Marketing onlineOnline marketing advices

Oh great, the right is trying once again to censor the universe.

This bill would allow Internet Service Providers to slow down and block certain Internet content of their own choice to their subscribers.

The best part is he had the opposite opinion last year. Why does McCain think this can pass, and why doesn’t he think everyone is going to be outraged?

Republicans have been for net neutrality since the beginning, but recently a wave of them have been joining the big telephone companies in wanting to charge more for less Internet access (and opposing everyone else).

Can you guess why? Glenn Beck said that net neutrality is a “Marxist plot.” Suddenly, it’s a debate, and taking away freedom is patriotic. You can’t make this stuff up.

If you’re a Republican, I hope you’ll disagree with Beck about this one. It’s really that black and white. Beck is literally in support of restricting our online freedom to make telecommunications companies more money. Then he calls opposing this a “Marxist plot.”

The Internet has always been neutral. By Beck’s logic, everyone who uses the Internet is a Marxist. Do you see how silly he sounds?

source on McCain and Beck

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/mccain-net-neutrality/

Additional Details
first it was bush with habeas corpus and privacy. Now McCain goes on the attack against free speech and fair market.
@Oh no

Actually he wasn’t one of the ten who voted on that bill. Lets be fair, lets not become republicans.

Do not want “mud slinging” topics, just what does each of the candidates stand. As would like their experiences with the issues as on the war, economy, unemployment, taxes, abortions, home security, crime, global warming, ozone, government expenitures, immigration, Social Security, health coverage, housing market, ID thief, security with online crimes, education and the costs rising, pollution, protecting our natural resources, and be accountable with their stands on issues.

New York, once the financial capital of the world, is no longer even the financial capital of the U.S. That honor falls on Washington, where lawmakers are now injecting populist politics into economics decisions. Companies and sectors that should be left to drown are being floated lifeboats. This drama is also playing out across Europe and Asia. As engines of economic growth, Shanghai is losing ground to Beijing, Mumbai to Delhi, and Dubai to Abu Dhabi.

Global markets will also face the more traditional forms of political risk in 2009. Militancy in an increasingly unstable and financially fragile Pakistan will continue to spill across borders into Afghanistan and India. National elections in Israel and Iran risk bringing the international conflict over Iran’s nuclear program to a boil, injecting new volatility into oil markets. The impact of the financial crisis on Russia’s economy could produce significant levels of unrest across the country. And Iraq may face renewed civil violence, as recently dormant militia groups compete to fill the vacuum left by departing U.S. troops.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267029592108287.html

Found this article online and I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion

Why Rush Limbaugh Is Good for the Republicans
By RAMESH PONNURU Ramesh Ponnuru – Wed Mar 11, 2:20 pm ET

AP – In the March 16 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 9): ‘Enough! A Conservative’s Case Against …
Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs knew what they were doing when they declared Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican opposition. They were putting Republican politicians in a trap. Repudiating Limbaugh would mean alienating millions of conservatives and declaring Limbaugh’s plainspoken conservatism – which many of those politicians share – outside the lines of the national debate. But neither could Republicans allow the insinuation that they take orders from a radio host stand. If voters got that impression, they would look weak. Worse, the polls show more people dislike Limbaugh than like him.
The Republicans escaped this trap by saying that the White House was talking about Limbaugh in order to avoid talking about Obama’s failure to come up with a financial-rescue plan. But now one Limbaugh controversy has been replaced by another. Instead of squabbling with Democrats about him, Republicans are arguing with each other. The subject of the dispute: Does Limbaugh help spread conservatism among Americans – or turn them off from it? (Read “Criticizing Rush Limbaugh: Over the Line?”)
Some conservatives have always winced at Limbaugh’s in-your-face style. But the debate today has a special charge because, like the similar debate over Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a few months ago, it is tied up with questions about the future of the Republican party.
In one camp are those who believe that the Republican party must modernize its message to account for changing circumstances. The columnist David Brooks has called these people the “reformers.” Against them are the “traditionalists,” who believe that Republicans need only recommit themselves to Ronald Reagan’s agenda to succeed again. (Read “Can Michael Steele Broaden the Grand Old Party?”)
The traditionalists push for upper-income tax cuts. The reformers want to cut the payroll taxes paid by the middle class. Traditionalists often deny that global warming is real. Reformers just want to make sure that our answer to it is cost-effective. The traditionalists want to hold the line on government spending. The reformers think that it’s more important for Republicans to advocate market-friendly solutions to problems such as rising health-care costs and traffic congestion.
Limbaugh, needless to say, is a traditionalist, and some of the reformers have become fierce critics. The debate has gotten pretty hot over the last two weeks, with those critics going after Limbaugh’s girth and his outraged fans accusing them of being closet liberals.
1) Do you think that Rush is really the leader of the repub party?

