Collaboration

How Google became the George Washington of the Internet

Despite its extremely ambitious agenda and questionable conflicts of interest, Google has maintained public trust with minimal backlash. Here's why.

Despite its extremely ambitious agenda and questionable conflicts of interest, Google has maintained public trust with minimal backlash. Here's why.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After George Washington led the fledgling little U.S. nation to victory in the Revolutionary War, he turned down the opportunity to be crowned king of America. The idea was distasteful to Washington because it went against everything he and his troops had fought for: the promise of a better kind of country based on freedom and democracy.

When England's King George III heard about Washington preparing to turn down the monarchy and return to his Virginia farm, he said, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

It was, in fact, Washington's greatest maneuver of all, because of its complete genuineness. It endowed him with an air of incorruptibility. And, because of that, six years later when he was elected the first U.S. President he was able to succeed in uniting all of the fractious elements of the country for one reason - they all trusted him.

The same is true with Google.

I know that sounds like a pretty big cognitive leap, but hear me out on this.

Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin co-authored a paper in 1998 in which they argued that search engines should not be funded by advertising because it would negatively influence search results. Specifically, they wrote, "We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers."

So, just as the two Stanford PhD candidates were getting Google off the ground, they were arguing in their paper for a "search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm."

However, Google soon became so popular and generated so much traffic that it outgrew the computing resources at Stanford, and Page and Brin were all but forced to spin out Google into a private company and get funding from investors if they wanted to keep the project going.

Google got funded, but the Internet environment of the late 1990s was not very search engine friendly. Search was basically considered to be good enough and not something that was very interesting. Search engines like Yahoo and AltaVista were racing to transform themselves into "portals" that became destinations for users to hang around, and not just search sites where people came, found what they were looking for, and then jumped off to someone else's site.

Like George Washington at the beginning of the American Revolution, Google appeared to be on the wrong side of history and up against powerfully entrenched enemies that it appeared unlikely to defeat.

But, as Google became the anti-portal with better search results and a simple page uncluttered by extra links and graphics-heavy display ads, more and more users began flocking to the site. More user growth meant that Google needed more money from investors, and once investors got on board there was soon a lot more pressure on Page and Brin to find ways for Google to make money.

The easy answer would have been to put banner ads on the Google home page. With all of the traffic that Google generated, these ads would immediately translate into millions of dollars of revenue per month. However, Brin and Page refused to do it, even though it would have made them both very wealthy.

They viewed ad-cluttered pages as something that was turning the Internet into a place much more friendly to businesses than to users. To them, it was a sign of everything that was wrong with the Internet and it was completely antithetical to the kind of Internet they wanted to create. Is this starting to sound familiar yet?

The Google monetization dilemma soon developed into a public issue. Users loved Google and didn't want to see it go away, but many of them also understood that Google was a business and that it had to find ways to make money or else it would disappear. Many users became resigned to the fact that the Google home page would eventually have banner ads on it.

But, Page and Brin found a compromise. They agreed to put ads on Google, but only text-based ads, and only ones that were relevant based on matching topics and keywords from searches. If there were no topically relevant ads, then no ads at all would show up on the searches.

In the end, this system (AdWords) turned out to be far more lucrative than banner ads. But, more importantly, the refusal by Page and Brin to sell out by putting display ads on Google endeared them to the public and gave them an aura of incorruptibility.

This perception has been bolstered by Google's famous "don't be evil" mantra that Page and Brin have made the cornerstone of Google's corporate culture. As a result, Google has become one of the most trusted brands in the world, and that trust from users has become a critical reserve as Google has expanded far beyond search and created the largest repository of personal data in human history.

Despite its initial commitment to transparency and recent baby steps like Google Dashboard, Google has never told us how it secures all of this precious data from hackers, or how it protects Google employees from unauthorized snooping in the data, or what it's policies are for revealing parts of that data to government investigations and court cases. Instead, Google has basically stated that it takes user privacy very seriously and that it has strict controls in place to protect the data. In others words, it's just said, "Trust me." So far, users and governments have gone along for the ride, but how long will the ride last?

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

78 comments
jfreedle2
jfreedle2

I do not trust Google and never shall trust Google.

beageo
beageo

Jason is looking for a new job.

neil.wright
neil.wright

Holy Moley, What an absolute krocka! Ask a few of the folk in China about the legendary Boogle ethics. I'm sure good old George W would be tickled pink at being dragged into the same class as the good Brothers Boogle. Cheers

SMITTY229
SMITTY229

You have a slanted view of google. Check out the old standard search engine that google copied: AskJeeves.com now shortened to Ask.com. Smitty22936@hotmail.com

g0dFather
g0dFather

Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, Zoho, Thinkfree, Springnote, etc? These companies also hold "data." Hotmail accounts go back over a decade. Why aren't these companies put under a microscope like Google?

arico
arico

If one sees the current trend and how trust is used and broken, how private companies are becoming modern day robin-hoods who?s acts are justified, I put down one element here, what if this company is suddenly bought by sum king from the deserts or some other high populated country, they would scavenge on this data, for they believe taking a cup of water from an ocean is no sin, and any ways it will pain a bit, am not saying this may happen, am saying this is happing, I hope Google takes care and has to plan for the next 200 years at least.

robertocasiraghi
robertocasiraghi

I think Google has grown to its present size through systematic violations of copyright laws (remember when Google started thinking it could publish online all the books in the world withouth even asking the legitimate copyright's owners?). Or remember YouTube where the growth factor depends on systematic violation of video and music copyrights. I'd like to mention two more points: search engines are indispensable, and yet they do work without asking permission from the owners of the websites they visit. The fact that you can bar search engines in the html code is not a justification, as failing to put a lock to your door doesn't mean you are giving thieves the permission to visit your home, or that the law consents to it. If the law made taking permission obligatory on the part of Google, then Google would have to negotiate with websites owners thereby generating an interesting income for them. So, that tells us that people have been extremely generous (not to mention foolish) towards Google, not the other way round! Second and last point: Google Adsense success is based on a huge misunderstanding. Milllions of companies trying to sell their own products on the web put their competitor's ads in their own pages! This is such a huge paradox and yet it goes practically unnoticed. Instead, Google Adsense should be placed only on non-profit websites. So, all in all, Google history and development shows clearly that the Internet, being an unregulated jungle, has benefited some and damaged others in unequal parts. Google, far from being the gentle giant of the web, is a business who knows how to pursue their ends at the expense of whoever comes in their way. Finally, let's beware of those businesses who try to embellish the rather cynical business world by using nice-sounding mission statements and slogans. Never forget what "Arbeit macht frei" really stood for.

dainathomas
dainathomas

I dnt think . that its safe to trust Google.. it has all our data ....

paul.schuster777
paul.schuster777

This article contains important information about "everyone's" favorite (me included) search engine. Nicely written Mr. Hiner. Paul S.

paul.schuster777
paul.schuster777

This article contains important information about "everyone's" favorite search engine. Nicely written Mr Hiner. Paul S.

jgaskell
jgaskell

From what I read, Google are rapidly approaching Microsoft status in the trustworthy stakes. Most people use Google services because they don't care about security or privacy or because they don't know there are other options. I myself use Gmail, but only for the type of e-mail that I would happily stand on any street corner and read aloud. As for their refusal to display banner ads, I believe that was mostly because banner ads had been done to death and they were looking for a better way, which they achieved with AdWords. That makes them good businessmen, but hardly the great incorruptibles this article suggests.

tracystarcher
tracystarcher

I normally don't respond to things I read but, I just want to say I could not agree with you less. George Washington was a great patriot who was our nations general and leader. Google won't even support veterans day, memorial day etc. They are, in my opinion, extreme left. My guess is they still support Obama and if they do that says it all.

JCitizen
JCitizen

somebody more like them, didn't come up with something better than Google. The whole thing is; nothing works better than Google. I try and I try to get something better, and it just doesn't work! I don't have time for second place. I am confident we can deal with Google's foibles later; just like we dealt with Microsoft's. And of course we may never be done with that job.

krapyln
krapyln

Mass media attack`s Google, thats why I think they are pretty safe. Microsoft is not.

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

exactly the point that I'm leading toward in this article. If Microsoft or even Yahoo had collected so much data about all of us and just said "trust us" without providing any details, I think a lot more people would be uncomfortable about it.

JCitizen
JCitizen

However, you, yourself, pointed out we need the search engine. If someone more virtuous would come up with one just as good, maybe we'd switch. Call me a fool, but facts is cold hard facts; I need a search utility that works. I'm probably selling my soul to the devil, but I'm still going to do it with the blissful ignorance that I've not sinned an unpardonable sin. Microsoft was caught collecting data that was attributable to private data, but that doesn't stop me from using Windows Update.

biffer711
biffer711

Google is a monstrous advertising behemoth who want to know everything they can about you so that they can better target their ads to you. Not banner ads, but preferred listings and targeted sidebar ads. The public is beginning to see Google for the infringing data trap that it is. Google = George Washington, please, Mr. Hiner get back on your meds. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/07/cerf_on_google_data_collection/

QA_In_Vegas
QA_In_Vegas

Why do people love GMail so much? I find it very unintuitive. Maybe I'm way too accustomed to MS Outlook, so Yahoo Mail (coming the closest to it) is just more comfortable for me. But GMail leaves me wishing I'd never heard of email in the first place.

staffordd
staffordd

tracystarcher said: "I normally don't respond to things I read but, I just want to say I could not agree with you less. George Washington was a great patriot who was our nations general and leader. Google won't even support veterans day, memorial day etc. They are, in my opinion, extreme left. My guess is they still support Obama and if they do that says it all. " So according to you, Google (for supporting Obama at least), and Obama (who you clearly despise) are evil. Hmmm. My guess is, you still support ole Dub-ya, the baby killer, the murderer, the incompetent, blundering, functionally illiterate, murdering fool, and if you do, that says it all. Why do people hate a president who doesn't like to murder people? Why do people from Florida and Tennessee and Georgia seem to hate Obama? Could it be...to do with the colour of his skin? I believe it could! I won't rest until prejudice, hatred, and murder STOPS in America. And it seems that you, tracystarcher, hate a man who would like to see the same good things happen. Or maybe you think prejudice is a good thing. George Washington was a patriot? He was a slaveowner if I am not mistaken, as was the great Ben Franklin. But that's probably a quality you ADMIRE. "George Washington was a great leader??????" GIVE ME A BREAK. Read and learn: Just to be sure you understand that this is not hearsay, according to Wikipedia: "While 11 years old, Washington became a slave owner when his father died in 1743, inheriting 10 slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate." "AFTER THEIR MARRIAGE, WASHINGTON PURCHASED EVEN MORE SLAVES" ! So given that George Washington was probably NOT the fantastic, perfect man that you/we think he was, it is entire probably, even likely, that the founders of Google are MORE patriotic, kinder, more real leaders than George himself was. And you cannot deny that people TRUST Google - regardless of the reasons. I also doubt that the people that run Google and work at Google own ANY slaves at all. So I would rate, by that criteria, the lowliest janitor at Google as potentially, morally, a "better person" than our "saintly" George Washington was. I am not being disrespectful by the way, I appreciate what George Washington did for the country, but I think over the years, we've romanticised the truth, and put on some rose-coloured glasses about what he was REALLY like. I would bet that the 316 slaves on his estate (THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN) didn't view him as the nicest guy around. More people probably trust Google than actually believe that George Washington was the God-like figure of a slaveowner that you are painting him to be. Sorry, shouldn't have mentioned the slaveowner part, that rather spoils it, doesn't it? But I suppose you think what Obama wants (peace, the end of prejudice) are BAD things, and you LIKE to watch children die on TV in the name of George W. Bush and right-wing fuelled and funded corporate planet-destroying GREED. If you condone murder (which it would APPEAR that you probably do) then you are no better than a murderer yourself. Think about that while you lie awake thinking about the ole hanging tree and who you'd lak ta string up, y'all. Obama is YOUR elected president, and he wants peace, and an end to violence. If you oppose that, you can hardly be called a good American, can you?? Or has murder become a good thing? It's OK for us to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, and blow the heads off of innocent women and children - because George Dubya FELT LIKE IT???? I love the right. Guns, blood, death - it's all there. And seething prejudice too ! What a joyful position. I feel sick. Good luck with this thread Jason. I thought it was a really good idea, it could have produced a thought-provoking discussion - I was really enjoying it - until I started reading your readers reactions to it. I am no longer going to even TRY to participate in TR forums, because of the type of "people" that now frequent them, and the ignorant, hurtful and thoughtless things that they fling at you, and at other writers, and then at other READERS, without any thought or care or compassion whatsoever. Their way or the highway. No room for any other opinion. Right is right, left is evil. Mindless devotion to murder, death, war and the "old ways". I imagine some of them (perhaps even you, tracystarcher) would even welcome the return of slavery (not that it's quite gone yet). And that makes me sicker still. Goodbye to this thread, goodbye to ALL TR forums from now on, I will go where people behave with dignity and respect - not where people say things like this: "I normally don't respond to things I read but, I just want to say I could not agree with you less. George Washington was a great patriot who was our nations general and leader. Google won't even support veterans day, memorial day etc. They are, in my opinion, extreme left. My guess is they still support Obama and if they do that says it all. " And that should have read "our nation's" not "our nations", the apostrophe denotes the possessive quality. b y e b y e have a nice life good luck getting the blood off your hands better luck getting it off your SOUL :-)

