Does FOX News help finance the 9/11 Mosque?

I saw this on The Daily show last night, I thought if this isn't a conspiracy, then what is?

www.thedailyshow.com...

The guy, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, financing the huge Mosque near the former WTC, now the 9-11 Memorial, aparently is the second largest shareholder in FOX news. Being that the second largest shareholder in FOX news is the guy financing the 9/11 mosque, if he makes money from his FOX News investment, then they contribute through their second larges shareholder, then FOX news helps to finance the Mosque.



There was a very funny debate whether or not the reporters on FOX news were so stupid that they didn't know that the money earned on their show is directly tied to the guy financing that very mosque. or whether they were pure evil.

I say that FOX News viewers are so stupid, that they will never know, or if told, they will refuse to believe it, and certainly won't bother to look at the facts.

Now this is a real conspiracy.

reply to post by poet1b


Well most conspiracy theorists will at least attempt to try and find some proof.

Tell me, where is the proof or the links to information that this prince is funding the mosque?

I am sure you are going to provide something right?

Or is conjecture and your denigration of anyone watching Fox news the whole point of your conspiracy?

But linking to a comedy show, should do wonders for the theory. I mean really, who could deny that jon stewart is the purveyor of factual jokes, right?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Of course, here are the links.

www.prwatch.org...

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal now owns a 7 percent stake in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, making him the company's largest shareholder outside of Murdoch's own family.

www.npr.org...

The second-largest holder of voting stock in News Corp. is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king. And through his philanthropies, Waleed has given generously to initiatives pursued by the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf.

I gave the information necessary to find this out on your own.

Remember when Rupert Murdoch gave Newt Gingrich something like $5 Mil for a book advance when legislation was pending that allowed non-U.S. citizens to buy up U.S. media?

I believe this is what Nancy Pelosi was talking about when she suggested that we "follow the money" on this ground zero mosque. Don't get me wrong, I think that Nancy Pelosi is just as corrupt as the rest of them, but she was probably sending a shot across the bow of her rivals. Maybe she needed them to do something for her. Who knows but I do find it interesting that Nancy Pelosi seemed to know about this, yet held off on saying anything other than a warning.

Anyway, thanks for sharing.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


Thanks airspoon, I am surprised this isn't getting more airplay by FOX rivals.

It goes to show that all these media outlets work together, except maybe comedy central, but in truth, I have found Jon Stewart's "Daily News" to be the most reliable news show on the boob tube.

I wonder who owns these talk radio stations that broadcast so much propaganda.

reply to post by poet1b


I believe that Viacom owns Comedy Central. Viacom also owns MTV and BET. They have also merged with CBS (I believe). Trust me, CC does not tell it like it is. John Stewart for instance is just a liberally biased pundit who happens to use comedy. Stewart also spreads the propaganda for the government, though maybe not as bad as say FOX News or MSNBC. What's even worse though, is that many people falsely believe that Stewart will tell them the whole truth. That's simply not the case. I don't see Stewart asking where Obama's "change" is or pointing out that Obama is just as corrupt as Bush.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by poet1b

 

I believe that Viacom owns Comedy Central. Viacom also owns MTV and BET. They have also merged with CBS (I believe). Trust me, CC does not tell it like it is. John Stewart for instance is just a liberally biased pundit who happens to use comedy. Stewart also spreads the propaganda for the government, though maybe not as bad as say FOX News or MSNBC. What's even worse though, is that many people falsely believe that Stewart will tell them the whole truth. That's simply not the case. I don't see Stewart asking where Obama's "change" is or pointing out that Obama is just as corrupt as Bush.

