CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Every time I watch one of these clips, I tear it down and show it for the cut and paste hack job it is.He is in the business for making jokes. Not for investigative reporting.The funny thing to me is you guys want to disparage my listening to Rush, a person who makes no claim to being anything but what he is, a commentator on the news with a right perspective. While you guys get your facts about everything from a guy who purposefully twists the data to get the best joke possible, but who denies his obvious left leaning.And you think somehow that I am the one who doesn't get it.That's funny. Luckily you guys are the minority, as shown by the viewing number of these two people.I've never seen you tear down anything Stewart does. That clip could not be more straight-forward. I understand why you would not want to watch it; it's pretty damning of the entire Fox News belief system.LOL at Jon Stewart denying he is left-leaning. He did that when?I mean, Fox News says the imam behind the NY mosque is shady because he is getting money from a guy who just happens to own a huge chunk of Fox News. My god, it's such a pretzel twisting that into a joke! He must have cut and pasted for hours! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I've never seen you tear down anything Stewart does. That clip could not be more straight-forward. I understand why you would not want to watch it; it's pretty damning of the entire Fox News belief system.LOL at Jon Stewart denying he is left-leaning. He did that when?I mean, Fox News says the imam behind the NY mosque is shady because he is getting money from a guy who just happens to own a huge chunk of Fox News. My god, it's such a pretzel twisting that into a joke! He must have cut and pasted for hours!Whatever makes you feel good about your paranoia.Anyone who gets their information from the Daily Show loses their ability to label anyone else biased.Fox News is the only good thing on the air anymore.That and Rush, and Dennis Miller.But not in that order.Probably Rush, Miller then Fox News. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Fox News is the only good thing on the air anymore that is partially funded by a Saudi terror mastermind.fyp. keep deflecting. YOU GOT YOUR INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS FROM JON STEWART. INVALID! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 fyp. keep deflecting. YOU GOT YOUR INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS FROM JON STEWART. INVALID!You can try to defend yourself, but your stance is that Fox News is twisting the truth, while using a show that purposefully twists the truth as your proof.Good luck in lawyer re-training classes starting soon Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 You can try to defend yourself, but your stance is that Fox News is twisting the truth, while using a show that purposefully twists the truth as your proof.Good luck in lawyer re-training classes starting soonNo, my stance is that Fox News says that if you are funded by the Bin Taleel, that is shady. Fox News is funded by Bin Taleel who is the 2nd largest shareholder of Newscorp after Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is not twisting anything; I am just using their own logic. There is no need to twist anything; it's Fox News' own theory pal.I don't have to defend myself; Fox News needs to explain why they take money from a terrorist funder. That should be tough for a balloon blower upper to follow but you might manage. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Something to think about.What does the stock market require of you in order to buy stock in a company?I mean Michael Moore owns large chunks of Halliburton, does this mean he is in bed with them? Does his owning those stocks mean that his opinion is applied to all decisions that Halliburton makes?Or is every stock everyone owns mean that those companies share everything with these people?And if I go and buy a stock today, does the company get the money? Or does the guy who currently owns the stock get the money?Pretending that owning the 2nd highest number of shares means that Fox takes this guys money directly shows that either you don't understand stocks, or you don't understand stocks and don't know why.Did Bin Taleel put up starting capital to start Fox News? Or did he buy their stock after it was established and AFTER it beat the ratings of all liberal cable news shows combined? Learn what owning stocks is before you go saying that Fox News gets envelopes with cash and instructions from somebody. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Something to think about.What does the stock market require of you in order to buy stock in a company?I mean Michael Moore owns large chunks of Halliburton, does this mean he is in bed with them? Does his owning those stocks mean that his opinion is applied to all decisions that Halliburton makes?Or is every stock everyone owns mean that those companies share everything with these people?See, now this is a reasonable argument! He is the 2nd largest shareholder though not some random investor. I don't really think Fox News is funded by a terror master....I just am amused by the hypocrisy (which is par for the Fox News course). This guy might be getting funding from the same guy we get funding from.....SHADY!!!!So, if Bin Taleel waited to infuse the Cordoba house with cash after it was built that would be cool right? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Did Bin Taleel put up starting capital to start Fox News? Or did he buy their stock after it was established and AFTER it beat the ratings of all liberal cable news shows combined? Learn what owning stocks is before you go saying that Fox News gets envelopes with cash and instructions from somebody.Hmm, in my experience the 2nd largest shareholder usually has some influence over the board of directors and the general direction of the company. Maybe you need to learn a thing or two. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 See, now this is a reasonable argument! He is the 2nd largest shareholder though not some random investor. I don't really think Fox News is funded by a terror master....I just am amused by the hypocrisy (which is par for the Fox News course). This guy might be getting funding from the same guy we get funding from.....SHADY!!!!So, if Bin Taleel waited to infuse the Cordoba house with cash after it was built that would be cool right?Starting capital is not the same as a guy buying a rising stock for an investment.With regard to the Mosque, he is supplying starting capital.With regards to Fox, he is merely smart enough to see that Fox News is a good buy.Pretending that these are the same is a great example of why you shouldn't get your information from the Daily Show.I mean next you'll get your facts form Olberman. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Starting capital is not the same as a guy buying a rising stock for an investment.With regard to the Mosque, he is supplying starting capital.With regards to Fox, he is merely smart enough to see that Fox News is a good buy.Seems pretty similar to me considering being that large a shareholder gives you a pretty large influence on the BoD. Keep splitting those hairs terror supporter! Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 aren't all our health care costs linked under the current set-up on some level? if so, shouldn't people who make poor health decisions pay a price (as a fat person, I think they should). I don't support banning bad foods but a tax on sodas and white bread would be nice.I support that, but are you okay with paying more because you are overweight? Fat people will never accept a fat tax. For example, women complained that they pay more for their health insurance than males the same age (hint: high utilization including maternity), so legislation was enacted in Colorado to remove gender-rating. It's weird that health insurance companies aren't allowed to rate for risk. How can those same people be okay with males paying more for car insurance (because males DUI and kill people). I don't understand the hypocrisy.As our society gets heavier, more and more people will be unhappy with these types of rules. I think healthy people should absolutely be rewarded. They cost less during the long term, so I'd be totally okay with some sort of reward/penalty for not being fat. Link to post Share on other sites
Jeepster80125 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Every time I watch one of these clips, I tear it down and show it for the cut and paste hack job it is.He is in the business for making jokes. Not for investigative reporting.The funny thing to me is you guys want to disparage my listening to Rush, a person who makes no claim to being anything but what he is, a commentator on the news with a right perspective. While you guys get your facts about everything from a guy who purposefully twists the data to get the best joke possible, but who denies his obvious left leaning.And you think somehow that I am the one who doesn't get it.That's funny. Luckily you guys are the minority, as shown by the viewing number of these two people.I don't think the daily show has EVER tried to pass itself off as doing 'investigative reporting' unless it was done as satire.The very very sad thing about this, is that thedailyshow is more honest and accurate in it's reporting than foxnews, msnbc or nearly any other player.But keep dismissing him. Link to post Share on other sites
phlegm 6 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Seems pretty similar to me considering being that large a shareholder gives you a pretty large influence on the BoD. Keep splitting those hairs terror supporter! If he doesnt have a controlling interest, he has no influence. Ever think that the second largest shareholder in something like fox holds maybe 5% of the stock. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 If he doesnt have a controlling interest, he has no influence. Ever think that the second largest shareholder in something like fox holds maybe 5% of the stock.The bolded is false. He has some influence just not a controlling influence.Ever think it could be higher than 5%? It really does not matter to me what percentage he owns......just don't tell me out the other side of your mouth that anything this guy funds is immediately suspicious. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Seems pretty similar to me considering being that large a shareholder gives you a pretty large influence on the BoD. Keep splitting those hairs terror supporter!I'm sure the crack squad of investigators for the Daily Show will soon have a complete list of the changes that Fox News has gone through since this guy has almost taken over.You think maybe he might want to get them to stop accusing him of being a terrorist supporter? I mean all his influence and stuff, you'd think he would have passed the memo to kill the story.Of, that's right, common sense facts aren't necessary for the Daily Show.News Commentator: "Looks like this scumbag is financing this mosque and he's dirty"Daily Show: "Oh oh oh oh he owns stock in Fox News, Therefore he is financing Fox News"People with common sense: " Owning stock doesn't mean you are financing them, it just means you are profiting from their success"Daily Show: "Oh but he owns so many shares that he dictates policy"People with remote common sense: " Wouldn't he have killed the story then?"Daily Show: " But but but but I'm Jewish"People: "I thought your people were supposed to be funny" Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Hmm, in my experience the 2nd largest shareholder usually has some influence over the board of directors and the general direction of the company. Maybe you need to learn a thing or two.He bought the shares on the open market, correct? pretty sure it is publicly traded...as in anyone with the money to purchase the shares....can do it. So the fact that he chose to purchase shares on the open market means huh well nothing. Well maybe it means the terroist cares more about his money then he does any principles.Typically the 2nd largest shareholder would have some influence, it really depends on the size of the company and percentage of shares in question as to how much. In this case i don't buy he any. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 People with common sense: " Owning stock doesn't mean you are financing them, it just means you are profiting from their success"Wow, and you said I don't understand how stocks work? You sell stock so you have more operating capital. Here are some relevant passages on stocks for your edification:The owners of a company may want additional capital to invest in new projects within the company. They may also simply wish to reduce their holding, freeing up capital for their own private use.By selling shares they can sell part or all of the company to many part-owners. The purchase of one share entitles the owner of that share to literally share in the ownership of the company, a fraction of the decision-making power, and potentially a fraction of the profits, which the company may issue as dividends.So, now you know that owning stock means EXACTLY that you are helping finance a company. Nice try.Typically the 2nd largest shareholder would have some influence, it really depends on the size of the company and percentage of shares in question as to how much. In this case i don't buy he any.Exactly, typically he does. In this, you don't buy he has any influence because you like Fox News.....unless you are basing that on something else? Owning shares gives you voting rights.....hard to imagine that the guy with the 2nd most voting rights power has NO influence.... Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The bolded is false. He has some influence just not a controlling influence.Ever think it could be higher than 5%? It really does not matter to me what percentage he owns......just don't tell me out the other side of your mouth that anything this guy funds is immediately suspicious.Well, he isn't part of the insider trading reports going back 5 years.Which means his influence is pretty much slight.But you are right. Anyone who owns stock in NWS and then spends money on bombs or weapons or WMDs is free from criticism because he 'invests' in Fox News also. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Wow, and you said I don't understand how stocks work? You sell stock so you have more operating capital. Here are some relevant passages on stocks for your edification:The owners of a company may want additional capital to invest in new projects within the company. They may also simply wish to reduce their holding, freeing up capital for their own private use.By selling shares they can sell part or all of the company to many part-owners. The purchase of one share entitles the owner of that share to literally share in the ownership of the company, a fraction of the decision-making power, and potentially a fraction of the profits, which the company may issue as dividends.So, now you know that owning stock means EXACTLY that you are helping finance a company. Nice try.I didn't know that stocks can only be sold once. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Exactly, typically he does. In this, you don't buy he has any influence because you like Fox News.....unless you are basing that on something else? Owning shares gives you voting rights.....hard to imagine that the guy with the 2nd most voting rights power has NO influence....Again, you are trying to discount a story by Fox News that this guy is a scumbag, because he owns shares in NWS and therefore controls their company.all while pointing out that the story Fox did showed him being a scumbag.Your desire to defend the Daily Show is making you completely irrational. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Wow, and you said I don't understand how stocks work? You sell stock so you have more operating capital. Here are some relevant passages on stocks for your edification:The owners of a company may want additional capital to invest in new projects within the company. They may also simply wish to reduce their holding, freeing up capital for their own private use.By selling shares they can sell part or all of the company to many part-owners. The purchase of one share entitles the owner of that share to literally share in the ownership of the company, a fraction of the decision-making power, and potentially a fraction of the profits, which the company may issue as dividends.So, now you know that owning stock means EXACTLY that you are helping finance a company. Nice try.Exactly, typically he does. In this, you don't buy he has any influence because you like Fox News.....unless you are basing that on something else? Owning shares gives you voting rights.....hard to imagine that the guy with the 2nd most voting rights power has NO influence....I base it on business, his influence would detrimental to the company and what has put the company to where it is...at that point it would be in the companies best interest to ignore him....which is what would be happening here, in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Again, you are trying to discount a story by Fox News that this guy is a scumbag, because he owns shares in NWS and therefore controls their company.all while pointing out that the story Fox did showed him being a scumbag.Your desire to defend the Daily Show is making you completely irrational.Actually, if you watched the clip, you would know that Fox News went out of their way not to show a picture of him or mention him by name (they called him "this guy" lol) specifically because it would be awkward considering his partial ownership of their station.Your desire to tear down the Daily Show without watching the clip is making you look silly. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 7%. He owns 7%. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Again, you are trying to discount a story by Fox News that this guy is a scumbag, because he owns shares in NWS and therefore controls their company.all while pointing out that the story Fox did showed him being a scumbag.Your desire to defend the Daily Show is making you completely irrational.Cain ir fairly irrational on a daily basis, he is one Democrat that i do believe is sincere though. He just can't see the forrest through the trees. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I base it on business, his influence would detrimental to the company and what has put the company to where it is...at that point it would be in the companies best interest to ignore him....which is what would be happening here, in my opinion.why he is good friends with many influential Americans (including George W. Bush!).....and has contacts all over the globe. He is probably good for the bottom line if you can keep any bad PR away. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now