krapyln
krapyln

If so, Google to, is owned by the Rothschild`s Guess evry brand that big, have to be, wery sad! If NWO get it they`r way, the days of speaking one`s mind will be over. It is by high time evryone update they`r history lesson`s, and not by History Channel! "Empire of the city-Ring of power" torrent would be a great place to start, also Project Camelot, Jim Marrs, and Alex Jones work`s

vernemb70
vernemb70

Google slants the news to the left of Hong Kong

jasonhiner
jasonhiner

Glad to see the first post. However, I think you missed the point on this one. It's not about Google's liberal political leanings. In fact, it's not about political parties at all. It's a comparison of the trust that George Washington won as a leader ... and how Google has won a similar level of trust in their early actions on the Web. In both cases, that trust enabled the people involved to do things that others could not. Trust is the powerful common link between the two. My question is how long Google can maintain the public trust.

JCitizen
JCitizen

even if it is sideways. I must admit I certainly don't trust the media to protect my rights; all the American media care about it their local 1st Amendment rights; and they aren't all owned by US citizens of course. So really all they care about is the bottom line. Edgar R. Morrow is dead; long live the king!

pgit
pgit

If you use the scroogle scraper the only thing google gets is aggregate search terms, period. Zero cookies land on you, your IP is not associated with anything, they get nothing except words typed. And scroogle themselves don't keep anything for more than a couple weeks, the bare minimum the "law" (what law?) demands of them. When they expunge, they expunge. 100% I am amazed more people aren't aware of and use scroogle. http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

JCitizen
JCitizen

which is not complete, but better than nothing; if both the sender and target are Gmail users, at setup to use SSL, that is.

jgaskell
jgaskell

It is certainly quite different to Outlook, etc., but I find it quite easy to use, and I use Outlook most of my day. It probably depends a lot on what method you use to organise your email. I have a colleague who uses Outlook in much the same way as Gmail works; he stores all of his email in one big folder (not his Inbox) and when he wants to find an specific email he just uses the search functionality in Outlook. He claims this is more productive for him than spending time filing messages away into different folders.

senaa
senaa

You wrote: "Why do people from Florida and Tennessee and Georgia seem to hate Obama?" You're making assumptions that you haven't the facts or the right to make. You're doing just what you condemned the other poster for doing. Not everyone in Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia are against, nor do they hate, Obama. I have been a Civil Rights and Equal Rights activist and advocate since the late 1950s. Consequently, when I saw a black candidate who espoused the same ideals that so many of us fought to achieve during the Civil Rights Movement, and the sincerity of his beliefs in those ideals, I supported him. I still support his efforts to get this nation back on its feet. That said, why are you trying to make this discussion one of politics when it is simply a discussion about Google, whether or not people trust that company, and how long will the trust continue?

pgit
pgit

Obama has ordered more drone assassinations in Pakistan and Afghanistan than Bush did in his entire presidency. Obama is a bigger war hawk and a bigger liar than ever occupied that house. And before you open your pie hole I hate Bush, I hated Clinton, my hate goes all the way back to LBJ and Nixon. I am not a "voter" and that is not my government in DC. You fall into the typical false left-right paradigm, by which you and I are divided and conquered by base hero worship and nothing more. Look at what you said; 'dislike Obama = like Bush.' Childishness at it's pinnacle. I know better. Obama is a puppet and if he steps out of line the international banksters he really works for will show him what for. And he has broken more of his campaign promises than any president in history, a marvelous feat of media obfuscation and the memory rat hole. You don't remember him ranting on the campaign trail against Bush for altering the will of congress (whatever ill will that is) by using "signing statements?" Obama said that practice is blatantly unconstitutional (he was right then) and that under no circumstance would ever use a "signing statement" to alter a "law." (DC does not pass "law," they "regulate" administratively, big diff) So there's a doozy, eh? He uses them, so is he telling you he does not respect the law or constitution? Damn friggin right he is! Pissing on your face about it. It is that clear, they are not the constitutional government of these states united. Facts are facts, sorry to rain on your parade. Now back to your regularly scheduled dialectic...

Forum Surfer
Forum Surfer

Is reading posts from people suffering from inferiority complexes. Really? Did his response justify such harsh criticism? Aren't we all free to express our opinion without some tool calling us baby killers? By the way, since you decided to nit pick grammar: [i]slaveowner[/i] should read slave-owner [i]romaticised[/i] is spelled romanticized [i]readers reactions [/i] should read readers' reactions (just as you pointed out [i]the apostrophe denotes the possessive quality.[/i]) I loved this bit: [i]I am no longer going to even TRY to participate in TR forums, because of the type of "people" that now frequent them, and the ignorant, hurtful and thoughtless things that they fling at you, and at other writers, and then at other READERS, without any thought or care or compassion whatsoever. [/i] Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Ending the post with a friendly little smiley face doesn't make it OK.

krapyln
krapyln

Obama is just a marionette in the strings of Rockefeller US and Rothschild Europe I told you to update your history lesson. This system of family`s, diectly waklked over 200 000 000 corps just in the 1900 century, for Power, money is just a means to get Power, since they already own most of the world. They control your fear. Do some Googling and wake up! This hatred you are accusing, take a look into yourself.

lucien86
lucien86

Ouch, rabid ramblings from right then left. Attacking George Washington for slave owning ignores the little matter of context. First a good way to see if someone is really a hero is to think about how the world would be without them. Without George Washington America might not be a democracy or even be a country at all and would certainly be very different. Slavery might even still exist. I suggest you read the whole of that slavery section in the Wikipedia article. Washington didn't want to be a slave owner and freed his slaves on he and his wives death, and he was actually in favor of the abolition of slavery. In context he was ahead of his time. And lets be honest America still has the death penalty which is actually worse than slavery.

lucien86
lucien86

Yes but even Vlad the Impaler would be a little too left wing for the American right. Truth and impartiality are one of the foundations of liberalism, right wing media not exactly known for telling the truth or being impartial. Their seeing Google as being too liberal is simply a sign of its being part of civilization and not part of the barbarian counties. :) The irony is that Google isn't political and covers information from the whole political spectrum.

JCitizen
JCitizen

anymore than any other unknown in the Wild West of the Web! However I balance extreme utility with loss of privacy. I never was much of a personal privacy advocate. I prefer to help protect others privacy.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I tried to quit high school to go to the Nam; my parents wouldn't let me, and my recruiter wasn't dishonest enough to let be take off anyway. I new it would be over soon, and I just felt intensely that I needed to participate. With so many family, and school mates over there I wanted to at least support the troops. I figure if you don't do that you can't improve anything. I still feel a brotherly connection with our vets, even though my 13 years of service doesn't compare.

Osiyo53
Osiyo53

"Yes, I suppose you have to be a crazy American...to love our system; but we'd complain about it anyway. That's how we roll; always have" Yeppers. Long ago, in the mid 60's, I was criticizing some of the decisions made by our politicians, etc. An older fellow who was listening to me, whom I guess thought he was a patriot, got angry and told me something like, "American, love it or leave it !" LOL ... I simply told him I did love America, but didn't like nor agree with everything about it. And I wasn't leaving, so stick it where the sun doesn't shine. I had the right to criticize and disagree all I wished, about anything I wished, and to attempt to change the things I did not like or agree with (as long as I did such legally). Its now many years (decades) later. And I still feel the same. That's after 23 years of active duty in the military. I love America, and supported it at the risk of my own life. But there are still many things I don't like about it or agree with. And I'll criticize any time I wish. Likewise, while I was called names and looked down upon and shunned by many of the hippies and anti-war types back when I did 3 tours in Nam. And they said many things and held many beliefs I did not agree with and many a time I thought them to be fools, or traitors, or both. I fully supported their right to say and believe what they wished. Chuckle, that is NOT to say I was always happy about it. The first time I came back from the war a lot of old friends shunned me. And at one point, while on leave immediately after coming back to the states, I was at a movie theater in full dress uniform. And some idiot standing there with his girlfriend decided to put on a good show for her by cursing me, calling me a "baby killer", and worse. And then he spit on me and demanded I get out of his sight. I wasn't a happy camper. Got pretty pi**ed off actually. But maintained my cool, kept reminding myself "This is what America is all about, freedom of speech and belief." But then the idiot just had to shove me because I wasn't leaving. That made for a whole different issue. I didn't break anything on him, but made him feel pain that was just as bad. Egads. The dude cried and screeched like a ...(insert favorite phrase here) and claimed I'd violated his rights. I kinda wonder what he'd have thought if I'd told him that just for a split second there I'd considered just killing him since he was obviously just an oxygen thief. A cop showed up suddenly, he'd been nearby. The guy on the ground demanded I be arrested. I explained the situation to the cop, explained I could put up with whatever ... but NOT that dude laying his friggin hands on me. I pretty much figured I was on my way to the cross bar hotel. But the officer surprised me, he concluded that the guy laying his hands on me to constituted "assault", and allowed that in his opinion I was just defending myself with appropriate force. (Especially since I didn't kick the guy after he was down. Thought hadn't occurred to me, I just kept wondering what the idiot was thinking when he pushed me. I was pretty puzzled. Did he think I wouldn't respond?) All that said, I didn't hold the idiot's opinions against him. Figured he had the right to believe whatever he wanted to believe, even if he was wrong. Its the good, old American way. He just should have kept his hands to himself.

JCitizen
JCitizen

to love our system; but we'd complain about it anyway. That's how we roll; always have.

lucien86
lucien86

Americans and their theories just look madder and madder to the humans on the outside. (refers to the whole slew of letters above) I don't have the right emoticon but it should be of someone scratching their head. Sigh.

pgit
pgit

And I am optimistic. Big brother has over extended it's hand and the people around the planet are catching on. As for change from within, you can pressure politicians, it's the media that defeats us. They never cover anything of real importance, and they are the reason the two sides of one coin have a lock on political office. Media has an inherent bias from the outset, that it's a "two party system" and that's that. Of COURSE you can't seriously vote for a third, fourth or independent candidate. Unless that Candidate's name is Lieberman that is... Dem., Rep., nary a lick of difference at the end of the day.

JCitizen
JCitizen

fear deserves no respect at all. I join you in spitting on/at it! =)

JCitizen
JCitizen

looks legit as far as history as I know it. I used to be a Libertarian, but could see how supporting my party wouldn't stop the onslaught to my second amendment rights. Now the points you look at even apply to that situation, as we withstood the very unpopular GCA 86 Law and is considered the true beginning of the destruction of that said amendment. However, under the "big tent" things almost turned around and we almost got the law rescinded; minus typical Republican and really any politicians blundering errors. I look at the system in a more optimistic way, despite the fact that I still think utter chaos is in full swing. I just cheerfully participate in my system, or fear to lose it. And I promote as many people as I can to a new look upon it. I have many friends from many different political camps, that we find common ground on; too bad our present federal government seems incapable of that view. I still think a lot has been done in individual states. I'd switch back to the Libertarian Party if I thought we had a candidate that could rob enough votes from another perceived future dictator. If you can't succeed in Washington D.C. just keep working the grass roots, and change will come. Sometimes change you don't expect; but we are all floating on a raft in tidal seas. Chaos rules!!!

krapyln
krapyln

You are absolutely right about all your assumptions, except the one about the edge. I`m certain modern psychology would have no problem saying I`m over, they`r edge. But that`s the problem with both medicine and psychology, they are, without really knowing what they are doing, supporting NWO`s insane morbid plans for total world domination. No sane person, be it Police, Military, Doctor`s, or anyone, would support this plan if they where not controlled by they`r programmed fear. That is why it is so important to enlighten them. If Obama wasen`t just a showpuppy and did what he said he would do, he would be perfect. That`s why people "think they" elected him. "Power to control is nothing without power to help" The Wolf is far from the mightiest predator, a stack of Ant`s would eat him in minute`s. I spit in the face of they`r propagan`ded fear, but still I invite them to the party! With more love and gratitude -St?le

pgit
pgit

The short answer is no, but not because of the "who it is," if I were a voter I would vote for a Ron Paul/Michael Badnarak ticket in a heartbeat. But I know better. I started here around 15 years ago (not online, in a book...): http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44 True freedom boils down to one word in the 14th amendment, and that word is "and." I can recommend a great book that'll open your eyes and make you realize you ARE a battery in a slimy capsule... the sub title is "how the American people have been conned by lawyers." And how!

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

Thrust. Concern, passion, and thrust. :0

santeewelding
santeewelding

Would suggest you pay attention to "lot's of red lines in the text". They are flags. They tell you that you may have had too much to drink, or that you may be nearing, or, have gone over an edge. Concern and passion, alone and raw, get you into naught but trouble among calculating wolves.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Was there ever a politician you'd vote for? I at least try to vote for the perceived lesser of two evils.

krapyln
krapyln

The Rothschild`s and their 2-300 elite family`s are acting in panic, afraid of disclosure of they`r evil plans for World domination. This is a bit off topic , but this thread is about concern for who we can thrust. I won`t even go into detail, there is already so much info out there. Fact is, we thought we elected the people that make up the rules. Now they are trying to kill most of us, and nobody seems to care. The false pandemic warning, and the accidental mixing of fully active H1N1, with Avian flu virus`es in the flu vaccine should be pri. 1 on all good peoples list. In my research for counteraction I have found 4 substances that cure most of the diseases known to man. Including the damage from the vaccine`s. They are: Jim Humble`s MMS (1) and MMS 2 Colloidal silver and Hempoil 8) There are even more totally harmless substances that do a lot of good, that they supress because of profit and control. I think the world`s population is ready to tear down the border`s, and get to be friend`s with the Arabian`s, the African`s, Chinese, Russian`s and the native people from all over the World. And get those politican`s and fanatic religious leader`s that only serve to complicate things, down from they`r position`s I know this is badly written, lot`s of red lines in the text. I just wanted to share the good news about these mineral`s and stuff. I know a lot of people need them. With love and gratitude St?le

JCitizen
JCitizen

serves me correctly, he let them sharecrop, long before that became a reality after post civil war emancipation. This while they were still slaves. Afterward there were both white and black sharecroppers on the plantation.

Osiyo53
Osiyo53

Is this ever like the kettle calling the pot black. FWIW, I do not consider myself either right wing or left wing. In some issues I am quite conservative, in others I'm more liberal than a lot of liberals CLAIM to be, and as concerns a great many things I don't have a strong leaning either way. I am neither Democrat nor Republican, never have been, never will be. When voting for people I make my choice based upon each individual's merits, stances, and overall platform. Without regard for whatever they claim their political party affiliation to be. In my experience, the left most 20%, and the right most 20% haven't got much to distinguish one from the other. They'll outright lie any time they think they can get away with it and it serves their purpose. Will spin truth, facts, statistics and anything else they can think of until the reality is almost unrecognizable. They'll say one thing to Audience A, then turn right around and say exactly the opposite to Audience B any time they think it'll gain em a single vote. They both say they're for freedom of speech and freedom of choice. But in truth they only believe in such if whatever you're saying or doing agrees with what each of em thinks you should be allowed to say and do. And if it doesn't they'll get angry, protest your speech or actions, call you an extremist or a whacko or engage in slander in an effort to get you to stop, and/or attempt to use some law or other to force you to stop. Chuckle, as near as I can discern, the extreme on either side are fanatics of such a type that I'm pretty sure Bin Laden would be both proud of em and envious that he was such a slacker in comparison. Fortunately it would seem that the great majority of Americans recognize this. And this is the reason that the majority tend not to lend a great deal of support to politicians and activists on either extreme. (country wide, of course there are exceptions for this or that constituency here and there) This is one of the reasons for so much debate in the House and Senate, as members try to hammer out new legislation or policies that aren't seen as too far to the left or to the right by the real majority of voters. "Truth and impartiality are one of the foundations of liberalism, right wing media not exactly known for telling the truth or being impartial." Chuckle, your statement above says quite a lot about your assumptions and bias. Me? When reading, watching, or listening to what reporters have to say, I keep my waders on because I know I'm going to have to wade through a lot of BS, piled high and deep, to find small bits of real info and verifiable fact here and there. The very reason why, if its a subject that interests me, I'll then do my own research using a multitude of sources and methods, listen to BOTH sides of a debate and then check background facts before I make up my mind about something. Almost always, I find that the real truth is somewhere in between what those who call themselves liberals and what those who call themselves conservatives are asserting through the media.

Editor's Picks