Rupert Murdoch

[Bad_Doggie]

we'rent

you

TERRORISTS

supporting

the WIKI guy

and

WIKI LEAKER

yes you were


case closed!

Desperation technique 101

When you run out of argument, deflect with a false equivalency.

Woof!

 

[pabloback]

60 officers now dedicated to trawling through the hacked accounts of 7000 people, thats why i dont leave messages on voicemail
murdoch guilty
brooks guilty

 

[Sean]

What are the odds on Ish ever returning to this thread to respond?

I doubt his ego will let him. He seems to have this automatic shutdown mechanism that iggies anything where he's been made to look stupid.

And I notice the only wingnuts even in the thread are whatever the perma iggied BB is ranting about and KKKraft.

60 officers now dedicated to trawling through the hacked accounts of 7000 people, thats why i dont leave messages on voicemail
murdoch guilty
brooks guilty

I haven't even got voicemail set up on my mobile. Haven't had for years.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I doubt his ego will let him. He seems to have this automatic shutdown mechanism that iggies anything where he's been made to look stupid.

You mean he iggies his own posts???

And I notice the only wingnuts even in the thread are whatever the perma iggied BB is ranting about and KKKraft.

You must have a long iggi list and missed Miles, Garbcan and Vette’s pearls of wisdom earlier on in the thread.

Woof!

 

[torchthebitch]

Murdoch epitomises the groupthink that is British politics. And yet it is resolutely centre left. Work that one out.

 

[pabloback]

does anyone take that fuckwit miles seriously?


oh if you are there?

fuckoff miles!

 

[zipman]

I doubt his ego will let him. He seems to have this automatic shutdown mechanism that iggies anything where he's been made to look stupid.

And I notice the only wingnuts even in the thread are whatever the perma iggied BB is ranting about and KKKraft.

Oh I agree. Ishmael is far too much of a coward to do that.

Funny that all the others are avoiding this thread as well. They can't cross their Bro.

 

[Ishmael]

Oh I agree. Ishmael is far too much of a coward to do that.

Funny that all the others are avoiding this thread as well. They can't cross their Bro.

I'm waiting for sean to post a link to that 'rental' thread.

Ishmael

 

[gravyrug]

I'm waiting for sean to post a link to that 'rental' thread.

Ishmael

I do have a problem with this media circus. The first of which is the fact that there have been NO criminal charges against those people that were actually engaged in this 'hacking.' In the pursuit of criminal organizations it is the general case that you catch a little fish, turn him/her, catch a bigger fish, etc. All with the force of the law and the proof of criminal wrong doing to back your play.

So, Ish, how does this statement square with the list of people who've been criminally charged? Are those all the wrong size fish?


Yeah, I realize that getting Ish to admit he was wrong about something is a pipe dream, but it's still fun to ask now and again just to see what semantic lengths he'll go to to justify himself.

 

[zipman]

I'm waiting for sean to post a link to that 'rental' thread.

Ishmael

Actually, that has nothing to do with this thread.

You made an opening post that was factually incorrect. Do I need to go back and quote it?

You also made allegations that were contested. You've done nothing to respond to that.

Your completely egotistical inability to admit error is extremely amusing. Saying you're waiting for Sean to post the "rental" thread link is proof of that.

Come on Ish, man up. It's really not that hard to do.

You could say:
- My bad.
- I was wrong.
- It appears my facts were incorrect.
- Upon further investigation, I was mistaken.

I mean, it's completely obvious to those of us reading this thread. Think of it as a first step in regaining some credibility.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I'm waiting for sean to post a link to that 'rental' thread.

Ishmael

While you’re waiting.

The proof of crime is, or should be, based on facts.

Ishmael

So should an argument or political rhetoric wouldn’t you say?

Woof!

 

[shy slave]

I'm waiting for sean to post a link to that 'rental' thread.

Ishmael

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=20030599&highlight=control#post20030599

Post 74 and following.

Now then, about these non-existent criminal charges...

 

[Sean]

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=20030599&highlight=control#post20030599

Post 74 and following.

Now then, about these non-existent criminal charges...

Whoops, that was me, shy left herself logged in and I didn't notice.

 

[mark197205]

Actually, that has nothing to do with this thread.

You made an opening post that was factually incorrect. Do I need to go back and quote it?

You also made allegations that were contested. You've done nothing to respond to that.

Your completely egotistical inability to admit error is extremely amusing. Saying you're waiting for Sean to post the "rental" thread link is proof of that.

Come on Ish, man up. It's really not that hard to do.

You could say:
- My bad.
- I was wrong.
- It appears my facts were incorrect.
- Upon further investigation, I was mistaken.

I mean, it's completely obvious to those of us reading this thread. Think of it as a first step in regaining some credibility.

I wouldnt hold my breath if I were you.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Murdoch will be criminally charged only after Obama is criminally charged for the Fort Hood shooting.

 

[Sean]

Shallow justification. Let the other media go after him, and legitimately so. In nations that pride themselves on 'freedom of the press', this is pretty shabby.

