Follow the money of this Terrorist Center (Mosque)

[tonymctones]

Ah haaaa....But this the only thing...Why dont they say his name when talking about him...they dig deep in some areas but not all of them?

to what end...

again FOX has nothing to do with the prince other than he ON HIS OWN...went and bought their stock...

AGAIN FOX cannot determine who buys or doesnt buy their stock....

this is like saying that American Airlines was somehow involved in 9/11 b/c their planes were used  

they didnt have anything to do with those morons hijacking the planes just like FOX had nothing to do with the prince buying their stock...

[Option D]

to what end...

again FOX has nothing to do with the prince other than he ON HIS OWN...went and bought their stock...

AGAIN FOX cannot determine who buys or doesnt buy their stock....

this is like saying that American Airlines was somehow involved in 9/11 b/c their planes were used  

they didnt have anything to do with those morons hijacking the planes just like FOX had nothing to do with the prince buying their stock...

Or did Fox not name him because he was their boss. Also...did you see the buddy buddy picture of him and RM?

[Fury]

Why doesn't the AP acknowledge that a Muslim owns the controlling interest in it? How come the NY Times and other MSM news organizations refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have former CAIR lobbyists working as "objective" journalists on their payrolls now? It goes both ways and they equally suck.

[tonymctones]

Or did Fox not name him because he was their boss. Also...did you see the buddy buddy picture of him and RM?

LMAO being a stock holder in a publicly traded company doesnt make him their boss  it makes him an investor...LOL big difference bro

Again RM and his seperate business venture has nothing to do with FOX news...

that is a seperate business venture independent of FOX news...

[Option D]

LMAO being a stock holder in a publicly traded company doesnt make him their boss  it makes him an investor...LOL big difference bro

Again RM and his seperate business venture has nothing to do with FOX news...

that is a seperate business venture independent of FOX news...

No no no...being a stock holder in a publicly traded company makes you part owner right. Might not have a controlling interest, but as a 7% share holder, his voice is heard at the shareholders meeting...am i right?

[Al Doggity]

LMAO being a stock holder in a publicly traded company doesnt make him their boss  it makes him an investor...LOL big difference bro

Again RM and his seperate business venture has nothing to do with FOX news...

that is a seperate business venture independent of FOX news...

Fox and the Murdoch family are also huge investors in his Saudi Arabian media properties. So, yes, they are, in fact, business partners.

[tonymctones]

No no no...being a stock holder in a publicly traded company makes you part owner right. Might not have a controlling interest, but as a 7% share holder, his voice is heard at the shareholders meeting...am i right?

LOL that in no way what so ever qualifies him as their boss 

he has the right to state his opinion, he has no control what so ever of FOX itself

[tonymctones]

Fox and the Murdoch family are also huge investors in his Saudi Arabian media properties. So, yes, they are, in fact, business partners.

RM are partners...just b/c a person owns a bunch of companies doesnt mean that those seperate companies are partners...

i havent seen any evidence that FOX and the prince are partners...only that RM and the prince are partners..

there is a difference

[240 is Back]

tony,

do you think FOX has gone out of their way NOT to name the money man - because he happens to own 7% of their company?

or do you just think it's a coincidence?

[Fury]

Why doesn't the AP acknowledge that a Muslim owns the controlling interest in it? How come the NY Times and other MSM news organizations refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have former CAIR lobbyists working as "objective" journalists on their payrolls now? It goes both ways and they equally suck.

[Soul Crusher]

tony,

do you think FOX has gone out of their way NOT to name the money man - because he happens to own 7% of their company?

or do you just think it's a coincidence?

Who cares - I tell everyone - SHUT THE DAMN TV OFF AND THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Fox is horrible, as is MSNBC, et al. 

The a.m. radio and internet is where the real action is.     

[Al Doggity]

RM are partners...just b/c a person owns a bunch of companies doesnt mean that those seperate companies are partners...

i havent seen any evidence that FOX and the prince are partners...only that RM and the prince are partners..

there is a difference

Newscorp , the corporation that own Fox News, has a huge stake in the prince's Saudi Business interests. The prince has a significant stake in Newscorp. So, no it's not an issue of random investors that have nothing to do with each other. They are business partners. Using their logic, the same "dirty money" standards would apply to them. They refrained from naming the Saudi prince because they realized this.

