Who is worse Rupert Murdoch or George Soros? Should they both be stopped from meddling in US politics?

Answer 1

They're both Zionist Jews pushing for OWG.Murdoch is a front for the Rothschild Dynasty

Answer 2

Well, I mean Murdoch owns all of the News Corporation, all of the Fox Channels, and Soros is just a bankroller, so I would say Murdoch, I mean I'm not saying Murdoch is a problem but I would say he's more influential. He's a millionaire, like Soros, and most millionaires have given money to both parties, Murdoch has, but Soros just decided to give money to Democrats. I think Republicans in general take Soros more seriously than anyone else, I think Democrats are basically like "thanks for the money", but don't consider him anything more than a bankroller, not a major voice in the party like some claim. But I'm not a fan of either.

Answer 3

Mrs. Chinese Murdoch is now the most powerful woman in the world................she can make H. Clinton bark like a Jewish dog by just whispering words to Rupert during sex.......

Answer 4

My philosophy is put both of them in one room with one gun and let them take care of it and then shoot the other one. Just like Dr. No said on the movie Dr. No East and West they are nothing but points on a compass each as stupid as the other. Just substitute east and west with left and right.

Answer 5

Hillary Clinton incontestably spoke the truth about the Iraq war this past February at the annual meeting of the Democratic National Committee when she said, “I understand the frustration and outrage, (but) you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything.”

She heard a smattering of boos for enunciating a simple fact of life in the Senate. The Left of the Democratic party didn’t want to hear it, and it forced the Democratic leadership of Congress and the Democratic presidential candidates — eventually including Clinton herself — to act in contravention of this reality, to the party’s serious detriment.

There is a limit to how much Democrats can hurt themselves on the war. No matter what they do, the war is still unpopular and a net drag on Republicans. Nonetheless, Democrats have helped drive the approval levels of Congress down to historic lows and suffered an enormous opportunity cost.

Throughout this past year, they could have seized the broad middle in the debate concerning the war. They could have worked with a slice of moderate Republicans on legislation that wouldn’t have forced an end to the war, but made them the representatives of a bipartisan alternative to Bush’s strategy. Instead they talked of ending the war outright, positioning themselves to the left of the public and setting themselves an unattainable goal.

Thus, they became the party of the impotent left-wingers. They fell victim to all the same dreary failings of overreaching congressional Republicans after their takeover of Congress in 1994 — hubris, self-delusion, and a slavish devotion to their political base.

They made a hard timetable for withdrawal their bottom line when they could have gotten Republicans to support something short of that — say, a bill calling for the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The timetable didn’t have the votes, but Democrats figured that if they forced Republicans to keep voting on it, eventually they’d buckle. This meant the Democratic Congress would be characterized by partisan confrontation leading to ... nothing.

At least until such time as Republicans caved, which Democrats considered inevitable. They mistakenly believed the Iraq debate could head in only one direction — theirs. Meanwhile, their base locked them into their strategy. A fear stalks the Democratic party — of the bloggers and activists of groups like MoveOn.org who will punish anyone for departing from the strictest antiwar orthodoxy.

August was supposed to be the surge’s Waterloo. Republicans would go home and hear from angry constituents about the war. Antiwar groups would hammer them. But Republicans didn’t hear much about the war. Lawmakers from both parties took trips to Iraq where they saw improving security conditions firsthand, and some Democrats were forthright enough to say so.

The table was set for Gen. Petraeus’s September report, which Democrats had convinced themselves would be the war’s final gasp. A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even fretted that the administration wouldn’t allow Petraeus to testify publicly. All through the summer, Republicans used Petraeus’s September report as a placeholder — urging that we wait to hear from the general — and when he testified, he made as persuasive a case as possibly could be made for the war.

Democrats were wrong-footed. Their all-or-nothing opposition to the war made it impossible for them to digest any good news, so they resorted to ham-handed attacks on the general’s credibility. Even the usually shrewd Rep. Rahm Emanuel — architect of the Democratic takeover of the House — blustered, “We don’t need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction.”

So, amazingly, President Bush is able to endorse Gen. Petraeus’s recommendation for a conditions-based drawdown in troops from a position of relative strength. Four years into an unpopular, often mishandled war, Democrats are the ones scrambling for a new political strategy. And, as so often happens in politics, they did it to themselves.

Answer 6

Murdoch has significant media holdings which I don't necessarily like but unlike Soros and his pals, he is not advocating anti American policies nor is he responsible for crippling eastern European economies like Soros and old Marc Rich did. Soros is a purely evil man. Murdoch is overly ambitious and loves his money but isnt evil.

Answer 7

One Murdoch is dedicated to inflicting his vision of the world on the rest of us. The other has a news service that is not an arm of the democrat party. They don't compare AT ALL.

Answer 8

IMO, Murdoch. I agree that they should be stopped.

Answer 9

The world would be well rid of both their shadows.

Answer 10

Neither are the bastion of moral fortitude, and both should be stopped immediately.