Facebook Forming a PAC

DougDot writes "According to a recent SFGate article, 'Social networking giant Facebook is expanding its political footprint, confirming that it has filed the necessary paperwork to open a political action committee in advance of the 2012 elections. The move is the latest in a series of maneuvers boosting the Palo Alto company's political profile in recent years, joining a steady rise in lobbying spending, several high-profile fundraisers and the failed statewide candidacy of one of its key officers for attorney general last year.' With 800 million users in its social network, and with very deep pockets, we could have a new, powerful Congress-influencing entity steering American politics."

Comments

Good! I love it!

[xevioso]

As long as Zuckerberg doesn't start trying to get us to kill our own bison and eat it.

This will be highly successful

[Call Me Black Cloud]

"Senator, we were browsing through your Facebook messages and noticed a few interesting exchanges with 14 year old girls, your mother-in-law, and a llama rancher. I'm sure you can now see your way clear to vote against additional consumer privacy safeguards."

Re:This will be highly successful

[Bucky24]

Heh, facebook owns the database. They could CREATE the messages if they wanted to.

Re:This will be highly successful

[MrBigInThePants]

That would be highly illegal and corrupt way of doing it!

A much simpler method is to donate money to the campaigns of politicians. No less corrupt but legal!

Re:This will be highly successful

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't have to create anything. They could selectively aggregate opinion from like-minded users.

Corporations, modern fiefdoms, are people too.

-- Ethanol-fueled, karma-banned.

Re:This will be highly successful

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be highly illegal and corrupt way of doing it!

A much simpler method is to donate money to the campaigns of politicians. No less corrupt but legal!

wait, since when is illegal and corrupt bad ? all the cool kids would just laugh at you for being behind times.

Re:This will be highly successful

[sumdumass]

since when is donating to candidates who have like minded opinions corrupt too? It's one of the cornerstones of most free political systems

Re:This will be highly successful

[ScentCone]

A much simpler method is to donate money to the campaigns of politicians. No less corrupt but legal!

>
Just out of curiosity, what is corrupt about supporting a candidate that you think is a better representative for what you think is important than is some other candidate? If I think that somone I like should be able to buy better signage or a more well-oiled campaign web presence, or less cheesy TV ads, etc., what is corrupt about pitching in?

Re:This will be highly successful

[Anonymous Coward]

You know damn well.

Re:This will be highly successful

[TheRaven64]

There's a fine line between finding a candidate who already has opinions that you agree with and getting a candidate to agree with opinions that you hold in exchange for campaign funding. This is why legislation is so difficult in this area. Most people would agree that the first is fine but the second is not, but it's often difficult to distinguish between the two. If a candidate has no opinion about a topic, and I donate to their campaign, are they going to support me when the time comes?

Personally, the big change that I'd like to see is requiring all political contributions to be anonymous and to go via an intermediary that makes it impossible to prove that you made the contribution. If you support a candidate, you'd be able to give money to their campaign, but you wouldn't then be able to say 'I supported you, now you owe me a favour' because someone else would be able to make exactly the same claim and neither would have the ability to back it up with evidence. You'd still be able to throw money at candidates with opinions that you supported, but it would be much harder to buy the opinions that you want.

Well, the change I'd really like to see is people voting based on an informed review of their candidate's position, rather than on what they saw in adverts, but that's not very likely...

Re:This will be highly successful

[cavreader]

Candidates have a long history of modifying their principles based upon how much money they can collect. In down and dirty politics principles are for sale and the candidates collecting the money tend to rationalize this behavior by convincing themselves that after they are elected they will revert back to their original principles. However, the people donating money usually expect something in return and if they feel they are not getting something in return the money will go somewhere else in the next election cycle. And seeing that the US political incumbents spend 90% of their time running for election starting the day after they are elected they never get the opportunity to revert back to their original principles. Every decision that incumbents make are predicated on how a particular decision will effect them in the next election instead of on the merits of the issue being addressed. The best thing to fix this situation would be to set hard limits on the amount of money that a candidate can receive and remove all of the loop holes that corporations and other wealthy political lobbyist concerns use to funnel bypass the contribution limits. Every candidate should receive the exact same amount of money from the government and no additional money should be allowed. TV time, which is very expensive should be equal and paid for by the government. The government already provides candidates with campaign funds if they meet certain requirements. Every candidate and political group already has access to the Internet for campaigning and the cost is usually just the hosting fees, and technical support staff to administrate their Internet presence which is far cheaper than paid TV commercials.

Re:This will be highly successful

[TheRaven64]

The problem with this idea is that it makes it very difficult for new parties. Does the rule of every candidate getting equal funding apply to anyone who puts his name forward? If so, then it's a good way of getting free advertising ('Vote for Joe, who has spent years serving the community as the proprietor of Joe's automobiles on the corner 3rd and main street...'). If you make the barrier to entry too high, then you discourage legitimate parties.

Re:This will be highly successful

[jahudabudy]

In theory, it's great. Even in practice, it is sometimes fine. Too often in practice, it's less "donating to like-minded candidates" more "donating to every candidate to make sure whoever wins is like-minded". It has become little more than legal bribery to candidates, just another business strategy available to those with the capital. Especially at all of the state and county levels that I have paid attention to.

Re:This will be highly successful

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know if I should sign this bill into law, let me check my Facebook poll"

Re:This will be highly successful

[Idetuxs]

What about those news on how facebook posts may be relevant to a court case. (in court be careful what you post on facebook; court demands private facebook data) So according to this if one of database maintainers on facebook slips a "yeah, i stole him" post on your account you are kind of screw.

Re:This will be highly successful

[Bucky24]

Basically, yeah. It would be hard work to prove that you didn't make the comment, unless there's some kind of tracking on the database server as to what user entered the data. I'm sure that FB would fire anyone they caught messing with the user data (well, mostly sure), but the fact remains that someone has access to that database and that someone can do anything they want with that data.

Re:This will be highly successful

[cavreader]

I think this would especially benefit new parties as well as existing parties. Parties do not end up on the ballot choice. A voter can support all of the candidates of a political party but not the party itself. It's the individuals supported by the party that end up on the ballot. All Presidential campaigns currently receive the same amount of money when officially placed on the final ballots. Until the maximum allowed donations reaches the specified limits they are free to accept donations from individuals which are already limited and the loop holes used by special interest groups using 501 corporation rules would also be neutered by the imposed limit. If a new or existing party wishes to enter into the contest they are free to solicit money until they reach the proscribed limit. If some off the wall parties or candidates cannot collect the maximum allowed donations to begin with their viability will be in jeopardy. The program of the government could employ a matching funds approach. If some off the wall party gets donations of $20 dollars the government would only give them $20 dollars.

Re:This will be highly successful

[KingBenny]

i sent the request to have my facebook accounts deleted, i'm still waiting for a reply from the privacy committee to see if i have any law backing me so i can demand they actually delete all data they have about me

I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[damn_registrars]

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[ALeader71]

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

I bet he goes for both parties as a lot of PACs do today. Why limit yourself, when both parties are equally malleable? All he has to do is make a case for job creation and the politicians will line up to hear his pitch (after collecting the checks of course).

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

Zuckerberg is a Liberal - but that doesn't mean much. Liberal is just the banner the absurdly wealthy fly to get the gullible and naive on their side. They always use influence to their own interests, whether those interests require oppression or more votes to allow for that oppression is the only real factor when gauging how they interact with the rest of society. Just look at the war on the middle class - ie: small business owners that pose the largest threat in the world to upsetting the current balance of power held by the elite. Businesses really aren't the enemy, until they become huge and omnipotent - yet the largest group to cry out against businesses is the only group all the major business leaders are a part of - the democratic party. It's almost paradoxical, but then again the Nazi's were the socialist party - so if you look at what has repeatedly worked through the course of Human society to suck a civilization dry, it makes sense.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[sumdumass]

Most PACs, at least the more visible ones, tend to be disguised arms of political candidates and parties. Take the AARP for instance, They have never showed support for any republican concept in the last 20 years, unless it was in a primary contest and purposed by one of the lesser popular candidates. they drop that stand or ignore it in term elections.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[thatskinnyguy]

Godwined.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all you GOP haters thought that only Bible thumpers were Republicans. Zucker is an atheist. According to your ilk he'd be taken out and burned at the stake for such a crime if the GOP had their way.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the behavior or big corporations reminds me of a scene in the Woody Allen movie "Bananas". The CIA is sending in troop to a revolution in Latin America. One of the troops ask if they're going to fight for the government or the rebels. Their leader replies that this time the CIA is taking no changes - half the troops will be fighting for the government, and half fighting for the rebels. Basically, no matter which side wins, they have influence.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

New money may lean left but old money leans right. The absurdly wealthy individuals (new money) really have little wealth compared to the absurdly wealthy families (old money). Which group you side with is up to you. The only that earned the wealth or the one that inherited. Some people have always supported their Kings.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all you GOP haters thought that only Bible thumpers were Republicans.

