It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whoa, Dude: Fox News parent company's 'Big Lebowski' game developed by North Koreans

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Your post is totally off topic but.........


I dont see Ron Paul condemning Glenn Beck at all, In fact hes been on his show many times, and thanks him for it .....

Ron Pauls website.....




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Yeah, that's only after the election when Beck did a complete 180. Before the elction, Beck would constantly rail on Paul and Paul supporters, along with the Tea Party. Campaign For Liberty activists would constantly be protesting Beck and holding anti-Beck rallies, though only after Beck would go way out of his way to condemn Paul. Then, just after the election, Beck did a complete 180 and started to claim that he champions those ideals and Ron Paul (while ignoring the fact that he was so anti-Paul just a few months before). Take a look at the videos I provided or better yet, research yourself. Lets see, Beck supported the bail outs, the Patriot Act, GWB, both wars and he was against Ron Paul, the Tea Parties, libertarian movements such as FSP. Basically, Beck was a neocon mouthpiece, then after the neo-cons fell out of favor, Beck claimed to champion the ideals that he was just railing against. Do your research.

I know this because I have been a Paul supporter since his Libertarian Party days and I fully supported C4L when is was born to Paul. C4L enemy number one was Beck.

Now, Beck pretends to be Paul's biggest supporter and a through-through Tea Partier. Can someone really do a 180 in such a short notice? Furthermore, if he really did do a 180, why not just own up to it and apologize and explain why you have so drastically changed? Why would he just switch networks and pretend that he never was against the movements in the first place or that he was for all of the things that libertarians were against?

A theory that a Paul blogger put out (I'll see if I could find it), is that Beck lost all credability with his viewers because he was supporting the neo-con agenda. When it was clear that the neo-cons fell out of favor (due to voting statistics), Beck changed networks and to gain his credability back so that he can once again be a mouthpiece for the neo-cons, he is courting the libertarians. This is a known tactic of the neo-cons, as they did it with the Republican party. That's how they took over the RP and now it is pretty much known that the neo-cons have infiltrated and hijacked the Tea Parties. Pretty soon, Beck will slowly become a mouthpiece for the neo-cons once again, though only after gaining credability with the libertarians. You see, a lot of Republican voters jumped ship after GWB and joined either the LP or the TP movements so naturally, the neocons are going to fool these voters again, just as they did when they took over the RP back in the day.

As far as the post being off topic, it wasn't. I was showing the hypocritical nature of Fox News, Murdoch and the pundits they employ, which directly relates to the OP.


--airspoon



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I didn't refuse to answer any question. If you direct a question towards me, I'll be happy to answer it, so long as it isn't steeped in ignorance, to which I don't believe it was. However I wouldn't know because you didn't direct it towards me.

Definition of slander:

words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another


There is no slander here, as everything stated is true. Don't get mad at everyone else because you fall for the propaganda and fail to even see it.

Furthermore, I did already answer this, you just weren't paying attention. I used FOX News because FOX News is a pet project of Murdoch and according to many of his former employees, Murdoch oversees everything that happens at the media outlet.

The WSJ is a little different as it is relatively newly aquired and is some-what independent of Murdoch. Furthermore, most people are familiar with Murdoch through FOX News. Put simply, while Murdoch pulls the strings - every string- at FOX News, it isn't so closely handled anywhere else. FOX News is the flagship of News Corp. The WSJ is not, nor the plethora of other publications though any of them could easily be substituted. Feel free to substitute it out if that helps you ignore the obvious.

Also, don't confuse FOX Mobile with FOX News. The game is FOX Mobile, a namesake with the news channel.

Next time, if you have a question for me, direct it towards me.

--airspoon



[edit on 7-9-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

And now i see why, its another attack on FOX news........


In light of what FOX news is doing to help con the population into apathy so the capitalist class can rob you of more of your worth, don't you think they 'need attacking', just a little?

Unless of course you buy into what they're telling you...

Problem with people getting their perception of the world from FOX, or any TV 'news' channel, is you get a very distorted view of the world. You only hear the side of a story they report. New can be reported in ways to evoke emotional reactions that cloud any logical thought (9/11). Our own view of our own world is distorted by people who do not come from your community telling you what to think. It makes people lazy.

Before TV people in their communities would talk politics and community issues, and would all be of a similar mindset as to what they wanted and needed in their community. Once TV filled every home people stopped having any kind of community discussions and communities fragmented. One family would watch one talking head telling them what to think, their neighbour a different talking head, until people loose touch with their own reality and their own community. This caused mistrust in other people to the point many neighbours now do not even know each other. The solidarity and organization of working people was lost. Talking heads came into communities and tore them apart with their poison.

Everything you see in the 'news' is highly controlled. Designed to create mistrust in other people, and keep the people from being a tight-nit community again like it was before WWII.

Divide and rule.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
This is the problem with people who watch FOX news. They cannot even fathom that they are being played, and if someone tries to let them know, they get angry and defensive.


Ahh, I love it when people make baseless assumptions. It just brightens my day what with all the laughter it causes. I don't watch Fox or any of the rest of the media networks, I didn't get angry, and I've yet to become defensive. Thanks for the laugh though. I needed it.


Why would you defend FOX news in any way over this? Is FOX reporting this link? Dont you think that they should let viewers know about this, that they are economically supporting the NK dictatorship, while at the same condemning the regime on their TV channel? Is Oreilly talking about this? Is Beck putting it on his chalkboard? They should be.


Why would you make baseless assumptions just because I didn't immediately jump on the "bash Fox every chance we get" train? I didn't defend Fox, I pointed out that the article has nothing to do with Fox aside from News Corp. owning them yet the OP set out to bash them anyway. Fox is irrelevant seeing as how they can't control what their parent company does. Don't know what O'Reilly or Beck are talking about since I don't watch.


