backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Feb 1 at 6:29 PM


  (Source: Getty Images)
Google is a close ally of the President and he's not above plugging it's social network

President Obama is perhaps the most technology-savvy president to date.  While the POTUS (President of the United States) has made plenty of controversial stands [1][2][3] over his presidency, he has made some changes that should be unilaterally welcomed and commended, such as the We the People White House webpage [press release], which allows citizens to create petitions directed at the White House and Congress.

The President has a special love for Google Inc. (GOOG), whom he appointed his official "video secretary".  Aside from broadcasting State of the Union addresses on YouTube, something that would surely give the Founding Fathers cause to chuckle, and pushing legislation via YouTube, he's also gotten into Google+ of late.

Google+ is Google's social network rival to the ubiquitous Facebook.  Unlike the Facebook's privacy-be-you-know-what policies, Google+ focuses on discretely sharing content with select circles of friends.

Today at 5:30 President Obama will host a "hangout" answering questions he's received in the past couple weeks on his YouTube channel.  

Google+ Hangout
A Google+ Hangout [Image Source: webbROI]

The President promises to answer the top rated questions, but the chat will likely provoke controversy, if previous chats on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are any indication.  In those prior sessions some accused the President of dodging the highest rated questions -- many of which were admittedly "tough" -- instead cherry-picking "layup" questions that were easy to answer and/or made him look good.

The President's support of Google also raises some eyebrows given Google's clever use of the "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" (legal) tax evasion strategies, funneling money through Ireland, the Netherlands and Bermuda, courtesy of federal loopholes, to avoid paying federal income taxes on its profits.  These strategies reportedly saved Google $1B USD in 2011 and cut the company's effective tax rate to 18.8 percent, far less than the standard 35-40 most small businesses pay on earnings.

Google officially raised almost a million dollars for the President's election bid.

This follows in the line of other key corporate friends of the President, such as General Electric Comp. (GE) -- a more extreme tax evader who made $14B USD in profit in 2010, yet received a tax refund of $3.2B USD back from the federal government.  Obama appointed GE CEO Jeff Immelt to lead his jobs board -- which helps decide federal tax policy -- also in 2010.

Obama also appointed John Doerr and (Intel Corp. (INTC) CEO) Paul Otellini to his jobs council -- both of whom are board members at Google.

Google is known for its informal corporate motto "Don't be evil."

Sources: Google+, Bloomberg, CNN



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: blah blah blah
By Spuke on 1/30/2012 5:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But whoever ends up being the winner will certainly be a far better President than what we have now.
Sorry but if Romney doesn't get the nomination, no one else stands a chance in hell against Obama. Sure as sh!t not Gingrich. LOL!


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: blah blah blah
By GotThumbs on 1/30/2012 7:15:16 PM , Rating: 1
I think Newt is trying to show that he will be a president that will work to bring both sides to the table...

so they can actually accomplish something positive...rather than cram some piece of legislation through...that still needs lots of adjustments.

I'm speaking of the "Health Bill". Obama was a fool to consider what other nations have built (Canada, UK, etc). While no system is perfect,... requiring people to BUY insurance has to be the lamest solution possible. While there are problems with Canadas system...It is true that EVERY CANADIAN has healthcare. You can't say that even now in the US. I would have like to see a slow move towards national health care...extend medicare's reach..to cover anyone whose employer does not provide coverage. There would be tax incentives for companies that do. Also, a national sales tax (2-3%) that would solely support the national program. Even illegals and tourists would be contributing towards it. If a person is laied off...whose employer provided insurance...they would then have access to the national system. But only in that case. We're not eliminating insurance companies, just building/fixing the current social healthcare program. Also, to meet the needs for more doctors...a federal medical scholarship...pays for a doctors schooling...as long as the student meets scholarship guidelines...(No D students, etc) and in exchange...they work for the Federal health care system for 10-15 years....as a reasonable salary of say 250,000 yr.


