Slashdot Mirror
From Apple To Xbox, Tech Companies Lean Left
Velcroman1 writes "Only a week to election time! How does tech feel about politics? If you guessed liberal, you're right: Big Tech leans left. 'They're dominated by coastal people who tend to be more liberal,' says Jim Taylor, a management consultant who writes about the business of psychology. 'Also, those in Big Tech tend to be educated in the better schools, which lean left. Big Tech skews younger and hipper [and favors] social and environmental issues. Their political values trump financial concerns at the organizational culture level and the missions of many firms, especially those that are new media.' For example, Marissa Mayer, known as 'the face of Google,' gave $30,400 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2009. In fact, of the top 10 contributions made by Google in 2009, only one — by CEO Eric Schmidt — was to the Republican National Committee. Facebook has donated almost exclusively to Democratic candidates, according to Transparency Data, including $1,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer a year ago, and more recently, almost $5,000 to Richard Blumenthal, who is running for senator in Connecticut."
The revelation that California and the Seattle area, where most of these companies are based, tends to lean left is a complete revelation to me. You see, I have been living under a rock on a desert island for the last hundred years and didn't realize that every state in the Union was not, in fact, like my home state of Alabama. I am shocked to learn that executives from these tech companies live in a place where each public school-day DOESN'T begin with school prayer, a mandatory salute to the Confederate flag, shooting practice, and a discussion of why America would elect a satan-worshiping negro marxist as President. I had always assumed, on my desert island, that America was a homogenous place, and that no region had its own unique political leanings. Now, I know that there are actually areas in the U.S. where it's not okay to beat down anyone publicly admitting to supporting fag rights--where even *calling* someone a fag is considered somewhat offensive (even if they are). I guess I can understand these executives' leftist points of view, considering that they come from a place where it's considered impolite to burn down the houses of non-Christians. Thank you for enlightening me.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They tend to hire youth, and they are often based out of California. Youth tend to lean liberal, and Calfornia is often seen as the most liberal state. This is a shocking correlation!
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The vast majority in tech I know lean more towards the libertarian side of things. These kind of tests, due to their flaws of being linear, usually fail to capture that. ("Left" comes up more commonly than "right" for many libertarians because of how self-extreming "right" has become lately.)
Seriously -in the US we have two parties. The far right party, and the psychopathic kill-and-censor-everyone-in-the-name-of-patriotism party.
In practical terms, we have no left. This article is BS.
Come on editors, i know you desperately want to talk about american politics, but isn't that what the poll to the right is for?
Who needs a big stupid flamewar? No one but Ralph Nader leans LEFT in the usa ANYWAYS!
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
In Alabama we still subscribe to the One Drop Rule. Surely at least that basic principle is universally accepted, right?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't think you understand the word "liberal" in its oldest meanings. It used to be that liberal meant more freedoms, both economically and personally. Using that definition libertarians are the most liberal of parties. It is only in the last few years that liberal has become synonymous with the progressive movement, which isn't even liberal at all because most support less freedoms both personally and economically.
What the US really needs is more political parties so people could accurately state their belief system, because I don't think hardly anyone is truly a republican or democrat.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Note I said "liberal", not "progressive", not "Democratic Party", not either libertarian or "Libertarian".
The problem is that too many people confuse "fiscal responsibility" with "conservatism". Fiscal policy is separate from "liberal" and "conservative". I am *EXTREMELY* fiscally 'conservative'. But I'm also *EXTREMELY* liberal.
In fact, one could even argue that fiscal responsibility is, itself, liberal by definition.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Somewhere in America right now there are two college students. One is trying to recruit for the Young Republicans in the art department. The other is trying to recruit for the Young Democrats in the business school. both are wondering why their results have so far been disappointing.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It was both.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra.
Corporations read the tea leaves and buy influence accordingly. (D) and (R) are just prostitutes who peddle influence to the highest bidder.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Big Corp wants nothing to do with capitalism or free markets.
Big Corp wants Big Government around to regulate their competitors out of existence and bail them out when they get into trouble.
A few months of actual free market capitalism would destroy most of the big corporations.
