Your progressive position is that because a guy from Saudi Arabia is the second largest stockholder in Newscorp that Fox News is automatically "owned" by big oil and it's editorial content is directly controlled by the guy from Saudi Arabia.you still haven't dealt with this, and your calling me lightweight?
Yeah, I'm calling you out as a ing idiot.
I got your papers right here CC...cuz youre owned like a rat terrier...
I say big oil, you argue saudi, I say big oil again.
when are you going to deal with big oil as being the source of the conflict here?
let me answer that...NEVER. best you can do is throw religion in the game. what a ing bigot repug...you would do Rush and Glenn proud
I already yanked your tags off and threw them in the trash. You are in the dresser drawer between the socks and the underwear.
You are saying a "big oil" stockholder (he HAS to be BIG OIL because he is from Saudi Arabia) in a public company is dictating editorial policy. Talk about some classic stereotyping...I say big oil, you argue saudi, I say big oil again.
when are you going to deal with big oil as being the source of the conflict here?
let me answer that...NEVER. best you can do is throw religion in the game. what a ing bigot repug...you would do Rush and Glenn proud
I say the black helicopters are gonna get you, you ing idiot.
your saying a saudi prince has no oil interests...You are saying a "big oil" stockholder (he HAS to be BIG OIL because he is from Saudi Arabia) in a public company is dictating editorial policy. Talk about some classic stereotyping...
I say the black helicopters are gonna get you, you ing idiot.
use lies in argument much?
your saying a saudi prince has no oil interests...
use lies in argument much?
I'm saying that your conclusion that just because a stockholder in Newscorp is from Saudi Arabia that automatically makes him "big oil" and because he is a big stockholder in Newscorp that automatically allows him to dictate Fox News editorial content is laughable and outright crazy. You, sir, are a ing idiot.
Parker, you've got two dots about a mile apart. Saudi/Big Oil Investment. Editorial Control.your saying a saudi prince has no oil interests...
use lies in argument much?
Thus far, you haven't shown a line between them.
purely cir stantial? Answer? No.News Corp.'s second-largest shareholder, after the Murdoch family, is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (pictured above ), the nephew of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and one of the world's richest men.
This guy holds oil interests.
CC youre a clod.
except that on every issue that affects oil interests, FOX news falls on the right, as in right in line with Big Oil's interests...
that IS cir stantial, and in this case its enough for me. Its actually enough for anyone who has eyes and ears, and who is not die hard repug.
cue CC, the repug soundboard...
Just sayin':
cue black helicopters...
come on, man. you cant disown the company line that quick...your gonna get disowned by the fox repugs if you do...
cue a few of these...
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...+news+oil&aq=3
Watch out Parker. "THEY" are out to get you. BooooWeeeeeeUUUUUUU!
and for fun...
Fox News?"THEY" are out to use our military to make $!
Muslim Saudi Arabian Princes?
I think you have been breathing too many fumes from the deep fryer.
Big. Oil. and. those. with Big. Interests. in. Big. Oil.
you keep talking about religion and nationality...
they arent of one color. they arent of one religion. they arent of one nationaility. thats a simple mind viewing things in a simple fashion.
they have a singular interest. thats the tie.
Fox falls on the right which is in line with many interests...your case for causation re: Big Oil is extremely weak.
I understand the gut intstinct, but you don't know what you don't know.
I am not sure about all of them, but not all the princes are involved in the oil contracts in saudi arabia.your saying a saudi prince has no oil interests...
use lies in argument much?
This proves is that Fox News has potential ties to Islamic terrorism and is headquartered mere blocks from the ground zero of the Times Square bombing.
They have a Cons utional right to be there, but they should move somewhere else.
good one!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