--airspoon

Actually he makes painful similarities to Bush all the time. By the way, level-headed, reasonable thinking is not only for Liberals... We strongly encourage Conservatives to use it, too.

reply to post by spiritualzombie


John Stewart is not only blatantly pro-Obama, but also obviously so. His message is clearly pro-Obama and anti-Republican, while ignoring the fact that the two parties are essentially the same thing (as far as leadership goes), hence the clap lights that come on whenever Obama is mentioned or a Partisan joke is cracked. Furthermore, Bush wasn't "conservative", so much as he was "liberal". In fact, Bush was just as liberal-statist, if not more so, than most of our recent Democratic Presidents. Also, the false left-right paradigm of American politics means little unless a second dimension is thrown into the equation, as opposed to the one dimensional left-right model. When looking at an additional dimension, one can clearly see that most American politicians occupy the same corner, while touting opposites. Stewart only helps with this false perception by focusing on the cosmetic differences between the two parties and ignoring their fundamental similarities and lack of any kind of opposition in government.

If you think that John Stewart is giving you the whole truth, then you are clearly fooled. Maybe Stewart might not realize the truth but motive is irrelevant. If we could only look past the relatively small differences of each party to identify the fundamental flaws and contradictions between our own interests and those of government, then this country wouldn't be in the position that we are currently in. Stewart is only one of many ball bearings that our country is rolling on to the depths of a fiery inferno.

--airspoon

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

Bush wasn't "conservative", so much as he was "liberal". In fact, Bush was just as liberal-statist, if not more so, than most of our recent Democratic Presidents.

It seems this is a prevalent view,,, all the time conservatives this as a a way to explain away Bush's leadership, policies and results. But aren't you doing exactly what you accuse Stewart of??? Bush's liberalism does not
explain why conservatives at large threw their support behind him two times. I heard nothing of this liberalism
while Bush was in office, I did not see a conservative backlash to Bush's policies when it mattered. Bush, his cabinet and his policies are intrinsically linked to Ronald Reagan, if Reagan was not a conservative, who is?
Is there even such a thing as conservatism? Or is it just an idealized concept? See, I think conservatism is
what we have seen, it is an IDEA put into effect in a dynamic world... Theory is not important to the health
of America, results are... We could literally go on for centuries and hear this conservation is liberal excuse because there is a government. None of this changes who conservatives vote for or the policies they support
at large.

Now FOX news and this liberalization you speak of are one in the same... who do you think created the public support for Bush's "liberal" policies? But then so many "conservatives" come on here and serve as defenders
of the FOX complex. It seems to me Conservatives do not really care about this liberalization or a good lot of you
would reject this Station that taints conservatism... This Mosque controversy is just an extension of what Bush started, US VS. THEM crusader like mentality... Is this conservatism? Is further inflaming Christian Muslim relations conservatism? This is what FOX is doing actively, continuing this situation that the "Liberal" Bush
used as a platform to instill his evil liberal whims.

This financial link between Fox and the Mosque reach the heights of hypocrisy and social manipulation,
the anti Islamic narrative is what brought you the Patriot act, Trillion Dollar war, Corporate welfare,
pork barrel spending and a whole host of "liberal" things that so many conservative claim to oppose.

reply to post by Janky Red


Well first off, many conservatives (true conservatives) never really supported him or quickly lost support after finding out about his statist and liberal policies. Bush called himself a conservative but in all reality, he was a neo-conservative. A neo-con is really a liberal statist under the guise of a conservative. Now, with that being said, there are many voters who think of themselves as conservatives, though they are really statists or fascists. For instance the religious right and moral majority (which by the way, Bush pandered to) are not really conservative, as they believe that it's okay to force your view on others and they throw out just about all personal liberties.

Why do I consider Bush a liberal, or better yet, why is Bush a liberal? Well Bush grew government to an unprecedented size, more so than almost any other President in history (to include Democratic Presidents). Furthermore, Bush spent more money than any other President since LBJ and I might add that he was also one of the biggest spenders in US history (to include Democratic Presidents). Bush was also the biggest "taxer" in world history. Now, we move along to debt. Bush put this country into so much debt that it hit an all-time record. These are just the fiscal reasons that prove Bush was liberal, I'll get to the social reasons in a minute but first, I'd just like to remind you what conservatism is (fiscally speaking).

