Jump to content

mus302

Full Member
  • Content Count

    262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mus302

  1. I wouldn't consider support for cellulosic or any future technology as genuine support as many groups support technologies that aren't here yet but turn against them when they are. I do agree that the platform doesn't represent the past or present views of all republicans but the party platform is the official party position at that time. I assume there will be one adopted this year ahead of the elections. True but this wasn't a headline where you could go read the rest of the story. It was running on the ticker at the bottom of the screen if I am reading it right. So as I mentioned if they just ran the who and not the why it leaves the reader to decide based on their own prejudices what they were protesting. Anecdotal, kinda like all the people that have a friend that had there engines destroyed by ethanol? But again the question was whether or not there is any evidence that he has exerted any influence over advertising choices. The Prince may have been the shadowy figure on the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza also if it went down like some people say. If I was a billionaire I would buy an island and not have to worry about any of this stuff. If you were Rupert Murdoch would you allow a 7% owner to form and shape your news and ads? Correcting a ticker headline that is incorrect or unfairly prejudicial is one thing. What you are suggesting is something totally different and would most likely jeopardize the investments of the other 93% of owners.
  2. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf Giving the who without the why is prejudicial. If I read a headline such as 'Muslims march in France' the first thing that I would think of is that someone probably drew a cartoon of Muhammad they didn't like. Well, first do you have any proof that anyone has been able to influence advertising at Fox? I would hate to think that Fox would be so arrogant as to not listen if someone was pointing out an error in their reporting. The guy is a Saudi Prince which carries a certain amount of clout plus he is a Muslim. That means that he would know more about Muslim issues than me. If he called me and pointed out something I would recheck my facts and if wrong correct it. I didn't say control the news station, I said become their ad manager. In which case going to college and submitting a resume would definitely be less expensive. Are you looking for signs of strategic alliances at other companies as well or just at Fox?
  3. We have already established that the Prince is also invested on the parent companies of CNN and MSNBC. I guess the next question then is do the fossil fuel companies advertise on those networks? You are correct that journalism is dead. Every source has a bias and we all have our own bias. If you think that the station you watch has no bias it means that they are preaching to your bias. So we all watch what most fits with what we agree with and assume the other stations came to their position because of greed or outside influence.
  4. That was the position taken in the 2008 Republican Platform. So what you are telling me is that when it comes to reporting on protests it is more important to point out who is protesting and not why they are protesting. If Fox News posts information that is wrong and he calls them up and points out their error and they change it, that is an example of influence? And yet he didn't object to the POET ads. I have to think that if his goal was to become the ad manager for Fox News there are avenues he could have taken that would have cost far less than the amount he invested in News Corp.
  5. This would only be an example of influence if it was changed for reasons other than factual reasons. So the question is was he right about it being a riot out of poverty?
  6. With regards to ethanol, I don't think the position of Fox News would be any different if the Prince was not invested in News Corp because as I pointed out before that is the official Republican position.
  7. I would say that I am conflicted on it. I don't think it is good but I see other examples of billionaires buying influence that I think is just as troubling.
  8. Actually i would think that if you believe that these investments amount to influence then News Corp investing the Prince's media company could be good in the fact that it may cause softer coverage on issues pertaining to this country.
  9. On one hand I would agree that this is troubling. But on the other hand I would point out that we have for some time been subjected to foreign influence through campaign contributions, lobbying, and advertisements. I guess that is why I say that everyone has the right to be heard but it is still up to each of us to decide what we believe.
  10. I am sure there are people that believe that there is no way that a well-informed person could ever support ethanol produced from food crops. Being well informed just means that you have been presented with all the information. But it doesn't mean that everyone will come to the same conclusions even when dealing with the same information.