RE: blah blah blah
By GotThumbs on 1/30/2012 7:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
I meant....fool NOT to consider.

Need edit feature Please


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2012 5:22:25 PM , Rating: 1
Romney is a corrupt Wall St. sack of crap. I don't want him anywhere near the White House.

Santorum... meh, not really into the guy and he's just a wee bit too conservative on a few things.

Gingrich... I hate to say it but aside from his personal issues (only the first cheating incident was a problem... his second wife shoulda seen it coming so she has nothing to complain about) and his temper, he does have some sensible viewpoints as far as I see it.

He's the only guy I've seen with a reasonable response to the immigration "issues" our country has. He's not my first choice but I'd pick him over Romney for sure and probably Santorum.

I personally don't care for all three but I don't want Obama again either. It all depends on who the Independents can field... If they can put someone good on the ballot, they'll probably get my vote.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: blah blah blah
By martyrant on 1/30/2012 7:12:36 PM , Rating: 5
What I don't get is how you aren't for Ron Paul as he is the only one addressing any issues of value, is the only one who has actually proposed a balanced budget and real spending cuts, yet you name all the other three and say he's only about civil rights acts and stuff? What garbage are you regurgitating? You have a problem with your right to free speech, the right to a lawyer, etc.? Apparently you do if you're toting anyone but Ron Paul as he is the only one against some of these crazy things going on today.

I've said it before--there's an idiot tax in this country and there's a large population (aka everyone on this page, since none of you even mentioned Ron Paul except as a joke) willing to pay that tax. I invite you to youtube any of the Dr. Paul's debates and watch him school all 3 of those monkeys.

Stop swallowing all the crap you guys hear on the mainstream media who is owned by the corporations that own Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich and when they win they will call that debt due and all three of them will be happy to bend, bow, and grab ankles to please the corporate pillagers who will just give you another 4-8 years of the crap you've been fed over the past 12+ years.

Get with the program people, listen and think for yourself. Turn off the TV.


RE: blah blah blah
By martyrant on 1/30/2012 7:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
What I don't get is how you aren't for Ron Paul as he is the only one addressing any issues of value, is the only one who has actually proposed a balanced budget and real spending cuts, yet you name all the other three and say he's only about civil rights acts and stuff? What garbage are you regurgitating? You have a problem with your right to free speech, the right to a lawyer, to bear arms, to live your life the way you want and not the way some corporation or government tells you to? Apparently you do if you're toting anyone but Ron Paul as he is the only one against some of these crazy things going on today.

I've said it before--there's an idiot tax in this country and there's a large population (aka everyone on this page, since none of you even mentioned Ron Paul except as a joke) willing to pay that tax. I invite you to youtube any of the Dr. Paul's debates and watch him school all 3 of those monkeys.

Stop swallowing all the crap you guys hear on the mainstream media who is owned by the corporations that own Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich and when they win they will call that debt due and all three of them will be happy to bend, bow, and grab ankles to please the corporate pillagers who will just give you another 4-8 years of the crap you've been fed over the past 12+ years.

Get with the program people, listen and think for yourself. Turn off the TV.


RE: blah blah blah
By Nfarce on 1/30/2012 7:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest character flaw of Dr. Paul, if you want to call it that, is being a pacifist/isolationist who thinks the US can drastically reduce the scope of its military and mind its own business and all the world's problems and hostilities will magically go away.

We sent ships into the Arabian Sea to send Iran a clear and present message that their Straits of Hormuz aggression/closure WOULD be countered. It's amazing how they stop running their mouths when started doing our own sabre rattling.

While domestic issue management is important, so is international issue management. A balanced budget won't do America a whole lot of good if WWIII breaks out in the Middle East and then expands globally. Not any more than an Iranian nuke lobbed at New York or Washington based in their pal Hugo's Venezuela.