Conservatives believes in small government, as little debt as possible and spending that is only absolutely necessary, such as defense. Democrats for instance have always been the big spenders while Republicans (traditionally) have always tried to reign that spending in. However, as I point out in my recent thread, The Two-Party System: Two sides of the same coin, I spell out how the two parties are now essentially the same force. For the past several decades, the Republicans and Democrats both have moved away from their opposite ends, towards a more statist approach to government, which basically killed any kind of opposition movement to check either side.

As far as Bush's liberal social issues, Bush was all for a nanny-state and his policies reflect it. The Democrats and liberals have always been known to support the notion that government knows best and government should take care of us. Bush was also for complete government rule, leaving little personal choice to each citizen, again something that was always championed by liberals and Democrats alike. Social welfare has been another thing always championed by the Democrats and liberals and Bush was no different, save for the method of doing it.

The idea of social welfare is that you take money from some people and give it to others who may or may not need it. That money is supposed to help people. While liberals would usually support this notion to give to the poor, Bush did too, though he took it one step further. Not only would there be a social welfare program, but also a corporate welfare program. Now, don't get me wrong, as Democrats also run a social welfare program, it's just that conservatives don't believe in such a thing. In fact, it is against the fundamental principals of conservatism.

Now that I think about it, I can't name one policy of Bush's that adhered to the ideals of conservatism. Some might say the Bush tax-cuts, though in all reality they weren't tax cuts since we were only going into debt with high inflation. Furthermore, the tax-cuts didn't pan out evenly, something that in of itself goes against conservatism.

Make no mistake about it... Bush was no conservatism. Americans have been indoctrinated to believe a false perception of what liberal and conservative mean. We have been "trained" to see American politics in a one-dimensional model, known as the left-right paradigm, which is inherently false. To most Americans, the religious right and moral majority are what conservatism is but we are only lead to believe that so that we fall for the false left-right paradigm. The Republican Party, which is currently under the control of the neo-cons, is no longer conservative and instead, they are statists, just as the Democrats, generally speaking.


--airspoon

Good points on both side gents.

airspoon, I agree, Jon Stewart will never give you the whole truth, only as much as his sponsors allow, and yes he is clearly biased in Obama's favor, but he is still better than the spin put on by the supposed legitimate news shows.

What you claim to be conservationism, I believe is liberalism. A true liberal believes in small government, a military whose only purposes is to protect our national borders. The rights of the individual should be protected. All of these drug prohibition laws, far too many of these traffic laws, mandatory insurance, safety laws, family services, and all too many of the growing body of laws that dictate to the individual how to live their lives are all against what I believe the principles of our nation, founded on liberal ideology, were and should be.

In my opinion, GW Bush, and every republican president going back to Nixon are true conservatives. In the days of the revolution, they would have been loyalists, today they are corporatist, who political beliefs are to subjugate government to the control of the rich and powerful.

For a true liberal, government should be servant to the will of the people, not the rich and powerful.

Currently neither party seems to have any desire to follow the principles our nation was founded upon, whether you call them liberal or conservative. Both parties are out to continue to strip individuals of their liberty at every chance. The only difference I see is that republicans are far more willing to cater to the interests of the super rich, while Democrats only seem interested in serving the interests of special minority groups, playing the kindly master.

I meant to contribute to your thread www.abovetopsecret.com... but I am still trying to put my finger on what is at the root of this situation. The labels have become meaningless.

Labels aside, I think we agree fairly closely in our beliefs.

Janky Red, I think you are right that the current effort of the powers behind conservative propagandist is to deny who they are. Reminds me of the saying, that "The greatest trick of the devil is to convince people that he doesn't exist". FOX news, and all the talk show radio guys clearly supported GW both times he ran for president, so I don't see how anyone can trust them as they now change their tune to claim that GW never represented their beliefs. There is a huge difference between what they say, and what they do. If they were dupes then, then why would people continue to listen to them, they are still dupes.

