The trouble is, for many years the media moguls have sought the years of the political classes in most "civilised" nations. And the political classes have sought to make friends of the media moguls. Its not a "new thing", and no single current political leader or media mogul can be blamed for inventing it, as it probably goes back to the days of the broadsheet or the town crier. Money wants power, and power wants money, and they will do their best to satisfy their thirsts to their mutual advantage and mutual gain (probably at the expense of the "working man").

The problem is dividing political processes and business processes.
The two should not be so tied in knots.
Or allowed to influence each other so directly.
Of course, and political even will influence business events.
But one should not be 'sleeping in bed' with the other.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

A fairly good summing up there. In the UK at least the Levenson enquiry will no doubt be having a bearing on this.

Even as far back as 1066 favours were given to those supporting a leader. A Lord of the manor was a term which originated with the emergence of feudalism during the Medieval era of the Middle Ages. The feudal system was established in England by the Normans following their victory at the Battle of Hastings. At this time all land in England was claimed by William the Conqueror and distributed amongst Normans as their reward for fighting for William.

The trouble is, for many years the media moguls have sought the years of the political classes in most "civilised" nations. And the political classes have sought to make friends of the media moguls. Its not a "new thing", and no single current political leader or media mogul can be blamed for inventing it, as it probably goes back to the days of the broadsheet or the town crier. Money wants power, and power wants money, and they will do their best to satisfy their thirsts to their mutual advantage and mutual gain (probably at the expense of the "working man").

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Obama came from Chicago, where the mob bosses are used to being able to buy anything they desire.

Someone asked why Obama is so hated. The last president also elected by Chicago political machine mob connections was also hated. History records what happened to him.

---

Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

Sometimes those on the outside can see the wood for the trees, when those close to the problem cannot. But yes, I take your point, you can't throw stones at a house you don't live in.

Regarding Murdoch, many people in public life donate money to political parties because they know it will get them the ear of the party leader. If that party then goes on to win an election and lead a government, a heavyweight donor would "expect" their views to be "noted". It's called lobbying and it is not illegal, although some will see it as currying or buying favour.

If you are a multi-millionaire, and you think that a certain administration would be more favourable to your company in terms of proposed tax laws or other legislation, then it would likely be useful to be a financial benefactor. Morally wrong? Many people would say so, but it is the way of the world, and this sort of thing is coming under more scrutiny.

Not since Citizen's United. Here in the USA there can be no such scrutiny. Freedom of speech is how much ink and paper you can buy.

---

Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

Sometimes those on the outside can see the wood for the trees, when those close to the problem cannot. But yes, I take your point, you can't throw stones at a house you don't live in.

Regarding Murdoch, many people in public life donate money to political parties because they know it will get them the ear of the party leader. If that party then goes on to win an election and lead a government, a heavyweight donor would "expect" their views to be "noted". It's called lobbying and it is not illegal, although some will see it as currying or buying favour.

If you are a multi-millionaire, and you think that a certain administration would be more favourable to your company in terms of proposed tax laws or other legislation, then it would likely be useful to be a financial benefactor. Morally wrong? Many people would say so, but it is the way of the world, and this sort of thing is coming under more scrutiny.

Morally and ethically wrong. That is the point.
None should be allowed to sway the election of a public official of any status simply because they have the monetary means to do so. Obama came from Chicago, where the mob bosses are used to being able to buy anything they desire.

Campaign finance reform and short term limits are what is needed to even START to right the ship here.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

I don't understand this, anybody got idea's why NI and Fox are not facing shutdown asap.

Well, was a law broken? AFIK it doesn't sound like any money changed hands.

Anyone can urge anyone to run for any office. Anyone can offer to run a campaign. As to bankrolling it, post Citizens United, even that is likely 100% legal.

Its still ok to be outraged at destructive legal things, and outraged at destructive laws.

However, that was not what WinterKnight implied. He asked or suggested if it was illegal. Both Gary and I have indicated that, to the best of our knowledge, it is not.

Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

Sometimes those on the outside can see the wood for the trees, when those close to the problem cannot. But yes, I take your point, you can't throw stones at a house you don't live in.

Regarding Murdoch, many people in public life donate money to political parties because they know it will get them the ear of the party leader. If that party then goes on to win an election and lead a government, a heavyweight donor would "expect" their views to be "noted". It's called lobbying and it is not illegal, although some will see it as currying or buying favour.

If you are a multi-millionaire, and you think that a certain administration would be more favourable to your company in terms of proposed tax laws or other legislation, then it would likely be useful to be a financial benefactor. Morally wrong? Many people would say so, but it is the way of the world, and this sort of thing is coming under more scrutiny.

I don't understand this, anybody got idea's why NI and Fox are not facing shutdown asap.

Well, was a law broken? AFIK it doesn't sound like any money changed hands.

Anyone can urge anyone to run for any office. Anyone can offer to run a campaign. As to bankrolling it, post Citizens United, even that is likely 100% legal.

Its still ok to be outraged at destructive legal things, and outraged at destructive laws.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I don't understand this, anybody got idea's why NI and Fox are not facing shutdown asap.

Well, was a law broken? AFIK it doesn't sound like any money changed hands.

Anyone can urge anyone to run for any office. Anyone can offer to run a campaign. As to bankrolling it, post Citizens United, even that is likely 100% legal.

---

What?

You are referring to WHOM?

Not me, I hope.......

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Incoherent.

That's what alcohol does, especially the kind bought with food stamps.

Incoherent.

---

It is right and true that some should question the means by which Obama came to a second term, especially when the term was so debated and close.

Do not doubt me, I shall stand up for my countrymen.

Aside from you casting aspersion on my motives. I KNOW what my motives are, and if they are not yours, so be it. May we never be on other sides of the line.

Some here are not on the USA side of the ocean, and yet they throw stones at things that are not their business to debate.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Kent State shootings was really bad. Should have took away the government guns, reckon? Reckon it's just who happens to be president at the time, reckon? The government taxed us back then just to shoot kids at a school.

Mark, I ask the question again, how are these responses relevant to taxes? You brought the subject up. I quote, "We cannot, and shall not continue to take his taxation abuse much longer."

You would not dare to ask me that, once the tables were turned.


I find it quaint that those of you who have the least to lose raise the most questions about my motives.

I am a patriot. Not and instigator, or a rebel. I only wish my country, tiss of ME, continue to be the best that it can. We did it once, and we may again have to.

The rest of the world considered us 'upstarts' at the time..maybey still so.

But I shall not give up those rights awarded to me by the founding fathers.

Pry that from my cold, dead fingers.

King George could not......and neither can any of you.

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

From Twitter:

Eric CantorVerified ‏@GOPLeader

The House of Representatives has concluded legislative business for the week. The House will return after the Christmas holiday when needed.

People that THINK they are working men voted for this guy.
People that ARE working men tweeted to him, calling him lazy and suggesting he get back to work.

Ah, common mistake...

-100 to the kitty man
and -1*100^2 to the designer.

should be...

+100 to the kitty man
and +1*100^2 to the designer.

+4 to the kitty man...

-100 to the kitty man
and -1*100^2 to the designer.

In todays Guardian there is a story - Why the US media ignored Murdoch's brazen bid to hijack the presidency. That says the Owner of News International, who has had to close the News of the World in the UK over the phone hacking scandal, tried to get Fox News which is his US News Channel to get Gen. David H. Petraeus to stand for the Republican nomination.

The main worry is that the Washington Post who broke the story, and who apparently have a digital recording of the conversation, didn't put it on their Front Page. They consigned it to the Style section. WP - Style - Fox News chief’s failed attempt to enlist Petraeus as presidential candidate

I don't understand this, anybody got idea's why NI and Fox are not facing shutdown asap.

I'm sorry, but how is getting someone to run equal to buying the presidency?!?
There are no laws about one person trying to convince another person to run,