Note that, rhetoric to the contrary, neither major party has done anything to shrink the government in at least the last quarter century.
Want to get money and influence peddling out of the hands of feds? Pass a Constitutional Amendment to strip Congress of the Commerce Clause, relying on state's rights instead.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
This article has little to offer other than to highlight the most prevalent problem with our electoral system. Leaning left, leaning right, either way, a country whose leaders are funded by wealthy corporate donors tars the very notion of democracy.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
The US has two major political parties, but also has a very open primary system. In Canada, we have three major political parties, but their internal politics are far less transparent.
So while we have more choice on election day, I think ultimately you yanks get a lot more diversity of opinion and choice, if you care enough to participate in the primaries. Just look at the current battle within the Republican party between the old guard and the tea-partiers; you never see that kind of thing in public in most parliamentary systems.
As an outsider, I think there's several things wrong with the US democratic system. But the "two party system" isn't one of them.
Conversley here in South America, everyone claims to be be of pure European descent(I guess they have been fucking their cousins for the last three hundred years to keep the race pure. So the one drop rule here means if you have one drop of European blood, you have to be white. I am a Colombian Cajun mix(cajun side being Sicilian settlers in Thibodaux) and before I excepted my present employment here in Colombia I was offered a relative high paying job in the Bay Area, but turned it down. I kept being accused of being a southerner when I spoke English and when I spoke spanish it was "you speak great english for a Mexican". I found everyone on the West Coast assumed every Latino was a Mexican.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
So far in 2010, the oil and gas industries have contributed $12.8 million to all candidates, with 71% of that money going to Republicans. During the 2008 election cycle, 77% of the industry's $35.6 million in contributions went to Republicans, and in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023945.php
Sure, you can single out Exxon and Obama in 2008, because that's the exception to the rule you're pretending doesn't exist.
A more accurate statement about tech companies would probably be that at least until recently they were largely apolitical. They gave very little money, compared to their size and other companies, to politicians. It has been increasing, because politicians have been increasingly meddling (for good or for ill). MS is an interesting study in this. Prior to their anti-trust deal they gave only a token amount to either party, now they give quite a bit. Makes sense if you think about it, the government started bothering them, at the behest of their competitors. Now right or wrong on that, it let them know that they needed more influence, and so they set out to get it.
In general though, tech companies seem to donate a hell of a lot less. They just aren't as interested in buying off politicians it seems. Perhaps because they don't need to, perhaps because they are younger companies, I don't know.
Not really a bad thing if you asked me, I think companies out to stay out of politics, but there you go.
Exxon donated more to Obama than any other person in office, so that isn't true either, and that tidbit just chafes the leftwing mantra.
I can see how some people would be chafed by that tidbit, since it doesn't appear to be true.
I looked.
The best I could find was that Obama received more than McCain -- not "any other person in office."
Furthermore, those donations were only in the 5 digits, while it looks like Exxon regularly spends $600,000+ in political bribes every year. Seems to me that any of their favourite senators could easily rack up triple digit donations over the years - and according to this article which does not name names so is unfortunately a PITA to verify, the top 20 cumulative recipients of Exxon money since 1990 are all republican.
If you have some citations that show otherwise, I am all ears - I'm looking for the truth, not truthiness.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
People complain that our universities, urban elite, etc. 'lean left'. Now let's see, the smarter and better educated you are, the more liberal you are. What does that suggest to you?
It suggests to me that we have too many ignoramuses, who lack the education and experience to learn to deal with different kinds of people, to understand how progress is made, and to be informed or to deal with complicated policy issues like global warming. And those ignoramuses are called "conservatives".
Our "leftists" could not even manage a public option for insurance coverage so that takes your first point right out, and our right-wingers support jailing people for victimless crimes so there goes the other.
All corporations lean to the right. The article is a troll piece, based on the misinformed notion that the Democrat party is "left wing" as opposed to "right of center." Both Democrats and Republicans have been receiving enormous corporate campaign contributions for the past 4 decades, and unsurprisingly, both parties have drifted further to the right. The Republicans are just more honest about being right wing; the Democrats continue to present a public face that says, "Hey, we're the left wing! Really, we swear!" I would guess that this is part of an effort to ensure that the actual left wing parties in America never get enough votes to make a difference. The mainstream media -- big corporate contributors to the Democrat party -- work to further the "Democrats are the left wing" image as well, probably because the real left wing parties might not be as friendly toward business interests.