  11. Very interesting. The one thing that I didn't see in any of that was any mention that the Prince had also invested in the parent companies of both CNN and MSNBC. I assume that is because the authors watch these networks and agree with the viewpoints expressed on them. And as we all know if we watch and agree with them then there is no way that could have fallen prey to this evil influence. The network that we don't watch and don't agree with the viewpoints expressed, well, they must have fallen prey to this evil. Because as we all know my viewpoint is right and the only way that someone could oppose it is if they were paid off, acting on greed or have some other immoral intention. As a society we have gotten to the point where we can't disagree and be civil about it. Opposing viewpoints have to be crushed. It is simply too dangerous to allow the individual to hear both sides and decide for themselves what to believe. So we paint the viewpoints as immoral and vilify the people expressing them. Of course the other side thinks the same way and that is why we have such a polarized nation.
  12. I have a F250. The window sticker doesn't have the estimate on there when you buy it either. Medium duty vehicles aren't included in figuring CAFE so from the manufacturers standpoint there isn't really any reason to generate those numbers.
  13. I don't know. Personally I really liked the POET ads that I saw. A person can be well informed and believe in the food before fuel issue. You have to remember that some people process things as emotional issues. Try arguing with logic and facts against "it just doesn't feel right".
  14. I would say that at the end of the day FOX is going to do whatever is in their best interest. But so is CNN and MSNBC. To be perfectly honest so am I. I guess that is why I watch FOX and CNN and often read articles off of Google News as well. I would probably watch MSNBC as well but it isn't part of my cable package. Get your information from several sources that represent different perspectives and it doesn't really matter who invests in each company.
  15. Come on, I know well informed liberals that are opposed to ethanol. In most cases they oppose ethanol because they think that food crops shouldn't be used to make fuel as long as there are starving people in the world. I can understand their concern but still support ethanol. We all rank the different issues surrounding ethanol differently. But if that is the way you feel I can respect it. But I would ask that if FOX were really bitterly opposed to ethanol why did they throw up an objection to the VoteVets ad which didn't mention ethanol but let the POET ads through without any problems?
  16. I don't know why but I have always gone by the Recent Posts at the bottom of the main page and not those on the sidebar. As I pointed out he also has invested a large amount into Time Warner. That is not an attempt to sling mud but to point out that if they aren't going along with what is perceived to be his agenda then he must make these investments as something other than an attempt to exert control over these companies. And as I pointed out earlier the position that FOX has on renewables is the same as many conservatives. The fact that their opinions coincide on this issue isn't really proof that he has any undue influence at FOX News, which by the way is just a small part of News Corp. You would think that if FOX were really towing the Saudi line then they would be against domestic oil production but there aren't. And you would think that they wouldn't criticize the Prince but that isn't the case either. Hannity in particular was very critical when talking with Rudy Giuliani after his campaign had refused a contribution from the Prince. If you look around on the web you will see that some people think that the investment that the Prince made is proof that CNN is soft on islamic issues. I don't believe that any more than I believe that FOX News is being influenced by his investment. At the end of the day both are businesses and customers not investors determine their long term fate. Fox and CNN both pander to a certain audience. And there is nothing wrong with that. Looking at FOX News you will see that there is no one clear coordinated message. OReilly, Hannity, Beck, Geraldo, they don't always agree on every issue. Look further across News Corp holdings and you see programs that contain messages that directly contradict with the general viewpoints expressed on FOX News. If the goal of News Corp is to present a single coordinated message based upon a certain ideology then they are failing. If their goal is to make money it appears that that is succeeding. It is natural for a person to think that a person or entity that holds an opposing viewpoint was paid to think that way or has some bad intention. Of course we never feel that the person or entity that agrees with us could have been paid to think that way or has some bad intention. With that in mind, I assume that we are going to disagree, so would it be fair for me to assume that you were paid to think the way you do? Remember, you may think that the facts are on your side (on this or any other issue) but the other side has their facts too. At the end of the day, we all decide what we believe. That doesn't mean that what we believe is right, just that it is what is right for us.
