Damned Corporate Cocksuckers

[Heywood]

I don't know what Marriot charges, if anything, for their Wi-Fi. What they want to prevent people from doing is setting up their own Wi-Fi. Suppose you are staying at a Hotel and set up your own Wi-Fi hotspot. People log into it thinking it is free and secure and you spy on them stealing their credit card info an such.

Couldn't you just make your own Wi Fi private? I admit to being a bit illiterate when it comes to such issues but I thought that people could set up a password for their Wi Fi?

Last time I went camping someone set up their own Wi Fi network. It was passworded so I couldn't access it. But imagine if it wasn't and the person who set it up was fishing for information to use in identity theft. I could inadvertently give them access to all kinds of personal information.

Hotel's do have a valid reason for not wanting guests setting up their own Wi-Fi networks. That valid reason is some of those guest will set up Wi-Fi networks for nefarious motives.

Here is an article about what kind of information you can obtain just by "listening" in on an unsecured Wi-Fi network.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043095/h...tspot.html

[Minimalist]

You seem to be forgetting that increasing solar has actual benefits to the country in terms of being cheap, renewable and non-polluting. I'm in fucking Arizona and we get enough sunlight here to power the whole fucking country if someone would get off their asses and DO IT. It would be nice to tell those middle eastern fuckheads to take their oil and shove it up their fucking asses.

But your corporate pals can see beyond the tips of their dicks when it comes to them making money. All of this horseshit about the poor power companies is horseshit. The power companies will do just fine no matter how the power is produced.

As far as the Koch bros. and corporate subsidies. Get your head out of your ass.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/28...-subsidies

Koch Industries: $16.5 million
Georgia Pacific: $43.9 million
Flint Hills: $12.5 million
INVISTA: $0.2 million

Total subsidies to the Koch brothers:$73.1 million

[Heywood]

You seem to be forgetting that increasing solar has actual benefits to the country in terms of being cheap, renewable and non-polluting. I'm in fucking Arizona and we get enough sunlight here to power the whole fucking country if someone would get off their asses and DO IT. It would be nice to tell those middle eastern fuckheads to take their oil and shove it up their fucking asses.

But your corporate pals can see beyond the tips of their dicks when it comes to them making money. All of this horseshit about the poor power companies is horseshit. The power companies will do just fine no matter how the power is produced.

As far as the Koch bros. and corporate subsidies. Get your head out of your ass.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/28...-subsidies

Koch Industries: $16.5 million
Georgia Pacific: $43.9 million
Flint Hills: $12.5 million
INVISTA: $0.2 million

Total subsidies to the Koch brothers:$73.1 million

The Koch brothers do not like any government subsidies so they actually lobby against them. That being said they don't reject them either because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to those who have mortgages at the expense of those who do not have mortgages. I find this to be unfair, yet I still claim the deduction because it would be stupid not too.

[The Grand Nudger]

An ideological commitment that crumbles as soon as it becomes inconvenient isn't much of an ideological commitment at all. "We want to feed starving children...but it's just too damned difficult" "We're against exploitative labor practices, but they're just too damned profitable" "We disagree with all government subsidy, but dammit just look at that money!"

[Thumpalumpacus]

The are against all subsidies including ethanol subsidies....even though they benefit from them. They are against solar energy subsidies. The Koch brothers want to end all subsidies.

I wish the government would give me seventy million, but I guess that's not gonna happen, because I don't own any congressmen.

Another source has it even higher: http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/...industries

Somehow, their opposition to subsidies hasn't manifested itself in their corporate behavior. I wonder why?

---

The Koch brothers do not like any government subsidies so they actually lobby against them. That being said they don't reject them either because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to those who have mortgages at the expense of those who do not have mortgages. I find this to be unfair, yet I still claim the deduction because it would be stupid not too.

Kind of like Ayn Rand -- bitterly opposed to "moochers" and Social Security and public health care, until she was broke and ill.

She sure lined up at the trough then, now didn't she?

[Heywood]

The are against all subsidies including ethanol subsidies....even though they benefit from them. They are against solar energy subsidies. The Koch brothers want to end all subsidies.

I wish the government would give me seventy million, but I guess that's not gonna happen, because I don't own any congressmen.

Another source has it even higher: http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/...industries

Somehow, their opposition to subsidies hasn't manifested itself in their corporate behavior. I wonder why?

---

The Koch brothers do not like any government subsidies so they actually lobby against them. That being said they don't reject them either because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. The mortgage interest deduction is a subsidy to those who have mortgages at the expense of those who do not have mortgages. I find this to be unfair, yet I still claim the deduction because it would be stupid not too.

Kind of like Ayn Rand -- bitterly opposed to "moochers" and Social Security and public health care, until she was broke and ill.

She sure lined up at the trough then, now didn't she?

I don't like many provisions of the patriot act, but if some information comes from those provisions that helps the government prevent a terrorist attack, should I say the government shouldn't have acted on that information as a matter of principle? I wouldn't.....would you?

The Koch brother take the subsidy because it would be stupid not too. Just because they take the subsidy doesn't mean they support it any more than you or I support the patriot act just because we benefitted from it in someway.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference here, that you seem to have missed...is that I didn't go out and get me some patriot act. There is no effort expended on my part to ensure that the patriot act is applied, either for my benefit or not. Perhaps the government simply sent them the money, unsolicited? Again, they only act upon their ideology when it is convenient to do so. When it is inconvenient, it may as well be non-existent.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't like many provisions of the patriot act, but if some information comes from those provisions that helps the government prevent a terrorist attack, should I say the government shouldn't have acted on that information as a matter of principle? I wouldn't.....would you?

The government is forced to abide by the requirements of the Patriot Act. The Koch brothers aren't required to apply for subsidies they claim to be against.

That means that your analogy is inapt.

The Koch brother take the subsidy because it would be stupid not too. Just because they take the subsidy doesn't mean they support it any more than you or I support the patriot act just because we benefitted from it in someway.

No, they're taking the subsidies because they're hypocrites. They're not required to do so, and if they truly believed what they espoused then they could simply give the money back.

But they want to eat their cake and have it, too, and bank on people believing their words, not their actions.

Principled people don't bend their beliefs because it's profitable.

[Heywood]

No, they're taking the subsidies because they're hypocrites. They're not required to do so, and if they truly believed what they espoused then they could simply give the money back.

But they want to eat their cake and have it, too, and bank on people believing their words, not their actions.

Principled people don't bend their beliefs because it's profitable.

It might be principled and noble to reject the subsidies...but it would be outright stupid. Putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage would also have an negative impact on their employees....so maybe its not as unprincipled as you think.

[The Grand Nudger]

They could liquidate their positions and bow out of involvement with organizations that do not align with their "principles". Like other -actually- principled people do.