In case you have any doubt, remember that it was a Democrat president who signed the DMCA into law, it is Democrats who are pushing for ever stronger copyrights, and that like the Republicans, Democrats continue to push forward an agenda of "corporate interests first," and continue to try to spread that agenda to other countries. As for the media, well, when a left wing group wanted to pay NBC to run an advertisement that encouraged people to spend no money for just one day, as part of a general anti-corporation campaign, NBC refused to air the ad -- despite the fact that the group was willing to pay the same price as every other advertiser -- because the ad ran counter to US economic policy.
Not that any of this should come as a surprise. After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?
Palm trees and 8
John Podesta's brother, Tony Podesta is BPs lead lobbyist. John is the founder of the Center For American Progress and the former Clinton chief of staff. I know it is from Beck. But DAMN.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42150/
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/both_mccain_oba.html
Not terribly insightful, Exxon is prohibited by law from donating money directly to the candidates or parties but can give unlimited funds to 501(c)4 and 501(c)3 groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Americans for Prosperity without needing to disclose such contributions
FTFY. HTH. HAND.
Support SETI@home
I didn't vote for a third party candidate because not voting is just as effective.
And the Republicans and Democrats both thank you for continuing to prevent any competition.
I'm always amazed at people who believe the "voting for a 3rd party is like throwing your vote away". Are you really saying that because your particular candidate didn't win, that you wasted your vote?
I had a conversation with a co-worker about our recent vote. I said that I had voted Libertarian (Bob Barr) for president. He laughed and claimed that I wasted my vote. I then asked him who HE had voted for. He then stopped laughing and quietly mumbled, "John McCain". I then proceeded to laugh, as we live in California, and Barr and McCain had roughly the same chances of winning the state (about 0% chance). Was his vote for McCain a "wasted vote", simply because McCain didn't win? Or was his vote OK, since it fell into your acceptable category of being a (R) or a (D)?
We also donate more (per employee) to non-profits than any other sector. Dunno about other companies, but Microsoft will match your charitable giving dollar for dollar up to $12K a year, and will match hours volunteered by donating $17 per hour as well.
I'm much happier seeing corporate money going to these programs than lining some politician's pockets. At least charities have rules about how much overhead they're allowed to have.
Only if they received a liberal education.
A proper education would inform them that he's actually a communist muslim who was born in Nigeria, and wants to take over the world.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
The Libertarian Party is not classically liberal. It's idea of "economic freedom" is plutocracy, a reduction in effective freedom for most people. As Kim Stanley Robinson put it, "That's libertarians for you -- anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
The Progressive movement was intended -- and we can certainly debate how well this end was served -- to increase the freedom of individual persons by reducing the power of corrupt big businesses. To them, your right to (for example) sell tainted food and drugs ended where people's health began just as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If American Democrats are "right of center" ... what is Center?
Slightly to the left of most Democrats. A lot of people in the US like to call Obama a socialist. These are people that have never looked at European politics, where you can see real socialists. Take a look at the political compass and count how many 2008 candidates were left of center.
This "psychologist" can't see that people at these companies are more liberal than average simply because they're smart. Not just any kind of smart, but the kind of smart that knows how to communicate with lots of other people, even if just in the abstract, technologically, not just with their hillbilly brother-cousins. Which is why they leave those hillbilly hollows to go places where companies like Apple and Microsoft can function. Back in hillbillyland they'd be burned as witches, or worse as homosexuals.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
--
make install -not war
Certainly nothing in the US. Note that to the outside world, the D and R parties seem indistinguishable.
Except when Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House, these donations also strongly favored the Democrats, if not by as much.
--
make install -not war
I think Americans need *no* political party. They should legislate and govern on a per issue bases. It's the fact that we have "big politco's" that I think is the problem.
You see, I've come to believe that many Americans simply pick a party based on one or two beliefs they hold most strongly and then vote for that party, regardless of all the other beliefs they may or may not agree with.
An example: An LGBT person probably supports LGBT rights. This might, in fact, be the one issue they really care about. Because of this they might vote Democratic because they're known for supporting popular LGBT "gay" rights like marriage. This can be in spite of the fact that they might not support any other issues the party supports.
I'd rather see the whole system stripped down to "the issues"(tm) and not "the party". Of course, there's also the fact that Representatives simply don't Represent anymore. Instead, they get elected and then vote THEIR beliefs (which often include their belief to keep their job by voting how the party wants them to vote so they can fund their next re-election campaign with all the bull-shit and spin that includes). That leads to simply trying to vote for someone who's "most likely to vote how I would vote" and that's too bad.
And this isn't to excuse the voters either. Very few people actually speak up and call/write their Reps. Though, that's not to say if they do, they'll listen. There's been some cases where it's been clear that Reps. are Rep-ing and we'll see them with a new job in a few weeks. (I won't say they'll be unemployed because ex-congress-people end up becoming consultants / lobbyists for special interests because they know how things work and who to talk to, so they'll still be making boat loads of money).
Of course, the whole thing is far more complex than just that, but that's just my recent thoughts.
Things have just gotten too "sporty" in terms of politics. It's like you have to support your "team" no matter what, and you can't agree the other team has some good ideas, simply because it's the other team. This shit isn't suppose to be a fucking competition. We're all suppose to be on the same team here.
But the funny thing is, Democrats have been in control of the Alabama legislature for the past 136 years, and were in control of all politics in the state between the time of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement.
These were fairly conservative Democrats, mind you... but they still swing in the liberal direction on many issues.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
>>All corporations lean to the right
Do you mean "the right" in the European sense of the word, or the American sense of the word? To Europeans, all of America is "right wing". If you mean it in the American sense of the world, you should spend some time looking through Open Secrets.org to see how corporations actually give. Goldman Sachs gave nearly a million to Obama, and around two hundred thousand to McCain, for example.
>>After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?
Big businesses often trend Democrat because Democrats believe in protectionism, whereas Republicans believe in competition and small businesses. Small businesses represent threats to big businesses, but regulation and red tape (Democrat tools) can impose severe barriers to entry for small businesses. For an insightful lesson, look at the difference in how many big businesses failed in post-war France versus America in the same time period. Off the top of my head, something like 90% of France's large businesses in 1950 were still around in 1980, whereas only 10% of America's were. Competition vs. Protectionism. Too big to fail, and all that.
Contrary to popular perception, the ultra-rich also like Democrats. If you believed the media, you'd think that Republicans were all about giving tax breaks to the ultra-rich. But we pay taxes in two different ways here in America - 1) income tax, and 2) capital gains. A reduction on income tax doesn't make the slightest difference to the ultra-rich, who get most of their money from capital gains. But all you hear about in the media is "Republicans pose tax break for the ultra-rich" and you don't hear anything about how John Kerry reduced capital gains taxes, or how Democrats recently killed the carried interest exemption (one of their 2008 campaign promises) after they had a lot of money thrown at them by lobbyists. Not that tax cuts aren't good things, but the carried interest exemption is just a bone thrown to Goldman Sachs.
It's interesting reading to see how Billionaires actually donate to political causes:
http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations
Why do Europeans get to set the standard on who's right and who's left? Because from here, it seems all Europeans are just ultra-liberal. How is our viewpoint more wrong than theirs? Seems rather chauvinist.
Actually, it was Exxon employees who donated more to Obama.
Exxon, being a corporation, was forbidden by law from donating to any candidate for public office. The law is still in effect, by the way. Corporate donations to candidates are forbidden by law.
You might want to contact the person who sent you the mass email telling you that Exxon gave more to Obama than any other candidate and let them know that they're full of shit. And of course, you need to stop believing mass emails.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Except Bill Clinton. (Assuming we use number of federal employees as the yardstick)
Odd that the summary neglects to mention two very high profile elections that have former major tech CEO's running as Republicans for this election cycle.
