patrick.net

zzyzzx says

"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

1. Republicans wouldn't pay $50. They would hire an illegal immigrant to do the work for less than minimum wage, $7.25 per hour. Even if he works for an hour on their lawn, which is unlikely, he won't have enough to eat for the day.

And yes, Republican politicians who want to export all illegals and build a border fence have been caught using illegal immigrants as lawn care servants and maids. In fact, and I swear I'm not making this shit up, a bill from state Rep. Debbie Riddle (R) would fine or jail anyone who employs undocumented immigrants — unless it's to clean the house, mow the lawn, or do other work "performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence."

This alone makes the above joke about Democrats ridiculous and meritless.

2. Under Republican rule, the homeless guy would be thrown in jail for vagrancy and the tax payers would have to pay for his room and board.

3. If Republicans did hire this guy, they'd only pay minimum wage and even that they would push to have reduced either in nominal terms or through currency debasement.

4. If it were physically possible, a Republican would outsource the lawn mowing to a third-world sweatshop where workers make ten cents a day.

Republicans do not care about people who actually work for a living. They worship the capital class, not the labor class.

Dan8267 says

7. Most important of all, the rise of Christianity. Yes, Christianity killed the Roman Empire by acquiring political and economic power from the state. The pope became more important than the emperor.

Yeah, in the ancient world "deviant" sexual behavior was pretty much at a constant level from the rise to the fall of Rome. With so much readily available information on the topic I don't see why people continue blame the fall of Rome on the gays -- well unless they are being willfully ignorant.

Increased belief in Christ as one's lord and savior is definitely strongly correlated with the fall of the Roman Empire. For the last 100+ years Christianity was the state religion of Rome. It was only a few years after Christianity was adopted as the only legal religion that the Empire fractured into east and west.

Also, after the Christianification of Rome homosexual acts were outlawed, and homosexuals -- along with other "deviants" -- were persecuted, and executed for their "crimes." One could argue that during the last 100 years while the Empire was in rapid decline that they had far less "deviants" than during the rise of the Roman Empire.

So, if we are to use Roman morals as a guide on how to avoid a collapse of our civilization and way of life then we should accept gays and give them legal equality. We should also avoid dogmatic Christian viewpoints and let go of the idea that we are -- or should be -- a Christian nation.

Too funny - Libs fantacizing about the future of the GOP and they are back stuck talking about the gays. Is there any other subject for Democrats other than frilly social issues? Gays, gals and guns?

What is the future of the Democrat party if the US population wakes up from the ongoing sequester and government shutdown and realizes that the Feds do very little work that is meaningful in our lives?

The GOP still control the majority of Local and State governments where the actual work of governing takes place and where these governments are actually accountable and can't print money like the Feds.

What does the Democrat party have going for it other than a balkanized coalition of gays, young and stupid, minorities and women?

I totally accept that the Left is winning the culture war with their domination of academia, hollywood and media........hence near non-stop talk about gay rights and other trivial issues. But the Blue State model is imploding around the country as we speak and the young and stupid will soon put feeding themselves above these sideshow issues.

Dan8267 says

zzyzzx says

"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can pay him the $50?" I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

1. Republicans wouldn't pay $50. They would hire an illegal immigrant to do the work for less than minimum wage, $7.25 per hour. Even if he works for an hour on their lawn, which is unlikely, he won't have enough to eat for the day.

Yes, I am sure that the terms and/or job would have changed dramatically if the parents had offered to immediately go get the homeless guy to do the work.

New Renter says

Of course with wives like these the pill and condoms become a moot point altogether:

Good point. ;-)

Somewhere to the right of Regan, Obama is the current face of non-insane conservatism in the US. Being that the current GOP is in the grips of the clinically insane, "liberals" vote for Democrats as the lesser of two evils...

edvard2 says

What will the GOP be like in 10 years?

Good question...perhaps this shutdown is the final straw. I would not be surprised if all the RINOs began deserting the GOP and leaving it to become a marginalized, screaming, impotent minority in 10 years -- perhaps entirely re-branded as the Tea Party.

As enough RINOs fill the ranks of the Democrats this will allow "liberals" to safely move to another second party that more suites traditional liberal values.

