Murdoch attacks Obama administration on Twitter

Murdoch was very frank on his twitter account about myspace, which I liked. But attacking Obama is hardly a surprise, him being such a staunch republican.
 
When laws are made to protect the income streams of the rich and powerful - and those that break these laws are called criminals - one starts to realise that being labelled "criminal" may not be such a bad thing after all. This is nothing new, I know. Throughout the ages people have been punished and jailed for breaking laws made to protect the rich and powerful only.
 
Murdoch is one of humanities most evil humans, I dont think Obama is going to lose much sleep over this. Murdoch also attacks Google in his tweets. He is the worlds biggest *******.
 
Not often I agree with Murdoch, but I do in these instances
 
A person's worth is valued in money. Clearly he is not that dumb.
That being said, I'm not a fan of his

Certainly not. Most of the greatest people didnt care about money (Ghandi, Mother Teresa, etc). What a funny statement. A more correct statement would have been, "A person's worth is valued in money if the person doing the valuing values money more than other worths"

Anyways, in related news.

Obama Administration Comes Out Against SOPA And Protect IP
It increasingly looks like the SOPA/Protect IP fights are turning into an example of how the political system sometimes does work correctly after all. The con forces on these bills initially looked numerically overwhelmed in congress and hugely outspent. But opponents really mobilized vocally, got people and institutions who don't normally focus on politics to write about this, and perhaps most important of all demonstrated that more people genuinely cared about this issue than most members of congress initially realized. Now the momentum has slowed incredibly and the White House technology policy team has come out against these bills.

To look a gift horse in the mouth for a second, however, I note that the White House statement does contain a "reasonable" to-be-sure line stating that "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, and threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs."

It's clearly the case that there are specific individuals and firms who would be better off in a zero-copyright-infringement world. But it's almost inconceivable to me that such a world would be socially optimal. There is enormous deadweight loss associated with copyright, so the socially optimal quantity of copyright infringement is greater than zero even before you consider enforcement costs. For the economy as a whole, I've never seen any compelling evidence that online piracy is in fact a real problem. If it was a real problem, you would expect the problem to manifest itself in the form of consumers with cash in their pockets finding themselves unable to find songs to listen to or films or TV shows to watch. Obviously content-producers (like me!) would prefer to have higher revenues, but if there's a genuine problem here it should manifest itself on the consumer side as creators just give up on writing new books or whatever. To say that there's no real problem here isn't to say we need to move to a zero-copyright or zero-enforcement world, it's simply to observe that the enforcement status quo actually seems fine.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...on_comes_out_against_sopa_and_protect_ip.html
 
It is? Since when?

If he made his money through unethical means how does that make him a person of value?

What a dumb statement.
He still managed to do it.
Is a burglar manages to steal all of someones money, and gets away with it, he is clearly higher up on the food chain. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Money is the only way that mankind values things
 
Last edited:
He still managed to do it.
Is a bugler manages to steal all of someones money, and gets away with it, he is clearly higher up on the food chain. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Money is the only way that mankind values things

At the height of his Pablo Escobar was worth $25 Billion Dollars, he must have been a great man.
 
He still managed to do it.
Is a bugler manages to steal all of someones money, and gets away with it, he is clearly higher up on the food chain. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Money is the only way that mankind values things

Wow, I didn't know there was so much money in Bugling these days. :rolleyes:

bugler%202.jpg
 
He still managed to do it.
Is a burglar manages to steal all of someones money, and gets away with it, he is clearly higher up on the food chain. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Money is the only way that mankind values things
Certainly not the way I value stuff. Im not cheap. Money simply isnt good enough to be "good" or "great" or to have worth in my books.
 
Certainly not the way I value stuff. Im not cheap. Money simply isnt good enough to be "good" or "great" or to have worth in my books.

I can understand that. However, mankind does attach money to show worth. It might not be good or right, it just is.
 
A man's value is not determined by the amount of money he has but by the positive impact his wisdom, knowledge, talent, skills and resources make. A man can be very rich yet have a small or even negative impact on society. Many rich people got there by exploitation, theft, and worse. Personally I do not have a high regard for Rupert Murdoch.
 
A man's value is not determined by the amount of money he has but by the positive impact his wisdom, knowledge, talent, skills and resources make. A man can be very rich yet have a small or even negative impact on society. Many rich people got there by exploitation, theft, and worse. Personally I do not have a high regard for Rupert Murdoch.

"Many rich people got there by exploitation, theft, and worse." - And as I said, it might not make them nice people, but it certainly puts them higher up the food-chain. and thus they have more money/value/worth
 
JStrike, it seems we have different definitions of the terms "value and worth". Higher up the food chain has nothing to do with value and worth in my definition. Value/worth to me = positive impact applying wisdom, knowledge, talent, skills and resources. I guess one could argue that Himmler was very valuable to Hitler and the Nazi cause and therefore had much value/worth, but I believe the real value/worth will be judged by the majority impacted by your life (i.e. your legacy).
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X