Apple scorns half its potential customer base.

[Death's Shadow]

And as much as it pains me to reference them. The Washington post is about the only source I found with out graphics of Beck photoshopped by the left twist author of the site.


www.thrfeed.com/2010/03/washpost-apple-boycotting-fox-news.html



Even the post admits Fox is utterly dominate in the news community. If Apple wishes to boycott FOX because they don't like the truth and want to side with the left.. I say let them, and good bye to their profit margin.

Not that I was planning to buy an Apple anytime soon, but now that we see what side of the fence they are on there is no way they are getting my money.

[RedRock]

Can't say as how I ever saw a single Apple commercial on Fox anyway. But I buy Apple products because they're terrific, not because the company has some pro-gay stance, etc., just like I buy Mtn. Dew even though Pepsi is in bed (pardon the pun) with the homos. I don't worry about Apple going socialist, or there'd be no Apple--a high priced well-made product and socialism do not go together. No, I bet this is just posturing by Apple so that (they hope) they're not the NEXT target of take-over by Obama.

[Death's Shadow]

I will not and do not knowingly give my money to Companies that support Obama or any of his leftest scum.


I would think Apple would want to support conservative views as we are not the ones that want to rape companies in taxes to pay for social programs. Can't say I understand why they are doing this. Bad business in my opinion.

[RedRock]

Oh, I agree, DS, it makes no sense, that's why I suggested it's a (cowardly) posturing effort to make the Obamanites think Apple is a nice little doggie and maybe avoid unwanted attention. If I heard correctly today, Rush said Apple has $40 Billion in cash reserves right now, so they're not laying any employees off and might now worry about having to cough up $100 million in new taxes for the health care insurance debacle (unlike Caterpillar and others, who say that would kill their company).

[Lamron]

I don't know how it could be fairly enforced, but I don't think publicly traded companies should be allowed to make any contributions or engage in any political activity. Publicly traded companies exist solely to make the shareholders money. Activities or expenditures that detract from that goal should be punishable somehow.

On a semi-related observation: I watch a few of the competition shows, American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, America's Got Talent, etc. I've noticed that contestents that make political statements verbally or printed on what they wear, get voted off pretty quickly. In a popularity contest, you'd be stupid to do anything that would instantly alienate half or more of your audience.

In some ways, selling in a competitive market is a popularity contest.

[RedRock]

Apr 24, 2010 0:04:35 GMT -5 Lamron said:

I don't know how it could be fairly enforced, but I don't think publicly traded companies should be allowed to make any contributions or engage in any political activity. Publicly traded companies exist solely to make the shareholders money. Activities or expenditures that detract from that goal should be punishable somehow.

If I understand that correctly, I don't have any problem with those companies and their activities. The whole purpose of any business is to make its owners (shareholders) money. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's the American way, one that Obamination wants to destory. Plus, if we restrict companies, any company, from being able to express their thoughts on legislation and public policy, then ONLY the "favored" "companies" (unions, not-for-profit leftist groups, any of the Dems' friends,etc.) would be able to advertise, donate money, etc., and that's bad! That was the whole basis of the recent Supreme Court Ruling, that we can't (and shouldn't) restrict free speech just because the free speaker is a big $ company or a company that exists to make money, whether publicly traded or privately/family owned, etc.

[Death's Shadow]

Then there should be at the very least a share holders meeting to decide if the owners of said company (share holders) want to support a political view or policy.

[Lamron]

You're right, Red. There's no way to do it through legistation that wouldn't have exactly the result you described. But there should be some mechanism in place to let shareholders prevent a publicly owned company from giving away its profits on something, no matter what the cause, simply as a financial investment matter.

[RedRock]

Ah, the same way Unions donate blue kazillions of $ to democrat politicians without getting express approval from dues-paying union members for it, just assuming that the elected leaders have the power to do it. Yeah, I see what you two mean.

[Death's Shadow]

Is the main reason I quit a job and the union associated with it, years ago.. I will not send my money to fight against my beliefs.