2) Do you think Rush helps or hurts conservs?

3). Do you think that Rush push repubs away and help them become more moderate or do you think that Rush will attract repubs and make them much more conserv?
4) share additional thoughts!!!!

Since this seems to be the latest hot-button tactic republicans are using to get votes, I wonder what everyone thinks this will get them? Since I know many of you believe it will solve, or even help in some/anyway at the gas pumps please read the following provided by politifact.com and then tell me honestly what you, McCain, and Palin think is going to be accomplished by drilling on U.S. soil? (also, I’m not saying I’m against drilling, I just dont see how it accomplishes anything substantial even short-term):

from politifact.com:

For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas.

“Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight,” said David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Freedom from Oil. “It’s just not going to make much difference.”

It takes years to bring new oil wells online, said Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington. Companies need to drill exploratory wells, then discovery wells around the exploratory wells that show promise. Shipyards that build platforms, a two to three year endeavor, are already booked solid.

“It’s foolish to sell it as a short-term solution to high gas prices,” Rodgers said. “Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today.”

That being said, Rodgers is a proponent of offshore drilling.

Most forecasters believe we are in for more dramatic prices hikes as international demand grows, particularly in rapidly developing countries such as India and China. As demand rises, Rodgers said, it would be good for the U.S. to have more of its own supply.

If there is a larger domestic supply of oil in the future, he said, “you would hope” it might soften prices some.

But even long term projections on the impact of offshore drilling don’t promise much relief at the pump.

An analysis performed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, found in a report published in 2007 that opening up the outer continental shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern Gulf regions would result in production no sooner than 2017, and would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production before 2030.

“Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant,” the report concludes.

The EIA also researched the impact of crude oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To put it in scale, ANWR is believed to have a potential for 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil, a little more than half of the projected potential for the offshore areas McCain has proposed opening.

ANWR would add only 1 to 2 percent to the overall world oil supply, said Philip Budzig, who authored the report for the EIA. The report concluded drilling there would subtract anywhere from 41 cents to $1.44 per barrel of crude oil around 2025. That translates to a savings of just a couple pennies per gallon at the pump. Again, in 2025.

Budzig noted that the report was prepared when oil was going for about $65 a barrel. It’s now double that. So, in theory, savings might be double what he projected last year.

The case for offshore drilling becomes more compelling when you look long term, Budzig said.

Increasing domestic oil production will lower the U.S. trade deficit, he said, putting less stress on the dollar.

“It’s sort of like investing in your kid’s education,” Budzig said.

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham told the St. Petersburg Times he was horrified by McCain’s plan.

“I doubt there’s an economist alive that would make the case that there’s a near or longer term relationship between the moratorium and the price of gasoline,” Graham said.

Several economists who spoke to PolitiFact backed that up.

“Obviously, if you do offshore drilling now it’s not going to give any short term help on the supply of oil,” said Paul A. Samuelson, a professor of economics at MIT and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics. “That’s far away.”

“Getting oil from the tundra and arctic isn’t going to solve the problem,” Samuelson said, adding that the potential for environmental damage needs to be factored in as well.

Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University and an international expert on oil markets, said he supports offshore drilling as a long-term way to lower dependence on foreign oil and thereby improve national security.

However, he said, “I have a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons. The realit
Gooch, I drive a hybrid honda civic. I do think locally, I also think globally.