You thought wrong. You're making the same mistake as the post you're replying to, stop being so presumptuous.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

When I look at the Forbes list, the top 3 (and 5 of the top 10) are what I would consider "new money". Bill, Warren, and Larry account for 45% of the value
of the top 10.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis were NOT the socialist party. They were strongly anti-communist and the Strasserists, who were never all that powerful, were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Learn your history, fascist

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its a old news. Read Here:
http://www.techgineering.org/2011/09/27/2680/facebook-to-add-its-own-pac-political-action-committee-registered-fbpac-org-and-fbpac-us/

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Big business owns, and loves, Obama, just like Clinton before him.

Don't buy into that silly myth that the dems are the party of the people. Look at the actual evidence.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis were NOT the socialist party. They were strongly anti-communist and the Strasserists, who were never all that powerful, were purged in the Night of the Long Knives. Learn your history, fascist

Stop trolling and learn yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[homer_ca]

Big money bets on whoever's going to win. The Republicans do their bidding unabashedly, while the Democrats pay lip service to their base before doing their bidding.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're really fucked up.

Do you even know the difference between the truth and a lie? Have you ever told the truth?

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Zontar The Mindless]

The Nazis were many things. 'Socialist' was not among them.

Yes, 'Socialist' appeared in the official name. No, it did not mean anything.

In fact, real Marxists were amongst the first to get rounded up and put into camps. Or shot.

So please STFU and go read (and not skim) some history.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Zontar The Mindless]

It would also be helpful if he could keep his World Wars straight...

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nazis were many things. 'Socialist' was not among them.

Yes, 'Socialist' appeared in the official name. No, it did not mean anything.

Just like "democrat" appears in the name of the "democratic party" yet the leaders of the organization lack any symbolism of democracy in their legislation and enforcement/repeal thereof.

The ideals used to gain political power are always the same, as is the fact they are unrealistic and anyone attempting to campaign around them is short-sighted, simple-minded and evil enough to build a new holocaust to save their own skin for as long as possible.

In fact, real Marxists were amongst the first to get rounded up and put into camps. Or shot.

Marxists are not socialists, and I never claimed they were.

So please STFU and go read (and not skim) some history.

Your show of emotion is irrelevant and does not change my grasp of history, and I'd suspect the average intellect of a /. reader to be at least high enough to read for themselves and find the facts - sadly you don't seem to reach that bar.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[roman_mir]

AFAIC if he paid $300.18 in income taxes he got majorly screwed. After all, 50% of population isn't paying federal income taxes, how unlucky is the guy to get into the wrong half of the population?

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Zontar The Mindless]

Marxists are not socialists, and I never claimed they were.

And you are obviously a crank and/or you have a not-so-well-hidden ideological agenda.

In either case, I've better ways to waste my time. We're done here.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[TheRaven64]

The top 10 doesn't mean much. Try the top 1%.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[vinlud]

Source?

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Maybe its because the Republicans want to privatize Social Security while reducing if not eliminating Medicare and Medicaid which many senior citizens depend on?

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[sumdumass]

That's a pretty good soundbite. but doesn't match reality.

Medicaid has nothing to do with seniors, Its a state run ordeal that deals with the indigent. The cuts to medicare that I know of seem to be surrounding a means testing in which the rich seniors who wouldn't be dependent on medicare would have to pay for coverage, and I see nothing wrong with privatizing social security. It's not like there won't be rules on it that already are in place for anyone else involved in an existing retirement program outside of Social Security. In fact, there would probably be even more rules in place that would have largely negated any lasting impact of crashed like the recent one.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Sounds like you need a reality check.

A large number of seniors living on limited, fixed income qualify for Medicaid, I have known seniors who had both a pension and social security who still qualified for medicaid.

As for privatizing Social Security, look at what happened to Lehman Brothers. Also the same people who are wanting to privatize are also want to deregulate. Even now there are people in congress who want to remove the regulations that were put in place after the crash. And even with regulations in place, they still have to be enforced look as Madoff and Enron, regulations were in place but either never enforced or enforced after it was too late.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[sumdumass]

I does appear that medicaid is in the business of seniors now.
https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2038/~/what-is-the-difference-between-medicare-and-medicaid%3F
Last i had to deal with either, medicaid shove you onto medicare when you turned into a senior.

As for privatizing Social Security, look at what happened to Lehman Brothers.

and? Just because they went under doesn't mean their customers lost anything. But even if they did, it's no different then Carter cutting social security payouts (set cost of living allowance increases below the rate of inflation having a negative benefit payment effect) in the middle of largest and fastest bought of inflation i have seen in my lifetime.

There is a reason why the inflation index does not include the cost of fuel or food- even when its long term.

Also the same people who are wanting to privatize are also want to deregulate.

Deregulate what? There are a lot of things that need to be deregulated. Deregulated does not mean no regulations, it means getting rid of the unproductive regulations. Sometimes that happens without problems, sometimes it does not. More problems are created by regulation BTW. If you do not believe me, just take a look at health care in the US and HMOs. Congress invented HMOs in 1968 in an attempt to control social security spending and has kept a heavy hand at regulating them ever since. But the democrat gem now is claimed to be the root of all evil in health care and reason to why they need to change everything in all their wisdom once again.

Even now there are people in congress who want to remove the regulations that were put in place after the crash

Regulation does not automagically mean better. Without you specifically mentioning what regulation you are referring to, I can only guess. But Bad regulation is more often then not, worse then no regulation. Do not confuse removing bad regulation with problems of no regulation.

And even with regulations in place, they still have to be enforced look as Madoff and Enron, regulations were in place but either never enforced or enforced after it was too late.

Enron and Madoff could not have been caught sooner. There is rumor that people complained to the SEC over Madoff but documented checks turned up nothing. You know why? Because they falsified their documentation and set out on a path of purposely defrauding people. Your statement has the tone of which you would like to stop a drunk driver from crashing into a family of 5 because the cops should have somehow stopped them sooner because there is regulation against being drunk in public and operating a motor vehicle while drunk. But here is the problem, if the drunk, or the next Madoff, or whomever, hide their illegal activity, you cannot do anything until such time that lie is exposed.

Hopefully, that exposure occurs before anyone is seriously hurt, and often it does, but sometimes it doesn't. When someone sets out to deceive and lie to people, you generally do not know until its too late and there is really no way or little way to know until someone has been harmed.

But this still has little to do with the privatization plans i have seen.

800.000.000 users in its network

[Anonymous Coward]

So you expect all of them to contribute to this PAC, even if they are not US citizens?

Re:800.000.000 users in its network

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we get a new Slashdot meme? The whole 'not everyone lives in the U.S.' is old. Very old. I also find it kind of sad.

Re:800.000.000 users in its network

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Because obviously everyone does live in the U.S.!

Fucking moron.

Re:800.000.000 users in its network

[Zontar The Mindless]

Not even all Americans live in the US.

(And from Stockholm I bid you a hearty US Grade-A Go Fuck Yourself.)

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

What are the chances that the sole purpose of this PAC is to loosen privacy laws so as to aid spying on it's users? Very high.

Re:ugh

[electron sponge]

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

What are the chances that the sole purpose of this PAC is to loosen privacy laws so as to aid spying on it's users? Very high.

+1 Insightful.

This PAC is about nothing else except protecting Facebook's golden-egg-laying goose.

Re:ugh

[game kid]

Which "users", the common folk or the brand-name advertisers?

Re:Good! I love it!

[Call Me Black Cloud]

You have a bison? Good God, man, how big is your backyard? I can't walk up the stairs in my house without stepping on a cat - a bison would be right out!

