Hilary and Edwards Took Money from Rupert Murdoch

[heartsurgeon]

This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

 

[b0mbrman]

Hillary has received more help from Murdoch than a bit of money and it's still not a big deal.

He's just covering his bases.

[Edit] Wait. An unrelated subsidiary of Fox News' parent corporation came through on agreed-upon payment for services rendered and that constitutes Edwards "drinking from the FOX News trough?"

This is even more of a non-story than I thought 🙁

 

[yllus]

Most top candidates get money from both "sides". Mainly because people who attain the level of wealth and influence as Mr. Murdoch aren't stupid enough to pick a "side", but merely wisely invest in continuing to keep their influence in the corridors of government intact.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

Wingnuts? LOL look who's talking. :laugh:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't really see accepting agreed-upon payments and royalties from a book publisher owned by the same company as Fox News as "drinking from the Fox News trough." Harper Collins is a well-established publisher whose authors have won countless Pulitzers, National Book Awards, etc., and its constituent firms (Harper & Row and Collins and Sons) were around nearly 200 years before Fox News existed.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

if anything it simply shows how unrealistic and out of touch with reality many people are.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: yllus
Most top candidates get money from both "sides". Mainly because people who attain the level of wealth and influence as Mr. Murdoch aren't stupid enough to pick a "side", but merely wisely invest in continuing to keep their influence in the corridors of government intact.

yep. and it's usually on a schedule so that the contribution is based on the ability to get things done (minority party always gets less money due to that fact, incumbents get more than challengers, etc.).

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

I am a bit confused. First you say that Hilary and Edwards are drinking from the Fox News trough but that wingnuts will defend them. Then you seem to imply those wingnuts may think just like you. Then you say it won't look good to the MoveOn crowd. Now since the wingnuts will defend them I guess those to whom this won't look good aren't themselves the wingnuts but those it seems are the people you are after. It seems if you want to smear groups of people by implications you want to get your implications clear. All I know so far is that you seem to hold in reserve the possibility you think like the wingnuts.

So if you agree Hilary and Edwards did nothing wrong you are in the wingnut crown and if what they did doesn't look good to you you're in with the MoveOn crowd. I guess I've got it straight now.

But which is it?

 

[Arkaign]

So? Hilary and Edwards are globalist scum, which much appeal greatly to Murdoch.

I have one guarantee : we'll have another scumbag in the presidency, regardless of whether it's a D or an R.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: yllus
Most top candidates get money from both "sides". Mainly because people who attain the level of wealth and influence as Mr. Murdoch aren't stupid enough to pick a "side", but merely wisely invest in continuing to keep their influence in the corridors of government intact.

Heh, pretty slick :laugh:

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't really see accepting agreed-upon payments and royalties from a book publisher owned by the same company as Fox News as "drinking from the Fox News trough." Harper Collins is a well-established publisher whose authors have won countless Pulitzers, National Book Awards, etc., and its constituent firms (Harper & Row and Collins and Sons) were around nearly 200 years before Fox News existed.

I completely agree.

This is a nice spin by the NY Post (and the OP). Money paid to an Author or royalties have nothing to do with politics, yet these bozos want you to believe that these ate campaign contributions.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

I am a bit confused. First you say that Hilary and Edwards are drinking from the Fox News trough but that wingnuts will defend them. Then you seem to imply those wingnuts may think just like you. Then you say it won't look good to the MoveOn crowd. Now since the wingnuts will defend them I guess those to whom this won't look good aren't themselves the wingnuts but those it seems are the people you are after. It seems if you want to smear groups of people by implications you want to get your implications clear. All I know so far is that you seem to hold in reserve the possibility you think like the wingnuts.

