-threads every day, im sure MSNBC would be name-dropped and subsequently ridiculed more.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

i would really like to know why nobody cries about msnbc as much as they do fox?  guess you dont mind left manipulation, eh turq?

sound like sheep to me if you dont tbh

I don't know...  Some of our conservative members have mentioned MSNBC quite a bit.  Olbermann and Maddow might be good for entertainment, but I certainly don't consider them journalists.  They're commentators.

And yes, MSNBC overall is about as liberal as Fox is conservative, which is why I don't take them as gospel.  Cross referencing is the best method to inform yourself.

I've even used a Fox source in another thread recently, but the reason I did was because it matched other sources which I was less suspect of.

dont tell me how to read the news.  what i am asking is why you (and all the other fox moaners) dont make constant threads/references about msnbc?

You asked if I was manipulated by the left.  I responded.  I'm not telling you how to do anything, but I made a recommendation.  No need to get defensive.

Uzique pretty much said the same thing I would as to why MSNBC isn't ridiculed here more.

Oh, and please let me know when you're able to find a right wing investor in MSNBC that is intentionally riling up liberals for his own monetary gain.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-01 11:54:17)

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't know...  Some of our conservative members have mentioned MSNBC quite a bit.  Olbermann and Maddow might be good for entertainment, but I certainly don't consider them journalists.  They're commentators.

And yes, MSNBC overall is about as liberal as Fox is conservative, which is why I don't take them as gospel.  Cross referencing is the best method to inform yourself.

I've even used a Fox source in another thread recently, but the reason I did was because it matched other sources which I was less suspect of.

dont tell me how to read the news.  what i am asking is why you (and all the other fox moaners) dont make constant threads/references about msnbc?

You asked if I was manipulated by the left.  I responded.  I'm not telling you how to do anything, but I made a recommendation.  No need to get defensive.

Uzique pretty much said the same thing I would as to why MSNBC isn't ridiculed here more.

Oh, and please let me know when you're able to find a right wing investor in MSNBC that is intentionally riling up liberals for his own monetary gain.

lowing and harmor make up the entire forum?  well then i guess you guys are both terribly incorrect then.

Turquoise wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't know...  Some of our conservative members have mentioned MSNBC quite a bit.  Olbermann and Maddow might be good for entertainment, but I certainly don't consider them journalists.  They're commentators.

And yes, MSNBC overall is about as liberal as Fox is conservative, which is why I don't take them as gospel.  Cross referencing is the best method to inform yourself.

I've even used a Fox source in another thread recently, but the reason I did was because it matched other sources which I was less suspect of.

dont tell me how to read the news.  what i am asking is why you (and all the other fox moaners) dont make constant threads/references about msnbc?

You asked if I was manipulated by the left.  I responded.  I'm not telling you how to do anything, but I made a recommendation.  No need to get defensive.

Uzique pretty much said the same thing I would as to why MSNBC isn't ridiculed here more.

Oh, and please let me know when you're able to find a right wing investor in MSNBC that is intentionally riling up liberals for his own monetary gain.

The president of Huffington Post is one of the most die hard conservatives I've ever met He's a close friend of my gf's father and hooks us up with Giants tickets.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You asked if I was manipulated by the left.  I responded.  I'm not telling you how to do anything, but I made a recommendation.  No need to get defensive.

Uzique pretty much said the same thing I would as to why MSNBC isn't ridiculed here more.

Oh, and please let me know when you're able to find a right wing investor in MSNBC that is intentionally riling up liberals for his own monetary gain.

The president of Huffington Post is one of the most die hard conservatives I've ever met He's a close friend of my gf's father and hooks us up with Giants tickets.

So Greg Coleman is the Prince Alwaleed to Huff Po?

Sure Mr. Coleman's actually a nice guy.

The problem here turq is that you are making a whole lot of assumptions. Is this Prince a hard liner or is he on the liberal side; the type that likes to drink once he leaves his country? If he's a hard liner then it's a valid complaint to have. If he's on the liberal side and is strictly invested in News Corp for profit I don't see any issue at all. Assuming any investor would have a say in what is printed is more than a stretch anyway. We're not talking political representation on a board like we're about to see with unions and pension funds; 99.9% of investors only care about the bottom line of the company and how it effects their stock position.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem here turq is that you are making a whole lot of assumptions. Is this Prince a hard liner or is he on the liberal side; the type that likes to drink once he leaves his country? If he's a hard liner then it's a valid complaint to have. If he's on the liberal side and is strictly invested in News Corp for profit I don't see any issue at all. Assuming any investor would have a say in what is printed is more than a stretch anyway. We're not talking political representation on a board like we're about to see with unions and pension funds; 99.9% of investors only care about the bottom line of the company and how it effects their stock position.

One could even argue he's used his weight as shareholder to force fox to soften the muslim image portrayed to us infidels.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem here turq is that you are making a whole lot of assumptions. Is this Prince a hard liner or is he on the liberal side; the type that likes to drink once he leaves his country? If he's a hard liner then it's a valid complaint to have. If he's on the liberal side and is strictly invested in News Corp for profit I don't see any issue at all. Assuming any investor would have a say in what is printed is more than a stretch anyway. We're not talking political representation on a board like we're about to see with unions and pension funds; 99.9% of investors only care about the bottom line of the company and how it effects their stock position.

One could even argue he's used his weight as shareholder to force fox to soften the muslim image portrayed to us infidels.

Good. We don't need a tenth Crusade.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, my focus is actually on the fact that he's a financier of Fox while also a financier of the community center that Fox is making a big deal about.

It's pretty clear that Fox's producers realize they're drumming up controversy about something their ownership is a part of.  I don't think the Prince is a hardliner at all.  I just think he's having fun manipulating the emotions of the right wing, because that means more money for him.

It's not about ideology....  It's about money.

I think you're reading too much into it. Fox has been producing wild story after wild story for the past year and a half while doing everything possible to condemn Obama and make him look bad. There have probably been a thousand attacks made and this one happened to be the one that stuck and struck a chord with people. They've been pounding away on that knee trying to get a reaction and finally hit the right spot with the average American. Not exactly a conspiracy.

I'm not suggesting the Prince came up with the idea all by himself, but I'm sure he's seen the profit to be made.  The only conspiratorial angle I see in this is that he's probably using his influence to keep Fox from mentioning him by name, even though they've already mentioned his charity behind the community center.

I don't see why that's an issue at all. Why should his name be dragged through the mud simply because a bunch of people overreacted to something they were led to believe was bigger, closer and more relevant than what it actually is. We've had enough witch hunts in our legal history based on populist anger. Anything to mitigate further abuse is fine by me.