[Al Doggity]

Who cares - I tell everyonjavascript:void(0);e - SHUT THE DAMN TV OFF AND THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Fox is horrible, as is MSNBC, et al. 

The a.m. radio and internet is where the real action is.     

You've posted television clips of Peter Schiff and praised Glen Beck's show before.    No medium is good or bad, in and of itself. Except for AM radio... which is the tool of the devil.

[Soul Crusher]

You've posted television clips of Peter Schiff and praised Glen Beck's show before.    No medium is good or bad, in and of itself. Except for AM radio... which is the tool of the devil.

1.   Ha ha ha.  most of my Schiff clips are from him in his office.

2.  Praising Beck?   Only when he exposes the communists in obamas admn. 

3.  AM radio is awesome.  I learn more at night from John Batchelor from 9-12 in one night than you libs will in 5 years watchingh MSNBC.       

[Dos Equis]

No no no...being a stock holder in a publicly traded company makes you part owner right. Might not have a controlling interest, but as a 7% share holder, his voice is heard at the shareholders meeting...am i right?

Yes he is a part owner.  He has zero control over the corporation if he owns seven percent.  If he owned 51 percent, yes he would have "control" to a degree.  But what this doesn't show is any control over whatever Fox News broadcasts.  Really poor connection.

[dario73]

Why doesn't the AP acknowledge that a Muslim owns the controlling interest in it? How come the NY Times and other MSM news organizations refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have former CAIR lobbyists working as "objective" journalists on their payrolls now? It goes both ways and they equally suck.

Somehow these questions continues to be ignored.  Good point Berzerk.

[Al Doggity]

Yes he is a part owner.  He has zero control over the corporation if he owns seven percent.  If he owned 51 percent, yes he would have "control" to a degree.  But what this doesn't show is any control over whatever Fox News broadcasts.  Really poor connection.

I wasn't trying to show that he had any control or influence over what appears on the air at Fox and neither was that Daily Show clip. The point was that Fox hosts were attempting to mount a fear campaign against Imam based on a business alliance that they share. They kept the connection quiet, not because of his influence, but because if they'd revealed it their viewers would have either had to conclude that it was a bullshit connection or they were also linked to dirty money.

[Option D]

Yes he is a part owner.  He has zero control over the corporation if he owns seven percent.  If he owned 51 percent, yes he would have "control" to a degree.  But what this doesn't show is any control over whatever Fox News broadcasts.  Really poor connection.

what in sam hill are you talking about...thats exactly what i said..and 1 person with 7% of a billion dollar company.,..believe you me...he has a voice at the shareholders meeting...just face it...fox news again is on some bullshit..you can slice it any way you want...

[Dos Equis]

I wasn't trying to show that he had any control or influence over what appears on the air at Fox and neither was that Daily Show clip. The point was that Fox hosts were attempting to mount a fear campaign against Imam based on a business alliance that they share. They kept the connection quiet, not because of his influence, but because if they'd revealed it their viewers would have either had to conclude that it was a bullshit connection or they were also linked to dirty money.

?  I was responding to mal's post about ownership. 

I didn't watch the clip. 

[Mons Venus]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-august-23-2010-rod-blagojevich


Awesome

Hahahaaa Fox News is building the Mosque!!! Hahahaaaaa

 

[Al Doggity]

Somehow these questions continues to be ignored.  Good point Berzerk.

No, it's a terrible point. It's not even the same thing. None of these companies have tried to link other organizations to terror based on financial alliances that they also have.

[Soul Crusher]

Hahahaaa Fox News is building the Mosque!!! Hahahaaaaa

 

Who would have guessed, the board clown responds to a comedian.      

[Dos Equis]

what in sam hill are you talking about...thats exactly what i said..and 1 person with 7% of a billion dollar company.,..believe you me...he has a voice at the shareholders meeting...just face it...fox news again is on some bullshit..you can slice it any way you want...

He has a "voice" at shareholders meetings?  O.K.  No argument there.  This establishes what exactly?  

Shareholders meetings are typically held once a year.  If you're talking about control, you'd have to look more at the board of directors and to a lesser extent the officers.    

[Mons Venus]

tony,

do you think FOX has gone out of their way NOT to name the money man - because he happens to own 7% of their company?

or do you just think it's a coincidence?

This is great !!!!  

Fox News funding a "terror mosque" !!! Hahahaaaaaaaaa

 

[blacken700]

Why doesn't the AP acknowledge that a Muslim owns the controlling interest in it?

source