backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by homebredcorgi.. on Oct 20 at 5:35 PM


Microsoft CEO Bill Gates (Left) and former President Bill Clinton (Right)  (Source: All Things D)
Microsoft made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in New York yesterday

Microsoft announced that it will help one million students from low-income families obtain broadband Internet access through a three-year commitment with the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a philanthropic organization operated by former President Bill Clinton.

According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there are approximately 100 million people in the U.S. without access to broadband. Within that 100 million are 9.5 million students that fall into a category known as the "digitally excluded."

A lack of Internet access can negatively affect a student in today's world because many aspects of our lives are now digital. The Internet is critical for research and even communication with the teacher and other students. Many schools even have websites where parents and students can check on school events, student grades and other pertinent information. Without the Internet, children do not perform as well in school and are more likely to drop out of high school, according to All Things D.

Students without Internet access are lost in the "digital divide," which refers to the social and economic challenges some people deal with when they don't have access to the Internet that many others take for granted. Microsoft wants to help bridge that gap through the three-year commitment with Clinton. This commitment aims to provide broadband access to the Internet for school-age students in low-income families.

Microsoft made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, which took place in New York yesterday.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Joz on 9/21/2011 10:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
Stupid laws preventing him from being president again.

But this is almost as good?




RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By amanojaku on 9/21/2011 11:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
Those "stupid laws" impose term limits, which are the only effective means of preventing dictators. When a president does something right, his/her successor would do well to continue with it, and this is brought up during the campaign. So, in theory, loosing a "good" president should not effect us negatively if we vote the right replacement in.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Flunk on 9/21/2011 11:15:07 AM , Rating: 1
Canada doesn't have term limits and hasn't been taken over by dictators. The UK also doesn't have term limits.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Paj on 9/22/2011 7:36:41 AM , Rating: 1
what's yours?


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Iaiken on 9/21/2011 12:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
Further, Canada and the provinces requires any such changes to the actual political system to be ratified by referendum. Any attempts by a political figure to seize greater power has always been voted down by a brutal margin.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Fritzr on 9/21/2011 1:14:39 PM , Rating: 3
American term limits came in when Roosevelt realized he was the first President since Washington to have a good shot at becoming President for life. One of the things he did right is make sure no one else would get a shot at it without amending the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_Un...
quote:
However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787–88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."[5] Both Jefferson[6] and George Mason[7] advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation."

As predicted, now that Senators are elected, we have multiple Senators-for-Life in office today. It has been noted in other places that a US Senator has great difficulty losing a reelection bid.
quote:
The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done....


Wiki may not be the most reliable source, but it makes a good starting point.


By NellyFromMA on 9/21/2011 2:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nor do I wish the USA to be anything like either of those two countries... btw, Clinton was ok, not that great. Not bad, but not phenominal. Most of the benefits you perceive as originating because of Clinton actually were risidual from President Bush before him.

Further, Bill Clinton actually planted the initial seeds of the mortgage crisis by even opening up sub-prime lending to begin with to those that couldbn't truly afford or simply were not responsible enough to pay them.

You know, the people that refuse to accept responsibility for contributing to causing this mess we're in. Ohw ait, its only the financial instutions that were greedy right... not the people who wanted homes without being financially able to and then expected to be relieved of responsibility without losing the property, right? lol...


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Taft12 on 9/22/2011 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
Uh... Yes we have been taken over by a dictator. When was the last time you ever heard a Conservative MP say something that wasn't towing the party line handed down from the PMO?


By homebredcorgi on 10/20/2011 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
They can also kick out their leaders at any time through a no-confidence vote.

The kicker is they can elect the replacement in less than a year too. Unlike the two-year long, constantly-campaigning even-while-in-office "election" process we have.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By kleinma on 9/21/2011 12:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
in theory, almost no one on the internet ever knows that loose and lose are two different things.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By danjw1 on 9/21/2011 5:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Was FDR a dictator? He was the reason that the amendment was passed. I don't mind limiting terms to 8 consecutive years, but I don't think a lifetime limit makes sense. He he can win again after leaving office, more power too him.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 7:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's bad enough we have career politicians and "public service" means you get to be a millionaire. But you people want career PRESIDENTS??

Fuck that. Besides President's aren't supposed to rule, they are simply supposed to be a steward of the nation for a few years.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Bad-Karma on 9/21/2011 11:06:20 AM , Rating: 1
The founding fathers were always leery of a president being in office so long that it started to resemble a monarchy. Washington set the two term president himself when he stepped down after 8 years.