Well, either that or within 10 years we will be deep in cannibal anarchy and political parties will not matter...

leo707 says

Somewhere to the right of Regan,

Dan8267 says

1. No amount of marriage equality under law would result in bestial marriages.

Back in the days no one even though of homosexual marriages, but they did happen. The more we demoralize our culture and spread perversion, violence, and all kinds of deviances... bad results is the only outcome.

leo707 says

Increased belief in Christ as one's lord and savior is definitely strongly correlated with the fall of the Roman Empire. For the last 100+ years Christianity was the state religion of Rome. It was only a few years after Christianity was adopted as the only legal religion that the Empire fractured into east and west.

Yet somehow I suspect that FortWayne would not be in favor of outlawing Christianity to prevent the fall of the United States.

Hell, it's the Christian right that are responsible for the current government shutdown! Talk about timing!

socal2 says

Too funny - Libs fantacizing about the future of the GOP and they are back stuck talking about the gays. Is there any other subject for Democrats other than frilly social issues? Gays, gals and guns?

Actually, it was FortWayne, a conservative, who started the discussion about gays when he wrote

If liberals take over there won't be a country in 10 years. All we'll have is bunch of perverts in their gay pride parades, a nation in rubble, while decent families are fleeing probably to Mexico to escape the perversion and the ultimate demise of what once was a great nation.

But don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

In any case, equality under law including the special case of marriage is far from a "frilly social issue". It affects taxation. Are you saying that taxation is a "frilly social issue"? If so, you are the first conservative to do so. Even ignoring all the other implications of equal rights under law pertaining to marriage (and there are a shitload and a half of those), the taxation issue alone makes it an important issue by Republican standards. After all, according to Republicans, nothing is more important than low taxes.

As for guns, there are 32,300 gun deaths every year in the U.S. according to the University of Pennsylvania's prestigious Penn Medicine School of Medicine as Hospital System. (Feel free to use counterevidence from Wikipedia.)

32,300 gun deaths a year. That's almost eleven 9/11's every year. You might not like gun control, but are you really saying that having a 9/11 event 11 times a year would be "frilly"? The issue of gun control is gravely important no matter what your opinion of it is.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Back in the days no one even though of homosexual marriages, but they did happen. The more we demoralize our culture and spread perversion, violence, and all kinds of deviances... bad results is the only outcome.

Back in the days they called them fairies and perverts, beat them until their ribs broke, and prosecuted them.
But because we weren't demoralized, there was little crime, violence, abortion, black people in the front of buses, or anything else icky.

FortWayne says

Back in the days no one even though of homosexual marriages, but they did happen.

No, actually that's not true. At no time in the United States' history were two men allowed to fill out a joint tax return. Nor has one man been able to get survivor's benefits from a husband killed in war. Nor has one man been able to put his husband as a benefactor of his health insurance policy.

These are very real, material differences that negatively impact same-sex couples. Can you give me any legal rational that heterosexual couples should be allowed to use joint tax returns but same-sex couples should not?

FortWayne says

The more we demoralize our culture and spread perversion, violence, and all kinds of deviances... bad results is the only outcome.

America demoralizes our culture every time we let the TSA or the police molest a person, every time we kidnap or torture a "terrorist suspect", every time we use drones to kill civilians, every time some pervert in the NSA turns on a teenager's mobile phone camera or listens in on private conversations. These things are immoral and indecent, and they foster an attitude that human beings are things to be used rather than beings with rights.

There is nothing about any homosexual sex act that is immoral, indecent, or dehumanizing when done by consenting persons. The idea that "penis in woman's mouth" is moral and "penis in man's mouth" is immoral is simply unjustified. I have yet to hear any rational justification that one is good and the other bad. The only justifications that anyone on this planet has been able to offer that homosexual sex is immoral is the justification of their own arbitrary bigotry and prejudices.

I have no problem explaining why drowning puppies is evil, or raping a person is evil, or killing others is evil, or robbing a person is evil. It is easy to explain why something is evil if it is. So why can't anyone explain why homosexual sex is evil? Because it isn't. Calling homosexual acts evil is a perversion of morality, and that's the perversion that will lead to our society's downfall. The perversion of false outrage while acts worthy of real outrage go unnoticed is the greatest threat to our society. If all the anti-gay outrage had been directed at outrage for the illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan, then our country would be safer, more financially secure, and countless lives on all sides would not have been wasted.

Automan Empire says

Agitated, the man describes his pension that he worked 40 years to pay into was raided when his former company was bought by a venture capital group.

Unrealistic, since no private company still has a pension, and hasn't for years, probably decades.

Dan8267 says

5. A ever widening rich-poor gap. Yes, the 0.1%. Too bad Occupy Rome wasn't invented.

Oh it was. Rome had plenty of protests including outright rebellions.

These are just some of the fates of the unruly:

Dan8267 says

These are very real, material differences that negatively impact same-sex couples. Can you give me any legal rational that heterosexual couples should be allowed to use joint tax returns but same-sex couples should not?

Fair enough, but I thought you were against government involvement in personal relationships.

Dan8267 says

Hell, it's the Christian right that are responsible for the current government shutdown! Talk about timing!

If government is too big it should be shut down. I bet even you would be up for shutting down NSA.

FortWayne says

If government is too big it should be shut down.

I agree. I hate all those goddam interstate highways. And if grandma gets sick, tell her to pay for her own fucking medical care.

freak80 says

Fair enough, but I thought you were against government involvement in personal relationships.

The correct solution is for marriage not to be a secular institution. However, two wrongs don't make a right. And if we are going to keep committing the wrong of having civil marriage (and whose laws discriminate against the single) then we should not compound that wrong with the wrong of discrimination against homosexuals.

If marriage is to continue as a civil institution, it must abide by the 14th Amendment, and all must be equal under marriage laws.

This seems to me to be a very consistent position.

zzyzzx says

Unrealistic, since no private company still has a pension, and hasn't for years, probably decades.

BZZtt. I have a relative who works at a pension management group for private sector workers, and last I heard from her things were going fine. Even my dentists office has a pension for it's people.

According to Fortune, about 45 of the top 100 companies offer pensions or hybrid defined benefits plans.

http://amzn.com/B00AK3WCZ8

FortWayne says

If government is too big it should be shut down. I bet even you would be up for shutting down NSA.

I would shut down over 50% of the government. However, I would wisely pick the parts to shut down rather than just shutting everything down.

Yes, I would defund and disband the NSA and the TSA. I'd cut warfare funding by 95%. Then I'd address health care costs by using a single payer system and nationalized insurance. I'd streamline all medical administration.

Then I'd address Social Security making each generation pay for itself rather than having future generations pay for the current one. This would make Social Security indefinitely sustainable.

Then I'd replace most welfare with useful public works projects leaving welfare for only the truly disabled or incapable of work. There's more than enough useful public works to be done. Hell, I'd make sure that public works employment paid a living wage, so McDonald's wouldn't be able to find people willing to work for $7/hour when they could make $15/hour building infrastructure, laying down fiber, making maglift highways, etc.

But the real story isn't that government is too big; it's that it's too big in some areas (war, intrusion into private affairs, etc.) and too small in other areas (white collar crime prosecution, environmental protection, infrastructure maintenance, etc.).

egads101 says

marcus says

Just in case you weren't clear on who you're talking to, well,..now you know.

Let me guess Fort Wayne. As a student you were always one of the brightest. You got perfect scores on your SATs and went to either MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford or Harvard. And since then, well the rest is history.

So it's no wonder that when you bring your high powered thought processes and your resulting opinions to this forum, that most of us can't begin to comprehend where you're coming from.

All those words so carefully chosen, and the well planned sarcasms.

Or, you could just call him a dumbfuck!

True.

My intent was to get him remembering that he isn't the shiniest tool in the box, and that maybe on occasion he could learn from those smarter than he when it comes to thinking through social issues.

But,..

1) That's not the way a dimbulb's ego works

2) And, truth is, with respect to learning from others, that's what he is doing when he listens to talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity types.

FortWayne says

marcus says

Let me guess Fort Wayne. As a student you were always one of the brightest. You got perfect scores on your SATs and went to either MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford or Harvard. And since then, well the rest is history.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".

Yeah Mr big shot teacher, "leave them kids alone".

You're not a kid.

But it is interesting to finally understand why you bash teachers so much. It's their fault that you did so poorly in school. Also the fault of public education in general.

You aren't as useless as school made you feel. In fact you have opinions and everything (that you get from people ever so slightly less retarded than you, on talk radio and Fox).

FortWayne says

If government is too big it should be shut down. I bet even you would be up
for shutting down NSA.

The irony. Look what it has led to. A place for you to post your f-ed up thoughts and opinions.

Dan8267 says

And if we are going to keep committing the wrong of having civil marriage (and whose laws discriminate against the single)

Wait, are you saying that civil marriage discriminates against the single? Maybe I misunderstand you.

Dan8267 says

If marriage is to continue as a civil institution, it must abide by the 14th Amendment, and all must be equal under marriage laws.

All must be equal under marriage laws...does that include the single? What would "single marriage" look like? ;-)

If any kind of marriage discriminates against single people, why not just get rid of marriage entirely? Why should civil government be involved in relationships (or lack thereof) at all? What's the benefit?

freak80 says

Wait, are you saying that civil marriage discriminates against the single? Maybe I misunderstand you.

I'm saying that the tax code in the United States at both the federal and state level discriminates against single people. As does Social Security. Basically, single people (and single men in the case of SS) get fleeced.

freak80 says

All must be equal under marriage laws...does that include the single? What would "single marriage" look like? ;-)

If any kind of marriage discriminates against single people, why not just get rid of marriage entirely? Why should civil government be involved in relationships (or lack thereof) at all? What's the benefit?

The tax code should not discriminate against single people, i.e. tax singles more, as doing so violates the 14th Amendment. However, most people in Congress are married, so they like discriminating against singles. When most people in Congress are single, that law will change.

As for other rights conferred by marriage, these rights really ought to be marriage agnostic. For example, right now the benefits of a veteran are conferred to his widow. But what if the veteran is single and has a sister who is financially dependent on him? Why shouldn't his survivor benefits confer to his sister? A dependent is a dependent regardless of the personal relationship to the deceased.

Nonetheless, marriage equality under law is a step towards more universal equality under law and as such is a step that should be taken.

Dan8267 says

I'm saying that the tax code in the United States at both the federal and state level discriminates against single people. As does Social Security. Basically, single people (and single men in the case of SS) get fleeced.

As a single guy myself, I tend to agree. Then again, I'm probably a little biased.

Is that what the definition of marriage ultimately boils down to? The differential treatment of individuals vis a vis the tax code, SS benefits, and other legal benefits?

If it's all about equal treatment/protection under the law, then any kind of differential treatment of individuals based on relationship status is inhrently discriminatory. Am I right? So doesn't that make any kind of marriage discriminatory (since single people don't get the same treatment)?

FortWayne says

Quigley says

Fine, can we have a hetero pride parade too? Or would that be wrong?

Pride goeth before a fall.

I never really understood why all those deviants in this country are so proud of themselves for being the way they are. Whats there to take pride in exactly?

Diversity and freedom

The two things that made this country so great in the first place

Dan8267 says

Nonetheless, marriage equality under law is a step towards more universal equality under law and as such is a step that should be taken.

But if marriage, by definition, discriminates agaisnt single people, wouldn't *getting rid of civil marriage altogether* be a *much bigger step* towards more universal equality under law?

What's the point of marriage in modern society anyway? Is it just a cash-cow for divorce lawyers? Or just a way for one partner to legally seize the assets of the other one?

Who knows where the GOP will be in ten years. The demtards better hope that they are still somewhat viable, or else who will they have to blame for all their failures?

Both POS parties desire an anti-american end game. A ginormous and ever powerful, State. Let's all hope that another party gains traction to fight back against the Statists.

freak80 says

If it's all about equal treatment/protection under the law, then any kind of differential treatment of individuals based on relationship status is inhrently discriminatory. Am I right?

I would agree. The proper way in modern times for the state to handle rights based on relationships is by deferring to the individual. Each individual should have the power to confer rights (benefactor, guardian, etc.) to others as that individual sees fit.

Furthermore, the state should not distinguish between one type of dependent and another. Whether the person you take care of is your spouse or some bum you found on the street should be irrelevant to the state. If you are paying the majority of that person's living expenses, then that person is your dependent.

