dagblog - Comments for "MAN BITES DOG, SCANDAL-PLAGUED SCANDAL SHEET BITES DUST"

I actually would prefer not

smithers_T — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:54:07 +0000

In reply to Hey folks, I took the time to

I actually would prefer not to talk on NCD's sidebar conversation (more at accusation).

He created it because he suspects that I must be a Bush supporter (even though I told him I'm not) and that I must have voted for him (even though I have not).

Apparently, only then can NCD rationalize my mentioning Hillary Clinton's crime, which, by the way, relates directly to your article and may shed light on it. You're discussing (as you described it "a scandal that is rocking... government") in the context of issues of privacy /ethics related to "electronic eaves dropping", it's legality, etc. That's what the story is about. It's perfectly legit to explore the breath of the issue, esp. when there exists, in recent history, violations of much greater magnitude. Examining that can reveal more important (more scandalous, etc.) underlying issues in regard to the story, allowing it to be fleshed out /clarified and not be restricted to what only sounds shocking or to what sounds more shocking than what it is. And could effectively open up to a more complete (and telling) dialog.

Yes, I'd rather talk about the relevancy of this story. It's important in our time, I think. But my concern is that it's much bigger here in the forum you're using because people would like to bring down things they dislike (Fox, Murdoch, a big corporate entity, etc.) while they could care less if someone they do like (for purely political reasons) gets off without as much as slap on the wrist, which would be very convoluted, and I hope it's not endemic of the topic, if not of the forum itself.

Hey folks, I took the time to

acanuck — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:41:30 +0000

In reply to smithers:I only find it

Hey folks, I took the time to post about a scandal that is rocking the British government and an international media empire. What the hell does any of the above garbage have to do with that topic? Over at the left, there's a link that says "Blog now!" If you've got stuff to say that you think it's important that people hear, click there. Don't clog up my post with irrelevant nonsense.

smithers:I only find it

NCD — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:08:05 +0000

In reply to "I suppose you are like most

smithers:I only find it necessary to denounce Bush (especially regarding the war) when his demagogue advocates need to be reminded of the failures...

Which Bush war, Afghanistan, Iraq, GWOT as a whole, and when? Before he started them or only after it was clear the wars were failures as you said above?

People not brainwashed by right wing blowhards like Rush, MSM pro-war corporate propaganda, or Bush and his cohorts, didn't trust Bush from the day he took office. They also voted against him at every opportunity, unlike you.

They were out in the streets demonstrating against Bush wars BEFORE the wars 'of choice' were even started, they didn't wait until it was clear the wars were dismal failures, and that the reasons for them were proven to be lies.

I know you enough smithers to know you have a rather shabby and unsophisticated intellect, a narrow view of the world, and an inflated opinion of yourself.

"I suppose you are like most

smithers_T — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:53:22 +0000

In reply to smithers, Now you never voted

"I suppose you are like most fools who voted for Bush, they gave up 'defending Bush' about 5 years ago and now usually deny they voted for him. They also very quickly erased his legacy of failure from their memory. They almost never denounce him and what he did to this county."

How long have you been attempting to read people's mind online? How long calling people who you don't know fools? (or for that matter, people who you do know, but in either case it's tasteless, though in the first case it's impossible)

I only find it necessary to denounce Bush (especially regarding the war) when his demagogue advocates need to be reminded of the failures. Since I'm not defending Obama I don't find it necessary to try affixing blame elsewhere.

You don't know me. You have no right to characterize me personally, it's really quite absurd to try to make points in a debate that way.

smithers, Now you never voted

NCD — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:11:50 +0000

In reply to I didn't vote for Bush, and

smithers, Now you never voted for him? Oh, and 'you never defended Bush'. Wow. You, like almost all GOP Bush supporters, never mention the catastrophic reign of The Decider, preferring to dump on Obama.

I suppose you are like most fools who voted for Bush, they gave up 'defending Bush' about 5 years ago and now usually deny they voted for him. They also very quickly erased his legacy of failure from their memory. They almost never denounce him and what he did to this county.

Bush called himself a War President, and he was White. I have news for you, White is not a racial epithet any more than Black, as in: 'the first Black President'.

I didn't vote for Bush, and

smithers_T — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:33:02 +0000

In reply to smithers, how about your

I didn't vote for Bush, and I've never defended what he did regarding the war. And you're right, I don't disagree that leaders should be held to account (could it be more obvious?) I have no idea though what the "Great White War" refers to. If it's a racial epithet, you should be banned for trolling, if not for (more offensive yet) using that issue to try to stir up bitterness and hate in others. At the very least it would be a baseless personal accusation.

Closer to 280.

acanuck — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:25:37 +0000

In reply to News of the World employed

Closer to 280.

The News of the World

acanuck — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:23:25 +0000

In reply to MAN BITES DOG, SCANDAL-PLAGUED SCANDAL SHEET BITES DUST

The News of the World scandal, and public anger over it, is growing, despite Prime Minister Cameron's deluded hope that calling two public inquiries would give things time to calm down.

Cameron is still insisting that Murdoch's total acquisition of the Sky satellite carrier is a separate issue from the illegal hacking, and still on track for regulatory approval in September. Tone-deaf; the public sees that there is a clear ethical issue at stake. If he clings to that line, he risks tearing his coalition government apart and losing his job.

Tomorrow, opposition Labour leader Ed Miliband will introduce what he hopes will be a bipartisan motion to delay approval of the BSkyB deal until the criminal investigation into the hacking concludes. Miliband is hopeful that plenty of Social Democrats will back his motion, and even a few Conservative MPs. Effectively, that would kill the deal. The vote is set for Wednesday.

The British public (and even some journalists) have finally rebelled against the incestuous cabal of big media, politicians and police. Here's an interesting take on how that ruling elite has operated:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14093772

Any of that sound familiar?

smithers, how about your

NCD — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:21:34 +0000

In reply to "...seems out to destroy

smithers, how about your Great White War President?

George W. Bush, Benjamin Ferenccz, a former Nuremberg prosecutor who sent 22 Nazi's to the gallows, said Bush should be put on trial for 'the supreme international crime' of starting an illegal war of aggression. Is killing or ruining the lives of millions of people for lies worse in smithers world than asking for DNA samples?

Where is your outrage, or does Bush get a pass because you voted for him?

"...seems out to destroy

smithers_T — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:26:35 +0000

In reply to Fox News isn't covering it.

"...seems out to destroy western civilization with the dissemination of deceptions, drivel, distractions, division and disinformation." -NCD

You could be referring to any number of national governments with that statement. Somehow, people have become deluded into thinking that any MO, however base or deceptive it may be, as long as it's under the guise official national policy, is legit. But if it's a bank or other corporate entity a high level of ethics is required that excludes spying and the like. And for journalism especially. But to say that, knowing full well that journalism has been commercially sponsored for some 25 years.... well, to even describe it as "news" is just a joke, it's corporate business in pursuit of the bottom line. To put it on a pedestal and raise the expectations beyond that which would normally be required of ANY _ CORPORATE _ ENTITY, including national ones, would be disingenuous. Take a look at what Wikileaks has revealed regarding the ethics of nations, and you'll be able to see what Murdoch has done in the proper light. Though I don't defend it one bit, it's mere child's play by comparison. This seems to be the huge missing piece of your complaint. -T. Smithers

P.s. Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice ordered the illegal gathering of location /biometric data and wiretaps, to effectively spy on diplomats of other nations and the United Nations.... to pursue much more sensitive, private information than any pursued for the interest of a tabloid, i.e. data that may change the course of world history. Was she (or they) pilloried by the press, or asked to step down? No. Hmm... I wonder why? She should be in prison for life. Murdoch or his son should get 6 months to a year (assuming they had knowledge of it).