In any event, even with that said, I'll be voting for any Republican who gets the nomination to at least help send the narcissistic empty suit Divider In Chief (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/o... we have currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania packing and back to his cronies in Chicago. Even if it means Paul who has a myopic view of international affairs and problems.


RE: blah blah blah
By VERBW on 1/30/2012 8:30:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The biggest character flaw of Dr. Paul, if you want to call it that, is being a pacifist/isolationist


Seriously? That's the biggest flaw with Ron Paul?

I can think of some others.

http://i.imgur.com/qPCCI.jpg

Then again, I guess I've been brainwashed by the Liberal MSM.

Anyway, Santorum believes in the re-criminalisation of homosexuality. I don't understand how anyone could even consider voting for him, even if that was his only flaw.


RE: blah blah blah
By Nfarce on 1/30/2012 8:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Santorum is not really in the running. In any event if you think Congress, let alone SCOTUS, would allow Santorum to sign that nonsense into law, you don't have a clear grasp on how our federal government and Washington works.


RE: blah blah blah
By Nfarce on 1/30/2012 8:40:50 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, and yes, I'm aware of the allegations against Paul. But let's look at it this way in all fairness: if Democrats can elect an open former KKK Grand Kleagle to Congress for decades as the longest running Congress member in US history (Robert Byrd from West Virginia), then Dr. Paul who never was a member of the KKK should not be excluded from the presidency ballot and nomination.


RE: blah blah blah
By VERBW on 1/30/2012 8:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and yes, I'm aware of the allegations against Paul. But let's look at it this way in all fairness: if Democrats can elect an open former KKK Grand Kleagle to Congress for decades as the longest running Congress member in US history (Robert Byrd from West Virginia), then Dr. Paul who never was a member of the KKK should not be excluded from the presidency ballot and nomination.


No one is suggesting that he be excluded from the ballot, just that people who vote for him have to know about his past.

Electing an open former KKK member is just as bad, of course, and equally inexcusable. But like I said, no one is suggesting that they be refused the nomination (if he wins, he wins, that's how democracy works), just that no sane person ought to vote for them.


RE: blah blah blah
By Kurz on 1/31/2012 11:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
Know what about his past?


RE: blah blah blah
By VERBW on 1/30/2012 8:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Santorum is not really in the running. In any event if you think Congress, let alone SCOTUS, would allow Santorum to sign that nonsense into law, you don't have a clear grasp on how our federal government and Washington works.


No no, I understand absolutely. And I understand that he doesn't have a hope in getting the nomination, let alone the presidency.

My point is not that he would be able to pass any of that legislation, but I still find it disgusting that people would vote for him, regardless.

Luckily, as you pointed out, they won't.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2012 9:41:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anyway, Santorum believes in the re-criminalisation of homosexuality.


That's way out of bounds. I believe that was taken out of context from a philosophical discussion he was having on states rights. Just like Ron Paul was discussing states rights and the Civil Right's act and people flipped out and said he was for segregation.

As President, he would have no influence on such matters. He supports states rights. Any law signed by a state regarding such things would be heard by the Supreme Court anyway. He believes these are Judicial issues, not executive ones.

We elect President's, not dictators or kings.



RE: blah blah blah
By BAFrayd on 1/31/2012 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 2
Care to point out what, exactly, in the link you posted, shows Ron Paul to be a white supremacist? Oh, and by the way, try putting it into context and back it up with documented facts.

That link you posted is simply foolish...


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 3:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ron Paul might not be a white supremacists himself, but that link shows that a newsletter he knowingly published and supported was openly racist. He admitted he personally read them and signed off on them. He even defended them.

I don't know what to make of that. I really don't. But as far as his electability, can you imagine someone with this in his past debating Obama - an African American? How credible is he going to be once the media frames up that little soap opera and runs with it?


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2012 8:46:34 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for your assumptions but I can assure you I am one of the few people that DO care enough about voting to research what people stand for.

I have several problems with Paul that have always prevented me from voting for him. First and foremost, I have a HUGE problem with his view of the need to destroy the Federal Reserve. I think that is a disaster waiting to happen if he were to do that.

