Wednesday, September 21, 2011

DoJ probing News Corp

The Hitler comparisons and weird racial reversals fly when Freepers hear the Hated Holder is asking for some info from News Group about their whole wiretapping thing.

antidemoncrat skips over claiming partisan persecution, and sips directly to the race card.


If News Corp was run by blacks, the Department of Injustice wouldn’t be
interested in them.

Yeah, blacks can totally tap phones whenever they want these days!

gaijin also likes to pretend whites are Jim Crow Blacks these days:


UPPITY.

sgfan1212 is pissed that the DoJ has yet to investigate this week's scandle. Just like Hitler did...


Absolutely NOTHING on the Black Panthers intimidation of white voters in
2008. NOTHING on Fast and Furious. NOTHING on Solyndra. But News Corp.... That’s
what they are really after. They want to silence ALL dissent. This is Hitler’s
Gestapo in full array!

XHogPilot doubles down on Hitler




The 1940’s German Jack Booted Thugs are pip-squeeks compared to the
Obama/Holder DOJ! I truly fear for our nation and Constitution.


And he's not the only one.

wardaddy mixes racialism with some serious revisionist history:




Presidents using justice and domestic and even supposed foreign oriented intelligence to attack or keep track of people or entities here was not invented by Barack Obama..even though Holder is obviously super political and a hater of white people...what is it with these half white black guys in power...they turn on half theirsleves...must be weird...like a half traitor



I’m sure it goes back to FDR or even further...JFK did it, LBJ, Nixon, Ford’s FBI without his knowledge...Bill Casey..God bless him would have liked to....Clinton did it with Craig Livingstone and Justice assets....I don’t think Bush did though....and he had more cause than anyone

Bush didn't, but he should have?! Wow.

Glad Nixon made it in there, though. Musta taken some inner strength to include a token Republican.

13 comments:

  1. Murdoch always scares little weak minded liberals for some reason.... May I ask a question? Why wasn't Les Moonves responsible for CBS anchor Dan Rather's attempt at trying to throw the 2004 presidential election (with the now well proven) phony National Guard documents one month before the election? Moonves was the president, CEO and director of CBS, a company with half as many employees as News Corp. Dan Rather constituted a way larger part of CBS' business than "News of the World" did of the Murdoch empire. No asked if Moonves was aware that his network was about to accuse a sitting president of shirking his National Guard duty. Moonves wasn't dragged before multiple congressional panels. No one remembers the biggest media scandal of the last 30 years as "The Les Moonves Scandal." Why is that?? Oh that's right, Fox News scares liberals because they aren't a Party Organ spouting out the latest party approved "Current Truth" for the masses....

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Barry,
    LOL..."the biggest media scandal of the last 30 years." Does your hyper-partisanship know no bounds? At least it's possible to classify what Dan Rather did as a mistake (not saying whether it is or not). You can't call deliberately hacking into 9/11 families' e-mail and voicemail and then deliberately lying to Parliament as accidental.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @euphgeek, you're either kind of stupid or just deliberately retarded.... Hey everyone type real slow so euphgeek can keep up..... News of the World did apparently do all those things but you guys are assuming Murdoch knew about it but Moonves didn't know about Rather?? ONE of the main points was that it was much much much more likely given the size of CBS that Moonves knew exactly what Rather was up to than Murdoch knew what the reporters in News of the World were up to......... by the way Rather didn't make a simple "mistake" he was part of a deliberate smear and disinformation campaign to alter and election result and got caught red handed thus to save CBS's face he got fired. He is clearly part of the "liberal media bias" that poor Ozi can't see....

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Barry,
    Prove that Dan Rather deliberately planned to alter the election or that there was a "deliberate smear and disinformation campaign." Also, it only happened one time, not multiple times over several years. So it's much more likely that Murdoch knew than Moonves did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @euphgeek, I originally thought you were slow, the more comments you make it is looking more and more like you are just really stupid...you may want to work on that..... What part of delibertly manufacturing faslified documents and presenting them on the evening news as true against a particular political opponent isn't trying to smear or alter people's view of someone during an election cycle?

