It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Google refuses to run impeachment ad

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:46 PM

"At this time, Google policy does not permit ad text that advocates against an individual, group, or organization. In addition, this policy doe not permit the advertisement of websites that advocate against a group protected by law."

Protected by law? Since when is the Vice President of the United States protected from free speech? Political speech is protected speech. Cheney is a public figure. Google does run ads "against" the tobacco industry. We believe this is settled law in the print and TV worlds. Any legal beagles out there please weigh in. We'll be forwarding this to the ACLU and the general media Monday morning. Following is the full text of the email Google sent...

Intersting for them to say they don't run ads against a group, etc, but runs ads against the tobacco industry. What are your guys thoughts?

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:49 PM
Google refuses to run many things. How about the fact that youtube, which by the way is affiliated with Google, refuses to run Tom Tancredo's campaign ad because he points out that our border policy has and is leading to the infiltration of our nation by terrorists?

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:02 AM
Yeah, okay....

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Yeah, okay....

Sorry for the one liner, but what you mean by that?

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by jhill76

didn't the tobacco co.'s have to pay for the ads run against them as part of a settlement ?

that would mean google is helping them fulfill an obligation, if that is the case

google is well within their rights to refuse to run a negative ad.

What if I had some dirt on you a ran an ad on google ? Wouldn't you contact google and demand it be taken down ?

by refusing it in the first place, they save everyone the aggravation

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:16 AM
As I said, this is something Google has a history of. If it is something they don't agree with, they don't run it. I can't hardly believe that they didn't run the impeachment ad becaus ethe owners of Google, to my knowledge, tend to be very left wing...
This one is somewhat perplexing to me.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
As I said, this is something Google has a history of. If it is something they don't agree with, they don't run it. I can't hardly believe that they didn't run the impeachment ad becaus ethe owners of Google, to my knowledge, tend to be very left wing...
This one is somewhat perplexing to me.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

OK. Gotcha. Also, syrinx high priest, that explanation clarifies it alot.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:36 PM
Looks like 'Blood and Gore' has struck again!

Directly conflicting with that statement are ads currently running on Google that do, in fact, relate to the impeachment of Cheney along with ads that call for the impeachment of President Bush, anti-Bush t-shirts and other ads that run counter to the statement regarding Google's policy against accepting ads which "advocate against a group protected by law."

I mention Gore because, A. Why does Al Gore have 'venture capital' aka HEDGE FUNDS companies cashing in on "carbon trades"? And, B. Yet again, the 'traitorous' characteristics of these people are shameful. A 'democrat' -- never. The paradoxical nature of this ex-VP is disgraceful and humiliating to the populace at-large for letting him/them remain in such positions, the former for his 'climate change' lies and this story, and the latter. . .

Dennis K -- "Impeach them now! Do not wait!"

Today, Gore is president of the American television channel Current TV, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a director on the board of Apple Inc., an unofficial advisor to Google's senior management, and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He recently joined venture capital firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, to head that firm's climate change solutions group.[3]

(my italics)

"Google REFUSES to run Impeachment ad. This is very scary."

How much stock does this "advisor" have in G? Anyone?

...on the edit: phew, found something -- Think about how freaking swindled we are -- 'David Blood and Al Gore' company... still have yet to find the Google stats. Shocking, and please insert my usual dose of sarcasm around here:

According to the report, GIM has $438 million invested in the
following 22 companies: AFLAC, Amdocs, Autodesk, Becton Dickinson,
Blackbaud, Donaldson Company, General Electric, Greenhill & Co., HDFC
Bank, Johnson Controls, Laboratory Corporation of America, Metabolix,
Millipore, Mueller Water Products, Northern Trust, Procter & Gamble,
SPDR Trust, Staples, Techne Corp., UBS, Varian Medical Systems and
Waters Corp.

That's GIM's "filings" from 9/2007 in a PDF. Home base? London, UK.

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
As I said, this is something Google has a history of. If it is something they don't agree with, they don't run it. I can't hardly believe that they didn't run the impeachment ad becaus ethe owners of Google, to my knowledge, tend to be very left wing...
This one is somewhat perplexing to me.

