From: John Cuccia 

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 22:06:01 -0500, "Mark"  wrote:

>> Why?  The network is a conduit for the US oilmen running America, why
>> wouldn't they cater to the whims of their oilmen Saudi owners?
>
>The US oilmen... 

It's only childish if you consider "oilmen" to be perjorative.  I don't.

You can't deny that Fox News is an information conduit well-used by the
Bush Administration, and you cannot deny that Bush and Cheney are oilmen
(they certainly would not).

>Nope, I'm first not acknowledging that Fox was manipulated by a secondary
>shareholder as alleged,

The Prince wouldn't lower himself to call Fox News directly, he worked
through Rupert, who was happy to do the bidding of another member of the
Very Rich Guy's Club.

>You never said though, you do agree with the Prince, right?

About what, the riots?  I think the use of the term "Muslim
riots" is appropriate, they were Muslims, rioting.

I can understand a Muslim disapproving of the use of the term, it implies a
religious component to the riots which I don't believe existed.  I don't
think, in fact, that religion had anything to do with the riots.  They were
a product of that particular segment of thee immigrant community's poverty
and isolation from French society at large.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5