The Koch Bros of social networking

[countertrolling]

First on the agenda, make privacy illegal, and put anybody that desires it on the no-fly list and tag them as un-American terrorists

Re:The Koch Bros of social networking

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been living the last 30 years? Privacy is dead, google it. And those people are already on the list, tagged as un-American terrorists.

Re:The Koch Bros of social networking

[TheCouchPotatoFamine]

Privacy is not dead. What we have is the failure of open-source distribution engines to provide a way to interact socially... in private. What is Facebook more then some storage and ssh-sessions between friends? Is it as easy as using Facebook? why not - Facebook is just a freaking email thread and a picture viewer! Privacy is down, but not out!

Brilliant? Not.

[erick99]

Another brilliant PR move by FaceBook. Stepping on their collective dicks seems to be a growing trend within the company.

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[obarthelemy]

The don't have much of a choice. It's either pay up you r lobbyists and campaign contributions, or be trampled. Politics has become a racket.

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[sumdumass]

You know, when a company or organization has a large volunteer base of affiliates, its just a matter of time before someone gets the idea of exploiting it for political gain.

The interesting thing here might be the ability of political candidates to use the service within their campaigns or not in the future. Maybe that is what they are looking for.

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[Dragon Bait]

The don't have much of a choice. It's either pay up you r lobbyists and campaign contributions, or be trampled. Politics has become a racket.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke

An honest politician is one who, when he's bought, stays bought. -- Simon Cameron

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[electron sponge]

Politics has become a racket.

You say that like it's something new. Politics has always been a racket, as long as there's been money to grease palms. And before that I'm sure they worked out some sort of barter.

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[GameboyRMH]

Average Joes won't know or care about this, or even understand the implications if they did. Facebook won't harm themselves by stirring up our impotent nerd rage.

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[GameboyRMH]

Insightful. Politics being a racket is the norm throughout history, with a few short-lived, localized instances of not being so much of a racket.

I could use some representation

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh nice, another company influencing government.
When can I get a PAC of my own?

Also: http://occupywallst.org/

Re:I could use some representation

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Oh nice, another company influencing government.
When can I get a PAC of my own?

When you are very rich, or when you are modestly rich and agree with an existing PAC.

Re:I could use some representation

[Dragon Bait]

Oh nice, another company influencing government. When can I get a PAC of my own?

Nothing stops you from forming your own PAC now. Without a lot of seed money, you'll have to work that much harder to make it influential. But a PAC with a 1,000 people donating $10 is worth more than a PAC with 1 person donating $10,000.

Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[Dragon Bait]

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama.

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time. But Zuckerberg personally hadn't donated enough to show up on the Fed's radar in 2008 or 2010.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[damn_registrars]

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama.

That could have just as well been a PR stunt for him. That, and he wasn't worth quite as much money then, either. But really, if you are trying to draw attention to your company and you have a choice between a geriatric white guy or the first black guy to win the presidential endorsement from a major party in our country, the choice is obvious.

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time. But Zuckerberg personally hadn't donated enough to show up on the Fed's radar in 2008 or 2010.

I would advise against confusing facebook employees and their politics with those of the head of facebook. I haven't heard of any other billionaires from that company.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[prostoalex]

* Any time somebody votes GOP, they do it out of money
* Any time somebody votes Democrat, they do it out of goodness of their heart and pristine beauty of their souls

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama.

That could have just as well been a PR stunt for him.

No, no self-respecting Republican would ever do any greater respect to Obama than acknowledging him with a raised middle finger.

I would advise against confusing facebook employees and their politics with those of the head of facebook. I haven't heard of any other billionaires from that company.

I haven't heard of many (any) billionaires that are Republican. Millionaires, yes, but that's because the Republican party is the small business leader party, when you're too small to want to pander to everyone and just want to be able to survive. The Liberal side is for more matured money, that thinks ahead to securing the generations of future degenerate offspring that wouldn't know how to wipe their own ass, let alone manage a billion-dollar organization - and of course the naive supporters they influence with the same creed as the Nazi's (ie: socialism + responsibility for the affairs of others - incase the stigma of the subject has kept you from ever reading what the Nazi's actually stood for - delusion of a different time, Liberal in modern jargon).

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[shutdown -p now]

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time.

Don't employees of all large tech companies predominantly vote Democrat? I'm pretty sure I've seen similar statistics regarding Apple, Google and Microsoft, to name a few.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[sanzibar]

attempt at /sarc or do you really believe the crap they sell u?

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

more... http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[sanzibar]

"out of goodness of their heart and pristine beauty of their souls" ....

October 22 1868, a Democratic Party official and Klansman assassinated a Republican U.S. Representative. The victim was James Hinds, of Arkansas, gunned down while campaigning for re-election. Hinds had incurred the wrath of the Democratic Party by speaking in defense of African-Americans.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[Anonymous Coward]

> But really, if you are trying to draw attention to your company and you have a choice
> between a geriatric white guy or the first black guy to win the presidential endorsement
> from a major party in our country, the choice is obvious.

Ah, so discrimination isn't dead in the USA I see.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[sumdumass]

typically yes. i guess its because most of them are fresh out of college and aren't aware that life and politic ideologies don't exactly work as they where supposed to when explained to them.

Here is something interesting. young democrats tend to become old republicans once the accumulate wealth and attempt to protect it and their families.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[GameboyRMH]

From what I remember Microsoft is slightly Republican-leaning in terms of donations.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft PAC used to be, but not anymore - and even then that doesn't properly represent leanings of individual employees, which were predominantly Democratic for a decade now.

Really, all you need to do is to hang around the campus in Redmond in the morning and count the Obama stickers. ~

(though of course it's also possible that fewer Republicans just donate more each)

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is something interesting. young democrats tend to become old republicans once the accumulate wealth and attempt to protect it and their families.

I am completely unsurprised by that. Those are exactly the two things I always see in Republicans, motivating the majority of their policies: fear and greed. It's a sad statement about humans that we get greedier and more fearful as we get older and wealthier.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[sumdumass]

Well, you call it greed and fear, I call it prudent. Maybe it's because I fall somewhere close to that line. But people generally learn with experience and it's that experience that makes them more wise as they get older.

I can see it already

[mirix]

Vote for [anti-privacy interests] this election!!

If you do not copy and paste this in your status you facebook account will be closed!!~!!~!

Re:I can see it already

[Anonymous Coward]

One could only hope it was that simple to get rid of facebook!

Bribery Tax

[Tablizer]

Tax any compaign donation above $50 at 75% Thus, a donation of $200 would have a tax of $112.50 (200 - 50 = 150; 150 * 0.75 = 112.5).

Re:Bribery Tax

[Alex Belits]

No. Tax the contributor at 2000%, and use this tax for public-funded election campaigns.
That will stop bribery.

Re:Bribery Tax

[prostoalex]

Tax all people who cannot spell "campaign" and run elections on that money instead of donations.

Re:Bribery Tax

[Tablizer]

I kant uze Fyrefox's spail chekker for teknicle reezons.

Re:Bribery Tax

[perryizgr8]

yeah, but you CAN use chrome.

Re:Bribery Tax

[Tablizer]

Wut our yu, mie muthur?

Re:Bribery Tax

[Red_Chaos1]

Or tax all the pedantic grammar/spelling nazis who'd rather nitpick minor things than stay on focus. :p

Re:Bribery Tax

[prostoalex]

We sent such bill to Cnogres long time ago, but USPS lobby keeps rejecting it with "Recepeint does not exist".

Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Thy name is Flashback.

Congress better police Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

~Not the other way around.

Re:Congress better police Facebook

[geekmux]

~Not the other way around.

That's a laugh. Who's policing Congress? More importantly, what makes you think you actually have the power or control anymore to do jack shit about it?

Re:Congress better police Facebook

[Leebert]

Who's policing Congress?

That's simple, the American people. And we consistently tell the Congress that we approve of their actions, in spite of what we tell pollsters.

Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[Nom du Keyboard]

This is probably all about keeping the feds off of Zukerberg's backside. While he's a huge Obama supporter, he's also a target of the current administration because he is one of the Evil Rich. In addition, with Obama's re-election chances looking less certain than Facebook's privacy promises, he may well need to CYA with the next administration as soon as 2013.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[RazorSharp]

This may be a little off-topic, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think Obama is a lock for reelection. The Republicans were able to take so many congressional seats in 2010 because less people voted. When Obama's name is on the ticket hordes of people will make it to the polls who didn't bother with the midterm elections. Republicans just make it to the polls more consistently.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[similar_name]

This is probably all about keeping the feds off of Zukerberg's backside.

Insightful.

he's also a target of the current administration because he is one of the Evil Rich.

sigh

In addition, with Obama's re-election chances looking less certain than Facebook's privacy promises

With 13 months until the election the news channels will be sure to play it out like a long soap opera but you are probably correct. It is likely voter turnout will be driven by dissatisfaction which doesn't bode well for the sitting President.

, he may well need to CYA with the next administration as soon as 2013.

As privacy groups bring up issues and try to push Congress to enact legislation controlling data storage/usage he needs to cover his ass no matter which party controls Congress. It also doesn't hurt to influence a government that influences so many other governments.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[sumdumass]

not really. Obama didn't win by a lot in comparative terms to previous elections. he's probably not going to be able to generate near the support he had originally to get elected.

in fact, he's likely caused a surge in potential turn out against him. I know life long democrats who do nothing but complain about Obama every time the name is brought up.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're vastly underestimating the number of people who voted for Obama just so they could tell their kids that they helped elect the first african-american president. It was a historic event, and many people wanted to be a part of it.

Re-electing Obama, unfortunately for him, is a far less significant event. And telling one's children "I helped re-elect the first african-american president" carries far less weight.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah if the Republicans can get a half-decent, relatively sane candidate, Obama's chances will be slim. His only chance is if Perry continues to make himself look like a politician straight out of Escape from LA or the Starship Troopers movie, or Bachmann/Palin/Romney become the front-runner somehow. Liberals aren't going to be fooled by Obama's sweet, sweet meaningless words a second time and would be likely to abstain, and any centrist Democrats who are happy with him would have no problem voting for a Republican just the same.

Re:Keeing The Feds off of Your Back

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Or like my wife's grandmother and grandfather believe that President Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist, yes they really do believe this. Previously they had voted down the democratic party ticket since they became US citizens (being ethnic Jews they fled Hungary before WWII) but because he is brown and has a funny name they believe any rumor about him. As far a complaining about President Obama there are those on the far left who think he is too moderate, but keep in mind that those one the far right run around claiming that he is a socialist. Personally I think that those on the far left are correct that President Obama is much more moderate than Candidate Obama. If one were to look at what Obama has done he is much more like the most recent President Bush than the socialist monster that the right portrays him to be, especially on the foreign policy, domestic security, and economic issues side of things.

Pffft.

[Kleen13]

And you all thought it'd be Skynet.....

A bit ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit ironic considering OccupyWallStreet and its affiliated protest groups are using it to organize to protest the very thing that Facebook is now working to do.

Re:Good! I love it!

[Hatta]

If you don't want it, I'll kill and eat your bison for you.

Re:Good! I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but love isn't a reaction you can express. (Neither is hated, dislike, or even mere neutrality.)

You can either Like this or shut the fuck up.

Re:Good! I love it!

[davester666]

Obviously he keeps it on the main floor. Everybody knows bison can't go up or down stairs.

PAC = Bribes and Payoffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask us to''do'it.

I do not understand...

[cjcela]

..how many of the people posting take this so lightly. There should be outrage here. Companies bearing weight on congress is not a good idea, people. Maybe many of you are too young to see what is going on, but the idea is that the country is governed by the people and for the people, not by Mr. Facebook for his company. And while you have 20 seconds of laugh writing a funny post, your future is eroding right in front of your eyes, and you are completely oblivious to it...

Re:I do not understand...

[ScentCone]

Actually, the erosion I've noticed is in the awareness that it's people that form, invest in, work for, and patronize companies.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress bears weight on companies and much more than the other way around. Companies are formed by people called shareholders. Those people have rights. Some of those rights are: no taxation without representation, redress of grievances, pursuit of happiness, and due process of law. But most germane to your particular post is that the people have the right to petition congress. That those people have become part owners of a company does not cause them to forsake their constitutional rights.

Regards,
Jason C. Wells

Re:I do not understand...

[anon208]

Actually, I have already given up on this country. Long live China!

Re:I do not understand...

[ThermalRunaway]

Like the outrage about unions doing the same thing for the past decades? I dont think its right in either case. But if a union can form a PAC and donate to and lobby candidates/elected officials, its not any different for a company to do it too. Personally I'd rather see neither allowed...

Re:I do not understand...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Actually, the erosion I've noticed is in the awareness that it's people that form, invest in, work for, and patronize companies.

Actually, the erosion I've noticed is that some folks seem to forget (all too conveniently, it seems) that the people who form and invest in companies tend NOT to be the same people who work for them. And those who work for them quite are often not the same as those who buy the companies' products/services, either.

Re:I do not understand...

[cbope]

Agree. I suppose it's just that most Americans just don't give a shit anymore. As an American living abroad, I see far better protection of individual rights and freedoms in the EU. Which is ironic because Americans always tout their "freedom", but in reality you have little left. Following 9/11, it has nearly all been signed away in the name of fighting terrorism. Yet you still have weak government that caves to business interests on a daily basis. Strong government that is not fed by business is what is needed, but I'm afraid that is never going to happen because everyone in the US seems to be scared of "big government". As long as you continue to let the business interests control the politicians, it's not going to change, no matter who you vote for. Both the major parties are 100% guilty of this, and since the vast majority don't know how to vote for a non-democrat or non-republican candidate, you're pretty much screwed.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not oblivious, but the system can attenuate your variety (reduce the effects of your actions to insignificance) more quickly than you can overpower the system. It's been honed that way through years and years of challenges.

Re:I do not understand...

[dbet]

People are under-informed and outright lied to. The media reports what the government tells them to report. And they feel utterly powerless to do anything about it. No one cares that our armies are used as death squads, targeting civilians all over the world, to advance international business interests. No one cares that the president can legally murder any U.S. citizen with no judicial oversight. No one cares that the government uses "national security" to keep almost everything they do a secret from "the people" who are supposed to be informed about their government. No one cares that police who violate people's rights are never punished for it. No one cares that "corporations are people" means that a foreign corporation can have one satellite office in the U.S. and pump unlimited funds into American politics, meaning we legally allow our government to be run by non-Americans who have a few bucks to spare.

And please don't use the word "vote", because we try to, but the only two parties that are allowed air time and public campaign funds are the exact same party with or without the religion. And neither hears you. I honestly think a lot of these guys (and gals) want to do a good job, but they spend all day with people whispering in their ear, and those whispers aren't coming from "the people". And that's the worst part of it, that you have no voice. Your vote is supposed to be your voice, but it's not.

There's probably 5 or 6 members of congress in the last few years I've heard say anything outside the party talking points, they actually sound like people who know how to lead, know how to make things work. But they're drowning. Their peers are louder, and there's more of them, and they spend all year trying to shift their party's representation from 49% to 51%, all that time trying to KEEP their job rather than trying to DO their job.

Re:I do not understand...

[martas]

'cause they're all already jaded. Stephen Colbert is trying to show how ridiculous the influence of money in politics is, but he's having a really hard time doing anything more ridiculous than what is already the norm that everyone is used to. It's hard to be outraged 20 times a day, which is about the frequency with which stories like this seem to be coming out.

Re:I do not understand...

[AP31R0N]

What freedoms have i lost since 9/11, specifically?

AFACT, i've lost only the right to board a plane without taking off my shoes.

Re:I do not understand...

[RogerWilco]

I fortunately live in a slightly more sane country, but as I understand it, this is entirely legal, and even decided to be according to your Constitution quite recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Re:I do not understand...

[Red_Chaos1]

And clearly you're asleep at the wheel, and definitely part of the problem.

Re:I do not understand...

[DigiTechGuy]

First, Fourth, and soon to be Fifth amendments are pretty much gone since Sept. 11. Your ignorance of this is (along with so many other sheep) is why Americans are losing their natural rights and no longer have freedom.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you are the naive one. every company pays politicians for their time so the company can tell their story. if you dont get your story out there then somebody else is telling their conflicting story. microsoft learned this, google learned this, facebook is learning this. vote with your dollars.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Does that mean that the people who risk their money to start a company (most of whom lose all of that investment) shouldn't get first amendment protections? Why?

