Jeff Bezos buys Washington Post

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/washington-post-to-be-sold-to-jeff-bezos/2013/08/05/ca537c9e-fe0c-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html

[B-Man]

Fish Don’t Know They’re Wet

By Mark Krikorian

 

The Post story on its sale to Jeff Bezos notes toward the end that the owner of Amazon “has given little indication of his ideological leanings over the years.” It then goes on to say that “he and his wife have regularly donated to the campaign of Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash)” and that he is in “the top ranks of financial backers of gay rights in the country.”

 

I think that gives a pretty clear indication of his ideological leanings.

 

His leftism is no surprise, given the political inclinations of our elites, but it’s hilarious that the reporter, Paul Farhi, and his editors could list those data points and then not draw the obvious conclusion. I don’t think it was disingenuous — they just see liberalism as the natural state of thinking people, and not as any kind of ideological leaning.

 

And that’s why, despite Bezos’s business acumen, the Post will likely continue down the path of clueless, parochial liberalism, and keep hemorrhaging readers.

[3rdnlng]

Where is Bob Woodward? Isn't it time for him to step forward and be what he once was?

[Joe Miner]

I wonder if what the Post will do when Internet Sales Tax issues arise?

 

 

At that point it probably won't matter, you'll just be spending Amazon Coins instead of real dollars.

[B-Man]

Where is Bob Woodward? Isn't it time for him to step forward and be what he once was?

 

LOL.

.....his quote today, nicely confirms the Liberal cuccoon hinted at in reply #2

 

 

 

 

Woodward: ‘This isn’t Murdoch buying the Wall Street Journal’

Read more: http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/315673-woodward-this-isnt-murdoch-buying-the-wall-street-journal#ixzz2bCsjQKG7

[DC Tom]

LOL.

.....his quote today, nicely confirms the Liberal cuccoon hinted at in reply #2

 

 

 

 

 

Woodward: ‘This isn’t Murdoch buying the Wall Street Journal’

Read more: http://thehill.com/v...l#ixzz2bCsjQKG7

 

 

 

Ezra Klein, a colleague of Woodward and Robinson and the editor of Wonkblog, also expressed shock but shared Woodward's optimism, though he warned that the Post would have to navigate the many conflicts of interest that could arise from its owner also controlling one of the world's largest corporations.

 

I found the ignorance inherent in that quote to be far more telling. The Washington Post Corporation isn't exactly a non-profit, and is still a multi-billion dollar company after selling off the Post itself.

Edited August 6, 2013 by DC Tom

[GG]

 

 

 

[/size][/font][/color]

 

I found the ignorance inherent in that quote to be far more telling. The Washington Post Corporation isn't exactly a non-profit, and is still a multi-billion dollar company after selling off the Post itself.

 

But he's a compassionate capitalist.

[CosmicBills]

Fish Don’t Know They’re Wet

By Mark Krikorian

 

The Post story on its sale to Jeff Bezos notes toward the end that the owner of Amazon “has given little indication of his ideological leanings over the years.” It then goes on to say that “he and his wife have regularly donated to the campaign of Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash)” and that he is in “the top ranks of financial backers of gay rights in the country.”

 

I think that gives a pretty clear indication of his ideological leanings.

 

His leftism is no surprise, given the political inclinations of our elites, but it’s hilarious that the reporter, Paul Farhi, and his editors could list those data points and then not draw the obvious conclusion. I don’t think it was disingenuous — they just see liberalism as the natural state of thinking people, and not as any kind of ideological leaning.

 

And that’s why, despite Bezos’s business acumen, the Post will likely continue down the path of clueless, parochial liberalism, and keep hemorrhaging readers.

So now supporting civil rights automatically makes one a liberal?

 

I wonder why the right has such a hard time selling their brand.

Edited August 7, 2013 by tgreg99

[B-Man]

So now supporting civil rights automatically makes one a liberal?

 

I wonder why the right has such a hard time selling their brand.

 

I'm not sure why I am bothering, but you have rather simplistically spun the support for Gay rights into a civil rights issue and (as usual) mis-stated (by implication) the conservative position.

 

But leave all that aside.........it's not the thread topic.........you cannot see that the reporter ignored the the other liberal leanings of the new Post owner as just the average beliefs.

 

 

Take those blinders off...........

 

.

Edited August 7, 2013 by B-Man

[CosmicBills]

I'm not sure why I am bothering, but you have rather simplistically spun the support for Gay rights into a civil rights issue and (as usual) mis-stated (by implication) the conservative position.

 

But leave all that aside.........it's not the thread topic.........you cannot see that the reporter ignored the the other liberal leanings of the new Post owner as just the average beliefs.

