“Presidential candidates are touting widespread broadband as a boost for employment and rural education, but a close look at financial interests suggests tech policy may also be a campaign paycheck. Candidates for both of the major political parties are drawing contributions from the technology industry, and from communications firms in particular. But the proportion differs,” Emily Kumler reports for Medill News Service.
“Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts says universal broadband access is necessary for the country to rebuild its tech sector and increase employment in high tech industry. As of mid-June, 38 percent of the $2,415,894 Kerry has received from his top 20 donors has come from contributors with a strong interest in the technology sector, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics,” Kumler reports.
“Meanwhile, 5 percent of the $5,886,487 provided by the top 20 contributors to the incumbent Republican candidate, President George Bush, comes from tech companies or lobbyists. The majority of Bush’s top contributors are financial firms that may have investments in the technology sector but are not directly acting on tech firms’ behalf. Another 5 percent, or $3,332,700, of Bush’s total contributions grouped by business sector came from the communications and electronics industry. At nearly $3.8 million, donations to the Kerry campaign from the communications and electronics industry nearly matched Bush’s, but they account for 9 percent of Kerry’s total donations,” Kumler reports. “Bush says broadband will facilitate a classroom in every living room, giving the most remote citizen access to a wealth of information and opportunity. The president has set the goal but has not outlined its execution other than imploring Congress to permanently ban Internet taxes.”
Full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Star-studded list of tech execs to endorse President Bush for another term – May 18, 2004
Apple CEO Steve Jobs advising presidential candiate Kerry on economic issues – May 01, 2004
President Bush calls for ban on broadband Internet tax – April 26, 2004
President George W. Bush calls for universal broadband by 2007 – March 29, 2004
The Mac is Bush to Windows’ Clinton – October 25, 2002
JIMBO, holy crap, I think you missed my anaolgy. I really don’t know how to respond to that, Without saying something stupid and mean.
Damn, Jimbo is on a roll.
Skully, I didn’t miss the analogy – I expanded upon it. The thought being that The Shrub (little Bush) attacked Iraq for no good reasons. Yeah, Saddam was an asshole, but if we attacked every country whose leader was an asshole, we’d start bombing ourselves. Anyway, he claimed WMDs. He claimed an Al Qaida association. He lied. The real reasons he did it were because of oil, and because he planned to do it all along.
I did like the analogy, though. Really.
About the Geneva Convention, that applies only to two warring parties not one warring party and unidentifyable fighters. The US has identifyable fighters while terrorists are not covered by it. Thus the US can hold them forever if they want and they can use ANY method to extract info. That being said, no one wants torture to be liberally applied, however I don’t regard what happened in Abu Ghirab as torture, more like sexual abuse, which I don;t believe falls under Geneva anyway.
My $.02
Ok, let’s travel down this rabbit hole. Let’s say Bush lied, why did he lie?
What would he gain by starting a war and that the reasons for war would eventually be proven wrong? Is the US being paid for the oil that is being? If it is show me proof.. If not, than your arguement is false and has not merit.
sorry, I meant ” Is the US being paid for the oil that is being sold?”
Deus Ex Machina,
Thank you for pointing out the obvious to these tools. They still won’t get it though. Not until they’re on the receiving end of the terrorist’s knife and they probably still won’t get it. Or when their city get’s nuked.
jimbo van pussy,
please go over to the middle east and hang out with your terrorist friends. why do you think they attacked us on 9/11? Give me your great insights into that you freaking moron.
Look, I pride myself on thinking independently of party politics, for the great ones always do. I try to emulate. Alot of the things said about George Bush are incredibly false and misdirected. However he also has made quite a few misjudgements himself. I don’t believe in judgin a sitting president based on media reports solely. You have to look at the underlying factors and I give the W slack for tackling a sore-eye of American Foreign policy that was Iraq. Sure we built Saddam up, but we did the right thing taking him down. At least we are cleaning up our messes, which is a bit more than I can say about the foreign policy blunders of other presidents or nations for that matter.
well said deus and Jay.
I commend George Bush on tackling this terrible world problem. It has to be done. Like it or not Liberals.
Bring it Jay Rice. I could outwit you in my sleep.
Deus, good point. However, the breaking of the Geneva Conventions would be against the country of Iraq. We initially declared war (officially or not) on Iraq, whose leader was Saddam Hussein. Whether or not he was beloved does not matter. Remember that in your choice of words (terrorists), you seem to be wanting to tie them to 9/11. Remember that only our current administration makes that claim. Everyone else knows it’s not valid.
So, while we might have the rights to ignore the GC against Al Qaida, we do not against Iraq. Bush’s advisors are trying to use that excuse, but I don’t believe it’ll hold up in court.
Now, why would Bush lie? He would like because he wanted any reason to attack Iraq and we would not go for his “cause I wanna” argument. So he lied about WMD. He lied about Al Qaida ties. He lied about other things.
Why would he lie, though? Well, remember that Mr. Cheney is pulling his puppet strings. Cheney never drinks when Bush is talking. Cheney and Halliburton have a lot to gain in Iraq. They’ve made billions already. They’ve also cheated for hundreds of millions more. That’s reason enough.
Then you have the ‘X’ factor – Christianity. God told Bush to do this. God hates everyone but Christians. We should kill all but Christians. God says so.
Funny how much Bush sounds like the Muslim extremists when he says this.
