When did it become wrong to accomadate customers?

I just read an article on breitbart.com"Liberals going after FOX advertisers", and I must say I wasn't suprised in anyway by the story, but I am once again suprised by the stupidity of Liberals.

The article say that the certified nut-bars at two prominent liberal blogs(which I refuse to mention by name) are monitoring who advertises on Fox News, in order to annoy them with telemarketer tactics and hopefully have the advertisers pull out with Fox. These liberals claim it's because "FNC claims to be a "fair" news organization and is consistently conservative", you know that old chestnut. Obviously they're intending to put a dent in FNC's budget and figure that will somehow prevent them from airing "conservative commentaries".

I'll tell you right now, it wont work. This isn't like Don Imus, where you had a quote/unquote controversy, and the Reverend Al Sharpton grandstanding and making a spectacle of everything. There is no logical explanation for this. I'll bet in the end these liberal groups end up looking worse than they did before and Fox comes out better if not unscathed as well as their advertisers.(If Home Depot has a down quarter it's because of it's pseudo connection to Mike Vicks dogfighting case than because of its choice in advertising oppurtunities.

Aren't the Liberals the ones who always scream the loudest when something is about presonal choices/freedoms(even if they're hypocrites about it). Which is exactly what we have here. One line from the breitbart article says "Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming".
OK let me explain, Home Depot is a business that sells things and therefore will meet the demands/desires of its consumers in order to maintain profitability. So selling eco-friendly products is a way they can satisfy customers who are looking for eco-friendly products(profit).
The company doesn't have to have a position on global warming because thats not what it does, it sells products that appeal to a wide range of customers and then advertises in places where it can catch the attention of millions of consumers at once.
It has nothing to do with global warming, its called running a business. Home Depot could offer nothing but white paint if it wanted too, but they offer an incredibly diverse range of colors of paint, why? Because people want more than white paint. It would be a heck of a lot easier for Home Depot to offer only white paint to their customers but then it wouldn't matter because they'd have no customers.

Business in the case of Home Depot and thousands of other businesses across the country rely on selling the products/services their customers want to as many customers as they can get. I'm so sick of this liberal crap, just because Fox News is successful and doesn't believe all this wanton liberal bullshit they've got to throw a fit like a bunch of whiny little kids every other week. I would talk about what John Edwards said in Iowa, and just who are "they"? But I don't think I have the temper to handle anymore for tonight.

Bickering

Cindy Sheehan has recently declared that she is going to run against Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 elections.
The suprise in this is that Pelosi was Sheehans wingwomen leading up to last elections, in which Pelosi became Speaker of the House with the Dems gaining control.

It's obvious Sheehan, like every liberal, has a grudge with the President, but she's a one-trick pony. The Democrats only dealt with her for the publicity they received, and she was niave enough to believe they were serious. They used her and now that they got what they wanted they let her Ass hung out in the wind. Problem is when your Ass is hung out for that long it gets chapped.

Sheehan wants out of Iraq, not to mention everywhere else, and the Democrats are falling way short on campaign promises and it's because they would rather politicize everything and maintain a longer career and not compromise themselves than actually get down to the nitty-gritty(This practice is as old as politics itself because that is politics).

Now to qoute some history "I fear we have only awakened a sleeping giant". That's what the liberals are saying, or should be saying anyway, about this.
The problem isn't that Sheehan can defeat Pelosi in the election, like I said she's a one trick pony. Though it would be nice to have someone in office who won't deal with the usual crap that goes on in Washington just to avoid making people mad, we need a breath of fresh air, even if it is a far-left nutbar.
Anyway back to my point, Sheehan doesn't have much hope of beating the all and powerful OZ, I mean Pelosi. What she will do is detract power from the Democrats, even if she is a bit of a nutbar she is still a part of the Dems playbook. The Dems will lose face if they are seen running against, or running from, what was their bread and butter play last time out.
Mention the 2004 Presidential election to a liberal they'll claim Ralph Nader lost it for them by taking votes from John Kerry. They have a legit point, and the same thing could happen again in 2008. Sheehan isn't running for President so she won't directly lose voters for the Dems candidate but in a sort of roundabout way it will hurt them to have a "friendly" voice smacktalking their currently most powerful person.

She doesn't seem like the the type of person who gives a damn about constituents, which is what I like about her, it also means she probably won't give in to the Democrats attempts/pleas to stop her from running. Their best hope is to end the war as soon as possible, which is what they want to do anyway so Hillary won't have to deal with it(damn those campaign issues!). But if they can't get her to stop they'll have to come up with something good, because I really don't think she cares about the betterment of the party and its image as long as troops are deployed anywhere.