Grant and Teddy Roosevelt both sought a third term which neither achieved. It wasn't until FDR (4 terms) that congress realized the danger with such a protracted presidency. The 22 amendment was signed in 1947 to prevent that from ever happening again.

Through the years the repeal of the 22nd has come up several times in both parties only to be totally destroyed before it ever leaves the committee.

The 22nd was put into place so that no one man could ever assume a monarch like status. Your dislike for the "stupid laws" shows your ignorance of the principles upon which this country was established.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Iaiken on 9/21/2011 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Your dislike for the "stupid laws" shows your ignorance of the principles put in place over 100 years after this country was established.


Fixed that for you. :P


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Fritzr on 9/21/2011 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_Un...
quote:
Term limits in the Constitution

In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term limits from the second national frame of government, i.e. the U.S. Constitution of 1787 to the present. Nonetheless, largely because of grassroots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed. Als,o George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition that prevailed (with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four terms) until the 22nd Amendment of 1951.

However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787–88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."[5] Both Jefferson[6] and George Mason[7] advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done...."[8]

Personally I would say your correction is incorrect. Term limits were left out of the Federal Constitution due to political deal making. They were in the various State Constitutions then and today. Perhaps you should do a little more digging into the history of these laws & principles :)


By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 12:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
"Your dislike for the "stupid laws" shows your ignorance of the principles upon which this country was established. "

I have great respect for the founding fathers. One of the things they knew is that they didnt know everything and allowed for change to be voted in later if something were to come up that needed change. That is the glory of the way they set it up... So to assume everything they had on the books was beyond ignorance shows your ignorance. If we left it the way it was we women couldnt vote and we would still have slavery.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
"Stupid laws preventing him from being president again."

I know. We could really use him again. Bush and Obama both cant seem to do a damn thing right. Bush took a great situation and managed us into the worst hole we have been in in generations and now Obama is just throwing dirt on the coffin rather than doing a damn thing to lift it out.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By FITCamaro on 9/21/2011 12:31:22 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah what we need is a guy who did nothing other than ride the successful policies of Reagan while gutting the military (part of why Bush Jr. had to spend so much rebuilding it WHILE fighting two wars). Ask what any member of the military who was there when Clinton was around what they thought of him.

Lets see not to mention a president who put Janet Reno in a position of power and let her force banks to give out more and more home loans to those who couldn't afford them under threat of taking away their FDIC insured status. One of the big things that set us up for today's mortgage crisis.

Lets see other things Clinton did...
- embarrassed the entire nation by lying about his infidelity.
- scrapped the shuttle replacement we had built except for the fuel tanks

All I can think of right now.

Most of the success of Clinton was also a result of the Republican controlled Congress. Then they lost their way near the end of his terms and started to act like Democrats.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 1:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
Coming from you this means nothing... You are as partisaned as a human being can possibly be.

In this day and age, where both parties are so clearly and totally inept that an ape could see it. To take such unbending sides as you shows your lack of vision and brainpower. Anyone as partisaned as you should seriously have their head examined.

As for Clinton, he took record deficits and turned them into slight surplus before Bush2 ruined it and Obama worsened it even more. And dont EVEN start to blame the left for the mortgage issues. As of January 2009 when BO took office the republicans had the white house for 20 of the previous 28 years and Congress for 12 of the previous 14 years. You simply cannot continue to make the case that its all the lefts fault when the right has had the vast majority of power in modern times.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By ebakke on 9/21/2011 1:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for Clinton, he took record deficits and turned them into slight surplus
The President gets just as many fiscal kudos as Congress, since they're the ones that gave him the bill to sign.

And second, I'll agree, President Clinton had the great fortune of presiding over a period of exceptional economic growth. That growth is what provided the tax base to spend as much as he/Congress wanted to, and still accomplish a surplus. I wish we could see what would've happened if the entire business world wasn't panicked about Y2K and dumping money hand over fist into their technology depts.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 1:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
I know, I was just shutting FitCam down. He constantly comes off with his rhetoric that every bad thing going on in this country is 100% the dems/lefts fault, as if they have even had anywhere near 1/2 the power in modern times.

Seriously, both parties are corrupt to the core and cannot be trusted. The sooner we all realize that and stop acting like FitCam and fighting each other, the sooner we can get back on the right track.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 4:37:33 PM , Rating: 1
Did you have to "shut him down" by repeating the same Democratic lie that Clinton had a "surplus"? The deficit grew under Clinton because of spending. You cannot have a "surplus" if you are increasing the national debt.