Re:I do not understand...

[GameboyRMH]

You got on the plane without being groped or nudie-scanned?

Re:I do not understand...

[ffflala]

..how many of the people posting take this so lightly. There should be outrage here. Companies bearing weight on congress is not a good idea, people. Maybe many of you are too young to see what is going on, but the idea is that the country is governed by the people and for the people, not by Mr. Facebook for his company. And while you have 20 seconds of laugh writing a funny post, your future is eroding right in front of your eyes, and you are completely oblivious to it...

I understand your feelings, but when it comes down to it outrage isn't going to *do* anything about the problem of "companies bearing weight on congress." Love it or hate it, corporate influence on US government is a reality. That bell has already rung.

The reason that so many are just fine with corporate influence on Congress is that, well, corporations are people. I don't mean in the sense of legal recognition, I mean the CEO, the board, middle management, HR, accounting, and stakeholders -- these are all of-the-by-the people too, and they the right to organize themselves as they see fit. Corporate organization is one method of organization that people use to, intentionally influence Congress.

My concern is that generalizing this to some larger principle that "corporate influence on congress = bad" oversimplifies things. Because, despite the legions of lobbyists whose only target is money, there are actually other well-intended groups of (of-the-by-the) people who have used the corporate form as a method to organize and more effectively lobby Congress to address their own concerns.

Of course, *I* want f/b to have as little influence on legislation as possible --they could realistically do some serious damage to privacy statutes and regulations. But I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of somehow stripping of-the-by-the people of their rights to organize simply because they use a common form of business organization to be profitable. A lobby-specific approach seems more effective to me than just outrage. Perhaps outrage can inspire people to action, but most of the time I think it just adds stress that ultimately gets in the way.

It would be useful to keep a close eye on any upcoming amendments to privacy law, if you're not already. The Federal Register is the official daily publication of Congress, and will probably be the first place any f/b lobby influence appears. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

If you've never taken a moment to read your country's laws in raw form, I highly recommend it. Try a search for "privacy", and dive in. Note that most proposed regulations have a "request for comments." These comments eventually do become part of the official regulatory history. Unfortunately at this point --in part because let's face it, regs are kind of boring to read-- these comment sections are incredibly sparse, often containing only pre-canned statements from industry groups (coordinated by your favorite corporate lobby, of course). Next most often is individual commentary around the level of the youtube comment section.

You might be able to effectively focus your outrage here. But from what I've seen of regulatory history, the most effective comments are note outraged -- they are those that are calm (not angry), to the point with the person's concern, what they feel the effect of proposed reg would be, and light on the preaching, light on the adjectives, and light on the hyperbole -- preferably none of that noise, at all.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're rich and he's not. Waahh! You might also point out to him that people who work for companies often invest in their own and other companies. F'n 401k's! How do they work?

Re:I do not understand...

[Culture20]

Stephen Colbert is trying to show how ridiculous the influence of money in politics is, but he's having a really hard time doing anything more ridiculous than what is already the norm that everyone is used to.

Maybe he should lead by example instead of hoping to argue by absurdity. When he goes over the top, that becomes the new top that people are used to.

Re:I do not understand...

[martas]

I disagree. To elaborate, if you saw the village idiot eating horseshit, you wouldn't think that's the norm and start eating horseshit yourself. Colbert is a comedian, a satirist. He doesn't set norms for anyone, perhaps with the exception of other comedians.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem also stems from the mindset of the populous. Those quickly approaching retirement grew up in a mindset of voting, of taking their future and government accountable for the ups and downs. Their children (Gen Xers) had and still do have a hands off approach and basically let the government run its course, only stepping in to vote for the lesser evil every 4 years, if they voted at all. The youngest generation (the 20 somethings and younger) seem to be getting more informed, more connected with whats going on, and we'll see in the next few elections if they've woken up and taken action. Once they are done tweeting about the cute girl on the bus this morning, anyway...

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets do something about it, then

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citizen, I'm going to have to ask you to step into this Free Speech Zone before you make any other statements like that. Also, do not attempt or discuss attempting circumvention of the electronic tracking device we've inserted into your communications device.

Re:I do not understand...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Because they're rich and he's not. Waahh! You might also point out to him that people who work for companies often invest in their own and other companies. F'n 401k's! How do they work?

So my views are motivated by the same greed (or rationalisation for same) that yours are? I think not.

I've enjoyed modest success in my career. I now make about 2.5 times the average income for the area I live in. I own my own home (a fairly nice and spacious flat). I can afford to travel a bit. I don't own a car; I could easily afford one, but my place is about 5 minutes walk to the subway, so why bother. If I feel liking eating at a fancy restaurant from time to time, I can go and enjoy the meal without worrying very much about the cost. I have good health, a wonderful partner, a beautiful child, and the respect of my family and friends. (That last item especially took me quite a long time to achieve, or *deserve*, and is worth more to me than any damned money.)

The short version: Yes, I've got mine.

Here's where the difference lies twixt thee and me: (a) I don't begrudge anyone else their fair share; (b) Since I have plenty, I believe that I should share with those less fortunate or who could use a leg up to advance in their lives (and I do, regularly).

Owning a flat that's about twice the size that I really need is one thing. Yes, that's an indulgence, but it's a fairly minor extravagance in the greater scheme of things.

Owning a personal yacht that costs 1000 times (or more) what I pay one of my workers in a year just so I can wave my dick around. That's greed (IOW *ego*), raised to the level of the obscene.

P.S. They don't have 401k's in Sweden. Here, you get a real pension.

Re:I do not understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, we're out here doing shit to make a good world. These people are merely keeping the news in the popular mind's eye, while those of us with ability to affect change wait for the bottom to fall out to provide the answers for the new world we will create.

Just look at the open source movement. We have hardware and software. You will see open source economies and governments soon, I am sure, as the younger generations push into the innovation realm which have been historically dominated by large firms and governments.

Oh the times, they are a'changin...

Re:I do not understand...

[sachamm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

If you are under the age of 30, then you have spent more than 1/3rd of your life under what amounts to martial law, with _no_ recourse if the government grabs you off the street. You guys need to wake up.

Oh dear.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like where this is going.

maybe you should read the modded down comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Just saying...

Signpost

[JWW]

In the future, we will look back on this as another signpost on the path of Facebook's fall.....

Re:Signpost

[Zontar The Mindless]

In the future, we will look back on this as another signpost on the path of Facebook's fall.....

And not as a stumble on the way to the Facebook World Government? :)

woohoo!

[Cyko_01]

facebook for president!

I Like

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a new way to vote coming out of this. Imagine electing our most 'likeable' president. We could all friend him or her and put our president on our wall. We could join the presidential fan page. Most of all, we could ignore the mess that we now call the American economy and spend all our time on Facebook instead of working for the man. Escapism is a wonderful thing UNTIL YOU NEED TO PAY THE BILLS.

Re:Good! I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

They can go up normal stairs, but not spiral ones. However, they can go down either.

I have read Hitler's writings

[Anonymous Coward]

He hated socialists and Marxists. He railed against them endlessly. He hated immigrants, homosexuals, and non-Christians. He sounded very similar to the American conservatives of today.

Re:I have read Hitler's writings

[Zontar The Mindless]

Hitler was the sort of creature who would say anything to (or against) anybody in order to achieve power*.

Attempting to discuss his 'hates' is therefore a fruitless exercise.

(*And thus, just the sort whom people like our idiot "Liberals = Nazis" friend are likely to end up following, since such types know how to push all the right verbal/semantic/emotional buttons of those who are too bloody dense to realise that this is in fact exactly what they're doing.)

Re:I have read Hitler's writings

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was the sort of creature who would say anything to (or against) anybody in order to achieve power*.

Attempting to discuss his 'hates' is therefore a fruitless exercise.

(*And thus, just the sort whom people like our idiot "Liberals = Nazis" friend are likely to end up following, since such types know how to push all the right verbal/semantic/emotional buttons of those who are too bloody dense to realise that this is in fact exactly what they're doing.)

Is that the verbal/semantic/emotional button to get idiots to believe you're NOT the same sort of creature?

