The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

John Edwards - can't help himself

chance1

JUB 10k Club
Banned
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Posts
21,347
Reaction score
16
Points
0
Location
NYC
John Edwards is at again - stuck down in the polls - getting slammed by Hillary and Barack - 3rd place with no real upside cause he's not getting it done in the debates ............

So now he's ripping Senator Clinton for accepting political donations from Rupert Murdoch

What a windbag

This guy is searching for things to latch onto but this is ridiculous

Like Hillary is gonna be persuaded to make Fox-like decisions because she got a few bucks from Rupert

Edwards will do anything to appeal to the fringe loons - and this will do it




Edwards Raps Hillary for Murdoch Ties


By NEDRA PICKLER,
AP

Posted: 2007-08-02 16:41:43
Filed Under: Elections News
WASHINGTON (Aug. 2) - John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.

AP
John Edwards says Democrats shouldn't take money from News Corp. Most of Rupert Murdoch's donations go to Republicans, but he gave $4,200 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and held a fundraiser for her.

Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives.

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party," Edwards said in a statement.

He challenged his rivals to refuse contributions from executives of News Corp., and return any they had already received. The Edwards campaign sent an e-mail to supporters with the subject line "Unfair and Unbalanced," asking them to donate in support of his stand against the company.

Said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz: "Thousands of good people work at Fox News and News Corp., but this is about the bias of top executives, those who make real editorial decisions like Rupert Murdoch, people who continually sanction unfounded attacks on Democrats. And that's why Democrats like Senator Clinton should either reject their money or return it."

The campaign timed the challenge to come two days before Edwards, Clinton and other candidates are scheduled to appear at a convention of liberal bloggers, who applauded Edwards' revolt against the Fox-sponsored debate in March.

Most of Murdoch's donations go to Republicans, but he gave $4,200 to Clinton's Senate campaign in 2006 and held a fundraiser for her at News Corp.'s midtown headquarters. He also donated $2,300 to her presidential campaign, according to online campaign donation database Political MoneyLine. Murdoch's son James, who is seen by many as a likely candidate to eventually succeed his 76-year-old father, gave $3,450.

A Political MoneyLine search of donors employed by News Corp. finds $20,900 in donations to Clinton's presidential bid from nine company attorneys and executives, including Murdoch's No. 2, Peter Chernin, who gave the maximum $4,600 allowed.

Chernin is a frequent donor to Democratic causes. He's also contributed $2,100 each to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Chris Dodd, Political MoneyLine shows.

The Clinton, Obama and Dodd campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.

Dodd also issued a statement this week objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Dow Jones and expressing concern about consolidation of U.S. media outlets.

"The Wall Street Journal has provided a valuable and important news choice to the American public for years," Dodd said. "With News Corp.'s purchase of the newspaper, I am concerned that it will be very difficult for the Journal to offer fair and balanced reporting under the pressures of a giant-media conglomerate."








http://news.aol.com/elections/story...s/20070802162109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
 
Chance, are you posting this article and your comments to slam John Edwards or to 'subtly' undermine Hillary? :confused:
 
The Family Research Council thinks religious freaks should boycott Disney because they host "Gay Day," and Mittney Romney agreed. But you find this stand against your propaganda network is pretty scandalous and appropriate for a gay board, huh? Whose side are you on? I don't question your decision to be a traitor to gays, but I question do your judgement, and your values, as they are so out of line with what is important and what is noise.

Mitt is a Mutt - u can quote me

not sure what ur problem is alfie

boycotting a news channel is absurd on sooooooo many levels

it's small minded

i'm talking about johnny edwards now

who's side am i on?

what r we talking about?

I think u assume that FoxNews is all about Sean Hannity - it's not

u should try watching a little - I know u don't

but to comment on it w/o watching it is scary
 
I have watched Fox News, and I gladly boycott that crap. Boycotting is not scary or absurd, it has been used effectively throughout history. Just ask the women who gained a political voice during the revolution by boycotting British goods. In a free market economy, boycotting is freedom and democracy at work. Let the right wingers boycott Disney all they want, it's their right!

Signed,
A proud secular progressive, to quote Bill-O-ding-bat
 
News Channel? It's more like a perverse Sesame Street for the buffoons, bumpkins and boors on the right. I don't understand how anyone can watch FOX for more than five minutes and take it seriously. They do a nice job on car chases, though.

Since when is the person paying the bills irrelevant in American politics? It's a legitimate issue, although a bit desperate in this case.
 
News Channel? It's more like a perverse Sesame Street for the buffoons, bumpkins and boors on the right. I don't understand how anyone can watch FOX for more than five minutes and take it seriously. They do a nice job on car chases, though.

Since when is the person paying the bills irrelevant in American politics? It's a legitimate issue, although a bit desperate in this case.