To be fair, if you voted Obama you pretty much wasted your vote too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Unfortunately, that claim of Clinton's is just another statistical mirage (of the kind both parties engage in).
First, when you talk about "federal employees" most people think of civil servants. But their ranks GREW during the 90s. The "shrinkage" was almost entirely due to downsizing the military.
The numbers also don't count contractors, jobs funded with federal grants, etc.
Depressing details here:
http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s1.htm
Then there's amazon.com, which in addition to their ground-breaking aggressive use of an inane software patent, was also donating money to the Republican party during the rise of the Bush Jr. regime... in contrast to Barnes and Nobles, which has been solidly blue, all along.
All you've pointed out here is that there are different yardsticks for measuring the size of government.
One could just as easily define the size of government as the number of volumes in the Library of Congress, or the total mass of all elected officials.
Number of people who get a paycheck directly from the US Treasury is as decent a measure as any other. Which means military cuts indeed reduce the size of the government.
If you'd prefer another yardstick, feel free to propose one.
Actually, all large corporations lean to the right. Americans wouldn't recognize a real left winger if it blindfolded them, lined them up against a wall, and shot them for crimes against the proletariat.
If Google is earning that money from investments overseas and spending it overseas, then there really is no problem.
The problem is companies that pretend to do that, but are really expatriating domestic profits, or failing to repatriate revenues on domestic products.
Change the rule to allow taxation on foreign investment, and you will simply kill multinational corporations in America. They'll all split into subsidiaries of a foreign holding company. There will be a Google America and a Google Everywhere Else.
This just tells me that Microsoft's products are overpriced...
Do you know how tax deductions works? They still have less money at the end then if they didn't match contributions. And maybe it is to look good in public - so what? It still means more charity spread around.
I know the feeling, my GF is half Indian (Navajo to be exact) and when we are out the locals will sometime just start speaking Spanish to her thinking she is Mexican. She just blushes and says no habla but I just love how her brother handles it "Me no Mexican, me Indian. Me scalp your kind!" . Maybe it's different here (north AR) surrounded by the military bases, but we always laughed our asses off at the idiot racists like the klan, who last I heard are hiding out on a hill in Boone county, because the thought that anyone here was "white" was about as stupid as saying my dog was anything other than a mutt. Here every race has mingled with every race (or as I like to call it "Forget fighting, let's just screw") so much there isn't a pure ANYTHING anymore. I look white but am actually Irish, English, German, Two kinds of Indian (Comanche and Creek) and Cajun, which of course is pretty much any race that ever stepped through Louisiana. My girl looks Mexican but is just as much a mix as me, so the thought that anyone still judges based on "race" is kinda just silly to me.
As for TFA, it is nice to see that some put their money where they believe, and not just on the bottom line. We have had pretty much constant tax breaks for the top 3% for the past 30 years, and are worse off than ever before. I can drive through entire towns nearby that are nothing but empty factories and boarded up homes, The level of unemployment is frankly just insane, and if it wasn't for the dems extending unemployment benefits I know quite a few that would be living in their cars, not because they don't want to work, but simply because there isn't any work to be had while they push for more and more education while at the same time expect us to be able to compete with someone who paid $5k for their degree compared to our $70k, it is just nuts. It is just simple math folks, you can't have these ever growing huge masses of unemployed without it blowing up in your face. Just look at what happened to Germany in the 30s, the fascists basically came to power by offering "bread and jobs" and the people went along. Right now you have huge masses that simply don't believe in the American Dream anymore, and they grow more numerous every day. Things simply have to change, period.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I know it's second nature to tar both major US political parties with the "whores for business", and I've done it myself. However, in the 30 or so years since I started to pay attention to politics, this much has become crystal clear:
Luke, help me take this mask off
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
Note, I'm "Right Wing" by international standards, the USA's main two parties are Right, and Ultra Right, why can you not simply have Centre Left and Centre Right like the rest of the world? And also colour them correctly, Red is for "left wing", Blue for "right wing"! You know, like, "The Reds are invading..."?
Things America needs to change reason #42 the Metric System....