Clinton looked great on paper because he reaped the benefit of the ending of the Cold War and the reductions in military spending that came with it. And he was in office during the Internet bubble. If you can point me to some amazing economic policy of his that lead to any of these, I would love to see it.

I just find it funny that all these years later you people still need to defend Clinton; a President who was impeached. A national embarrassment.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Taft12 on 9/22/2011 11:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
Clinton and the USA were highly regarded around the globe during his tenure. There was much less to be embarrassed about during those days compared with the state of things today.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By wempa on 9/22/2011 12:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent post. While Clinton wasn't a terrible president, his success was greatly exaggerated. I always laugh when people say "the economy was great when Clinton was in office". Like you mentioned, a huge part of that was the internet/technology boom. It's also interesting that the came crashing down pretty hard after Y2K in 2000-2001.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 4:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
There never was a surplus under Clinton. There hasn't been a true "surplus" in a very long long LONG time.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

And yes, this is a Conservative blog so don't bother commenting on it. Obviously I couldn't find a Liberal one dissecting Clinton's "surplus". But the numbers come straight from the Government, and it doesn't take a mathematician to see the truth for what it is.

You cannot borrow from other budgets and claim we have a budget surplus lol. That's basically what Clinton did. And at no point in his 8 years did the national debt go down or even stay the same.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 4:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
oh please you are as partisaned as FitCam. Everything said above for him applies to you too. "In this day and age, where both parties are so clearly and totally inept that an ape could see it. To take such unbending sides as you shows your lack of vision and brainpower. Anyone as partisaned as you should seriously have their head examined."

Fine, Clinton has a near surplus. At least the budget was basically balanced, and started from deficit.

I will say this to you too... "As of January 2009 when BO took office the republicans had the white house for 20 of the previous 28 years and Congress for 12 of the previous 14 years. You simply cannot continue to make the case that its all the lefts fault when the right has had the vast majority of power in modern times."


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 5:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
You're confusing parties with idealism. There are many in my party I don't agree with. There are even a few Democrats who aren't total leftists.

I'm not really a Republican, I'm a Conservative. It just so happens that Republicans usually identify with my ideology.

But really man, you need to chill out a bit.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 5:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Cool... I hope you can at least agree that both sides in Washington, libs and cons are all screwed and are robbing us blind. The problems in Washington are not the fault of liberals, its the fault of all these jackasses on both sides we continue to elect and the system we allow to continue to exist.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 5:15:17 PM , Rating: 1
Well my thing is when Republicans were in office all those years, we never heard this "both sides suck" thing. Like ever, it was always Republicans suck. Now that Obama has turned out to be the huge bust he is, suddenly it's the "government" that's the problem. How convenient...

Which yes I agree. When you boil down to it the "problem" is the Government is not operating within it's Constitutional boundaries. Both sides do this.

But I would be lying if I said that I don't honestly think the Socialist push in America, which is doing and has done so much great harm, is mostly coming from the Left. Sorry that's just something I firmly believe.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By retrospooty on 9/21/2011 5:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, I saw that both sides sucked, but to be honest, I complained mostly about Bush because he was so god-aweful. =)... I personally loved Clinton though. The only decent president in my lifetime.

As far as Socialism, I dont think its all that. Socialism is a very far cry from govt. programs that we do and the dems support. With that said, I dont agree with the programs the dems support. The problem with them isnt bad intention or that they are socialist, its that govt. is too large to be efficient and these programs waste way WAY too much money.


By Skywalker123 on 9/21/2011 8:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you love him so much, why don't you give him a Lewinsky?


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By Taft12 on 9/22/2011 11:51:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well my thing is when Republicans were in office all those years, we never heard this "both sides suck" thing. Like ever, it was always Republicans suck. Now that Obama has turned out to be the huge bust he is, suddenly it's the "government" that's the problem. How convenient...


Bush's legacy is the War on Terror and the Iraq War II. It'll be hard for any future US president to top the suck factor there.

Obama wants his legacy to be a single-payer health care system. He won't get it while he's in office, but he may get some credit for finally getting the country going down that road.


RE: I'd vote for Clinton again...
By ebakke on 9/22/2011 2:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama wants his legacy to be a single-payer health care system. He won't get it while he's in office, but he may get some credit for finally getting the country going down that road.
Maybe. I wonder if he'll also then get partial credit for the ensuing bankruptcy that a single-payer health care system will inevitably usher in.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki