Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

President Obama To Nominate Cable and Wireless Lobbyist To Head FCC

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the break-out-the-tinfoil-hats dept.

Government 304

symbolset writes "The Wall Street Journal and others are reporting that longtime telecomm lobbyist Tom Wheeler will be nominated to head the Federal Communications Commission. According to the LA Times: 'Wheeler is a former president of the National Cable Television Assn. and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Assn. Despite his close ties to industries he will soon regulate, some media watchdogs are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. "As someone who has known Tom for years, I believe that he will be an independent, proactive chairman," said Gigi B. Sohn, president and chief executive of Public Knowledge, adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."'"

cancel ×

304 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yep, typical (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43594747)

I really wish the alternatives in the recent elections weren't more in bed with corporate interests.

Re:Yep, typical (4, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year ago | (#43594775)

What do you expect? This is the same party that gave us the DMCA.

Re:Yep, typical (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43595167)

Back up further: what do you expect of politics in general? Money buys influence in any government, no matter what form it takes. The only time that is not true is when enough people oppose the money. You can argue about this party or that party, or the number of parties, or term limits, or democracy even, but in any organization where the citizens don't care, you'll get money buying rules. Parties aren't going to do the job of the public for the public.

Actually, you can generalize that last part as well. No one is going to do any job you want them to do unless you keep on them or they have their own interests in doing it. Politicians aren't going to have our interests at heart unless you threaten to kick them out if they don't. And we're not doing that.

Bring back Teddy (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year ago | (#43595563)

The only time that is not true is when enough people oppose the money.

Or when you have an honest man for a president who truly does place the public good above his own greed. The only two examples I can think of offhand are George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt.

Obama is just as corrupt as Bush, he is a team player.

Re:Yep, typical (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595425)

And every other disease known to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the people of the several united states; THE REPUBMOCRAT dictatorship.
Face it, you're owned by the Repubmocrats, even if you think you have a choice and can change things, you can't. There has been only one party running this show for around a century now. So who could be surprised that Omama gives exactly the wrong person the job. Is it still nepotism if he's not related to you , just blowing your knob? Just as good a friend as money can buy. Looks like Omama sold us again. Who cares, after all, he'll retire wealthy and we'll still be ruled by Repubmocrats, picking our flesh.

Third parties (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year ago | (#43594789)

You must not have been paying attention. There were many third party candidates who were not on the corporate payroll.

Re:Third parties (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43594811)

The most viable third party, the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform. The lack of money in that regard seems to just be and artifact of their lack of electoral potential.

Re:Third parties (5, Insightful)

claytongulick (725397) | about a year ago | (#43594983)

This is a common misunderstanding/misperception. The Libertarians vehemently oppose corporate welfare and public/private partnerships. What you're calling "pro-corporate" is really not true - they believe that in general, the market should be left alone, regulation minimized and clear separation between companies and government should exist. They are deeply suspicious of things like the military-industrial complex.

The Libertarians believe that a person has a right to the fruit of their own labors, and that people should be free from burdensome regulation and oppressive government manipulation of markets. This is not "pro corporate" this is "pro human". They also believe that just as a person should be free to succeed, they should be free to fail. The libertarians are passionately opposed to "bail outs" and "stimulus" government corporate welfare programs.

Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

Re:Third parties (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595207)

So you claim. When 'libertarians' are forced to pick a side (for example, by someone in their presence speaking ill of corporate behaviour or corporate welfare), many 'libertarians' go on authoritarian-corporate-arselicker rants. A consistent 'libertarian' is difficult to find, but I do appreciate such creatures dearly.

The Libertarians believe that a person has a right to the fruit of their own labors

'The Libertarians' believe that capitalists have a right to the lion's share of the fruit of others' labours. Nothing more.

Re:Third parties (4, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about a year ago | (#43595423)

Believing each individual has an inalienable right to the fruit of their own labour does not equal believing that capitalists have the right to the lions share of the fruits of others' labour. The difference should be obvious to anyone that can read English.

Re:Third parties (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43595675)

But that doesn't fit the Leftwing view that anything different from their limited view is 100% wrong, therefore deserves to be mocked and exaggerated.

I've started parroting their techniques back at them. They make exaggerated claims about things they don't understand, I make exaggerated claims about what they believe. "All Liberals believe government should tell people how much they should make, and should pick the winners and losers through the body politic. And government should punish the successful and reward failue. Fair share is 'code' for punish the rich."