---
"And what makes the Eurocentric frame of reference the correct one? " Objectively? European countries have the highest rates of economic growth, the highest living standards, and score at the top of pretty much every quality of life metric ever designed. There's a reason so many people from Africa and the Middle east are trying to go there.
,
Empirically, that's really suspect. Agricultural subsidies exist because of Republicans, while free trade is quite popular in highly democratic Washington. Clinton is the one who signed NAFTA and granted China most-favored-nation status. Meanwhile, Republicans tend to be against proper anti-trust enforcement and Democrats tend to be pretty enthusiastic about small-business subsidies.
The simpler reason is that big businesses tend to trend Republican, which is why corporate contributions have gone to Republicans over Democrats 6:1 this cycle. They do this because they are run by rich people with high tax bills, and Republicans have not agreed to a tax increase since 1991. And yes, Rich people are Republican. See http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/10/amazon-usa/ . If only rich people could vote, then Republicans would win everywhere but New York and Cali, where it'd be really close.
"A reduction on income tax doesn't make the slightest difference to the ultra-rich, who get most of their money from capital gains."
Bullshit. Most of the money from Bush's tax-cuts went directly to the rich. As far as Capital gains go, most Democrats support an increase in the capital gains tax, while not a single Republican does.
"you don't hear anything about how John Kerry reduced capital gains taxes"
How exactly did John Kerry do that? The Republicans controlled the Senate when the cuts were passed.
"how Democrats recently killed the carried interest exemption (one of their 2008 campaign promises) after they had a lot of money thrown at them by lobbyists."
If by "Democrats killed" you mean "5 or 6 Democrats out of 59 joined all 40 republicans in order to filibuster", then sure...
I understand you're just being a dick here (what leftwingers do best)
GP is engaging in parody, which is part of the arsenal of weapons available with free speech, something that rightwingers always say is important when defending murderous racism, sexism and homophobia, but get pissy about when used against them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm afraid my little Indian princess is scared to death of marriage at this point. She was married twice in the past and both were horribly physically abusive to her, which also gave her serious self esteem issues. Just the fact that we live two hours away from each other (due to the fact that we both have elderly parents we need to be close to in case of emergency) has my poor little princess worried sick I'm gonna "get tired of her" and find someone else.
Lucky for me even her grown kids just love the hell out of me, because they know I would NEVER raise a hand in anger or be abusive to a woman, and my family already considers her part of the family, so slowly but surely I'm working on building her back up. I never knew the long term damage physical abuse could cause until I fell in love with a woman who had been abused. What it did to her self esteem was worse than the broken bones IMHO, and definitely will take longer to heal. But they say time heals all wounds, and she is finding out I'm one seriously stubborn bastard when it comes to getting what I want.
Having to be apart these past 90 days due to illnesses in the families has been a perfect chance to show her she has nothing to fear, and I won't cheat on her or mistreat her when I don't get to be with her as much as I like. Of course when she shows up next weekend I have a feeling I won't be leaving the bed for a couple of days, but it is comfy and I like it there ;-) But yeah her family is a hoot, half Indian and half redneck makes for a hell of a combo. Just don't ride with them! Good Lord, if they are going less than 90MPH it is a miracle, crazy!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
it is nice to see that some put their money where they believe, and not just on the bottom line
That depends on what factors influence the bottom line. Under Republican policies, which I've been assured many times are extremely "business friendly," we deregulated banks and finance companies and allowed the lines between them to blur (some of this was supported by President Clinton). Under President Bush we also depopulated the SEC, which was charged with the oversight of these businesses. In other words, we did exactly what banks and financial institutions were asking us to do. And it turns out that doing exactly what these businesses wanted was not as "business friendly" as we'd imagined, as the crash of 2008 demonstrates. It turns out that if we'd kept post-Depression era policies in place, all of the companies that lobbied for deregulation in the 1990s and 2000s would have been much better off, millions of jobless Americans wouldn't be jobless, and a lot of the tech companies that TFA mentions would be selling more cloud services and shiny devices than they currently are. The bottom line suffered tremendously for our "business friendly" policies. So these people are putting their money not just behind what they believe, but also on the bottom line.