Secondly, I feel strongly against his stance on legalization of drugs. I've witnessed first hand the destruction they can cause and I don't wish it upon anyone else to go through with that.

Thirdly, I am not completely sold on the Fair Tax, nor ever have. I'm one of the few that actually believe the wealthy should fork over their fair share while the little guy should still pay some, it should be proportionate to their income in relation to their living needs and capacity to provide for them. The Fair Tax does not adequately address this issue.

Fourthly, I disagree with his stance on illegal immigration. Sorry, I feel that if someone has been living in this country for twenty years, providing for their families while running a legitimate business that benefits the community, they should instead have the option to pay a fine and then go through the normal procedures to become a citizen. My relatives were all immigrants and so were millions of other Americans. I have absolutely no hatred towards our Mexican neighbors and actually respect the hard work they go through to live and support their families. I think they should be forced to pay taxes and those that do not should face appropriate measures and penalties.

And that's just a start. I could name more but I've looked at Paul and I don't in all my inner searching find it in me the ability to vote for him. Some of these issues I believe too strongly in to just throw away.

Hence, my desire for an INDEPENDENT candidate. A candidate that owes their soul to NOBODY. No special interests and most importantly, NO PARTIES. Partisan politics are destroying our country and I stand by that.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2012 9:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fourthly, I disagree with his stance on illegal immigration. Sorry, I feel that if someone has been living in this country for twenty years, providing for their families while running a legitimate business that benefits the community, they should instead have the option to pay a fine and then go through the normal procedures to become a citizen. My relatives were all immigrants and so were millions of other Americans. I have absolutely no hatred towards our Mexican neighbors and actually respect the hard work they go through to live and support their families. I think they should be forced to pay taxes and those that do not should face appropriate measures and penalties.


Blastman, that means they've been breaking the law, several laws actually, for 20 years. That also means 20 years of paying no taxes most likely. That's behavior you want to reward? What kind of message does that send, and what kind of citizens are they going to be anyway if they cannot respect our country and it's laws?

Damn right many of our families came from other countries. Mine did, matter of fact. But it was done the right and legal way. My grandfathers first action in America was NOT breaking the law. Is that too much to ask of everyone? Apparently so...


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 12:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want to reward it--but, for those who have shown they manage to produce in society for 20 years... legitimately produce, then perhaps a penalty/fine--something. I can understand their plight and where they are coming from so I have a hard time faulting them for trying to better their lives.

It's a tough subject that I've thought a lot about. I used to listen to all the hatred spewed on the tube by the likes of Orelly and Hnity (filter) but after much thought, I found that the only way to truly look at it was by trying to put myself in their garment for feet (filter).

Now, I can't exactly do that, right? So the best I could come up with was trying to imagine what it is like to be in them. What would you do if you were them? Would you accept the reality of you not being able to do anything in Mexico while your families are threatened by drug overlords and corrupt police... or would you take a shot and try and do something better for them by coming over here?

I argue that if they prove they can be legitimate produces for our society... i.e. working for many years that can be "documented" through say word of mouth, community involvement... something more than just receiving a paycheck--then yeah, maybe they do deserve some form of a shot. What if they started a business and ran it for years for example?

Or--what if they served in our armed forces. I believe the simplest test for citizenship is service in the military. If anyone serves in a nations military in my eyes they are worthy of citizenship. Treat it like it were back in Roman times. If you lay your life on the line for your country, you should be an equal to your peers at the least, right?

So some form of penalty should be placed on them. I wouldn't go so far to say deport them all. It needs to be handled as I see it on a case by case basis. Like it or not, Mexicans are becoming a big reality to our nation. I learned Spanish years ago in school--took it for eight years. I'm glad I did rather than French, German or many other subjects. Where I live, hispanics are extremely common.

I don't want to reward criminality. However, what I do want to encourage is proper, orderly and productive integration into our society.


RE: blah blah blah
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 9:41:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't want to reward criminality. However, what I do want to encourage is proper, orderly and productive integration into our society.
Given what you've said, how is giving them citizenship NOT rewarding criminality?


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 11:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
Productive Integration. That's the key here. It is one thing to come to America, work odd jobs and send your money back overseas. It is another to come to America, start a business, employ others (even if it isn't completely kosher), become involved in your community etc. and raise a family. That's the difference I'm talking about for simplicity's sake.

Have you ever look at how hard it is to get a visa if you were a Mexican?

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb...

To become a naturalized citizen, you must first live in America for five years under a visa. That is, unless you join the Military, get married or a few other things. The majority of people are going to have to get a visa and work.

It is _hard_ to get that visa. Read the page, read the steps. It is neigh impossible for the average Mexican to get one--assuming they can comprehend the requirements due to their lack of education.

From all I read and see, Mexico is a broken country. A desert of lost dreams, empty hope and burned out solidarity. I know this is not completely true as I know some successful Mexicans in their own country but this is easily an exception to the rule. The wealth gap in America is broad but it is nothing like it is there.

So, what we have is a mass exodus of people looking for hope. Many of these people will not fall within the "productive integration" category, but some will. Those that do I think should be given a chance to make amends for their less than legal means of entry to continue providing what they have for years to our great country.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 11:51:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Have you ever look at how hard it is to get a visa if you were a Mexican?


It has to be. Blastman you write as if we can sustain unlimited numbers of immigrants. Or just an unlimited population in general. We can't. Some would argue we've already reached the tipping point on immigrant numbers. With tens of millions of people living here, using our services, while not paying taxes and sending a lot of their money back to Mexico to their families. This hurts our economy and isn't fair to the legal citizens of this nation.

You aren't arguing for immigration reform. You're flat out talking about a wide open border.


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 12:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You aren't arguing for immigration reform. You're flat out talking about a wide open border.


I'm not at all. This is what I said:

quote:
Many of these people will not fall within the "productive integration" category, but some will.


The net result will be a much smaller figure than we see now.


RE: blah blah blah
By thurston2 on 1/31/2012 10:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the best I could come up with was trying to imagine what it is like to be in them.


You have just earned my respect. Reclaimer77 is not capable of such an advanced thought process.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Okay well DT will NOT let me post my reply to you about this issue man. I don't get it.


RE: blah blah blah
By myhipsi on 1/31/2012 10:21:53 AM , Rating: 3
I would like to set the record straight on your points about Ron Paul.

Point 1: He doesn't want to "destroy" the federal reserve. He wants to allow competition in currencies. Right now, the dollar is the only legal tender. He wants to allow gold, silver, etc. legalized (as the constitution states). You should do some research on the Fed. Sure, the intention of it is to smooth out the business cycle and stabilize prices and employment. It not only fails miserably on either of these points (we still get business cycles, inflation is constant, and unemployment is too high), but it actually CAUSES the very things it was designed to prevent, like how it artificially keeps interest rates too low, for too long, which causes the business cycle.

Point 2: He's NOT for legalizing drugs. He's for ending the FEDERAL war on drugs (which is a disaster). States would be responsible for making their own laws, and regulations on drugs. Ending the federal drug war would also save approx. $15 billion a year.

Point 3: Though he argues that the fair tax would be better than the current system, he's never really backed it. He believes the income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto. To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, and massive cuts in spending.

Point 4: He's stated many times that you "just can't round up 20 million illegals and ship them out of the country". But he is for better border security (using the military that is currently protecting borders over seas) and a more efficient and streamlined system for LEGAL immigration.

You say you desire and INDEPENDENT candidate, one who owes their soul to nobody. The closes person that exists right now is RON PAUL without a doubt. The only thing he owes his soul to, is the U.S. CONSTITUTION.


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 11:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You say you desire and INDEPENDENT candidate, one who owes their soul to nobody. The closes person that exists right now is RON PAUL without a doubt. The only thing he owes his soul to, is the U.S. CONSTITUTION.


I wish I could vote for him. Of all the candidates in the last ten years, I've paid most attention to him, hoping, wanting, searching for a twinkle or spark that I need to ignite my desire to vote for him. He's always fallen short, though, every single time. He's come close on occasion, but sadly there has always been a few nagging points on his platform that have caused me bother.

We haven't had a single perfect candidate in over twenty five years, to be precise. So, to be fair, I look at every candidate and weigh their pros and tally their cons--and thusly compare and contrast them against their peers. Through a net sum process and a bit of abstraction, I come up with whom might be the closest, yet imperfect fit. Paul has yet to come out ahead here. The sad thing is, I've always wanted him to be the one that did.

It is bittersweet in my eyes--yet, I can't compromise. I've made a vow to vote from now on for the candidate that I feel will do the best for America, regardless of partisan squabbles or tilted scales. I vow to remain free of the bickering and incessant see-sawing struggle that taints our current process.


RE: blah blah blah
By VERBW on 1/31/2012 11:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Point 2: He's NOT for legalizing drugs. He's for ending the FEDERAL war on drugs (which is a disaster). States would be responsible for making their own laws, and regulations on drugs. Ending the federal drug war would also save approx. $15 billion a year.


Great, but then when the overwhelming majority of the states legislate to make drugs illegal anyway, who is going to enforce these laws? The states? They have to pay for that, you know.

The irony is, I'm willing to bet that if this happened, within 20 years' time, someone will say "wouldn't it be so much more efficient if our drug enforcement was centralised?"

Ending the "Federal War" on drugs will by no means end the war on drugs, and there's no guarantee it will cost the country any less.


RE: blah blah blah
By BAFrayd on 1/31/2012 3:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
You sir, have a fundamental misunderstanding of the founded intent of our federal government. What you claim as a "bickering and incessant see-sawing struggle that taints our current process" is EXACTLY what the founders of this country intended.

It was expressly designed to prevent harmony and easy manipulation, and it was NEVER designed to wield such enormous power and influence.


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 5:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
But I don't misunderstand the precepts of our Constitution. Our Government should at a Federal level wield limited power. Problems occur though, when the process halts to a standstill or becomes polluted through special interests.

The decision by our Supreme Court to allow Corporations to legally contribute to presidential campaigns is a travesty. They did this indirectly, however, through blocking the Government from preventing it--which, sadly, has sealed the fate of this issue.

Companies aren't people and their needs are self-serving. Sure, they serve their investors but in the end, the bottom line only matters and be darned at how any of their decisions effect legitimate citizens. Look no further than SOPA and the MPAA lobbying to try and get it passed.

You are sadly oblivious to what is really going on if you think the "process" is working as intended. I can assure you that it is not. It is broken at the core right now.

The only way to "fix" it is to end the two-party system and implement term limits. The only way to do this is... to vote people into office that are not affiliated with the two current parties (i.e. have nothing to lose by being in only a short time).

It isn't quite that simple though, as whoever we put into office might not vote themselves out of a job. We have to take a chance though.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 6:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But I don't misunderstand the precepts of our Constitution.


You sure?

quote:
The decision by our Supreme Court to allow Corporations to legally contribute to presidential campaigns is a travesty.


I thought you understood the Constitution? I think the First Amendment is pretty clear. Banning political speech, of all kinds, is Unconstitutional. The Federal Government has absolutely no business getting involved. Regardless of the consequences. It was censorship, plain and simple.

Especially the ban on running TV ads. I don't care what you think, that is purely censorship of a gross nature. Barring a group from using media simply because of their financial status is so un-American it's offensive.

quote:
The only way to "fix" it is to end the two-party system and implement term limits. The only way to do this is... to vote people into office that are not affiliated with the two current parties (i.e. have nothing to lose by being in only a short time).