The state should simplify its laws and decrease its attempts to social engineer changes since such engineering attempts rely on judgment calls that are not the right of the state to make. If the state followed this philosophy, it would not even need to be concerned with the definition of marriage or any other social issue. The state should be culture agnostic. A properly run state should be able to work independent of the culture or cultures of the citizens of that state.

freak80 says

So doesn't that make any kind of marriage discriminatory (since single people don't get the same treatment)?

Yes, the conferment of any rights on privileges on marriage does inherently discriminate against the single because they do not possess such rights or privileges. And this has practical implications in the age in which many people remain single, often cohabiting.

However, as long as marriage does exist as a secular institution, it is better that all marriages are equal and marriage is available to all people than to limit marriage based on arbitrary criteria like gender and race.

Ideally, marriage should be a social and religious institution rather than a civil one. Laws involving marriage should be rewritten to apply to people and their legal relationships in general, including parental rights, which is significant since many parents are not married to each other nowadays.

Removing marriage from all legislation and rewriting that legislation to handle all modern relationships would vastly improve the quality of life for many people. Of course, it is a monumental legal task because there are so many laws involving marriage, but that's because we've been doing it the wrong way for so long.

Civil marriage made sense under the Feudal system. It does not make sense in the 21st century. That's not to say that social and religious marriage doesn't make sense, just that the state should not be involved in it.

freak80 says

But if marriage, by definition, discriminates agaisnt single people, wouldn't *getting rid of civil marriage altogether* be a *much bigger step* towards more universal equality under law?

What's the point of marriage in modern society anyway? Is it just a cash-cow for divorce lawyers? Or just a way for one partner to legally seize the assets of the other one?

I think I answer those questions in the paragraph above (Feudal system).

But to reiterate, it would be ideal to get rid of marriage law and replace it with marriage-agnostic law that accomplishes the same goals by empowering the individual to make the decision of who gets what benefits and powers.

Let's use a concrete example. This example could be applied to any right, privilege, or power conferred by marriage, but let's get specific to illustrate clearly what I'm proposing.

In the status quo, a veteran's widow gets a set of benefits called veteran survivor benefits or veteran widow benefits. But why should the state limit or even care that these benefits are being used by a spouse? Let's say a veteran, Bob, makes a deliberate decision to stay single so he can take care of his autistic sister, Jen. Bob later dies of a heart attack. Why should the state deny Jen the survivor benefits that Bob earned through his service?

As far as the state is concerned, it is simply providing a monetary benefit to Bob's estate. Whether that benefit is used by a spouse, a sister, a parent, a child, a cousin, a friend, or some random guy Bob picked up on the street and started caring for is utterly irrelevant to the state. Jen should not be penalized because she is Bob's sister instead of his wife. It certainly isn't Bob's wish. Should Bob be forced to marry his sister in order to guarantee that his survivor benefits go to her?

The obvious solution is that Bob should unilaterally decide who should get his survivor benefits and who those benefits should be split. In other words, his benefits should not be tied to marriage, but rather Bob's will. The same goes for all other privileges and rights of marriage.

Those who choose to marry and use their rights the way the status quo works lose nothing by letting others have the flexibility of making alternative decisions. This is why marriage is not necessary or productive as a civil institution. I would go so far as to even submit that civil marriage is counter-productive to social and religious marriage because civil marriage created the family court system that has been destroying marriage and strongly encouraging men not to get married. Removing civil marriage may indeed be the key to saving social and religious marriage.

Dan, that's a very well thought out post. Thank you. +1.

I think you and I are mostly in agreement on the marriage issue.

Nonetheless, being an engineer I'm going to over-analyze your post and do some nitpicking:

Dan8267 says

The state should simplify its laws and decrease its attempts to social engineer changes since such engineering attempts rely on judgment calls that are not the right of the state to make. If the state followed this philosophy, it would not even need to be concerned with the definition of marriage or any other social issue. The state should be culture agnostic. A properly run state should be able to work independent of the culture or cultures of the citizens of that state.

That sounds nice in theory. But in actual practice, culture strongly affects beliefs about what is "right and wrong" and "moral and immoral." And many of those ideas get written into law, no?

For example, the statement "it is wrong to discriminate based on skin color" is a moral statement. It's a judgement call. (It's a judgement call I personally agree with.) During the Civil Rights era, the state made the same judgement call. The state *did* socially engineer changes to the culture of the southern U.S. I'd personally say it was a good thing. But it *is* an example of the state making a judgement call and socially engineering a change. Yes, I realize there was a "grass roots" movement for change as well, independent of the state.

