DC Tom Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 10 arrested, bribery of police including high rsnking police, allegations of undue influence on the pm and possible hacking of 9/11 victims phones...where there's smoke (especially this much billowing smoke) there's usually fire. ask yourselve's how forgiving you'd be if these allegations were made against george soros. if you are the least bit honest, you'd want his head on a pike. and then there's the 7% of the co owned by a saudi sheik. how does the thought of a muslim coloring your news strike those of you who have quite loudly condemned that religon, sit with you? So your "transgression" is "where there's smoke, there's fire"? Can you even tell us why the FBI is investigating him? If these allegations were made against Soros, I'd want them proved. If they were made against people at one of Soros' companies, four levels of management removed from him, I'd be saying exactly what I'm saying now: what did Soros do? And I read al Jazerra, you retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 10 arrested, bribery of police including high rsnking police, allegations of undue influence on the pm and possible hacking of 9/11 victims phones...where there's smoke (especially this much billowing smoke) there's usually fire. ask yourselve's how forgiving you'd be if these allegations were made against george soros. if you are the least bit honest, you'd want his head on a pike. and then there's the 7% of the co owned by a saudi sheik. how does the thought of a muslim coloring your news strike those of you who have quite loudly condemned that religon, sit with you? Show one example of where the three people taking you to task in this thread have condemned Islam. Just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So your "transgression" is "where there's smoke, there's fire"? Can you even tell us why the FBI is investigating him? did you even read the article? that's why i didn't initially go to the trouble. fbi investigating newscorp bribing police for info on 9/11 victims. and i'm certainly not searching posts lookiong for anti islam sentiments. there have been plenty and anyonre reading this forum is well aware. if you haven't directly been critical you certainly haven't vehemently refuted those who have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 did you even read the article? that's why i didn't initially go to the trouble. fbi investigating newscorp bribing police for info on 9/11 victims. and i'm certainly not searching posts lookiong for anti islam sentiments. there have been plenty and anyonre reading this forum is well aware. if you haven't directly been critical you certainly haven't vehemently refuted those who have. I'm confused. Is the outrage over reporters paying cops for info? Is it because some of that info involves victims? Or is it because some of the victims in question are 9/11 victims (which makes them more special than other victims)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 did you even read the article? that's why i didn't initially go to the trouble. fbi investigating newscorp bribing police for info on 9/11 victims. Did YOU read the article? Because what you wrote isn't even an accurate representation of the article...which itself is an inaccurate representation of reality. None of which answer the question anyway: what are Murdoch's "transgressions"? and i'm certainly not searching posts lookiong for anti islam sentiments. there have been plenty and anyonre reading this forum is well aware. if you haven't directly been critical you certainly haven't vehemently refuted those who have. Then you're a bigger retard than I've given you credit for. I've routinely vehemently refuted those who have. I'm confused. Is the outrage over reporters paying cops for info? Is it because some of that info involves victims? Or is it because some of the victims in question are 9/11 victims (which makes them more special than other victims)? It's because Rupert Murdoch is a bad, bad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 and i'm certainly not searching posts lookiong for anti islam sentiments. there have been plenty and anyonre reading this forum is well aware. if you haven't directly been critical you certainly haven't vehemently refuted those who have. No, you've made specific accusations against three people in this thread. Prove them. Google & the search function at the upper right are your friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Did YOU read the article? Because what you wrote isn't even an accurate representation of the article.. specifically, what is inaccurate? now, you do some quoting. and reading al jazeera isn't the same as watching fox news and not expecting a possible saudi princes influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I'm confused. Is the outrage over reporters paying cops for info? Is it because some of that info involves victims? Or is it because some of the victims in question are 9/11 victims (which makes them more special than other victims)? it's because it's illegal and unethical. there are also contentions of phone hacking in the us (it seems they are confirmed in the uk). aren't you a libertarian? is phone hacking from a news co ok with you? how bout from the govt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 it's because it's illegal and unethical. there are also contentions of phone hacking in the us (it seems they are confirmed in the uk). aren't you a libertarian? is phone hacking from a news co ok with you? how bout from the govt? I was responding to "fbi investigating newscorp bribing police for info on 9/11 victims", but why not conveniently change the subject? That's what libs do best. And what the !@#$ does phone hacking from a news company have to do with libertarianism? And illegal doesn't necessarily mean unethical. So why am I supposed to be outraged at reporters paying cops for tips? I didn't find it outrageous when Morgan Freeman told Brad Pitt that the reporters pay the cops and pay well, and I'm not outraged by it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) I was responding to "fbi investigating newscorp bribing police for info on 9/11 victims", but why not conveniently change the subject? That's what libs do best. And what the !