Google Loves Obama [Reader Post] — {Does Google’s love affair affect Conservatives?}
FloppingAces.net
[Editor: Will Google use it's power to "push" Obama in the upcoming election? Is this 'love' relationship going to negatively affect the GOP or Conservative and Tea Party movement in 2012? Why is it that uber-rich jerks that made their wealth from capitalism turn against the very system that gave them this wealth? This perplexes me, the editor of this website. Good story from Flopping Aces!]
Despite his populist anti-free market rhetoric and record, the President has a love affair and relationship with a corporate giant. The company is Google and the incestuous relationship pays dividends to both parties but leaves taxpayers out as the third wheel.
Money magazine in an article entitled “Obama & Google (A Love Story)” described the love affair as “[F]rom his denunciations of Wall Street greed to his critiques of the auto manufacturers, Obama and his team have done little to disguise their mistrust of big business — except when it comes to one very large, very influential technology company.”
The relationship between the corporate giant and the president started before Obama’s ascension to the presidency.
Google has long supported President Obama. In his book, “The Audacity of Hope” President Obama embraces the relationship pointing out that Google managers and employees were among his largest supporters, donating nearly one million dollars to his campaign.
Google’s Investment in Politics Starts to Pay Dividends
BigGovernment.com
Posted Apr 11th 2011 at 2:02 pm
Google’s growing influence with government is beginning to pay dividends for the company while leaving consumers and taxpayers on the short end of the stick.
Since donating over $1 million to the president’s campaign and building its online presence and fund raising base, the company has reaped continued returns on their investment, so much so, that Google’s former CEO is rumored to be on the shortlist to be the nation’s new Secretary of Commerce.
In order to pad its bottom line, Google made a conscious effort to grow its influence in Washington by hiring insiders and placing Google executives in the Administration. In a short period of time, Google has been rewarded with over 25 contracts with government agencies including the NASA, the Pentagon and the National Security Agency.
Ok, Apply Net Neutrality to THIS
BigGovernment.com
Posted Mar 3rd 2011 at 5:04 pm
by Seton Motley
(Amazingly intricate and complicated photo/map courtesy of Peer1.)
Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | 
Media Marxists No Different: They’re Not Letting the Arizona Crisis to Go to Waste
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jan 11th 2011 at 12:07 pm
by Seton Motley
There was a cavalcade of Leftist – and media, please pardon the redundancy – politically opportunistic idiocy in response to this weekend’s horrendous Tucson, Arizona murders. Which were committed unilaterally and without any assistance from anyone by the deranged Jared Loughner.
Never ones to let facts get in the way of a good beating, a great many Progressives grabbed onto the complete lack of any evidence to assign complicit blame for the homicides to Governor Sarah Palin, conservative talk radio, the TEA Party and anyone else right of center of whom they could think.
This is of course just another Left attempt to silence speech they find unhelpful to the advancement of Leftism. Those who claim that speech with which they disagree leads to violence – aren’t at all comfortable with truly free speech.
The Marxist Media “reformers” at Free Press likewise rushed to not let this crisis go to waste.
I would like to specifically highlight the Twitter work of Free Press’s Campaign Director Tim Karr. Who jumped on board the blame bandwagon – and the shark – with a series of Tweets aimed at taking advantage of the Arizona body count to advance Free Press’s media “reform” agenda.
Tweet linkAn agenda which includes amongst many other terrible ideas the exponential expansion of the government funding of journalism – so as to improve it. Which is always what happens when you increase the government’s role in something.
The gallant and classy Karr unleashed a flurry of Tweets that connected conservative “haters” to the murders committed by a man none of them had ever met. And as if that weren’t sufficiently untethered from Reality, Karr also blamed the conservatives’ “media enablers.” As if the endless reams of evidence of the Leftist media on this and all things just… didn’t exist.
What Do the FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Mean for You?
PC Magazine
By: Chloe Albanesius
December 22, 2010
Net neutrality is in the headlines again, but what does it mean for you? Is this just some wonky, inside-the-Beltway chatter that won’t have an impact on our daily lives or an issue that will affect how we access the Web in the future? The short answer is: both.
The basic news is that the Federal Communications Commission approved net neutrality rules yesterday and those rules give the commission the authority to step into disputes about how Internet service providers are managing their networks or initiate their own investigations if they think ISPs are violating its rules.
One important thing to note is that the FCC hasn’t actually released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet. The Republican commissioners voted against the plan yesterday, and according to FCC procedures, the commission must respond to any dissent before releasing its rules. So it could be another day or two before the commission adds that response and publishes the rules.
That being said, the FCC did provide an overview of what’s included in the order and it breaks down to three high-level rules: transparency; no blocking; and no unreasonable discrimination.
Transparency: Does your ISP slow down its network at peak times? Does it have a usage cap? What about roaming fees? The transparency requirement basically requires broadband providers – fixed and wireless – to be more transparent about their activities. They need to be upfront about how they manage their networks, how well (or poorly) their networks perform, as well as details about their plan options and pricing. Most ISPs would argue that they already do this, but if you disagree, you could conceivably take it up with the FCC.
No Blocking: Much of this net neutrality debate started in 2007 when Comcast was accused of blocking access to P2P networks like BitTorrent because people using BitTorrent on Comcast’s network were slowing down the experience for everyone else. Comcast denied cutting off access completely but said it did delay access to P2P sites during peak times. Under the FCC rules, an ISP would not be able to pick and choose apps or service to block in order to improve network performance. Your ISP would not be able to block access to Netflix’s streaming service, for example, or Xbox Live just because a select few people were clogging the system.
Poll: Majority Oppose Net Neutrality Adoption
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 24th 2010 at 6:51 am
A new survey released Thursday revealed a majority of Americans oppose the Federal Communications Commissions proposed overhaul of the nation’s broadband regulatory regime.
The poll, conducted by Hart Research Associates, found that a full 75% of Americans nationwide believe the internet is “working well.” The survey also found that 55% of respondents believe that the government should have no hand in regulating the internet.
But for senior FCC brass, the heartburn does not end there: The poll of 800 likely voters found that a plurality of respondents conceded having voted for President Barack Obama in 2008, signaling to Mr. Obama’s White House that it may yet be losing Independent voters on another regulatory issue.
CWNews Posted Comments