Would you please stop that. I'm still spinning after reading that! :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Hehe, I've heard Comedians make jokes about the NY Post before, but I didn't really know why. Now I do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Guess Murdoch doesn?t see things as partisan as you do, if he?s paying your candidates. By your account he is ?the enemy?, he doesn?t seem to return the hysteria.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't really see accepting agreed-upon payments and royalties from a book publisher owned by the same company as Fox News as "drinking from the Fox News trough." Harper Collins is a well-established publisher whose authors have won countless Pulitzers, National Book Awards, etc., and its constituent firms (Harper & Row and Collins and Sons) were around nearly 200 years before Fox News existed.

I completely agree.

This is a nice spin by the NY Post (and the OP). Money paid to an Author or royalties have nothing to do with politics, yet these bozos want you to believe that these ate campaign contributions.

It would be nice if some of the knuckleheads in this thread (or the knuckleheads running the NY Post) had actually READ the article. Even in as blatantly partisan a paper as the Post, it's obvious that this is not a campaign contribution. Earning money writing a book for a subsidy company is hardly the same thing.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

Any success with that surgery today? Or is your your foot still in your mouth? Hmm?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

Any success with that surgery today? Or is your your foot still in your mouth? Hmm?

:laugh:

I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me.


(By the way, someone should point out to our highly-educated "surgeon" that "wingnuts" is generally used as a pejorative against the right. He probably meant "moonbats", the preferred pejorative against the left.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
(By the way, someone should point out to our highly-educated "surgeon" that "wingnuts" is generally used as a pejorative against the right. He probably meant "moonbats", the preferred pejorative against the left.)

Uh, wingnut is a generic term as far as I know. I haven't seen it used to specifically target the right without adding further descriptors. But you are correct, moonbats would have been a better word to use. 🙂

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
(By the way, someone should point out to our highly-educated "surgeon" that "wingnuts" is generally used as a pejorative against the right. He probably meant "moonbats", the preferred pejorative against the left.)

Uh, wingnut is a generic term as far as I know. I haven't seen it used to specifically target the right without adding further descriptors. But you are correct, moonbats would have been a better word to use. 🙂

I don't know, "much smarter than heartsurgeon" would have been a more appropriate, if slightly unwieldy, phrase.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
(By the way, someone should point out to our highly-educated "surgeon" that "wingnuts" is generally used as a pejorative against the right. He probably meant "moonbats", the preferred pejorative against the left.)

Uh, wingnut is a generic term as far as I know. I haven't seen it used to specifically target the right without adding further descriptors. But you are correct, moonbats would have been a better word to use. 🙂

I don't know, "much smarter than heartsurgeon" would have been a more appropriate, if slightly unwieldy, phrase.

:laugh:

(humor is a good thing to see once in a while)

 

[umbrella39]

:thumbsup:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
This is interesting....Hilary and Edwards both drinking from the FOX News trough...yes, i know, the wingnuts will argue they didn/t do anything wrong (and i'm not saying they did either), but it won't look good to the MoveOn.org crowd and the paranoids in the party.

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

Are you referring to the corporate policy of contributing to opposing candidates in an attempt to own the winner or are you just totally confused? Ok, "totally" makes scense then.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Hillary has received more help from Murdoch than a bit of money and it's still not a big deal.

He's just covering his bases.

[Edit] Wait. An unrelated subsidiary of Fox News' parent corporation came through on agreed-upon payment for services rendered and that constitutes Edwards "drinking from the FOX News trough?"

This is even more of a non-story than I thought 🙁

Consider the source. HS is not happy unless he pees in the punch before serving it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Edwards published a book, and gave the proceeds to charity... The publisher is part of the Murdoch multimedia conglomerate... And he got a tax write-off because he didn't keep the money...

The Horror!

If it'd been Romney or Thompson, the NYPost would have been praising their "compassionate conservatism"...

Nothing to see here, folks, other than the rightwing making fools of themselves, as usual...

 

[laketrout]

I really don't think this is much of a story either. I don't care if anyone has gotten money from Fox news - I do care that the dems are doing this and refusing to do a debate on Fox. That is something that I still don't understand and I think the dems are wrong on.