Composed of words - check on verbal
Elegantly lacking in and dismissing fact - check on semantics
Abundant straw men - check on emotional

Damn, I guess I'm defeated and you have won all the idiots over with your superior writing. I should probably join you, perhaps I'll give up the physics research, as I will no longer be working to my own standards, but those of the mediocre masses. Where do I go to join the democratic party and collect my welfare check?

Re:I have read Hitler's writings

[Coolhand2120]

Why must every liberal pretend to know a subject and never actually know it?

It's the only way to win when you know you are a looser.

Re:Good! I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Zuckerberg, but I'll eat his Bison. Tastiest critter, ever.

Hitler quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country] ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity ... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... [few] years.

--The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871–872.

I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter.

--Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922

Conservative Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh . . . you do realize that all those Democrats you are quoting switched to the Republican party in the '60s and '70s, don't you? Look up "Solid South." It's probably too complicated for you, but it's the same people that are now Republicans. They just switched parties.

So basically you are admitting that what has become today's Republican party is a bunch of fascists. Nice one.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh . . . you do realize that all those Democrats you are quoting switched to the Republican party in the '60s and '70s, don't you? Look up "Solid South." It's probably too complicated for you, but it's the same people that are now Republicans. They just switched parties.

So basically you are admitting that what has become today's Republican party is a bunch of fascists. Nice one.

Oh, go screw yourself straw-man. Democrats listed that did not change parties:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd - for whom you can find all sorts of videos with Clinton making a defense for KKK membership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black

Democrates listed that did change parties:

none.

MAKE CITATIONS or STFU.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Coolhand2120]

That cognitive dissonance you have is a bitch huh!

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

More importantly, the parties switched positions on the issue. Funny how this list ends before getting to all the racist shit Reagan did.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

What propagandist bullshit are you spouting?

You cant run from the facts. Democrats are historically racist. Republicans have historically fought them on this issue.

There is a century of history to back it up. Robert Byrd was a KKK leader. Voted no on the Civil RIghts Act. And what party was he a member of? Thats right he was a die hard Democrat

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

Yes but that was then and this is now. For the last 30 years or so the history has been different.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

I can understand that you are embarrassed by your political party history but facts are facts - you cant change that.

The Republican Party has always stood for freedom, liberty and civil rights.

Now stop your lying and go learn some history about the people you support. You just might realize that you have been batting for the wrong team.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

LOL I'm not even an American and I do know the history, and if it continues over the last 30 years, please point out where in the Reagan administration and later, Republicans have fought racism while Democrats have supported it. I'm all ears, eager to learn about what I've been unable to find so far.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[MYakus]

You forgot to mention Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Majority leader who held up civil rights legislation in the 50's only to sign it in 1964 when 80% of Republicans voting 60% of Democrats provided a veto proof majority to pass it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without the majority of Republicans voting for it, even though Democrats had a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate.

One of my favorite pictures of all time is Robert Byrd in a Confederate General's uniform when he played in "Gods and Generals". It fit him well.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[MYakus]

Too long to list. Please see "American History in Black and White", I think you can still get it at any of the big book sellers. Start with the damage the welfare state has done to the Black family (all demographics, actually). Examine rates of illegitimacy from 1960 to 2007 and the absence of fathers in families largely sponsored by government policy. I work with these kids and it's tough on them.

Your argument is specious in that you have presented nothing in support of your allegations.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

No my friend, the burden of proof is on you. I demonstrated a pattern - well over a century of Republicans fighting and dying for Civil Rights and a century of Democrats not only fighting against it but murdering people to try to keep blacks and women down.

And along comes you who says they magically *poof* switched roles. This in light of the fact that Robert Byrd, former KKK leader, stayed in congress until his recent death. Was he a Republican? No. He was a hard core, blue to the bone, racist Democrat. He traded slave housing for ghetto's and plantation bosses for unions. Same shit.

So, this makes you either an ignorant fool that should read a book, or an unashamed partisan propagandists that must resort to such obvious lies. I hope its the prior. The latter is just so Joseph Goebbels (that's not a compliment btw).

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

So, this makes you either an ignorant fool that should read a book, or an unashamed partisan propagandists that must resort to such obvious lies. I hope its the prior. The latter is just so Joseph Goebbels (that's not a compliment btw).

Funny, that's what I thought about you.

Confident that I hadn't accidentally brainwashed myself with revisionist history, and encouraged by the fact that you couldn't be bothered to casually mention a single issue that would contradict my argument despite the alleged abundance of such issues, I decided to dedicate my evening to proving my point.

First of all, I'd like to cover the role reversal on civil rights issues which you know less about than a foreigner:

http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/programs/beyond/workshops/ampolpapers/fall07-schickler.pdf
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)#The_Johnson_Years:_1963.E2.80.931968
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6980.html
tl;dr-friendly summary: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/p/democratic.htm

Next I want to continue your timeline up to the present day, but I had to help a relative with a cell phone problem and won't have time to finish it tonight, however I'll try again tomorrow evening. It will start with the (SPOILERS horrifyingly racist /SPOILERS) history of the Reagan administration.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

Jokes on me. I was trolled by an ignorant little twat still living with his mama. pero que coño

Now piss off and go clean your room.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

Aww the facts hurt your widdle conservative worldview and you can't dispute them, hombre pequenito?

Too bad. More coming tomorrow.

I have my own place BTW. Surely better than the squalid little shack or worthless HOA hellhole you types often live in.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

They hear this stuff on far-right talk radio, assume that it's true, and parrot it like there's no tomorrow. Robert Byrd, in particular, is an example that they are instructed to use every time the racist history of the post-1950s Republican party is brought up, notwithstanding the fact that Byrd renounced the KKK over 50 years ago. (This despite the fact that the Republicans have a whole collection of Byrds, not the least of which was Strom Thurmond, who took his segregationist views to the grave with him.)

Re:Conservative Democrats

[CanHasDIY]

The Republican Party has always stood for freedom, liberty and civil rights.

Yea! It's not like they singlehandedly passed the the most massive removal of civil rights in American history.

/sarc

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Going full-Godwin, eh? Check and mate, buddy.

Whatever mind-bending drug you're on must be really good stuff. Following this thread, the gist of your argument is that factual statements cannot change over time. If man could not fly 200 years ago, he absolutely can't today, right? The idea that the Republican party of the last several decades is a champion of minorities is, at best, utterly deluded and, at worst, batshit crazy propaganda spewed in the hope of infecting some naive minds.

In recent times (for those of us who can grasp that organizations can change) GOP strategies have had nothing but contempt for minorities; the fact that you can site a few isolated nice, overt gestures is a ridiculously weak counterargument. Things change, only dim-witted people do not.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

over a century of racist democrats and all you got is propaganda. oh, and lets not forget some of the current racist democrats - New Black Panther Party... Tan Klan, Latino KKK, the Brown Berets, La Raza... all hard core democrats.

eat it hombre. I live on the border and get to see it all.

My familia Libertarian (some are former La Raza supporters so dont even try some bullshit that they are not racist). We are honest enough to recognize that Republicans hold the record on civil rights in this country. Anything contrary is propaganda plain and simple. So push your bullshit all you want. Its a lie and nothing will ever change that. Cite other propagandists all you want - it still does not change the fact that it is propaganda. Make sense to your simple little mind ?

Your a little boy playing with fire. Someone will get hurt with your lies and that will be on your hands.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

Anything contrary is propaganda plain and simple. So push your bullshit all you want. Its a lie and nothing will ever change that. Cite other propagandists all you want - it still does not change the fact that it is propaganda. Make sense to your simple little mind ?

Oh yeah, I think I understand now...

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

Wonderful. Now go make the world a better place.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[spazdor]

the damage the welfare state has done to the Black family

Yes, the Black family was absolutely undamaged before that!

Similarly, look at all the damage chemotherapy has done to cancer patients. They're so weak and hairless and stuff!

Re:Conservative Democrats

[spazdor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#1989:_Successful_run_in_special_election_for_Louisiana_House_seat

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

did you even read what you posted?

His opponent, John Treen was endorsed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other notable Republicans,[33]...

... elected on a local tax issue.

He certainly was a Democrat though. fail.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[ThorGod]

Jokes on me. I was trolled by an ignorant little twat still living with his mama. pero que coño

Now piss off and go clean your room.

