still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:21 PM
Original message |
Do you think it is a problem if Clinton receives 20K from News Corp? |
|
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20070802%2Fap_on_el_pr%2Fedwards_news_corp_2%26printer%3D1%3B_ylt%3DAuQwieJPpUX3RNoVeiO6IUJh24cAWithout getting into what fox stands for, or its agenda, I have a problem with ANY news organization giving political contributions since they are supposed to report the news. It is definitely a conflict of interest in my view
|
LSparkle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I agree. Even worse if they're getting money from NBC/GE |
|
or defense contractors (not that it looking bad is going to stop that from happening). Huge conflict of interest in my opinion too ... but our system is so fucked up I'm sure it happens all the time.
|
Mojambo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:24 PM
Response to Original message |
2. She's been Murdoch's horse for a while now. n/t |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. Should any candidate be taking bribes from companies? That's what it comes down to |
|
Will they expect political favors later? How about pushing legislation to allow media monopolies throughout the country?
It is way past time for public financing of elections, and to get rid of lobbyists
|
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
18. they are backing her in the primaries as she is their only chance (outside of blatant fraud) |
|
of winning. She is way too devisive and will turn a lot of progressive Dems toward 3rd parties. that why GOP backed corporate media, their friends the pollsters, and folks like Murdoch are backing her.
|
Canuckistanian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
RW Hillary-hatred + liberal controversy = electoral victory.
Or at least to get as close as they were in 2000. The rest has already been taken care of.
|
glowing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
movonne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I'll do one better, I don't think they should get money from any corporation... |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. you are right, it implies that they owe a political favor /nt |
MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
20. Then it's a good thing |
|
it's been illegal for corporations to give money to candidates for decades.
|
Totally Committed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Hell yes! --- It's wrong. |
|
Our system is broken, and we need to fix it. No wonder Senator Clinton's candidacy is being made to look inevitable by the media. They've bought into her campaign, and now have an investment to see her nominated.
Think of the ratings! :sarcasm:
TC
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. Do the people have any say? /nt |
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
8. A conflict of interest?.. |
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. how so. Doesn't receiving an amount of money from a corporation imply that? |
|
why do corporations do it anyway? Don't they want favorable legislation for their business?
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. meaning her interest.. |
|
is not conflicted....corporations dictate, politicians comply.
|
saracat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Yes. It is wrong.It is as bad as taking money from the Klu Klux Clan! |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-02-07 04:33 PM by saracat
It is not as if no one knows what Murdoch represents.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. I wanted to generalize it to corporations in general, because it definitely |
|
implies something in return
|
OrangeCountyDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:34 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Hillary Is Part Of Corporate Establishment |
|
Murdoch wants her in the WH.
She's one of them.
Another reason why this country will continue in the wrong direction if and when she's handed the keys.
It's inevitible. The powers that be are going to see to it that she's elected.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. In all fairness so are most of the "leading" candidates /nt |
Jack Rabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Don't say News and NewsCorp in the same sentence |
|
Rupert Murdoch does not do journalism.
Do I have a problem with Senator Clinton recieving money from Rupert Murdoch? Yes, I do. What does he want from her?
|
B2G
(714 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 05:42 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Well Mr. Edwards should |
|
think before he calls the other candidates out.
HarperCollins Publishers published his book "Home". HarperCollins Publishers is owned by News Corp.
I don't see an explanation of that anywhere in his statement. I hate the primaries. It's depressing the way they attack each other sometimes.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-02-07 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
21. I don't think it is the same thing. One is a business decision by a publisher on a book |
|
and another is a legalized bribe
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 11:06 AM
Response to Original message |