There is a serious conflict of interest here, and if you cant see that, I dont know what more we can do to help you open your eyes to the fact that you are being played like a fiddle.


How so? Is it also a conflict of interest for Kodak, American Idol, the National Rugby League, News.com.au, and Myspace? News Corp owns them too after all. And please, save the melodramatic "We're here to help you" crap for someone who needs it as opposed to someone who disagrees with blaming people for something they have no control over.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Fox is irrelevant seeing as how they can't control what their parent company does.


That's true, but isn't FOX news controlled by their parent company?

That's kind of the point I think.

FOX news is just part of the propaganda machine that allows their parent company to get away with investing in the 'enemy'.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That's true, but isn't FOX news controlled by their parent company?


Yes they are, but it's irrelevant. They have absolutely zero control over what News Corp. does. Blaming Fox for what News Corp. does makes about as much sense as blaming a kid if their parent robs a bank.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by ANOK
That's true, but isn't FOX news controlled by their parent company?


Yes they are, but it's irrelevant. They have absolutely zero control over what News Corp. does. Blaming Fox for what News Corp. does makes about as much sense as blaming a kid if their parent robs a bank.


But FOX is not just a parent company. It's the propaganda machine for those that own it, and they know it. They are as complicit as if your kid was helping to cover up their parents crime.

It's the news outlets that keep us passified so the parent company can do it's dirty work hidden behind a veil of lies.

And actually yes, they could control what their parent company does. They could tell us the truth.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


FOX News is relevant because of the parent company, News Corp. Is FOX News responsible? No, but News Corp is.

If I am the leader of a gang with two other people in it and I order one goon to tell you one thing and the other goon to tell you something in contradiction, both goons are relevant.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


So once again, like i asked before , before you posted a bunch of long winded post that didnt answer my simple question..........

Fox news is no more a pet project that any of the other MULTITUDES of news agencies and entertainment entities that they own!

Where is your PROOF that FOX is News Corps "pet project"? Its all speculation on your part....the SUN is very popular over in UK so is American Idol here in the US, making TONS of money....you are speculating

If Fox news ISNT The parent company, and it isnt their fault........why is FOX news in the title instead of, American Idol, or the SUN, or any of the numerous agencies that News Corp owns?

Answer: To push your agenda......

[edit on 7-9-2010 by ManBehindTheMask]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
I thought FOX News was against supporting dictators and communism


What is your source for this accusation that FOX "News" was against supporting dictators and communism? I think you may be watching too much FOX "News" and getting your information from them.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Answer: To push your agenda......


No hidden man behind your mask, not to push his agenda, but to push back against FOX's AGENDAS.

there is a difference between telling us all the information an organization has on an issue, and telling us only what they want us to hear concerning any issue.

et



[edit on 7-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Dude, it's really not that hard to understand. The other subsidiaries aren't the "pet-projects" of Rupert Murdoch. That title easily goes to FOX News, as does the title of "Flagship". FOX News is the staple of News Corp. Then again, I'm trying to explain this to someone who ignores the majority of Beck's career, simply because it doesn't fir in with his world-view, which is the very definition of ignorance.

Did I start this thread to further my agenda? Absolutely, as my agenda is to peel away the ignorance to expose the truth. Denying ignorance [and entertainment] has always been the reason/s behind each thread authored by me.

--airspoon



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by m0r1arty
 


You are a true follower of "The Dude".

The Dude abides, the dude abides.



[edit on 7-9-2010 by CORN IS NUTS]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
All this political talk about the Dude, I don't know...

That's just like, your opinion, man. lotta strands. Lotta strands in the old duder's head.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I think the real story is this:

They're making a Big Lebowski video game?

Kick ass



[edit on 7-9-2010 by SpectreDC]



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Rupert Murdoch owns News Corp. News Corp/Rupert Murdoch runs Fox News. Fox News is an outlet that steers political debate however Rupert Murdoch wants it to in sync with his own political views, including condemnation of North Korea. This is evident in the fact that Rupert Murdoch continually makes his political views known and everyone of them are right in line with how Fox News spins its stories.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


Perhaps you missed the section where it states

Both games were published by Rupert Murdoch's international media empire News Corp., which were released under its Fox Mobile label.


So the reason he mentioned Fox is because these games were being released by FOX MOBILE.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I just 'knew' good ole Rupert would find his way, somehow, someway into North Korea yet, 'unfortunately', for some, "The World Is Not Enough.....

[edit on 8-9-2010 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
The problem is that the "Axis of Evil" concept was the creation of Bush.
To justify the attack on Iran and North Korea. But instead he attacked Afganistan and Iraq where they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. It was a hoagwash from the beginning. He used the concept "Axis of Evil" to inspire the mode of aggression in the minds of Americans and then he used it to attack Iraq and Afganistan which were the originally intended countries of target in the first place.

On top of that, what's wrong with using the cheapest labor in the world to make the video games and make a big money. Labor is labor. Why should you pay any more than you have to? That is the basic concept of the world economy, isn't it?

You all have been brainwashed and then complain for the fact that you can not agree on to it based on the brainwashed information which is already engraved in your brain.

Huge matrix is at work. Neither North Korea nor Iran has attacked any other foreign countries in the world for the last good 50 years.

They are not the "Axis of Evil".

The Axis of Evil is somewhere else you have never dreamed about.

The axis of evil is in the Vatican Jesuits which controls the US by the power of money aka Federal Reserve System.

It is time to wake up. The top of the carnivorous food chain was in the holiest place on earth.

According to Phelp, it was the Black Pope, the count Peter Hans Kolvenbach, who ordered the attack on 911. And don't forget Bush was one of the sworn in members of the Knights of Malta, the group controlled by the Black Pope.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join