You can see hints of this in the GP post "The Libertarians' believe that capitalists have a right to the lion's share of the fruit of others' labours." Punish the wealthy, because they stole it all from the poor. If they only realized how ridiculous their view actually comes across. They make Sarah Palin look like a genius. (another technique, equate them with being more stupid than those they mock)

Re:Third parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595727)

Believing each individual has an inalienable right to the fruit of their own labour does not equal believing that capitalists have the right to the lions share of the fruits of others' labour.

This is exactly why the current movement of Right-Libertarianism is an oxymoron.

Posting anonymously because I have mod points.

Re:Third parties (1, Funny)

JDAustin (468180) | about a year ago | (#43595329)

If you want to be modded up, you should always remind slashdotters about the libertarian stance on drugs...

Re:Third parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595585)

They removed this from their party platform.

Re:Third parties (4, Insightful)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about a year ago | (#43595385)

Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

And then the Libertarian would rebrand himself a Republican and run as that.

Plus, it wouldn't matter anyway - after killing off regulations, the large corporations would have an even larger stranglehold on the marketplace, as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

Re:Third parties (3, Informative)

Yakasha (42321) | about a year ago | (#43595637)

as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

You're confusing "minimal" with "no" regulation. Very different words.

Re:Third parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595453)

No true scotsman...

Re:Third parties (1)

BorisSkratchunkov (642046) | about a year ago | (#43595479)

Spoken like a true Scotsman amidst many imitators.

Re:Third parties (1)

BorisSkratchunkov (642046) | about a year ago | (#43595537)

Although if you really do believe in ending the shitshow that is the military-industrial complex as it is today, you have my support.

Re:Third parties (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43595737)

I am a libertarian and I don't support the military, industrial, media complex. I support proper accountability for corporations by holding their senior officers and corporate boards personally liable for corporate sponsored crimes. Additionally, I support being able to pull ill gotten gains from private trusts as well. Change the laws so that those running these non-person entities are held responsible for corporate sponsored crimes, and you'll see a change in corporate culture. You don't have to destroy corporations to keep them accountable, you just have to change who is accountable for when corporations do illegal acts. Right now, nobody is accountable.

Re:Third parties (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43595729)

No true Scotsman is a form of begging the question where a person redefines his terms to mean the thing he needs it to mean to exclude counterexample to his claim. That doesn't mean that any time someone points that a term excludes a given example they are committing that fallacy. In particular GP pointed out that the general characteristics of libertarian thought are counter to GGP's claims. That's not fallacious. Further, when discussing large heterogeneous groups like political parties you should expect that many pertinent claims will not be universal and instead be only a significant majority.

Re:Third parties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595501)

In practice, "Libertarians" in government act exactly as you demonize here. They're all corporate whores that protect their pork and business ties, with perhaps a handful of exceptions.

It's nothing more than a schtick to keep fiscal conservatives from jumping ship from the Republican party. So far, it seems to be working.

And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

Re:Third parties (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595539)

Is it "pro human" to let someone die of an easily-treatable health condition just because they previously depleted their savings and can't work while disabled?

Re:Third parties (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year ago | (#43595021)

the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform.

Nope. Libertarians are pro-market. The Ruling Party is pro-corporations, and does all it can to help their cronies exclude competition.

-jcr

Re:Third parties (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595057)

Yeah, that's the philosophy. Then you look at the facts...

Re:Third parties (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595171)

What facts?

No Libertarian has ever had power in any national arena. Therefore, there are no, and can be no, facts of the kind you imagine.

Re:Third parties (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about a year ago | (#43595041)

Is it hard to talk while fellating that straw man?

Re:Third parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595513)

You mean , the radical also-rans that no-one knows about because they are embargoed by the Repubmocrat owned media? Why everyone knows, they are just a bunch of freaks out to ruin the U.S. with their radical changes. There's a good reason they don't let them debate the Repubmocrat party, people might get confused.
People need Repubmocrats to keep running the show, so they don't have to think so hard. When everything goes to hell, you can always blame the Repubmocrats and no one will ever have to take responsibility for the shit we have. We can just point a finger, then elect another to fix it even more. Third parties, we don't even have a second party, silly.

Re:Third parties (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595651)

give me a third party candidate who has good ideas and doesn't dispense with the bonkers "free drugs" "no taxes" stoned college freshman rhetoric and i'll be happy to vote for that person. our current crop of third party candidates are contrarian for the sake of making a point, they don't bring viable ideas to the table.