The single best way to undermine your own arguments is to attempt to belittle the personal character of your intellectual opponent. There is no reason nor need to personally attack someone over an intellectual argument.

Other than that, this is an interesting conversation to read through. Keep it above the waist...

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

History is long and deep and that is not something you just erase overnight. I am in the south and I have experienced racism and if there was one political class behind it, it would be the Democrats. In fact, those racist Democrats i knew then are still here now, still proudly wearing blue, still calling minorities - boy, still very rich and still holding fundraisers and parties for their other racist democrat friends.

Second, I would argue that Democrat policies towards minorities proves their continued racism. Democrats built these huge slave housing projects for us, made us shop at the company store and put the union bosses over us to keep us in line. Then they brought us planned parenthood to keep us from breeding. Built a whole shit load of prisons for when we get out of line. The Democrats told us (as today) its for our own good. We too damn stupid you see so they keep on doing whats "right" for us...

On every single political issues my community has fought, it was the Republicans in our corner and now we even have the Libertarians. And don't think racism is just limited to whites. Most of Sheila Jackson Lee's efforts are targeted at a specific group of people. She has often offended the Hispanic community so much so that many label her a racist (she does not like white people either btw).

So stop with your propaganda. It wont work with me. I do hope that you do some real research, open your damn eyes and see past all the lies your being told. The only card the Democrats could play was the blame game and they turn out a whole lotta propaganda in attempt to erase a century of evil shit. But fortunately, there are many people like me that know the truth and will take time out of their day to stand here and tell you - You are full of shit!

Re:Conservative Democrats

[spazdor]

...who ended up forgiven for his past by the GOP because he had the property tax policy they liked best.

Which is pretty much consistent with the current M.O.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

BTW, do you own any German or Japanese products? If so, how do you feel about supporting the Nazi regime or Japanese empire? They both have long histories of atrocious behavior you know...

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

Well I had to work late and have to sleep real bad but I couldn't let the night go by with no content. So here's my section on the Reagan administration.

WILLFULLY IGNORANT IDEOLOGUES, LOOK AWAY! THE FOLLOWING IS BASED ON UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACTS WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED BY CALLING THEM PROPAGANDA OR LIES BECAUSE THEY WILL STILL BE UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACTS.

1980 - Ronald Reagan is elected, partly on a "state's rights" platform - at the time that phrase was a euphemism for allowing states to return to segregation, but Reagan's use of the phrase is controversial. Understanding what Reagan meant will be left as an exercise to the reader. Keep in mind that he always claimed that he was totally not racist and was deeply offended by such accusations.

During his presidency Reagan did not support the women's rights movement or any blacks' civil rights issues, except in his extensions to the Voting Rights Act (which he had verbally opposed beforehand) and Fair Housing Act. He opposed the establishment of MLK day and was only forced to sign it into law by a veto-proof majority. He considered the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional, and tried to veto the Civil Rights Restoration Act but was overridden. He also supported South Africa's apartheid regime and considered Jefferson Davis a personal hero of his.

I encourage anyone not familiar with those various acts to look them up, all conveniently linked within.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

Oh little one. I am so disappointed in you. You had a choice. Carefully research and validate your accusations before making them or blindly run with the first thing you think validates your position. You chose to be lazy and reach deep into the propaganda well. All you managed to do was validate my point and make an utter ass out of yourself.

The propagandist preys on your laziness. We all know that Reagans speeches and writings are publicly available and easily searchable. (Look. Its easy http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/search/speeches/speech_srch.html . Try searching for civil rights) But your so well trained, they also know you wont look. You will rely on them to interpret it for you. Your intellectually weak and they know it.

Had you taken a second, you would have come across multiple references that refute your claims. How about his own words on the subject? A reported once asked him this directly:

Q. Mr. President, in the sixties you opposed all civil rights legislation, but more recently you said that you were a part of the Martin Luther King revolution. If that is the case, why is your administration so bent on wiping out the flexible hiring goals for blacks, minorities, and women? And I'd like to follow up.
The President. Helen, we're not wanting to do that. But we have seen in administering these programs, we've seen that the affirmative action program was becoming a quota system. Now, I've lived long enough to have seen quotas when they were employed long before there was a civil rights movement, when they were employed in my youth to definitely discriminate and use the quota as a means of discrimination. And, therefore, we feel that, yes, we want affirmative action to continue. We want what I think Martin Luther King asked for: We want a colorblind society. The ideal will be when we have achieved the moment when no one -- or when nothing is done to or for anyone because of race, differences, or religion, or ethnic origin; and it's done not because of those things but in spite of them.

Or Gee. How about this?

Q. You have strong views about civil rights. What are your views on goals and timetables?
The President. Well, as I said before, I think that we must have a colorblind society. Things must be done for people neither because of nor in spite of any differences between us in race, ethnic origin, or religion. And it's so easy to fall into a bureaucratic practice of saying, ``Well, isn't this the easiest thing? Let's just tell them they have to have x number and that'll settle it.'' Well, let me give you an example. Recently here in the East -- and I won't name the locale -- we had a public housing apartment, and they had on their own set a quota. And the quota was for 30 percent black. Now, they didn't get 70 percent white; they had empty units. And yet because their quota was full, they were turning away every black applicant that came to the public housing because of their quota. This is the type of thing that we want to stop. And it isn't government policy. Again, as I say, you have to recognize that when you go down far enough in the echelons of bureaucracy, things can take place that you find you are almost helpless to stop.

What do you know. Oh so many. Here is another:

Q. Mr. President, are you at all concerned about an apparent continuing perception among a number of black leaders that the White House continues to be, if not hostile, at least not welcome to black viewpoints, and that administration policies are working to widen the income gap between blacks and whites, and also increase black unemployment?
The President. I'm aware of all of that. And it's very disturbing to me, because anyone who knows my life story, knows that long before there was even a thing called the civil rights movement, I was busy on that side. As a sports announcer I didn't have any Willie Mays or Reggie Jacksons to talk about when I w

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

...who ended up forgiven for his past by the GOP

so now you have to start making shit up I see... dropping the bullshit card is he democrats way of admitting defeat. in their mind, defeat its temporary... if only they can buy enough time to spin some more lies...

Like I love your girl Pelosi. She "stands in solidarity with the Wall Street Protesters". Ironically, they are protesting the very shit she created. But in her mind, they are cool. She knows all she needs to do is spin some shit and you will eat it all up. sucka. I hope she bitch fucks you again and makes another dozen million off your dumb ass.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

So, you try to argue against Reagan's storied history of anti-civil-rights actions with some of his pro-civil-rights words.

Maybe to you, words just speak louder than actions? That could explain a lot actually. Maybe if FDR had spoken about how much he wanted to defend the rights of Japanese-Americans while putting them in camps you would have seen him as a civil rights supporter.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

You argue Reagan's history with some random, unknown persons words. You don't know who and you don't know if its factual. Your to young to have known him so I bring you Reagan words. Think of it as Reagan speaking from the grave. Personally challenging your accusations.

What you dropped is an excellent example of propaganda. Reagan was Democrat public enemy number 1 and the attackers worked overtime on him. It was another shameful time in the Democrats history.

You have proven you are nothing more than a mindless propagandist. You willfully spread lies and ignore the truth. You have no shame and without hesitation, you commit to maligning and innocent man. Your judged him guilty and never bothered to check your facts

Your a little brainwashed cult member. Doubt me? Go listen to Reagan's speeches. Read his works. Research his actions. It is obvious to any individual that he was a strong civil rights supporter.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

I have researched his actions. Are you saying those things didn't actually happen? That you know history better than me? Are your sources more authoritative?

How are the purported words of Reagan more real than his purported actions, since I've witnessed neither first-hand?

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

No weak minded little one. Citing propagandists is not research.

I do know his history better than you. I was alive then. I lived it first person. I watched the propagandists attack him and I am telling you first hand that your "resources" are full of shit.

There is plenty of information that contradicts the propagandists. Clearly you have not bothered to read any of that. No, no no. That's not permitted in a brainwashed cult.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

I do know his history better than you. I was alive then. I lived it first person. I watched the propagandists attack him and I am telling you first hand that your "resources" are full of shit.

That makes you another second-hand source to me, why are you more reliable than all the others?