@#$ does phone hacking from a news company have to do with libertarianism? And illegal doesn't necessarily mean unethical. So why am I supposed to be outraged at reporters paying cops for tips? I didn't find it outrageous when Morgan Freeman told Brad Pitt that the reporters pay the cops and pay well, and I'm not outraged by it now. you know i'm really starting to sympathize with d/c using the "i" word so often. if you think it's ok to bribe cops (or for them to accept bribes) in any instance, we have nothing further to discuss. and i didn't change the subject. the phone hacking was included in my AP citation which you undoubtedly didn't bother to read carefully. finally, do you not think liberty and privacy are linked? Edited July 21, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 you know i'm really starting to sympathize with d/c using the "i" word so often. if you think it's ok to bribe cops (or for them to accept bribes) in any instance, we have nothing further to discuss. and i didn't change the subject. the phone hacking was included in my AP citation which you undoubtedly didn't bother to read carefully. finally, do you not think liberty and privacy are linked? I'm not surprised you weren't able to follow. I included multiple points in the post which no doubt you had trouble with so I'll take them one by one. There is a subtle difference between bribing a cop to allow you to break the law with impunity (i.e. drug dealers paying off the cops for free range), and paying a cop for inside info to write a news story. It's not ideal, but unlike libs who profess to seeing the world in shades of grey and then describe it in absolutes, I'm capable of recognizing proportionality. And whether liberty and privacy are linked (which is really too broad a statement to seriously address in a short post) has little to do with libertarianism when we're discussing the wrong doing of private individuals/companies and perhaps a handful of local cops. If you were discussing Federal government violations of privacy that would be another story, but it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I'm not surprised you weren't able to follow. I included multiple points in the post which no doubt you had trouble with so I'll take them one by one. There is a subtle difference between bribing a cop to allow you to break the law with impunity (i.e. drug dealers paying off the cops for free range), and paying a cop for inside info to write a news story. It's not ideal, but unlike libs who profess to seeing the world in shades of grey and then describe it in absolutes, I'm capable of recognizing proportionality. And whether liberty and privacy are linked (which is really too broad a statement to seriously address in a short post) has little to do with libertarianism when we're discussing the wrong doing of private individuals/companies and perhaps a handful of local cops. If you were discussing Federal government violations of privacy that would be another story, but it's not. so it's ok for a corp to invade your privacy with the help of a bribed govt official? how bout without the help of a bribed govt official? it's better to lose your privacy to a corp than the govt? just stop. you look more ridiculous with every post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 so it's ok for a corp to invade your privacy with the help of a bribed govt official? how bout without the help of a bribed govt official? it's better to lose your privacy to a corp than the govt? just stop. you look more ridiculous with every post. Whether it is ok or not doesn't have dick **** to do with libertarianism. Try to stay on point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Whether it is ok or not doesn't have dick **** to do with libertarianism. Try to stay on point. is not the origin for the term "liberty"? does a corp with or without govt assistance invading your privacy constitute an attack on your liberty? a major thesis of the belief is non interference is it not? is there somewhere in your handbook that says "only govt interference" is a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Whether it is ok or not doesn't have dick **** to do with libertarianism. Try to stay on point. The messages on their phones were their personal property - to hack my phone is to trespass on phone and to steal my personal information is theft of intellectual property- I always thought protection of personal property was a big philosophical point of Libertarians, guess I was wrong, more likely they believe that only corporate property deserves protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The messages on their phones were their personal property - to hack my phone is to trespass on phone and to steal my personal information is theft of intellectual property- I always thought protection of personal property was a big philosophical point of Libertarians, guess I was wrong, more likely they believe that only corporate property deserves protection. That is in no way remotely close to being an accurate description of what I said, but might as well run with it anyway. Wouldn't want accuracy or thought get in the way of your pious liberal outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 The messages on their phones were their personal property - to hack my phone is to trespass on phone and to steal my personal information is theft of intellectual property- I always thought protection of personal property was a big philosophical point of Libertarians, guess I was wrong, more likely they believe that only corporate property deserves protection. finally, a single voice of reason. i guess if you tell yourself something repetitively enough it becomes true. and rob, not all liberals share all beliefs. i'm sure lybob and i have philosophical disagreements. perhaps even on the question of moral relativism that you brought up. i think it's the ultimate slippery slope and of great danger and importance. That is in no way remotely close to being an accurate description of what I said, but might as well run with it anyway. Wouldn't want accuracy or thought get in the way of your pious liberal outrage. um, what did you mean then? i thought you find little wrong with newscorp's actions. isn't that what we've been debating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 um, what did you mean then? i thought you find little wrong with newscorp's actions. isn't that what we've been debating. I'm not sure anyone knows what the hell you're attempting to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I'm not sure anyone knows what the hell you're attempting to debate. He's trying to convince people that Murdoch has a variety of trangressions over a period of decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 um, what did you mean then? i thought you find little wrong with newscorp's actions. isn't that what we've been debating. I isolated one point in the debate, not the entire situation as a whole. I more specifically stated that the Libertarian point of view basically refers to minimal Federal government intrusion. It does not necessarily follow that one who subscribes to this view would or would not agree with your opinion as it relates to private entities compromising one's privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts