Slashdot Mirror

Google is a huge company. It has over 70,000 employees across dozens of countries. it's quite possible (probably even likely) that there are parts of the organization where just about any viewpoint you can imagine is dominant (except maybe traditional conservatives).

Not sure what you consider a "traditional conservative", but Google is one of the five principle sponsors of the current CPAC raging on in all its wingnut glory.

If Google feels comfortable being a major sponsor of this Trump-fest I'm not so sure that "conservatives" are unwelcome there.

That boat sailed ages ago. The "NRA" opposes (with astonishing absolutist vehemence) the most basic commonsense background check rules that are supported by the majority of its own members.

The "NRA" has been successful in keeping its membership, but not by actually listening to them. It is a top down organization, and its leadership is simply part of the hard right corporatiss. Its only principle is what is to support whatever corporations (gun makers, ISPs) want.

By the way did you know that one of the five biggest sponsors of the right-wing sh!tshow that is this years CPAC is Google? Now thoroughly and totally evil, because there is no such thing as enough money.

So, what exactly is Google for you then? A bunch of hypocrites who hang out with right-wing fascists perhaps: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/ ?

This is what your beloved Google hypocrites do: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/

About Moronola, who cares? They've been irrelevant for at least 5 years.

What's that "Google" you are talking about, the hypocrites that sponsored this: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/ ?

Why does that make Google hypocritical? I'm not saying it doesn't, just wonder if there's some reason behind your rant. My guess is that Google sponsored it in order to fight SOPA / PIPA, since that's been the primary focus of Google's political lobbying recently.

What's that "Google" you are talking about, the hypocrites that sponsored this: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/ ?

If he wanted to criticize the Google creeps he could have pointed out this: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/

It is very unfortunate that the Google hypocrites you like so much engage in things like this: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/

--
Google parties with right-wing fascists. Boycott Google today!

This is what your beloved Google hypocrites do: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/

--
Glass

Hey, what do you think of the Google assholes sponsoring this: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/

Although the NRA assholes sponsor it as well, so that will probably make you happy, you stupid hunting shithead!

This is what your beloved Google hypocrites do: http://cpac2012.conservative.org/sponsorship/2012-sponsors/

You have to understand that Thomas Friedman is an avatar of ineptitude. I can't possibly outdo Matt Taibbi's take on his recent book, so I'll link it.

But let's look at why this effort is doomed to failure. Friedman recommends it, so that's strikes one, two and three already. If Friedman said pants were convenient and comfortable, you'd be best advised to buy a kilt. He has such an incredible track record of being utterly wrong about everything imaginable.

Serious reason: It's centrist. According to voting records meticulously compiled by the right and the left, the voters will elect, at any given time, virtually no moderates whatsoever. If you're a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican, your legislators tend to vote, contrary to popular griping, 80% to 90% in line with your views. What people are really bitching about when they claim the parties are the same is that they're not getting their way, which is the whole point of the system.

The only reason we have moderate legislators is because some states happen to be evenly split. There is no centrist "base" for a centrist party to draw from, not in the US, not anywhere. There is no base because there's no ideology for them to get fired up about. An ideology can rest on a vision (e.g. progressivism) or principles (e.g. conservatism), neither of which centrism has.

The major parties duke it out to try to win the best compromise they can get for their base and centrism is a reaction to this. It is effectively saying that, somehow, they can arrive at a better compromise without the uncivilized process of duking it out. But to believe that you can arrive at that compromise without the fighting, you have to believe that people with passionate beliefs don't really mean it or you have greater insight than pretty much everyone or, as proof that establishment types can be conspiracy theorists too, shadowy figures are stirring them up to further their evil ends.

And, as the parent avers, it's already not terribly centrist. Most of these "non-partisan" organizations drift towards liberalism over time, the exact reasons for this dynamic are hard to pin down, but it happens all over the place.

there is no such thing as a conservative

I strongly suggest that you look up the words conservative and conservatism on webster.com, as they (along with millions of Americans) seem to disagree with you. While there isn't a "Conservitive" party in the US at the moment, there has been conservative groups for years - see http://www.conservative.org/ for one example. Wikipedia has a nice article too.

Criminal Penalties Suggested in S. 2560 are Anti-Consumer and Set Dangerous Precedent, Says ACU

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/040920.asp

"Oh, BTW, this is the same Ashcroft that lost an election to a dead man and Bush appointed."

Indeed, he was appointed at the behest of the ACU (American Conservative Union), which later issued a statement following the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act (since when is it patriotic to shred the US Constitution?) stating that many of their constituents regretted its support for his appointment. Aside from that, all reports indicate that even the rest of the Bush Administration doesn't like Ashcroft. A part of me thinks that he might not be part of the package if Bush wins re-election.

Oddly enough though, John Ashcroft has managed to unite the left and the right. Groups such as the ACLU and the ACU (at completely different ends of the political spectrum) are actually issuing joint press releases stating their belief that he is the single greatest threat to American liberty right now.

"Oh, BTW, this is the same Ashcroft that lost an election to a dead man and Bush appointed."

Indeed, he was appointed at the behest of the ACU (American Conservative Union), which later issued a statement following the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act (since when is it patriotic to shred the US Constitution?) stating that many of their constituents regretted its support for his appointment. Aside from that, all reports indicate that even the rest of the Bush Administration doesn't like Ashcroft. A part of me thinks that he might not be part of the package if Bush wins re-election.

Oddly enough though, John Ashcroft has managed to unite the left and the right. Groups such as the ACLU and the ACU (at completely different ends of the political spectrum) are actually issuing joint press releases stating their belief that he is the single greatest threat to American liberty right now.

Neither organization would consider McCain's 2001 year to be "highly conservative." The American Conservative Union rates senators on this page. A higher rating means more conservative. For example, Arizona Republican John Kyl scores a 100 (very conservative) while California Democrat Barbara Boxer scores a 0 (very liberal). Senator McCain scored a 68 in 2001. In 2000 he scored 81 and his lifetime rating is 84. He is obviously becoming more liberal by these ratings.

McCain wasn't the lowest scoring Republican, as Sen. Spector from PA and both the Maine senators scored lower. McCain also scored higher than any democrat, the most conservative of whom is GA's Miller, with a score of 60. For reference, Sen. Lott scored 96 and Sen. Frist scored 100, while Sen. Daschle scored an 8 and Sen. Kennedy scored 4. So, by ACU standards, he is one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, though he should not be called a liberal.

The Americans for Democratic Action have a similar system, but they score it oppositely: a rating of 0 = very conservative and a rating of 100 = very liberal. You can see a .PDF file of the 2001 ratings on this page. Sen. McCain scored a 40, higher than the lowest Democrat (Sen. Miller of GA) who scored a 35. By ADA reckoning, McCain was tied for the most liberal Republican Senator (with Spector (PA) and Sen. Snowe (ME)).

His Stances and choices usually support what the Democrats want, and often exceeds their wildest dreams.

Give us some examples.

The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Act. This act was assailed by many conservatives as being unconstitutional and giving incumbants free reign in their campaigns.

Oh, I forgot - liberal you say? Well, the American Conservative Union (the same people who fought to have Ashcroft appointed to AG) are now sorry they ever supported him. So feel free to call them a bunch of stupid liberals as well. Thanks, and you have a nice day :)