    Just where or what are the "multiple times" that you are talking about?

    Here's another example for the purposefully stupid euphgeek.....

    In December 1996, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, who sounded suspiciously like union goons, claimed to have inadvertently tapped into a phone conversation between then House Speaker Newt Gingrich and House Republican leadership.

    According to these Democratic and union activists, they were just driving around with a police scanner in their car, picked up a random phone conversation and said to themselves, "Wait a minute! I could swear that's Dick Armey's voice!"

    Luckily, they also had a tape recorder and cassette in their car, so they proceeded to illegally record the intercepted conversation and then turned the tape over to Democratic Rep. James McDermott -- the top Democrat on the Ethics Committee that was at that very moment investigating Gingrich.

    Although they swore they had no idea that what they were doing was a crime, in their cover letter to McDermott, they requested immunity -- just as you probably do whenever you write somebody a letter. (They later pleaded guilty to a crime under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.)

    McDermott promptly turned the tape over to The New York Times and other newspapers. The Times' headline on the story, "Gingrich Is Heard Urging Tactics in Ethics Case," might as well have been titled: "Tape Shows Gingrich Conspiring to Act Within the Law."

    John Boehner, one of the participants in the Gingrich call, sued McDermott for violating his First Amendment rights, which resulted in a court ordering McDermott to pay Boehner more than $1 million.

    AND YET, more than a dozen news organizations, many of the same ones demanding the death penalty for Rupert Murdoch right now, filed amicus briefs defending McDermott's distribution of the pirated tape.

    Hypocrisy much euphgeek???

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Barry,
    So instead of actually defending Fox News' actions, you dredge up a story from 15 years ago to try to make it look like "liberals do it, too!" If that's your justification for criminal activity, then so be it. And you still haven't proved that Dan Rather was the one that manufactured those documents, just that he was incompetent enough to believe they were real.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why did they fire Rather the guy who replaced Walter Croncrite over a mere accident?

    .....TRY and make it look like?? They have been doing it all along. You did read that last paragraph right?

    euphgeek, I am sorry. I assumed you were educated and informed but it seems that you are acutally mentally disabled which makes you completely gullible. Was it an accident? Were you doing auto-erotic asphyxiation too long? Be care, remember what happened to David Carradine and Micheal Hutchence.....

    Now where were all those other times again?? Instead of trying to smear Fox News, give some real concrete examples of what Fox does that the other guys haven't been doing all along....

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Barry,
    So instead of defending Fox News you attempt to shift blame. Not that I blame you, of course. I'd be embarrassed too, if I had defended a "news" channel like them, too. A lot of liberals would have much less of a problem with them if they'd just admit that they're the propaganda arm of the Republican Party instead of pretending to be "Fair and Balanced(TM)."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow, you told me....... instead of listing specific points where Fox lied you did nothing. You realize that you are actually making my point by your inability to list even one example, right? I know that you libs have tried so hard to squash free speech with your attempts at killing conservative radio with the "Fairness Doctrine" and your endless attacks on Fox and now trying to sue the owner over things that the other new outlets have beening doing for years and trying to protect even....but the thing that kills you the most is despite all your attempts, Fox is still higher rated than any of the others.... what a delicious irony....

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Barry,
    Nice strawmen you have there. As far as providing specific points where Fox lied, I'll do that as soon as you start providing your sources. Either that, or I can just let you search for them yourself like you expect me to do for your claims. See how that works, you giant hypocrite?

    ReplyDelete
  11. By the way, ratings are only relevant in entertainment. They mean nothing for the accuracy of a news channel. The fact that Fox News and its watchers tout its ratings proves that they don't care about accuracy and are only there for entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Still no examples is NO examples and you are just perpetuating the liberal MSM mythology....

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Barry,
    So you want to live in denial while still being a massive hypocrite...suit yourself.

    ReplyDelete