News Int. Inc. hack phone of missing (dead girl)

[Volourn]

"Who the HELL said it was in my head numbskull? You're the one pushing that I'm saying they WILL be when I said it was a possibility.

 

JESUS can you READ? "

 

You 9and whoever else) were spamming about how the FCC was going to punish them by removing them from tv in Amerika.. well, guess what? Fox isn't going anywhere anytime soon. So, stop pretending like that's some sort of feasible possibility.

[Calax]

And you prove you can't read.

 

You're the one who kept on about the subject. I merely mentioned that in theory, the News Corp and it's Fox subsidiaries could loose their FCC contract that allows them to broadcast.

 

I mentioned this alongside the fact they're also open to Felony charges for paying a member of another nations government.

 

You're acting like I and the person who's video I posted (which you obviously haven't watched in your self obsessed la la land) said that both things were going to happen no matter what ever else.

 

As it is Fox is loosing their bid to enter the British tv market, and facing severe censure across the pond.

[Darth InSidious]

Yes, it would be 'willy nilly'. I think a major fine and jail time for those directly involved would be enough punishment.

 

Again, FOX isn't going off the air so get that nonsense out of your head.

Who the HELL said it was in my head numbskull? You're the one pushing that I'm saying they WILL be when I said it was a possibility.

 

JESUS can you READ?

Why are you trying to argue with Volourn? Seriously, have you not learnt yet that the guy is a troll?

[Volourn]

You obviously don't know what a troll is... which is funny since your post is a fine example of trolling. R00fles!

[Humodour]

Why are you trying to argue with Volourn? Seriously, have you not learnt yet that the guy is a troll?

 

This.

 

Also the Australian competition regulator (ACCC) has now pretty much blocked Murdoch's bid for the Austar cable/satellite/whatever TV company here on the grounds it would monopolise the market (Murdoch already owns the similar and only other competitor - Foxtel).

[Walsingham]

It seems world events are threatening to distract from this story what with the Norway situation...and Amy Winehouse just died.

 

*edit*

 

Also, check this for a display of how low the Murdoch news empire will stoop to distract.

 

LOL contemptible ****slaves. i'm not reading the Times any time soon.

 

{I read the Torygraph, so I this is one occasion where I don't look like so much of a fascist}

[Darth InSidious]

{I read the Torygraph, so I this is one occasion where I don't look like so much of a fascist}

Correction: You used to read the Torygraph. Now you read the Daily Mail under a different name, with longer articles and fewer silly sub-headings.

[Gfted1]

Lets get down to whats really important; are all your newspapers still peppered with topless models?

[Raithe]

Of course.. the question has to arise.. Have they hacked Amy Winehouses phone yet?

[Malcador]

Of course.. the question has to arise.. Have they hacked Amy Winehouses phone yet?

 

I wonder if anyone would care if they did, really.

[Darth InSidious]

Lets get down to whats really important; are all your newspapers still peppered with topless models?

No - some of them are just full of fat, immigrant, benefits-abusing celebrities and houses that look like Hitler.

[Raithe]

And it's baaacck.

 

Looks like now the riot news is down, they're trying to get focus back on Murdoch's shenanigans..

 

Hacking "Widely Discussed" at News of the World - Letter released by MP's

[Drowsy Emperor]

The media are under the control of the big business, it is only possible to rein them in by stomping on the economical elites which today have, in practically every country, complete control over our political, economic and social lives - through media, our only available sources of information.

 

In this simple thing Marx was correct - in capitalism the ruling class are capitalists. Not the Obama's, Cameron's etc but those who have money and lots of it.

 

Until they are brought to heel and the nation state elevated to its former level of power and influence with a meritocratic system based on the actual contribution to good of the community instead of the current plutocracy ("you're worth the numbers on your bank account") this sort of thing can only get worse.

[Hurlshort]

If we are choosing between giving power to capitalists or politicians, I think I'll go with the capitalists most of the time.

[Malcador]

If we are choosing between giving power to capitalists or politicians, I think I'll go with the capitalists most of the time.

 

Because, what, exactly ?

[Raithe]

If we are choosing between giving power to capitalists or politicians, I think I'll go with the capitalists most of the time.

 

Because, what, exactly ?

 

Because you can trust a capitalist to be guided by certain principles....

But you can only trust a politician to be a politician.

 

 

Or is that just a tad too jaded and cynical?