[edit on 18-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

I'd say it's perplexing.
More so, how is concluded that Owners of Google are left wing ("very" left wing even)

Google is a prime example of the success of the free market. Google will censor something when told to by governments. Google in china is different from what we see. Googling, Tiananmen square for example. Or try Googling Abu Ghraib in America.
Are these traits of the left wing?

I also find it funny that Google would censor these ads and not the ads for Loose Change. If they operate as damage control, what would be the mind set for not running those ads?

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by Umbrax

Personally, I think the *powers that be* LOVE the S11 conspiracy -- it takes the JFK generation and turns a lot of people in nothing but one-sided coins.

With this, it's Google specifically. Stock are over $750 per share this week, and when you try this, "Google conspiracy" -- over 12,000 hits show.

Personally, a lot of people might overreact as to their market dominance. I don't like Gore's role in it because of what he's up to. But people do complain about the "first hits" on Google being 'disinfo' or not what they're looking for -- well, the AD money and popularity of 'hits' is what their concern is; this story is odd, IMHO, I still think it's Blood&Gore helping our their 'friends' on the other side.

I always am reminded of Gore and Bush smiling at one another in the debates, then, to his stepping down to the higher illuminati henchman, Drug Jr.

1. Google's immortal cookie:
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether... This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk.

2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration....

3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google has no data retention policies....

4. Google won't say why they need this data:
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the NY Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.

5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency.

6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf...

7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site....

8. Google is not your friend:
By now Google enjoys a 75% monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears.

9. Google is a privacy time bomb:
With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by anhinga]

posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by anhinga

What do you believe will come of google in the coming months/years? Will we see a takeover for internet/os/apps?

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:55 AM
reply to post by jhill76

I think we're already there, they seem to be vaguely police state already. I was researching all-things Google and they seem to have their hands in a lot of shady business, let alone, like I mentioned, lack of regulations. I found another decent watchdog site w/ a bunch of articles filed in this guy's blog:

And, I think I posted this one earlier, some dated (early 2000s) info, but nonetheless, informative as to some of their biz dealings.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by anhinga]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by anhinga

Wow, really opened my eyes! Plus what even more crazy is that when you try to download Adobe Reader or Flash the google toolbar is automatically selected for you. So people who are moving fast has the toolbar already installed.

Amazingly, in alot of office enviroments google desktop is installed. I am just surprised system admins don't allow it.

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:14 PM
Is anyone even suprised??? Google was started by CIA seed money for Pete's sake! Why? To do exactly what it is they are doing - spying on you, recording your every move on the internet. Google is the enemy of the truth movement, a free society and privacy!

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:19 PM
Google has already proven that they are willing to censor, or allow to be censored. What's the difference if it's here or in China?

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 02:42 PM
Most of the best and most popular web sites have been bought by corporate media.

So do not be surprise when they censor at will and manipulate this big popular sites.

Is not such thing as independant media anymore.

I don't like using Google even before it became corporate owned by time warner.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by marg6043]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 03:29 PM
This instace just goes to show exactly who is runnign the show at google.

It is so apparent that they have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to make their stance. If that means smearing Ron Paul or not running certain ads that would make them appear to have a certain disposition, then that is just what they will do.

I think that it is horrible that they have the interest of no one but themselves in mind.


posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by Don Wahn

For those that would believe the negative things said of Google, is there an alternative search engine available that they can use that does not catalogue IPs, cookies and search queries?

ATS benifits from the Google search engine; given that nearly half of all users have discovered ATS by searching, of which, if the above is true, 75% would have used Google, how could ATS take a stand against Google without destroying its very means for effectiveness?

If ATS is truly to be a paradigm of freedom on the internet, could it ever offer an alternative to Google, however marginal? Could this be part of the ATS revolution: not for profit internet services?

It is easy to think of examples of how Google databases could be harmful (A person under suspicion of murder searches for how to get blood out of clothing but the truth is that they did not commit the crime and only suffered a nose bleed), but considering the amount of information that Google collects every second, what is it, aside from market research, that people are most worried about?

[edit on 20-11-2007 by Woland]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:12 PM
I use copernic professional, it combines the use of the best search engines in the web up to 14 simultaneous, then you chose which results to browse Is the best program for searching and it has a basic program for free to download.

The professional is no free, but still once you use the free version you will love it.

new topics

top topics


log in