I think the thread is about Edwards slamming Hillary for taking some pennies from Rupert

You can slam Fox (synonomous with Bush sucks) elsewhere
 
Why are you more worried about Murdoch and Fox than you are about your own people?
Yes, I'm interested in your answer to this also. There are many battles to be fought and this relatively innocuous one with John Edwards trying to gain some ground on Hillary shouldn't even make your radar screen as a 'Democrat' and a gay man! :confused:
 
Yes, I'm interested in your answer to this also. There are many battles to be fought and this relatively innocuous one with John Edwards trying to gain some ground on Hillary shouldn't even make your radar screen as a 'Democrat' and a gay man! :confused:

sorry to not to be up to ur standards

:rolleyes:
 
I think the thread is about Edwards slamming Hillary for taking some pennies from Rupert

You can slam Fox (synonomous with Bush sucks) elsewhere

I was not going to post at all because the subject seemed inconsequential, but when someone referred to FOX as a "news channel" I couldn't help myself.


Regardless of which way FOX slants, it is not a "news channel".
 
Honestly, I think it is to defend Murdoch and FOX... and only that.

So true, but Chance is a bitter FOX fanboy who lacks the capacity to not worship the elected or appointed like divine royalty.

IC - I take back all the wonderful things I've been thinking about u lately .............. :rolleyes:

The thread is about Edwards and apparently now his hypocrisy at giving Hillary shit about a small donation - sorry u don't buy it - but I won't lose any sleep

not a Fox fanboy - just vs. the rest of u mugs - who scream to the high heavens "Fox is the devil" - I have a more balanced approach as in - they are the ONLY conservative leaning net

u guys r so sad that u won't admit that the networks u fawn over are the ones that talk/sound just like U - all the left leaning in the pocket nets whose correpsondents donate money to left wing candidates, whose mgmts are on record via email "go get Bush" and whose hosts do full hours of "bush sucks" and hosts who sit and listen to left wing ideologues drone on and on about how horrible bush is - with no comebacks - they allow speeches - cause that's why they believe in

But in ur wise opinion - they are not left leaning

haha

(!)
 
"not a Fox fanboy - just vs. the rest of u mugs"

^I take umbrage at your 'mug' shot. ;)
 
"not a Fox fanboy - just vs. the rest of u mugs"

^I take umbrage at your 'mug' shot. ;)

not as bad as "gum on my shoe" though right?

;)

going to see the Bourne movie in a few minutes

who doesn't love Matt Damon??????

can we agree on that??
 
I was not going to post at all because the subject seemed inconsequential, but when someone referred to FOX as a "news channel" I couldn't help myself.


Regardless of which way FOX slants, it is not a "news channel".

To be honest they probably wouldn't deny it behind closed doors. I don't think anyone in their right mindset can really call FOX news a news station.. its an opinion network. Its the "entertainment tonight" for news and politics.

But it has one thing going for it.. its not boring. The channel is flashy, and has some very good television graphics and music. And its easier to watch compared to CNN and the others.. I may not agree with their slant, and how they report the news., but when they report the news it isn't boring... nor are their hosts. I prefer to watch CNN, but the channel is indeed boring. And if anyone thinks differently, you are indeed full of it.

This type of thinking is the basis of News Corp.. just look at the channels they own, newspapers, how they broadcast events compared to the competition. One example would be how they broadcast the NFL compared to CBS or the others. Its alot flashier, younger, and has more "opinionated" announcers. Take Terry Bradshaw for example and the rest of the hosts during the pre game show and halftime... Its a circus. They don't take themselves seriously.
 
sorry to not to be up to ur standards

:rolleyes:
... a situtation that is easily changed. All you need do is take the advice of Robert Burns in one line of his poem, "To a Louse".

To A Louse.
On seeing one on a lady's bonnet at church.


The following Burns' poem again has one line that is often quoted, though I doubt that most readers would have no idea where it comes from, or what the subject of the line refers to. It never ceases to amaze me in reading his poems, the depth of his understanding of human nature and his interpretation of it to the animal kingdom.

It was one Sunday while sitting behind a young 'lady' in the church, that he noticed a head louse roaming over its domain in the bows and ribbons of her hat, and I assume her hair. Poor woman, little did she know that she would, with her head companion, be the subject of one of Burns' poems, on how we see ourselves, and how we think other people see us.

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/552.htm

:p (!) :gogirl: :wave: (*8*)
 
^ political break

go see the new Bourne movie

excellent as always

review in the NY Times on Friday was dead on

only bummer is that Jason/Matt is kinda dead inside - he's been through a lot u know ...................

great action

despite the attempt to make Matt look like the walking dead ................. he still looks good

Pamela Landy/Joan Allen is terrific

and the prerequisite assassins (they kill because .........)

and really really bad CIA mgmt types (know them well)

Two thumbs up says chance the movie reviewer

go see it
 
Back
Top