Re:Yep, typical (0)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43595073)

If you're seeking an excuse for having voted for Obama, you won't get one from me.

Re:Yep, typical (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595403)

Oh please. Like the other dipschtick would have been any better.

Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595471)

Watching the Progressives and Leftists get pounded in the ass by the very same guy they elected.

Enjoying your Hopey Changy thing?

Re:Yep, typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595711)

Do you want more Evil Oil and Evil IP or more Evil IP and Hydraulic fracturing?
I would take Evil oil over what RIAA and Fracking is doing, but a 3rd party would be nice.

I see one 4 ways out of this:
Voting (50+ Million needed).
Mass Protest of the government (Needs a few million).
Gun Protect (AKA overthrow) of our government (Needs 100+ thousand?)
God. One god or some very powerful alien race.

captcha: demoniac

The revolving door continues to spin (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594755)

adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Seriously?

Re:The revolving door continues to spin (2)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43595045)

Trouble is, we are the ones that get hit in the ass by it.

Re:The revolving door continues to spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595129)

Of course! This works like with the previous Spanish Culture Minister Gonzalez-Sinde, former president of Academy of Arts and Cinematography, daughter of the founder and sister of a producer directly involved in the film industry, which of course had no conflict of interests or personal ties with the industry at all. And the German case is not very different... so don't worry, nothing new.

Re:The revolving door continues to spin (1)

rwa2 (4391) | about a year ago | (#43595133)

They said exactly what they could say to dispel any concerns that he might be a biased industry shill so they could assuage fears of the populace?

DIABOLICAL!

Re:The revolving door continues to spin (1)

246o1 (914193) | about a year ago | (#43595197)

adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Of course, he can't help it if his opinions have been formed by working as a professional wheel-greaser for one specific industry. That is, of course, the most insidious danger to a good government - people of good faith who are overwhelmingly biased in favor of economic elite interests (which is why a randomly selected Senate, like juries, might be interesting). Since having jobs like his look like a positive mark for government jobs, and corporations tend to hire people who like corporations or are willing to become sympathetic, it's a tough, systemic problem.

popcorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594761)

I need a hefty bowl of popcorn for this discussion...

wolf in sheep skin shoes (4, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#43594763)

in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#43594851)

He wouldn't be an unreasonable candidate

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594925)

seeing as he is dead, I would imagine that he would be unreasonable

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594991)

Death won't stop him from voting, why should it stop him from holding office?

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43595101)

We STILL have a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury. If that wasn't the case, your joke would be a lot funnier.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43595125)

Wait, excuse me-- I'm an idiot. I forgot Jack Lew replaced him. Well, it only took four years.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43595217)

How would that be bad? He gave his patients what they wanted. People trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else, with their strange notions of your life not being yours to end when you feel like it, that's not who I would want in charge of health services.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | about a year ago | (#43595321)

What is wrong with Dr. Kevorkian, let's hope you won't get into the situation to beg doctors to end your life...

And if you believe that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594803)

I have some swap land in Florida and a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Change we can believe in? I think not. I hate to sound like Cenk Uygur, but if this doesn't tell you that our President is a corporate robot, nothing will.

Re:And if you believe that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594871)

You read/heard that wrong... It's not "change", it's actually "chains"...and I can fully believe in the chains...

Re:And if you believe that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595369)

Oh, you mean like people misunderstood Bush 1 when he said "know new taxes"?

I believe that he will be an independent (1)

googleplex+1 (2753925) | about a year ago | (#43594823)

I want to believe.

Re:I believe that he will be an independent (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#43594859)

This bridge here is yours for the low low price of 3.50

Conflict of interest (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#43594827)

This doesn't even pass the sniff test with regards to conflict of interest. Obama is as much of a tool of industry as W ever was, his entire populist election campaign of 2008 was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public. Seriously, look at industry after industry and you will see Obama acting fundamentally the same. How many bankers are in jail for the collapse of the economy, etc, etc?

Re:Conflict of interest (2)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#43594867)

hey at least the republicans will filibuster this

Re:Conflict of interest (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594995)

Not if the lobbyists yank the choke chain.