 

 

Take those blinders off...........

 

.

I was not the one who bolded and italicized the following two sentences:

 

he is in “the top ranks of financial backers of gay rights in the country.”

 

I don’t think it was disingenuous — they just see liberalism as the natural state of thinking people, and not as any kind of ideological leaning.

 

I'm only working with what you give me, B. And it's hilarious as always. Please, tell me why you chose those specific sentences to highlight, were we not supposed to see them as being related? What inferences is a person to draw from your decision to connect those two separate thoughts other than supporting gay rights makes one a liberal?

 

Used to be that right would stand up for the oppressed. Guess that ship has sailed with you, eh, B?

Edited August 7, 2013 by tgreg99

[DC Tom]

Used to be that right would stand up for the oppressed. Guess that ship has sailed with you, eh, B?

 

But then electricity was invented, and McKinley was shot, and Wilson embroiled us in the Great War, and before you know it Prescott Bush is gassing Jews...

[B-Man]

 

 

Used to be that right would stand up for the oppressed. Guess that ship has sailed with you, eh, B?

 

I want to thank you for the laughs..........I knew any response to you was useless.

 

The funny part is that any discerning reader can see that you are doing exactly what the reporter in the story did,

 

but you just keep on making it worse.

 

Thanks again.

 

.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I want to thank you for the laughs..........I knew any response to you was useless.

 

The funny part is that any discerning reader can see that you are doing exactly what the reporter in the story did,

 

but you just keep on making it worse.

 

Thanks again.

 

.

 

Meh - contributing to gay rights activists is obviously more typical of a liberal but I think a large portion of non-religious conservatives wouldn't disagree with the stance. I think it's less of a "gotcha!" moment and simply one the author should have probably more directly highlighted when paired with his statement of no previous clues.

[B-Man]

Meh - contributing to gay rights activists is obviously more typical of a liberal but I think a large portion of non-religious conservatives wouldn't disagree with the stance. I think it's less of a "gotcha!" moment and simply one the author should have probably more directly highlighted when paired with his statement of no previous clues.

 

Fair enough sir, I agree with what you wrote,

 

but that is probably why the gentleman's financial support for Sen. Patty Murray was listed also, that certainly indicates Liberal leanings.

 

 

However, the whole point of the article and my post was the fact that the author listed the gay rights and Murray support and STILL wrote this

 

“he has given little indication of his ideological leanings over the years

 

to any rational reader, the statements do not match.

 

(and as demonstrated, the point goes right by some here)

 

 

.

[Chicosbailbonds]

Here is why Bezo's is buying the post:

 

 

 

http://www.businessi...-america-2012-6

 

If the media were "liberal," it would serve the public interest and shine a light on important issues of the day. More people would also have a better understanding of global warming, political lobbying(corruption), government's role in a functioning economy, how much we spend on the military, the ever widening wage gap (that is turning the US into a 3rd world cheap labor pool), hugely corrupt to big to fail banks(hence to big to jail), how trillions of dollars dissappear from the economy and not 1 person is held accoutable and countless other issues.What you’re more likely to see in the media, however, are stories designed to get you to buy their paper, or watch their show, or listen to their radio station. If it bleeds, it leads. This is why the media is concerned with scandal, celebrities, gossip, and fear. There's also plenty of political bickering: Democrats said this, Republicans said that. We let you decide (but we never weigh in with any facts or fact-checking). You know what you will not ever hear? The "liberal media" discussing the corporate media. If anything, our news consists of paid advertisements and outlets too scared of offending anyone to publish much of substance. Investigative journalism is also expensive; entertainment is cheap makes lots more money and keeps the rubes entertained.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Chicosbailbonds

[OCinBuffalo]

Fair enough sir, I agree with what you wrote,

 

but that is probably why the gentleman's financial support for Sen. Patty Murray was listed also, that certainly indicates Liberal leanings.

 

 

However, the whole point of the article and my post was the fact that the author listed the gay rights and Murray support and STILL wrote this

 

 

 

to any rational reader, the statements do not match.

 

(and as demonstrated, the point goes right by some here)

 

Oh please, "the point goes right by"?

 

It's clear that the point hit home for some, and, rather then leaving that be, they decided to try and distrort the point, and then tried to distract from it with a tangent.

 

The funny part? They think they are being clever. It's like a 4 year old "tricking" you.

 

But, to the reader of this thread? All they've done is succeed in underscoring the point they don't like.

 

Forward! How Obama Administration-esque. This thread could be used as a simple example of "why they can't move the needle up on Obamacare, and why most of what they've tried moves it down".They strain and overreact to an unpleasant fact, and make that fact 10x more powerful than it would have been, had they simply kept their mouths closed.