Which non-propagandist sources can I use? Everything I can find backs up everything I said in my earlier post. Clearly almost every source out there must be propaganda, and there is some massive conspiracy to repaint history, is this what you believe?

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

That makes you another second-hand source to me, why are you more reliable than all the others?

ah - now your starting to get it. if you ask that of all your sources, perhaps there is hope for you.

First, I would start with the Reagan library. Get the "other side" of the argument. For example:

Propagandist: Regan was against civil rights.
Reagan: No. I am for civil rights. I am against the affirmative action quotas the Democrats are trying to stuff into the bill. We have been working the civil rights thing for a while in California and we tried that quota thing. It backfired. Quotas result in further discrimination and I am against any discrimination.

Result: : Reagan was right of course. Flash forward to today and you have American students graduating from High School that are being denied access to colleges based on the color of their skin. Somehow, discrimination against white people is not really discrimination (Gratz v. Bollinger). what!?!?!

His speeches are rich. They are worth the listen. Learn about him. Get in his head before you draw your conclusions. Last thing you want to do is falsely accuse someone. Especially someone who is on the right side of the issue. http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/modern_presidents/reagan_speeches.htm

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

Being against affirmative action is one thing (and a very small part of the picture), but what could he possibly say to explain his support of an apartheid regime and opposition to various purely anti-discrimination acts? He paid a lot of lip service to civil rights and then tried to justify his lack of support of civil rights and even anti-civil-rights actions with hollow, specious arguments. I'm familiar with many of his speeches already and considered them in forming my opinion of him.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

Your slipping. And i don't believe for a second you have researched, read or listened to anything from him. It would be impossible to reach your conclusions if you did.

Propagandist : Regan supports apartheid.
Reagan: Bullshit. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/092686h.htm

A favorite trick of the Democrats is to create a bill that says one thing but stuff it full of misguided, misleading shit. When the president refuses to sign on, they love to say "why he doesn't support X". Its a lie. Its propaganda and it takes you all of two seconds to get the real story behind it. Stop being so damn lazy.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

More of Reagan's sweet empty words, coming from the very same man who extended embargoes against Cuba. If he showed consistency by ending the Cuba embargo I could at least understand his position.

I'm sorry but I just can't swallow all these weak rationalizations and ignore the actions surrounding them. It's the same reason I don't consider Obama a liberal at all, despite what he says.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Culture20]

BTW, do you own any German or Japanese products? If so, how do you feel about supporting the Nazi regime or Japanese empire? They both have long histories of atrocious behavior you know...

So the topic is political parties, and you choose to strawman with two parties (one a dynasty I suppose) which no longer exist? I suppose your point is that the D and R or the 60s no longer exist either, but that's not true.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

I think you can tell a strawman from an analogy.

So because the D and R parties still exist as organizations, with different people and different agendas, it's not comparable? That's little more than playing with nomenclature. I mean Germany and Japan still retain their names (two countries with very different names in English, but you know what I mean) and are even inhabited by the descendants of the people who committed and enabled so many war crimes, and yet we've been able to move on.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[sanzibar]

Oh My. What a deep dark hole you have dug. Every single piece of propaganda refuted and now all you have is some nonsense on Cuba and veiled accusations that somehow contradict Reagan's position?

Judging by your past citations, im not surprised that is all they left you with but sadly, that too is bullshit.

You owe this man an apology and the next time the Democrat propaganda machine spins some bullshit up, I hope you think twice before playing their card.

Stop being a tool.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

SHOCKING! Just SHOCKING that an organization that calls itself "La Raza" would be racist. Perhaps that stems from the very definition of the name in Spanish?

Re:Conservative Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

neither of you is owed an apology. This thread has been the biggest waste of time ever. Congratulations on sucking so much.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[lolcutusofbong]

Is that why Republicans consider "flip-flopping" and "waffling" (better known as "changing one's mind) to be such a bad thing?

Re:Conservative Democrats

[nbauman]

LOL I'm not even an American and I do know the history,

Smart alec. You must live in one of those countries with free college education.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[nbauman]

Your argument is specious in that you have presented nothing in support of your allegations.

Conservatives don't understand what that means.

Re:Good! I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bison can go up stairs... but good luck getting them to go down.

Event Horizon

[Anonymous Coward]

Delete your accounts now while you still have a chance

1. Facebook forms PAC
2. PAC gets no where so Facebook heavily sponsors/brainwashes and gets a new president in power
3. Facebook goes to war with China because the Chinese firewall is blocking its site
4. China beats Facebooks arse and takes over the world
5. China is pissed at the West and rightly so - they actively seek out and execute all Facebook employees
6. Westerners are outraged but still cant shut the hell up - trolling and lack of respect has become so entrenched in our society that even the Facebook war was not enough to eradicate it
7. China realises that the only way to keep control is to systematically execute all facebook uses - and hey it has a bonus effect of been extra green
8. The planet breaths a sigh of relief 800 million less parasites making a mess - but you wont be one of them - because you didn't delete your Facebook account!!!!

DO IT NOW WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE - Save yourselves and God have mercy on our souls

Contradiction!?

[aggemam]

The summary mentions that Facebook is forming a PAC, and that it already IS a Palo Alto Company??

Why just aim to influence US politics?

[grahamm]

As facebook has members/users worldwide, why just restrict to influencing US politics?

Re:Why just aim to influence US politics?

[RogerWilco]

Not in all countries do corporations have as much political influence as in the USA. For example in my country, the funding of political parties is based on the number of voters they have as registered members, the money those members contribute and the number of elected representatives the party has (for access to public broadcasting networks). Things like PACs simply don't exist. Special interest groups usually start their own party, as you only need about 0,7% of the votes to get a seat in parliament.

Of course that doesn't mean corporations and unions have no influence, there are even official boards that the government has to consult on legislation, which have representation of employers and employees. Recently this was done on pension reform and the compromise that was negotiated between government and this board is now being put into law.

Of course there are lobby groups, but in general politicians aren't as beholden to corporations as in the USA, as their finances and re-election don't depend on them. Also the amount of money involved is much less, an election year might cost a large national party a few million. Of course the population is only 5% of the USA, so numbers are lower anyway.

Re:Why just aim to influence US politics?

[GameboyRMH]

Because US politics can effect the politics of most of the world's other countries. Some idiotic governments even pointlessly copy whatever the US government does, like some kind of cargo cult mentality...

Re:Why just aim to influence US politics?

[Anonymous Coward]

As facebook has members/users worldwide, why just restrict to influencing US politics?

In some western country, believe it or not.

Political advertisement is illegal, or more specifically advertising beliefs.

Lobbying tend to also be regulated somewhat.

Re:Why just aim to influence US politics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check how the Arab-spring got started in Egypt.

Re:Good! I love it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take a bison... AND EAT IT!

We know, we know

[tapspace]

It's not that we don't see it, it's that we don't know how to stop it. It's like when you've finally hit rock bottom and all you can do is have a laugh at yourself.

Hold on a sec!

[EvilIdler]

800 million users? How many citizens are there in the United States of America? Does this mean I can sign up and start influencing the US? I have some ideas...

Facebook's business model is..

[MYakus]

So the new Facebook business model is to sell your privacy and then lobby for more government favors? I think it would be a mistake for Facebook to turn into Facebook for Democrats. Competition and the "next new thing" will limit it's effectiveness and also the whole thing intensifies the "we are using you" image.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

no one lives in the US?

Re:Good! I love it!

[jeek]

My wife will go up or down stairs, but I can't seem to get her to go down lately, either.

Net Neutrality?

[rtconner]

It would seem to be in Facebooks best interest to keep the internet neutral. Perhaps their lobbying weight can do good work to keep it that way?

I just got FrozenSynapse from the humble bundle

[HeckRuler]

Hmmm I'm pretty sure this is how the plot from Frozen Synapse starts out.
He ends up accurately predicting elections with all that data mining and gains political power when he can tell what potential platform/candidate will get someone elected. Of course from there, his alter-space "shape" economy kicks off and he starts sending virtual hit squads against competitors.

Why!?

[kheldan]

Why does a social networking website need a Political Action Committee!?

Best government money can buy

[heson]

In other countries this is called corruption.

US Elections: Executive summary

[Anonymous Coward]

1$ = 1 vote