"Down, boy. He's one of us. Get down. Shut up. Sit. Shake. Goooood boy, here's your treat." (brown envelope stuffed with $100s)

Re:Conflict of interest (4, Insightful)

Krojack (575051) | about a year ago | (#43594897)

Every President that gets elected to a second term stop giving a shit. It's the home stretch to pad their pockets and spend paradise on a beach.

Re:Conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595399)

Every President that gets elected to a second term stop giving a shit. It's the home stretch to pad their pockets and spend paradise on a beach.

black guys really dont need to tan on the beach.

Re:Conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594913)

And for those of you who missed the last collapse, an even bigger one is right around the corner.

We've had no recovery... just fresh-printed of dollars to make Wall Street happy. The banks now run everything and America will continue slipping away.

Re:Conflict of interest (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43594951)

Neil Macbride [justice.gov] , former Business Software Alliance general counsel and vice president was appointed US Attorney shortly after President Obama's first inauguration - probably at the behest of his former boss Vice President Joe Biden. Since then he has been a tireless bulldog as the US Government's enforcement arm of the MPAA and RIAA - notably in the case of Kim Dotcom's Megaupload [slashdot.org] in New Zealand, which is now bordering on an international incident.

Darned right it doesn't pass the sniff test.

The lobbyist connection (1)

jonfr (888673) | about a year ago | (#43594855)

I think this needs to be investigated. Seriously. This is not normal. Now the lobbyist with power can now do what he was unable to do when he was powerless (but just placing bribes) lobbyist.

Some shit is going to happen following this and it is going to be bad.

Re:The lobbyist connection (1)

mcl630 (1839996) | about a year ago | (#43595653)

Not normal? Industry insiders being appointed to gov't positions that regulate said industry? That's unfortuately very normal. The Treasury Department is full of ex-Goldman Sachs people, the Department of Justice is full of ex-RIAA and MPAA lawyers, etc.

Oh come on (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43595669)

He did raise half a million dollars for the President's reelection campaign. You need a million to be made ambassador. For lower tiers there has to be a bone somewhere in the executive branch to throw your boosters and the Justice Department is already full of Hollywood lackeys, so the FCC is the natural next spot for the meatpuppet of our copyright maximalist entertainment industry overlords.

This is good news (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43594869)

I keep getting questions from people asking me to give them an example of regulatory capture. Now I have one.

More of the same... (5, Interesting)

superdave80 (1226592) | about a year ago | (#43594883)

Good thing we didn't elect that mean ol' corporate guy, Romney, eh? Keep electing Democrats hoping that they will be different than Republicans, and don't you DARE 'waste' your vote on anything other than an (R) or a (D)!

Re:More of the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594987)

Don't strawman me: I simply have too much ennui to work up the motivation to mail my ballot in.

Re:More of the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595123)

Well, next time don't spend so much capital trying to convince us that Obama is a Marxist Kenyan Anti-Colonial Atheistic Communist.

Talk about bad investments.

Re:More of the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595681)

You forgot Muslim

Re:More of the same... (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about a year ago | (#43595157)

I voted for the the Green...much good it did, but there it is.

Re:More of the same... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595405)

The more votes a third party gets, the more the Rs and Ds try to copy their policies in order to win those votes back. Better to change position on a few topics then let another party gain good media attention. The third parties see that someone cares about them and they keep on fighting for their principles. Your vote does more than you think it did.

Thank you for voting for a different party.

Re:More of the same... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595475)

Pretty flamebait-y, isn't this? I get your point, but I'd like to see how you can justify that a vote for a third-party candidate isn't *currently* a waste.

Wonder Who'll Buy Him On UHF Data Transmission... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594891)

Microsoft and Co. or the Cell Phone companies?

mmmm (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year ago | (#43594895)

Wheeler is a former president of the F.F.R.H.H. (Foxes For the Raiding of Hen Houses) Assn. Despite his close ties to industries he will soon regulate, some media watchdogs are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. "As someone who has known Tom for years, I believe that he will be an independent, proactive chairman," said Gigi B. Sohn, president and chief executive of Public Knowledge, adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Re:mmmm (1)

preaction (1526109) | about a year ago | (#43595097)

I vote to put a bell on him! Who's with me?!

Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43594917)

I wonder if Obama knows what the term "conflict of interest" means.

Re:Wow... (2)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43595451)

Probably but it isn't conflicting with any of his interests so why should he care?

C&W? (1)

Nethead (1563) | about a year ago | (#43594923)

Where does it say that Wheeler worked for Cable & Wireless? [wikipedia.org] Gotta watch those titles.