I think that this knowledge, that FOX news is partially owned and controlled by a Saudi Prince, and so the House of Saud, should destroy its credibility for anyone who claims to be a loyal American.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

John Stewart is not only blatantly pro-Obama, but also obviously so. His message is clearly pro-Obama and anti-Republican, while ignoring the fact that the two parties are essentially the same thing (as far as leadership goes)

You apparently haven't watched the Daily Show recently. He's been attacking Obama nearly every episode and when some Democrat he has on the show goes "well the republicans did it" he's quick to remind them they've been in power for two years now and have essentially done nothing but smear feces on the wound the republicans caused.

Stewart isn't pro-Obama anymore, but he is still a biased leftist.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

John Stewart is not only blatantly pro-Obama, but also obviously so.

I will agree with you there but I think Stewart is really more interested in just making the show be funny. I remember when Obama won, I was wondering how The Daily Show was going to handle it. The show has always been there to make fun of the people in power. It started off by tearing Clinton apart on a daily basis. John Stewart does make digs at Obama but it was clear soon after the election that the audience was in a different place. Stewart even acknowledged more than once that the audience just did not like anti-Obama jokes. I know that he is not going to stop making people laugh just to be fair and balanced on comedy central so he has to go where the mood in the room is but.

Oh yeah, I did also want to add that as with this particular story here, as long as you know the punchline from the story, more of the things The Daily Show "reports" actually check out than anything I ever see on any news channel talk show.

I think the OP of this thread is doing a great job in pointing that out as well as the fact that almost no one else is touching this. You would think Ed Shultz would be screaming about this.

No matter what anyone says about his political affiliation, his guests are the highlight of the show. Olberman will be interviewning Arianna Huffington and O'Reilly will be talking to Dennis Miller. The news shows play it as safe as they can while John Stewart has people like Dick Armey and his show. It just seems like he invites more guests of opposing veiwpoints than any of the news channel talk shows do.

I absolutely agree he is a vocal liberal but I believe that if it would get laughs to trash Obama more, he would. Then again, I just still see the show as a whole from when it started and it has just always been picking on who was in charge. The mood of the country has become so polarized though that it seems to be tough to play both sides of the fence and still get a laugh. People are too uptight.

reply to post by cindyremains


Seriously, accusing Stewart of an agenda would be claiming Hicks or Carlin had one too. I highly doubt Stewart is apart of any grand scheme to misguide people mainly because Stewart, while having leftist sensibilities, doesn't shy from questioning himself at all. Some of his greatest interviews are 15-20 minutes long ones with people he vehemently disagrees with and you need to go online to watch the whole thing.

The man sucks at stand up and at acting, but he's funny as hell on his show and is really sharp when it comes to politics.

reply to post by SpectreDC


I really do not think you actually read my post. The only agenda I accused hom of having was trying to make his show funny. I then went on to say his interviews are the best part of the show because of who he has on and yes, the full length unedited versions are the ones I watch. Please read it over and highlight anything you think I said that you are responding to.

I have gotten some of my most revealing news from Stewart, such as how illegal immigration is turning more and more into slave trade.

However, during the interview, the Author of the book, "Nobodies" mentioned McDonalds as being involved, and Stewart was quick to say, "Please, not my sponsors". It was funny, but also serious.

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by spiritualzombie

 

John Stewart is not only blatantly pro-Obama, but also obviously so. His message is clearly pro-Obama and anti-Republican, while ignoring the fact that the two parties are essentially the same thing (as far as leadership goes), hence the clap lights that come on whenever Obama is mentioned or a Partisan joke is cracked.

I know it is easy and convenient to claim it...but honestly if you watched him often you'd see him tearing into Democrats and the POTUS on a regular basis. He just tears into the GOP more often, because they are easier to make fun of.

If you press me I will have to rattle off vids where he rips the POTUS and Dems.

reply to post by maybereal11

70% of NYers demand: Move the GZ mosque!

www.nypost.com...