[CosmicBills]

I want to thank you for the laughs..........I knew any response to you was useless.

 

The funny part is that any discerning reader can see that you are doing exactly what the reporter in the story did,

 

but you just keep on making it worse.

 

Thanks again.

 

.

And yet, you won't answer my question.

 

I haven't been talking about the article. I didn't read it because 90% of the article of yours I have read in the past have been pandering to a line of thought that I frankly think is destroying the national discourse. You revel in divisiveness and conflict rather than things that focus on either reality or solutions. Political pandering for political pandering sake does not impress me. I know it does some people on here and I'm casting no judgement.

 

I've been talking about YOU. Asking why YOU highlighted the relevant sections in the quote you chose to include on the board. I'm trying to understand YOUR point of view, not the authors or Bezos. And any time I attempt to engage you in a conversation about YOUR values and beliefs, you either run or claim that I'm approaching you with a bias already confirmed in my head. The later part is true only because you won't engage in a discussion so you leave me only your quotes to judge.

 

I may be a prick, I wear that badge with honor, but I'm an honest prick who is capable of changing my mind on issues if the evidence and information changes. There are plenty on here that I disagree with politically (you and OC still think of me as a liberal when I am not) but I have learned things from them and admitted when I've been wrong numerous times. You chose to highlight the fact Bezos supports gay rights in such a way that linked it to an inherent liberal cause.

 

Funny thing is, I see it as a human cause. The question is, do you?

[meazza]

And yet, you won't answer my question.

 

I haven't been talking about the article. I didn't read it because 90% of the article of yours I have read in the past have been pandering to a line of thought that I frankly think is destroying the national discourse. You revel in divisiveness and conflict rather than things that focus on either reality or solutions. Political pandering for political pandering sake does not impress me. I know it does some people on here and I'm casting no judgement.

 

I've been talking about YOU. Asking why YOU highlighted the relevant sections in the quote you chose to include on the board. I'm trying to understand YOUR point of view, not the authors or Bezos. And any time I attempt to engage you in a conversation about YOUR values and beliefs, you either run or claim that I'm approaching you with a bias already confirmed in my head. The later part is true only because you won't engage in a discussion so you leave me only your quotes to judge.

 

I may be a prick, I wear that badge with honor, but I'm an honest prick who is capable of changing my mind on issues if the evidence and information changes. There are plenty on here that I disagree with politically (you and OC still think of me as a liberal when I am not) but I have learned things from them and admitted when I've been wrong numerous times. You chose to highlight the fact Bezos supports gay rights in such a way that linked it to an inherent liberal cause.

 

Funny thing is, I see it as a human cause. The question is, do you?

 

You're far from even close to being a prick. I bet you open doors for old ladies.

[Jauronimo]

You're far from even close to being a prick. I bet you open doors for old ladies.

Its true. But he has advanced degrees in door management and geriatrics.

[B-Man]

And yet, you won't answer my question.

 

I haven't been talking about the article. I didn't read it because 90% of the article of yours I have read in the past have been pandering to a line of thought that I frankly think is destroying the national discourse. You revel in divisiveness and conflict rather than things that focus on either reality or solutions. Political pandering for political pandering sake does not impress me. I know it does some people on here and I'm casting no judgement.

 

I've been talking about YOU. Asking why YOU highlighted the relevant sections in the quote you chose to include on the board. I'm trying to understand YOUR point of view, not the authors or Bezos. And any time I attempt to engage you in a conversation about YOUR values and beliefs, you either run or claim that I'm approaching you with a bias already confirmed in my head. The later part is true only because you won't engage in a discussion so you leave me only your quotes to judge.

 

I may be a prick, I wear that badge with honor, but I'm an honest prick who is capable of changing my mind on issues if the evidence and information changes. There are plenty on here that I disagree with politically (you and OC still think of me as a liberal when I am not) but I have learned things from them and admitted when I've been wrong numerous times. You chose to highlight the fact Bezos supports gay rights in such a way that linked it to an inherent liberal cause.

 

Funny thing is, I see it as a human cause. The question is, do you?

 

Okay.

 

I didn't answer the question because, as I already wrote, its far from the point of the article.

 

The answer is that Gay Rights is a human cause,........................... as is pro-life beliefs and religious liberty is.

 

The fact that I highlighted it does not detract (other than in your head) anyway from the point about the media being blind to its biases

 

So, go off on your tangents, and continue to amuse veryone here.

 

 

 

PS. there is, of course, no reason that you (or anyone) should be aware of any pattern in my postings, but the fact is I do not do the "back and forth" and "answer this question" silliness that many here enjoy, and that certainly has nothing to do with you. (sorry to spoil your illusions)

 

 

.