Finally, I agree that Saddam should be taken down. But we should have done it in the right way. We should not have lied about WMDs and terrorists and then gone in there. We should have said, “This guy is bad and we’re going to go take him out.” That would have been more palatable, more legal. God would have wanted it that way…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
George W. today unveiled a mental health plan through which he wants to get everyone “evaluated” and placed on the appropriate medications. I figure once they have all the “deviants” (homos, atheists, Iraq dissenters, vegetarians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, illegitimate children, single mothers, Down’s Syndrome kids, amputees, the blind, and every other non-christian who isn’t just like them) identified and medicated, it’s easy enough to build a few camps with gigantic ovens.
Enjoy your time in the labor camp, Skully, you moron.
jfbiii, be a little nicer to Skully. He’s at least putting up a competent argument. You wanna pick on morons, go after Jay “Trailer Trash Bubba” Rice. That boy ain’t right. Why momma musta dropped him on the head a few times when he was young. But I’m sure that, like the current prez, he decided to join the service when he was 18. Of course, he had to leave the third grade early, but there he was….
jimbo von pussy,
and which one of these so called Iraqi soldiers were wearing uniforms when they were taken prisoner? how many? please let us know since you think you personally know so much about Sadam and Al Queers love affair with each other. you couldn’t outwit your way out of a paper bag tool.
Jay this jimbo character needs his head examined.
How did I know this forum would turn into a big political bashfest? Hate to see MDN in October. All of you are freakin’ pansies.
Jay Bubba,
We also have servicemen fighting in wars that are not in uniform. They attempt to infiltrate, to blend in. They are still soldiers for their respective country. You are a fucking tool, boy.
I can’t wait for that moron to be ejected from the white house, I hate it when someone takes all the credit for being the best douchebag.
Tell ’em Jimbo!
jfbiii- If you have something to say about my posts, quote me, than call me a name. At least have a reason for your rants.
“If you vote Kerry you support Terrorists.” That was you, skully, I believe.
No. A vote for Bush is a vote for terrorists. Because under Bush and Asscroft, terrorists have already won their war. Under Bush and Asscroft, we have become a nation of trembling pussies willing to give up any freedom, no matter how dear, in an attempt to trade that freedom for a safety which cannot be obtained that way.
The Patriot Act isn’t being used to stop terrorism…it’s being used to increase the power of federal and local law enforcement and will end with the US increasingly resembling the defeated USSR. Papers in order to travel (I think they call it the “Registered Traveler” program); forced medication for children forced to undergo mental evaluations in public schools (that one’s called the “New Freedom Initiative”); these assholes are the terrorists: they are traitors to their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
You can say what you want about being an independent. But the most savage nation, if it does happen to win a war, really hasn’t won anything. Because a descent into savagery is a descent into slavery at the point of whoever’s holding the biggest gun. Whether the erosion of the Consitutional protections at home enables the torture abroad or the reverse is immaterial. The path Bush has chosen, while correctly including a war of liberation, has taken a turn so wrong that only the willfully ignorant can miss it.
It really doesn’t sound as if anyone here has the facts straight. The US and GWB were not the only ones to think that there were WMD in Iraq. The entire Security Council thought so, hence the votes condemning Iraq for having them. If the CIA was duped or misguided or just plain wrong, so were the intelligence services of every other country who voted for those resolutions. The differences were not based upon different beliefs about the presence of WMD, but on what and when to do something about it. US and Britain wanted to be aggressive about it, France, Germany, Russia and China wanted to give it more time. Even Kerry thought the Iraqi’s had WMD but then he got the same information GWB got. Communications between al-qaeda and Iraq did exist. That does not mean Iraq assisted on 9/11 or helped plot any of the terrorist attacks of the past several years, but it doesn’t mean they would not have if international sanctions had continued. Even Russia’s intelligence services believed Saddam was going to promote terrorist attacks on US, whether in concert with al-qaeda or not is unknown. Was any of this due to intentional lies? It would not appear so if all countries believed it to be true. Maybe they all believed it because Iraqi’s were horrible book keepers who did not know how to document the destruction of their WMD’s. Does that mean we had to attack Iraq at the time we did? Argue that all you want, but no one on this forum has all the information that the Prime Minister and President did when they made their plans.
A lot of people also say this is all about the Oil. There is no way that the US or anybody or company in it is going to recover a hundreth of what this war and attendant reconstruction is going to cost us before it is over. So economically, a war for oil makes no sense. Unless we took over Iraq and got to keep every penny of profit until the oil ran out without a cent going to the Iraqi’s would that even come close to being reasonable. While Cheney’s former company and others are going to make lots of money in this deal, it isn’t going to come close to what the taxpayers are putting into it. It would be cheaper to just give those company’s tax credits or big boondoggle contracts for nothing than go to war and rebuild the country afterward if he wants to reward them. Cost a lot less that way. And really, to suggest that Bush, Cheney or anyone of our leaders would trade thousands of American lives killed or wounded for a bad economic deal smacks of unreasoned hatred or bias by the party claiming it. I may not agree with their policies, but I’m pretty certain none of them are that crass, unpatriotic and stupid. They may not be doing what I or someone else who thinks like me would do in similar circumstances, but I don’t believe they would deliberately have so many die or get wounded for so little money to so few people. I’m a probation officer so I see a lot of stupid and cruel things, but that would be stretching it for even most of the people I supervise.
It would seem the time you’ve spent trashing each other’s political beliefs might be better spent on debating the merits of any particular policy or even (gasp!) discussing ways to make things better than they are. Just my ten cents worth.