Ishmael

Oh, btw, it was other media that went after him. If it wasn't for The Guardian these fuckers would have got away with it.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Oh, btw, it was other media that went after him. If it wasn't for The Guardian these fuckers would have got away with it.

Please use the subjunctive in this case.

"... If it weren't..."

Correct and resubmit for half credit.

Don't they teach English over there?

http://www.macmillanenglish.com/uploadedFiles/Inspiration/INSP1_ws8.pdf

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Murdoch will be criminally charged only after Obama is criminally charged for the Fort Hood shooting.

After reading this entire thread, yours was the only logic that did not want to make me stab myself with a spoon....Bravo

 

[Karen Kraft]

After reading this entire thread, yours was the only logic that did not want to make me stab myself with a spoon....Bravo

* bows *

Thank you.

 

[Comshaw]

Murdoch will be criminally charged only after Obama is criminally charged for the Fort Hood shooting.

And just like Reagan was charged for Iran-Contra. the leaders rarely get charged for anything. They set the tone, set the direction, than kick back and wash their hands of the day to day operations. "I didn't know that was happening!" is, was and will always be the mantra of the power mongers, no matter which side of the philosophical fence they are on.

Plausible deniability.


Comshaw

 

[Karen Kraft]

And just like Reagan was charged for Iran-Contra. the leaders rarely get charged for anything. They set the tone, set the direction, than kick back and wash their hands of the day to day operations. "I didn't know that was happening!" is, was and will always be the mantra of the power mongers, no matter which side of the philosophical fence they are on.

Plausible deniability.


Comshaw

Nixon, Reagan knew what was going on. In Nixon's case, his problem was not the deal but the cover-up and abuse of power to discredit his adversaries. In Reagan's case, the deal he had North broker was not illegal -- except in the minds of the Democrat congress -- looking to give him trouble. Remember how "Star Wars" was going to inevitably lead to a Soviet nuclear attack? Hmmmm? Anyway, Reagan's end run to circumvent the Democrats' "no money to the Contras" ploy was legal, in that Congress only has control over revenue money collected pursuant to its tax and levy powers -- it does not have any power over money generated independent of those powers.

In Murdoch's case, he had little or no knowledge of any of the goings on AND there are no criminal charges pending in any event.

However, in Obama's case, if one were to apply the Pro-Terrorist Party logic regarding their enemy, Rupert Murdoch, to their own faux pres., Obama holds greater liability withe respect to the Ft. Hood shooting, as people under his command had both oral and written documentation indicating that Hasan was a nut job, like all iSlammers, planning to do nasty shit soon. But, being a Muslim, it was HANDS OFF -- in the name of political correctness. Thus, as you can see, political correctness can cost lives.... particularly when you have effeminate fools at the helm.

Therefor, the Murdoch falls outside but closer to the Reagan analogy, depending on the level of knowledge Rupert and James had and when they had it, while Obama's situation falls more squarely into the Nixon category.

 

[RobDownSouth]

In Reagan's case, the deal he had North broker was not illegal -- except in the minds of the Democrat congress -- looking to give him trouble.

Wrong.

... Anyway, Reagan's end run to circumvent the Democrats' "no money to the Contras" ploy was legal...

Wrong.

Do a little research on the Boland Amendment.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Wrong.



Wrong.

Do a little research on the Boland Amendment.

Congress does not have the power to limit the activities of a co-equal branch of government. Just as the War Powers Resolution is without legal force, so is anything that limits the power to the executive branch to do anything reserved to the legislative branch.

Congress can pass a law saying that the President is not longer the Commander in Chief, but the Speaker of the House shall do that job -- and even get a sitting president to sign it. That does not mean that the President is not the Commander in Chief. It simply means Congress doesn't think so. Until the Supreme Court decides the issue, subsequent Presidents are not constrained by such pointless proclamations. The Constitution, in the final analysis will prevail. Congress only controls the purse strings, not the conduct of the presidency.

You might benefit from some research yourself, there, fatboy.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Congress does not have the power to limit the activities of a co-equal branch of government. Just as the War Powers Resolution is without legal force, so is anything that limits the power to the executive branch to do anything reserved to the legislative branch.

Congress can pass a law saying that the President is not longer the Commander in Chief, but the Speaker of the House shall do that job -- and even get a sitting president to sign it. That does not mean that the President is not the Commander in Chief. It simply means Congress doesn't think so. Until the Supreme Court decides the issue, subsequent Presidents are not constrained by such pointless proclamations. The Constitution, in the final analysis will prevail. Congress only controls the purse strings, not the conduct of the presidency.

You might benefit from some research yourself, there, fatboy.

*chuckle* it's too bad you dropped out of college and never got to pursue your law school dream. Your novel interpretation of American government would have amused your law professors.

 

[Karen Kraft]

*chuckle* it's too bad you dropped out of college and never got to pursue your law school dream. Your novel interpretation of American government would have amused your law professors.

It's too bad you had the doctors cut off your daughter's hand so you could put it up your butt, too, Bob.

If you were brave, you wouldn't use lube.