Shouldn't this be posted under humor? (1)

solosaint (699000) | about a year ago | (#43594927)

Shouldn't this be posted under humor? #justsayin

Democracy (1)

mvar (1386987) | about a year ago | (#43594931)

By the people, for the people in other news, corporations rule the western world

The end of Google Fiber? (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year ago | (#43594965)

No doubt he can be counted upon to be reasonable with this startup that's challenging his former employers.

Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43594969)

First we have the SOPA loveboat heading up NSF funding, and now Cable lobbyists in charge of the FCC? Whats next, putting Prenda lawyers in charge of the US Patent Office?

Re:Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595039)

Shhh! Don't give them ideas.

Re:Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama (2)

Randle_Revar (229304) | about a year ago | (#43595205)

I am sure Salt Marsh would be a great public servant

Re:Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595279)

Screw Salt Marsh.

I'm for Jwar Isle Refuge.

Sigh. (1)

eddy (18759) | about a year ago | (#43594975)

Oh, Obama. You're no President Bartlet, that's for sure.

Re:Sigh. (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | about a year ago | (#43595431)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:Sigh. (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43595591)

Oh, Obama. You're no President Bartlet, that's for sure.

Pear-shaped national policy's gotta count for something.

This is nothing new (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595005)

Despite the promises made by President Obama, there are plenty of lobbyists with jobs in government, hired on his watch. What's one more? What difference does it make?

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-lobbyists-inside-the-obamas-administration?op=1 [businessinsider.com]

Re:This is nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595371)

Wow. This is how you can broke all promises. "What can I do if there is no other choice?".

Thanks for nothing, yet again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595081)

Every time Obama does something corrupt like this, I regret voting for him.

Conversely I don't know why Republicans hate him; Obama is just as corrupt as Bush ever was. You'd think they'd love the idea that a true business criminal like Obama got into office under the "guise" of a Democrat.

I wonder how many more inappropriate and irresponsible nominations we'll see during the rest of his term. Maybe he'll put a Monsanto shill in charge of the FDA, or an Exxon executive in charge of the EPA. Let's just let big business and the billionaires regulate everything. It certainly worked out terribly for Texas.

Every party sucks. Democarts are corrupt potheads, Libertarians are unrealistic potheads, Republicans are business crooks. Frustrating as hell when there's no normal people left to vote for.

Re:Thanks for nothing, yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595189)

Maybe he'll put a Monsanto shill in charge of the FDA,

Haha, I guess you didn't read the above business insider link?
Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner at FDA

Obama is a moderate conservative Republican, the only reason the GOP doesn't embrace him is because he's black and they are stuck in a idealized 50's Norman Rockwell painting.

Re:Thanks for nothing, yet again (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year ago | (#43595473)

Hardly. He is pushing way too much crap to be considered a conservative. I think you are seeing his similarity to John McCain but forgetting that McCain is a progressive (by his own words).

Re:Thanks for nothing, yet again (1)

Rideak (180158) | about a year ago | (#43595721)

Cognitive Dissonance. People don't mind it as much when it's "their guy" doing it, or they simply ignore it and put it out of mind.

So, Obama voters... (0, Troll)

JDAustin (468180) | about a year ago | (#43595257)

...how's all that hope and change bullshit working out for?

Re:So, Obama voters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595463)

Seriously, trolling/flamebait, and it's at 3? Ugh.

This behavior is old news to some... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43595341)

1. Pick a government department/entity that you think could be doing this same thing.
2. Add the words "revolving door" to that search term.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/

This is to help combat global warming (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43595357)

The fast that revolving door spins, the more circulation of air we get. Okay, so maybe that'll just make the ice caps melt faster, but I'm sure their hearts are in the right place.

Well, technically.... (1)

goldspider (445116) | about a year ago | (#43595407)

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years."

If he hasn't been a lobbyist within the past two years, I suppose we ought to give him a pass. Right?

This is nothing new (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year ago | (#43595417)

Remember Merdith Attwell Baker? She approved the NBC/COMCAST merger. Then she started working for NBC right after [huffingtonpost.com] The way the US government stands now is that politicians get elected by gathering the most money through campaign contributions. They then do everything in their power to help those who gave them money. Some people say the corporations interest is the people. But most know this isn't always true.

Don't worry (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43595661)

There is nothing you can do about it anyway. So enjoy the trip.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>