Dan8267 says

Ideally, marriage should be a social and religious institution rather than a civil one.

Dan8267 says

That's not to say that social and religious marriage doesn't make sense, just that the state should not be involved in it.

Dan8267 says

I would go so far as to even submit that civil marriage is counter-productive to social and religious marriage because civil marriage created the family court system that has been destroying marriage and strongly encouraging men not to get married. Removing civil marriage may indeed be the key to saving social and religious marriage.

Agree. Especially on the last point.

But what if a religious group defines their version of "religious marriage" as "one man and one woman" exclusively? Are you willing to accept that? Or should the state get involved because said group is discriminating against homosexuality and/or polygamy?

Dan8267 says

In any case, equality under law including the special case of marriage is far
from a "frilly social issue". It affects taxation. Are you saying that taxation
is a "frilly social issue"?

Tax issue? Ha! Like all those married gays paying taxes is going to help solve our entitlement Ponzi schemes?

Gays are a tiny minority of our society (@ 2-3%). Gays who actually want to get married and live monagamous lives are even a smaller minority.

So yes, this is a very frilly social wedge issue that virtually every Democrat including Obama was on the other side of like 5 minutes ago.

I can't blame Liberals for using gay marriage as a hammer to divert from the absolute ruin of the Blue State model......because it clearly works to distract the young and stupid.

Just don't pretend you are taking on or fighting for the most important issues facing our country.

socal2 says

Blue State model.

Yeah- the blue state model. Seeing as how California has the largest economy in the US, bigger than all 49 other states combined, with NY, and MA not far behind tells me that the "Blue" states know something about doing things right. Like making TONS of money.

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

edvard2 says

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

The red states are the true welfare queens.

edvard2 says

eah- the blue state model. Seeing as how California has the largest economy in the US, bigger than all 49 other states combined, with NY, and MA not far behind tells me that the "Blue" states know something about doing things right. Like making TONS of money.

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

.. The Booming business/industries created in California were done by far more Conservative folks during a more Business friendly Pro Industry decades.

California today could not repeat the same boom years because of Anti-Business policies created by the Left.

its not all that surprising how the Lefties want to take credit for the Industry Booms of the 70s 80s and 90s while they have been against all the Corporations/Industries since the 1960s ....

anyway.. talk to former Sun Micro CEO / Co founder about Pro Business California today.

http://www.pressheretv.com/ep-137-advice-for-zuckerberg/

freak80 says

edvard2 says

How are most of those red states doing? Yeah.... thought so.

The red states are the true welfare queens.

where former Californians have moved to during retirement years.

i guess they have no stomach for your Liberal Utopian Society.

The Great California Exodus

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966.html

thomaswong.1986 says

.. The Booming business/industries created in California were done by far more Conservative folks during a more Business friendly Pro Industry decades.

California today could not repeat the same boom years because of Anti-Business policies created by the Left.

That has to be the biggest load of crap I've read in awhile. I think you need to crack open a few history books as well as actually look who founded today's most successful tech companies in the world.

thomaswong.1986 says

where former Californians have moved to during retirement years.

i guess they have no stomach for your Liberal Utopian Society.

The Great California Exodus

Yes- that's fantastic for the states they are moving to who now get to take care of lots and lots of retirees. I'm not sure if your comment was supposed to make a point. If it did, I'm not sure.... hmmm. leseee... lots of retirees moving to other states... how exactly does that translate to jobs in research, tech, science, manufacturing, and education? That's right... they DON'T.

But hey- if others want to move to Arkansas, well that's totally fine with me. There are literally millions eagerly waiting to fill their places anyway and that will also help free up more housing.

edvard2 says

That has to be the biggest load of crap I've read in awhile. I think you need to crack open a few history books as well as actually look who founded today's most successful tech companies in the world.

History books and real life.. i been working in SV tech for 3 decades. Where were you at ?

Where were all these pin headed liberals during the tech boom of the 70s 80s and 90s ?

anyway.. talk to former Sun Micro CEO / Co founder about Pro Business California today.

http://www.pressheretv.com/ep-137-advice-for-zuckerberg/