LOL. You'll just end up with two different dominant parties. Instead of Dem and Rep, you'll have Independents and Libertarians or whatever. Don't you get it? Our political system cannot work without two opposing sides. It's not going to happen.


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 11:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought you understood the Constitution? I think the First Amendment is pretty clear. Banning political speech, of all kinds, is Unconstitutional. The Federal Government has absolutely no business getting involved. Regardless of the consequences. It was censorship, plain and simple.


I don't agree that a Corporation should be treated the same as a person, thus, their rights to free speech pertaining to certain situations -- i.e. contributions to Government should be limited. I'm sure _most_ Americans right now would agree that many of the problems in Washington are directly caused by Corporations and their influence over our lawmakers.

I think there needs to be a distinction... a clear one between a person and an entity such as a company. I can't just sit back and ignore how much more influence these companies can have due to their much larger pockets than the majority of people.

quote:
Don't you get it? Our political system cannot work without two opposing sides. It's not going to happen.


We need more than two man. Right now people see the only choice as being one or the other which is harmful. They have become "lazy" in accepting there are only two possible outcomes and thus ignore perhaps better candidates just because they aren't with one of the "two" parties. I don't want to get rid of the Republicans and Democrats--what I'd like to see happen is other parties/candidates get fair representation on the news, for instance. As it is right now, they don't--not even close. A big factor of that is money.

Question: How can you argue that a Corporation is a person when:

a. A CEO can make a decision to contribute to politics/campaigns without...
1. Shareholder approval
2. Employee approval

In other words, by proxy the CEO acts on behalf of everyone else's money without an initial vote. This is too much power and too much ability to influence things.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2012 6:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
I respect your opinion. Just right now, today, it's clear that the Constitution doesn't allow for a distinction between people, and people in groups. The legal term you're objecting to is called "Corporate Personhood". If you want this changed you'll have to amend the Constitution. Which, I believe, some are trying to do as we speak.

I'm not saying it's a perfect situation. I'm not saying that there won't be consequences. I just believe, as does the Supreme Court, that censoring the speech of an entity, regardless of financial status, flew in the face of the First Amendment.

Who decides what is allowed speech and what is not? If we let the Federal Government regulate political speech, no matter HOW noble the intention, we have weakened our most sacred and precious right. Our First right.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2012 9:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
Okay I can't stand it anymore. Doesn't Ron Paul himself know at this point he's not electable? Doesn't he know? And why don't you guys know? How many tries is it going to take.

Ron Paul's domestic economic policy is great. It's just everything ELSE that's the problem. And he articulates those other things very poorly. Better yet, some of them shouldn't be articulated at all.

quote:
Stop swallowing all the crap you guys hear on the mainstream media


Nice condescension lol. I think everyone here will tell you I'm certainly not a fan, or a user, of mainstream media. I can make my own mind up, thanks.


RE: blah blah blah
By myhipsi on 1/31/2012 10:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Okay I can't stand it anymore. Doesn't Ron Paul himself know at this point he's not electable? Doesn't he know? And why don't you guys know? How many tries is it going to take.


...and that is why you will continue to elect people that take bribes and money from special interest groups, corporations, etc, and f*ck you in the process.

The very people in politics that are "electable", in other words, slick, well dressed, charismatic, silver tongued, media friendly etc. and the very ones who will do whatever it takes to become president which includes lying and pandering to the public to get elected and then doing whatever it takes while in office to stay there, which includes taking bribes and pandering to the lobbyists and special interests.

You should respect the fact that Ron Paul is always honest and never flip-flops on issues. Why? Because he's a strict constitutionalist. He's willing to get booed on the debate stage, he's so principled (ridiculously booed for suggesting that we follow the golden rule when it comes to foreign policy).


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/31/2012 11:38:02 AM , Rating: 1
LOL Ron Paul is a career politician. He's been a Congressman for 25 years. If you think he's above influence and lobbying, well, he would be the first person EVER to stay in Washington that long and be.

