Does money equal power ?

[Dilloduck]

If one answers 'yes' to this question then are we to assume that the incredibly wealthy have incredible power yet are somehow the only ones in the world who can be uncorrupted by it?

If one truly has so much power what is the need to conspire to do anything? You just do it. Nothing can stop you.

[TheSage]

If one answers 'yes' to this question then are we to assume that the incredibly wealthy have incredible power yet are somehow the only ones in the world who can be uncorrupted by it?

If one truly has so much power what is the need to conspire to do anything? You just do it. Nothing can stop you.

They conspire to guarantee that money always equals power, that society is revolution proof, that they can oppress people as much as they want and the people can never rise up. A global slave plantation, if you will.

[Dilloduck]

They conspire to guarantee that money always equals power, that society is revolution proof, that they can oppress people as much as they want and the people can never rise up. A global slave plantation, if you will.

An oldie but a goodie



What's in a Murdoch-Clinton Alliance? Something for Both Sides


*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. May 10, 2006, Wednesday
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT (NYT); Metropolitan Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section B, Page 1, Column 1, 784 words
CORRECTION APPENDED

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Political analysts are perplexed and liberals are infuriated by growing alliance between New York Sen Hillary Rodham Clinton and conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch; Murdoch will hold fund-raiser for Clinton re-election campaign; some see cooperation as Clinton betrayal of liberal agenda in light of Murdoch-controlled media's continued attacks on Clintons and Democratic Party

Correction: May 16, 2006, Tuesday An article on Wednesday about Rupert Murdoch's plans to hold a fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton misstated the stock market value of his News Corporation in some copies. It is $60 billion, not $6 billion.

[Dilloduck]

An oldie but a goodie

Whole lot of money and power lining up there. How odd !

[Gunny]

If one answers 'yes' to this question then are we to assume that the incredibly wealthy have incredible power yet are somehow the only ones in the world who can be uncorrupted by it?

If one truly has so much power what is the need to conspire to do anything? You just do it. Nothing can stop you.

Why would one assume that the wealthy are uncorrupted by power? I's have to say offhand that they would use their power to gain more wealth and more power.

Being corrupted by wealth and power does not necessarily lead to conspiring to do anything.

[Dilloduck]

Why would one assume that the wealthy are uncorrupted by power? I's have to say offhand that they would use their power to gain more wealth and more power.

Being corrupted by wealth and power does not necessarily lead to conspiring to do anything.

That's the beauty of it. They just do whatever they want. There's no need to plan. Don't you think FOX news and Hillary will be an interesting pair ?

[Gunny]

That's the beauty of it. They just do whatever they want. There's no need to plan. Don't you think FOX news and Hillary will be an interesting pair ?

Seems like a blatantly obvious ploy on her part to neutralize a political enemy.

[Dilloduck]

Seems like a blatantly obvious ploy on her part to neutralize a political enemy.

Hillary sweeps Rupert Murdoch off his feet ?

[Gunny]

Hillary sweeps Rupert Murdoch off his feet ?

First, I don't think Fox News is all that overly-critical of Clinton. The left seems to continually cloud over the fact that just because op-eds are critical doesn't mean the actual news is.

Second, what better way to get an enemy to lay off than pretending to befriend him/her?

Or, as she has attempted in the past but always fumbled, Hillary may be trying to make the shift right to appear moderate. It worked for Bill.

Maybe Murdoch's playing along to get her to agree to go on O'Reilly.:laugh:

[jillian]

Old news. As you can see from the date of the article, it goes back to May 10, 2006.

And I think you're getting this one backwards. From everything I've heard, it's Murdoch who did the fundraiser to hedge his bets. Remember, Newscorp owns a good chunk of the media in this country and has a lot of business before the FCC since every outlet he buys and/or sells has to get FCC approval. He smelled the anti-repub winds and figured he'd make sure he could do business with anyone who might have a chance at office.

I don't think Hillary is going to win the primaries or become president, but it should be noted that Murdoch doesn't usually back the wrong horse.

Just sayin'.

[Dilloduck]

Old news. As you can see from the date of the article, it goes back to May 10, 2006.

And I think you're getting this one backwards. From everything I've heard, it's Murdoch who did the fundraiser to hedge his bets. Remember, Newscorp owns a good chunk of the media in this country and has a lot of business before the FCC since every outlet he buys and/or sells has to get FCC approval. He smelled the anti-repub winds and figured he'd make sure he could do business with anyone who might have a chance at office.

I don't think Hillary is going to win the primaries or become president, but it should be noted that Murdoch doesn't usually back the wrong horse.

Just sayin'.



Old news. As you can see from the date of the article, it goes back to May 10, 2006.

Which is exactly why I prefaced the item as "an oldie but a goodie" and make my point. The party you belong to doesn't matter. They buy everyone and will continue to.

[Dilloduck]

First, I don't think Fox News is all that overly-critical of Clinton. The left seems to continually cloud over the fact that just because op-eds are critical doesn't mean the actual news is.

Second, what better way to get an enemy to lay off than pretending to befriend him/her?

Or, as she has attempted in the past but always fumbled, Hillary may be trying to make the shift right to appear moderate. It worked for Bill.

Maybe Murdoch's playing along to get her to agree to go on O'Reilly.:laugh:

Not NEARLY as much as they used to be. How odd.

[Gunny]

Not NEARLY as much as they used to be. How odd.

I might think so if I thought they had been overly-critical of her. I don't recall the news being that way. The op-eds are still as critical as ever.

[Dilloduck]

I might think so if I thought they had been overly-critical of her. I don't recall the news being that way. The op-eds are still as critical as ever.

The fact that the even considers to assist Hillary in financing her campaign is quite revealing in itself but if everyone wants to play good guy--bad guy with dems and reps ----------------:dunno:

[Gaffer]

The fact that the even considers to assist Hillary in financing her campaign is quite revealing in itself but if everyone wants to play good guy--bad guy with dems and reps ----------------:dunno:

Its a tax write off. He's getting ready for the dems big tax increase.

[TheSage]

I might think so if I thought they had been overly-critical of her. I don't recall the news being that way. The op-eds are still as critical as ever.


Denial ain't just a river in egypt, is it, Potzy?