I created Stack360.io in order to create a business management solution that was flexible and reasonable.

They give kickbacks to the local government officials to assure they get the contracts.

They are one of the richest companies in the U.S. in part because of the monopolies they have in many locations. They should be forced to cover people in rural areas even though it's not profitable for them as compensation for the monopolies they are afforded.

The police killed my stepson (ChaseSullivan.org). Conveniently, their body-cam didn't work.....

It is inconsiderate people like this that causes the rest of us to have caps in the first place. Yea, yea, I know - any company with more than $100 is evil, and this guy is "the people" so whatever he does is good. Give me a break.

These are the rules I've learned over the years: 1. show up on time, don't leave early 2. don't talk negative about employees, customers, the company, or products 3. do what you are told 4. attend company functions

Given the left-wing, politically correct crowd that now controls Wikipedia, perhaps these politicians (humans) are trying to protect themselves just like you would want to do. It is quite tiring to have endless neutral facing negative descriptions for those that are deemed incorrect.

Be careful, open office can be confused with openoffice.org but has nothing to do with it. In fact, the article you refer to doesn't even use the term "open office".

I really didn't see this as a like/dislike Rush issue. I saw it as a does Rush promote the idea that there are far more people who are on government aid than should be. I can't imagine anyone suggesting he doesn't strongly promote this idea. Rush doesn't tilt things to his listeners. He tears them apart at times. It seems he really believes what he says. I believe there are many people that truly need assistance and should be getting far more aid than they are. This includes blind people, retarded people, people missing limbs, etc.. The problem is we are approaching 50% of the people receiving government aid. This is an absurd number. I know a 30 year old woman who has a four year college degree in a marketable trade, has no physical, mental, or emotional deficits. She refuses to get a job. She doesn't even look, and the government doesn't ask her to. The government gives her food stamps and other aid. Recently, she gave birth to her first child. The government paid all of the expenses and now has her child on free medical. As this type of aid increases, why would most people work? Would there be enough workers to keep society working? Politicians (Democrats) keep giving more because they personally get more power by promising other people's money to their voters. People complain that neither side compromises and we have a deadlock. This is far from the truth. Our country has been moving steadily left for at least the last 50 years. Obviously one side has been compromising... If they were both compromising equally we'd be roughly where we were in terms of socialism. But that isn't the case. The apparent deadlock now is because the people on the right are tired of compromising, and the left hasn't (on average) for the last 50 years. This is not a debate, it is undenable fact. It is an undeniable fact that our country has and continues to move left.

+1 liberal (above)

I can't listen to NPR in general. I'd find it hard to imagine someone more left than Terry Gross. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is better and somewhat more fair but still left. The most balanced source of reliable news I know of is The Wall Street Journal. I want to write an article about the techniques the mainstream media uses. For example, when interviewing someone, they ask questions. If the respondent answers with a view that supports the right the interviewer ignores the answer and changes the subject. If the respondent answers with a view that supports the left the interviewer responds, engages, and asks the respondent to expound on their response. The exception to this is when the respondent is on the right and not that bright. The interviewer sees the flaw in the argument and drills it deep. They want to be sure everyone sees the stupidity of the respondent.

There are educated and well off people on both sides of the isle. If you haven't heard Rush Limbaugh tell able people to "get a job" rather than collect off the government, you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, it would work if we paid for the news, and we were the only payers, and we payed based on quality but that would never work because the cost of producing the news far outweighs what people think it is worth or are able to pay. You don't get better news from public sources either. Don't be fooled. They get public money based on numbers of listeners, viewers, readers, etc.. The masses aren't rich. They must appeal to the masses in order to get the numbers. This causes them to jump on the class envy thing. They would never tell their readers to go get a job.... This is why most news services are far left.

Remember, the news services are not in the business of providing news. They are in the business of making a profit. They make money by getting people to read their advertisements. They print what further's that cause. (A disclaimer: I am a rabid capitalist. I am not complaining about this situation. It could not be different. I am merely pointing it out.)