I think the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters think he's some fresh maverick and don't even realize he's a career politician.

He's not electable, sorry. We need to win this election, not be super idealists while handing the White House to Obama for another 4 years. Ron Paul is a distraction and a waste of time.

quote:
You should respect the fact that Ron Paul is always honest and never flip-flops on issues.


I do. Does that mean, however, that I must agree with him on those issues? Or that I believe, if elected, he will even be able to follow through with them?

Come on, do you guys REALLY believe the President today can somehow eliminate the Treasury and force the "gold standard" on us just because he says so? You really see a majority in Congress voting for that?


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/30/2012 8:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Okay I think that's being a bit...simplistic and unfair.


I'm going to reveal something I'm ashamed to mention--I work on/with Wall Street. I _know_ how corrupt these senior executives and directors are. I know this for a fact and have witnessed it first hand. Having grown up in a family involved in Wall Street for over thirty years, I've seen a lot and heard of a lot.

I have nothing against people with money. I have everything to be wary of when it comes to someone from Wall Street that held an executive level position.


RE: blah blah blah
By Reclaimer77 on 1/30/2012 9:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be ashamed to mention that at all. Why should you be?

Anyway since your argument is based on personal experience and examples that I haven't shared or experienced myself, I can't comment. I just don't agree that "anyone" associated with Wall Street is automatically going to be a bad President.

Judging by Obama's failings, having someone that actually understands how Wall Street and our economy works might not be such a bad idea.


RE: blah blah blah
By MrBlastman on 1/31/2012 12:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well the biggest lesson I have learned is simple: You can't trust them and what they say. It's pretty bad walking around an office all day not being able to trust most of the people you work with. Sadly though, it is very much a truth.


RE: blah blah blah
By Spuke on 1/31/2012 9:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
I work for the federal government, I'm not ashamed and neither should you be.


RE: blah blah blah
By Darksurf on 1/31/2012 9:32:47 AM , Rating: 2
Romney isn't trust worthy. All he does is flip-flop. He says hes going to do one thing then does the opposite. Hes not the solid rock stand his ground guy that I want in the white house. For example, right now he claims hes against gay marriage and claims he always has been. Many of his claims he later contradicts and claims the other! He isn't trustworthy and hes too easy a target of attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/mitt-romn...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-consist...

http://wcfcourier.com/iowacaucus/profiles/barack_o...

I'm against gay marriage. Marriage is a religious thing that has been integrated into the world of government. No matter how the cookie crumbles the whole point and beginning of marriage says gay marriage is WRONG. I'm not against gays being together, but legal marriages are out of the question.

Everyone of the Candidates have their faults. They are human, not idols. But Romney is proving to adapt to situations through lies and flip flops. At least Newt is willing to stand his ground. Santorum isn't bad either, but I'm afraid he won't make it.


RE: blah blah blah
By Iaiken on 1/31/2012 10:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm against gay marriage.


There are numerous Christian churches that allow for it even though it is incompatible with the scripture. These include numerous Anglican, Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian and churches that will not only marry people, but ordain non-celibate gay and lesbian members to be ordained as ministers.

How do you reconcile free religion and the separation of church and state with the practices of these churches? Are they to be forbidden from carrying on and therefor not subject to the free practice of their religion?

quote:
I'm not against gays being together, but legal marriages are out of the question.


How do you reconcile the recognition of of a religious institution such as marriage, but not the legal civil union of two members of the same sex? In my eyes, the federal government should either recognize both, or recognize neither.


RE: blah blah blah
By thurston2 on 1/31/2012 10:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But why can't people get behind Santorum?


Because he's a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter.


RE: blah blah blah
By Ammohunt on 1/31/2012 4:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
The choice is simple really

Santorum = Legislator
Gingrich = Legislator
Obama = Legislator
---------------------
Romney = Executive

President of the United States = Executive Branch.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














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