More Irony from Live Earth

Now we find out Madonna, who sang at the London Live Earth, is being criticized for owning stocks in companies which are labeled as unfriendly to the enviroment.
The companies included Alcoa, Ford Motor Company, Weyerhaeuser and Northrup-Grumman.

Why should anyone be suprised. It's the same with every liberal celebrity, "do as I say not as I do". They don't understand why average people don't like having their taxes raised to pay for another government program. They don't understand because they are too shut out from the real world, they make millions of dollars and rarely have to worry about paying bills, only when they spend their money like total morons(Mike Tyson) does that became an issue.

Celebrities figure it's probably better to have millions of people stop commuting than have themselves live slightly more modestly. To them the day-to-day real world is Global Warming(or whatever the current "Hot" issue is) and paychecks. They don't realize that the majority of people don't concern themselves daily with global warming, but are more concerned about providing for their families and surviving. If global warming could be 100% proven real i'm sure everyone would be concerned and want to correct the problem, however the problem couldn't be fixed if the entire planet were starving from lack of production. What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations if they led meek abysmal lives. I doubt Madonna or anyone, no matter how rich or how poor wants their children and grandchildren living in huts and forraging for food.

Have you ever seen a celebrity not willing to support/promote something that seems like a good cause? Even if something is completely disproven celebs will attach their names to it if it gives them an oppurtunity to sell something.

As for Madonna and her investing, I actually don't care. I don't care whose stock she owns, it's her money she can do with it as she pleases. The hypocrisy is what annoys me. If you really beleived in something you wouldn't tarnish it by being hypocritical would you? The fact that you're going to perform at a concert for global warming and still invest in companies that people see as obstacles to the cause is plain ignorance.(For another excellent example go read about Michael Moore).

However in defense of these types people, I must admit that I think things should be done for foster children and inner city kids and a million other causes. And if I were wealthy I probably wouldn't want to part with all my money either, that is unless I felt I had enough saved that my family would still be well taken care of long after i'm gone, so maybe somewhere north of $50 Million. Problem is most of these celebrities have way more money than they'll ever need and continue to make more and more and still think it's easier for 10,000 people to give $100 than for themselves to give $1 million

Oh the irony.

Although I don't believe in the global warming hysteria that Al Gore has so annoyingly brought into the spotlight, I still can't figure out how a concert is supposed to help anything. Don't get me wrong I love music, but how is a concert supposed to raise awareness for global warming?
Here is a tasty quote from the Washington Post "We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic." That was John Buckley of Carbon Footprint. I must say WOW! that really is brilliance at its finest. Come on, even if you live in a cave you've heard about global warming, it's simply everywhere. You can't outrun it, you can't hide, you just cannot escape global warming, it has perverted itslef into everyones life everywhere on earth.
Find me someone who hasn't heard about global warming and I've got some property on Jupiter you might be interested in.
It's like an intellectual...no wait I'll do one better, it's a common sense epidemic. I really don't think the ends justify the means. Hitler thought the world would be a better place when he was done too. I know it's a different example but it proves the point, killing for peace makes no sense, and neither does polluting for enviromentalism.

So is a concert to raise awareness really necessary or even practical? I for one find it quite ironic that some of the most excessive consumers on the planet are the ones trying to tell us "common folk" that our lifestyles are harmful to the enviroment.
Call me crazy but i'm seriously having a difficult time understanding how my 1998 Chevy Cavalier is worse for the enivroment than the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Private Jets and whatever else is owned by Bon Jovi, The red hot chili peppers, Kanye West or whoever else performed.
And we can't forget about the cost(enviromentally) of this concert. The cost of organizing and setting it up certainly burned some fossil fuels. The artists getting to their venues, which we're undoubtedly stocked with bottled water and brown m&m's, and also the fact that the concert-goers had to arrive at the venues as well, which i'm guessing also burned more fossil fuels.

One last thing, the only reason I know this concert happened yesterday is because while I was watching the Tigers go to extra innings against the Red Sox, I changed the tv channel during a commercial and there I saw somebody prancing around on stage and became thoroughly confused for several seconds until I realized what was going on. It was at that point I switched back to the baseball game, and didn't care any more about global warming than I had before, which is not at all.
My point is it may have been a good idea to promote the concert a little. I never heard anything about when the concert was actually happening until I saw it last night. Even Eddie Money, who comes to Detroit every year promoted his show more than this concert, and this thing is supposed to save the earth? Either somebody is really lazy, dumb, both or just plain ran off with the advertsiing dollars.

I thought they were just kidding!

I didn't think the fairness doctrine was actually up for reconsideration, then I saw it was defeated 309-115. What I want to know now is who are the 115 airheads who actually voted for it?