  17. Actually according to Market Watch, News Corps market cap is 12.8 billion. And if the first post in this discussion is correct and the Prince owns 7% that would make his stake in the company about 900 million. I don't know about the bragging or whether or not he can get a headline/story changed with one phone call. But I do know that Fox's position on biofuels is a fairly standard conservative position. Quite a few conservatives oppose biofuels because they go against free market principals. I understand those concerns but for me personally I believe that the national security risks posed by our dependence on oil override the free market concerns.
  18. What proof is there that the fact that this Saudi Prince owns stock in NewsCorp had anything to do with the decision not to run this ad at the beginning? If you do a little research you will find that the Prince also owns about $1 billion in AOL Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. What does that tell you? He also owns stock in Ford. Does that mean that my truck was produced with Saudi funding as the first post suggested? I guess based on what we now know his stock ownership made Fox not run the ad, made CNN run the ad, and next year Ford will switch to rating engine output in camelpower instead of horsepower.
  19. I was watching FOX News earlier today and saw an ad by VoteVets on there. I think it is probably the same one posted but I am on dialup so I can't really watch the clip posted below. I didn't see anything wrong with the ad but don't know whether or not anything was changed to accommodate FOX.
  20. We don't have blackouts or brownouts here. I don't think Cap and Trade is really meant to address things like that. I agree.
  21. Every time I flip a light switch it comes on. As far as I can tell we do have a stable electric grid. I assume by everyone you mean everyone in this country since this bill won't be able to enforce environmental regulations outside of this country. So we will just outsource our pollution by making domestically produced goods higher in price by increasing the cost of energy inputs. Foreign products won't have those added costs and will have a competitive advantage against domestically produced goods. So the pollution will just happen someplace else but since we all share the same air we won't really end up with cleaner air just less jobs. You know at one time rivers used to catch on fire because of how much pollution was in them. And the air in California was so thick that you could cut it with a knife. Things have gotten better and not because of some elaborate Cap and Trade system. If you think that this is the only way in which we all are going to have clean air and water and a stable electrical grid then you surely don't understand where we have come from. Before any plant is built they have to apply for an emissions permit. The government already controls what every company puts into the air, water, or soil. Why do we need a trading system on top of all that?
  22. Two things I know, the auto industry tends to resist any and all changes that effect them and GM has a long history of partnership with the oil industry. I don't know if any of that explains their present actions or not but knowing it means that what they are doing now doesn't surprise me. My guess is that this is really about this... "The automakers, the oil companies and the Energy Department are jointly running a test program in which components like fuel pumps and seals as well as entire cars are being run on ethanol blends of 15 percent and 20 percent." With the DOS playing referee, I would assume that this will be a fair test and that GM already knows the results are going to positive for ethanol. My guess is that GM is trying to blunt the positive results of this or some other testing that they know is coming out soon.
  23. "You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know ā€” Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because Iā€™m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it ā€” whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." Barack Obama, January 2008 Hard to see why Fox or anyone else wouldn't just jump right on board with the progressive agenda. Unless of course they were funded by the Saudis or something. But won't these skyrocketing electric rates bring additional hardship onto the economically disadvantaged? Don't worry those people will be given government assistance so they will be able to afford the higher rates. Has anyone else noticed that all these big programs like Cap and Trade and Healthcare all seem to increase the number of people dependent upon the government to meet their financial obligations. I wonder what's up with that.
  24. The Sam's Club that just opened in Palmdale, CA has 17 micro wind turbines mounted on top of the parking lot light poles.
  25. I wasn't referring to geothermal heating and cooling systems. I was referring to geothermal for baselaod electric generation. http://www.geo-energy.org/ This was in response to what Dan said... Having thought about it a bit more I would also suggest electricity produced from methane produced through anaerobic digestion of waste. The EPA and the USDA just announced a program to help livestock producers to turn manure into methane for power generation. http://www.epa.gov/agstar That is one example. Methane collected at sewage treatment plants and landfills would be more examples.
×
×
  • Create New...