WHITEHOUSE REJECTS SOPA Rupert Murdoch SNAPS, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 27 times

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 11:45 AM by haven123

reply to post by haven123

am i aloud in the chat now?

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 11:45 AM by Aeons

Maybe Mr.Murdoch, you shouldn't have tried to cram control freak in with the real problems.

I know you guys can't help it. The idea of a lean, targeted piece of legislation seems never to occur to these fools.

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 11:54 AM by Ittabena

reply to post by metalshredmetal

what is really in danger here is their ability to capitalize over citizens, and good riddance too.

I agree with your whole post sir, but this line somehow reminded me of the movie Grapes of Wrath. No one cared one jot about the farmers who lost their incomes and farms because of advancing technology, and that sort of thing has happened a lot more and a lot more recently thanks to NAFTA and one way cruise trips of many former American Corportations.

So if we have had to suffer this sort of treatment many times, and still are, why in God's name should we care about rich guys getting a taste of their own medicine. Level playing field please! (Oof, I hate that phrase)

edit on 16-1-2012 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 11:57 AM by Flatfish

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

This is the real problem, the President announces that he will indeed oppose SOPA as written and you refer to him as "Obummer" in the very same breath that you use to describe his position as a "Huge Victory."

Based on the current GOP pattern of opposing everything Obama supports, even if it means abandoning a long held conservative position, I'm beginning to wonder if you people aren't just a little bit bipolar. Actually, I'm a little surprised that you didn't change your position entirely and come out in favor of SOPA.

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 12:09 PM by Ittabena

reply to post by haven123

theres my 200th

Lol, cool dude. Welcome off probation. I remember that point for me.

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 12:37 PM by xacto

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

If it does pass (which it wont), ah nevermind lol.

edit on 16-1-2012 by xacto because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 12:45 PM by Muttley2012

I think Murdoch needs to keep his Aussie nose out of American politics.

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 02:56 PM by TupacShakur

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

Obama also was also supposedly against the NDAA, and his Administration spoke out against the indefinite detention of American citizens without a charge or trial, and even said they would veto it. But they lied, and he signed it into law. I guarantee a similar occurence with SOPA.

edit on 16-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 04:35 PM by xuenchen

reply to post by TupacShakur

According to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI),

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) on Senate floor explaining it was Obama who requested the provision for indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial.

Why Obama Will Not Veto NDAA Military Detention of Americans: He Requested It.

The White House never responded to those remarks that I know of !!

also See the video of Levin on the Senate floor

The SOPA/PIPA fiasco will be the same crap

edit on Jan-16-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-1-2012 @ 09:17 PM by newcovenant

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

O Bummer?

What are you like ...12 or 13?

So what are you saying you support SOPA? Is this an admittance?

Where do you get that? You began a thread bashing the President BECAUSE he did what you wanted him to. It doesn't make much sense. You don't make sense and from that you get - I support SOPA?

That is quite a leap there grass hopper.

edit on 16-1-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 12:00 AM by LordBaskettIV

The government only rejects this because it's an election year. They will pass this, lobby groups have pockets deeper than us...so we lose. The government/Fed gave trillions away in secret bailouts, and then told us YEARS later.

reply posted on 17-1-2012 @ 01:29 AM by Seagle

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
The government only rejects this because it's an election year. They will pass this, lobby groups have pockets deeper than us...so we lose. The government/Fed gave trillions away in secret bailouts, and then told us YEARS later.

I don't know...its not a great strategy to oppose something that Rupert wants in an election year. As a general rule it will usually be a career ending move.

reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 02:45 AM by korathin

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
If you read the twitter comments, you'll see when were "Rupert" says:

"Just been to google search for mission impossible. Wow, several sites offering free links. I rest my case."

First of all, how does he know they are legit links? Did he click on them to see? No.

Does he understand anything about online scams or phising. They guy is illiterate when it comes to technology, and just trusts the links he see's to be authentic.

It's on the internet, so it's must be real!