[Malcador]

Well, they both suck. But being screwed over by incompetent, greedy, corrupt bastards seems marginally better than being screwed over by simply greedy and corrupt bastards.

[Tale]

The corruption of the government inevitably leans towards the corporate corruption. The government favors the corporate. But at least, in the meantime, the government will do things like creating roads. Cut out the government and directly bow to the corporate, and the only thing you've done is lost roads.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The corruption of the government inevitably leans towards the corporate corruption. The government favors the corporate. But at least, in the meantime, the government will do things like creating roads. Cut out the government and directly bow to the corporate, and the only thing you've done is lost roads.

 

Exactly. The corporate exits only to further its own interest and if need be at the expense of everyone else. A businessman's only allegiance is money, he cares nothing for "the flag", the "common good", and values unless they are an impediment to increasing his wealth in which case he will tread all over them without thinking twice.

 

Politicians are like that too, but they are forced to play a role and they have to do a bare minimum at least for the sake of the next elections.

A capitalist doesn't.

 

Hence, Raithe is mistaken. Of a capitalist you can at best, expect the worst.

 

There isn't a bad trend in western society that can't be traced to the profitability of the same trend.

The incredible expansion of pornography as a business is a simple and effective example.

[Darth InSidious]

Because you can trust a capitalist to be guided by certain principles....

But you can only trust a politician to be a politician.

You do realise both sentences come to the same thing, right?

[Humodour]

The corruption of the government inevitably leans towards the corporate corruption. The government favors the corporate. But at least, in the meantime, the government will do things like creating roads. Cut out the government and directly bow to the corporate, and the only thing you've done is lost roads.

 

Exactly. The corporate exits only to further its own interest and if need be at the expense of everyone else. A businessman's only allegiance is money, he cares nothing for "the flag", the "common good", and values unless they are an impediment to increasing his wealth in which case he will tread all over them without thinking twice.

 

Politicians are like that too, but they are forced to play a role and they have to do a bare minimum at least for the sake of the next elections.

A capitalist doesn't.

 

This is not universally true and so I think it is more incorrect than it is correct.

 

Fundamentally politicians and businessman are people. And to people there are often more powerful things than money and power. The more civilised, safe, and developed a society becomes, the more people's actions are informed by things other than money and power.

 

I think your perception of capitalism is warped by the under-developed nature of the country you live in - and in that specific case your arguments might actually be correct because capitalism maybe isn't being informed by empathy there. The answer to that would be more government regulation (but not so much that it is essentially central planning) until your society reaches a point of more stability and prosperity.

 

The incredible expansion of pornography as a business is a simple and effective example.

 

What's wrong with pornography made with full and informed consent between two adults? What a silly thing of you to say.

[Hurlshort]

It is still in the capitalist's best interests to make sure society is moving forward. Take the roads for example, how many companies are tied to the building and maintaining of those roads? The auto industry is gigantic, do you really think they want the roads to disappear?

 

My point is that a politician can only be trusted to do what is popular, ensuring that they will be re-elected. A capitalist will do what is best for the economy regardless of popularity. Obviously there needs to be a system of checks and balances in place.

[Malcador]

Obviously there needs to be a system of checks and balances in place.

 

And this oversight organization will be ?

 

You sure have a rosy idea of what a state run for profit might end up as. In any event, isn't the truth (see Sir Humphrey) that civil servants run the nation, not the politicians ?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

The media are under the control of the big business, it is only possible to rein them in by stomping on the economical elites which today have, in practically every country, complete control over our political, economic and social lives - through media, our only available sources of information.

 

In this simple thing Marx was correct - in capitalism the ruling class are capitalists. Not the Obama's, Cameron's etc but those who have money and lots of it.

 

Until they are brought to heel and the nation state elevated to its former level of power and influence with a meritocratic system based on the actual contribution to good of the community instead of the current plutocracy ("you're worth the numbers on your bank account") this sort of thing can only get worse.

 

Malcador, this was what I was responding too originally. I don't really believe capitalists should have complete control of everything. My point is more that politicians aren't better than businessmen. Neither should have complete power, but I trust the intention of a businessman more than that of a politician.

 

edit: Trust probably isn't even the right word. I consider them more transparent and prefer that.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Hurlshot

[Nepenthe]

It is still in the capitalist's best interests to make sure society is moving forward.

At a pace and direction dictated by them.