never mix business with politics, religion or dogs.

by  problembear

a long time ago in this nation, a time honored tradition of doing business without  interjecting one’s politics, religion or one’s opinions about your dog  has seemed to disappear completely.

i always thought it was a good rule. so what has happened to this organization?

seems like when you draw sides, you automatically lose 50% of your business to those who disagree with your opinions. am i wrong?  around missoula i see a lot of businesses who display fish in their logo spaces when they advertise. also, i see a lot of marketing by businesses who display their progressive politics front and center.  is this a good thing? do we really want to limit our customers to those who worship as we do?  or to those who vote as we do?

the separate marketing which targets church and business in this country and politics and business in our daily dealings doesn’t seem healthy for a country that prides itself on being a melting pot which derives our strength from the combination of everyone’s best traits. i believe that inclusion is better than exclusion if you want to have a healthy economy. but, maybe that is just wishful old fashioned thinking on my part.

but what i hope is not old-fashioned in this country is the notion that our politics in this country should not be a battleground for foreign corporations to exert undue influence over our elected representatives. so is the chamber of commerce telling us the truth when they refute democratic party charges that the chamber is using foreign money to influence congress? you decide.

one comment i read today read true…..

“just because it is legal doesn’t mean it is good for this country.”


  1. With the economy is as it is, I find myself looking at it more as choices. If I’m not getting good customer services shopping at a place I know to lean towards politics as I do, well I wouldn’t stay with them just because of politics. I like to look at the quality, the workmanship, salesmanship, first and then choose. 2 qualified businesses, both good at what they do, well that’s when I look at things like religion or politics.

  2. lizard19

    I-Jo, you just don’t get it. different name, same drivel.

    here’s something of actual substance from a piece by robert reich:

    Not only is income and wealth in America more concentrated in fewer hands than it’s been in 80 years, but those hands are buying our democracy as never before – and they’re doing it behind closed doors.

    Hundreds of millions of secret dollars are pouring into congressional and state races in this election cycle. The Koch brothers (whose personal fortunes grew by $5 billion last year) appear to be behind some of it, Karl Rove has rounded up other multi-millionaires to fund right-wing candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling corporate dollars from around the world into congressional races, and Rupert Murdoch is evidently spending heavily.

    No one knows for sure where this flood of money is coming from because it’s all secret.

    But you can safely assume its purpose is not to help America’s stranded middle class, working class, and poor. It’s to pad the nests of the rich, stop all reform, and deregulate big corporations and Wall Street – already more powerful than since the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators.

    this situation we’re in doesn’t benefit anyone but a very small percentage of very wealthy people. people on the right don’t seem to give a shit, though. maybe they think if they help the extreme right destroy this country, they’ll finally get the chance to shoot gays and liberals and dark skinned people in some apocalyptic left behind wet dream.

    • Ingemar Johansson

      No “gettin a chance” there Liz.

      Shot me a mess of them before breakfast.

      Oh, did you change you name?

    • The Polish Wolf

      This is the part I don’t understand – the economy is growing, has been for a while. Americans don’t believe it because it hasn’t trickled down to them , and probably won’t any time soon. This indicates exactly what needs to happen – money needs to move from the wealthiest Americans to the rest of us. Until that happens, we’ll never have a safe middle class – the key to our economic success. Republicans refuse to let it happen, and Democrats aren’t really fighting them on it.

      What are they figuring? Do they actually believe that what didn’t work before will work now, or do they just figure they’ll wrack up some wealth and then die before it all goes to hell?

  3. it’s a good balanced video segment bs. i especially liked the part about mark shields calling republicans who voted against full disclosure of where lobbyist money is coming from hypocrites. well worth watching the entire thing. thanks.

  4. ingemarjohansson

    Changed the name again. With a better avatar.

    Let’s ride the time machine back to ’08 shall we? Via Washington Post

    Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

    Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

    • lizard19

      holy crap, are you implying money may have corrupted obama? this is truly groundbreaking information. i take back everything i’ve ever said about the uselessness of your commentary, jo.

      now that you have enlightened us about this bipartisan corruption, what do you think are solutions? how about public financing for campaigns? how about full disclosure of where this money is coming from? what do ya think, jo?

    • JC

      New name, new avatar, same attitude. ;-) May I call you IngyJo, the latest incarnation of your vardøgr Big Swede? Thanks.

      So IngyJo, you are mostly off topic here, as the only semi-relevant point pb was making that your comment could be construed to address, would be the issue of campaign financing.

      Of course, he was talking about businesses and nonprofits (like 501(c)(4)’s and the Chamber of Commerce) taking advantage of the Citizen’s United ruling that allows them unlimited expenditures on elections (not contributions to candidates, however).

      And in the case of the CoC, soliciting donations from foreign entities and depositing them in its general fund–the same fund it is spending $75 million out of to pay for campaign advertising.

      You’re talking apples and oranges here with your comparison to Obama’s fundraising. NOt that I’m trying to protect or rationalize how and how much money Obama raised.

      But I think that foreign corporations using a (once) respectable american corporation as a front to influence elections is a pretty egregious attack on our sovereignty and democracy. But I assume, that you probably support the CoC and have a prepackaged argument ready to go in their support.

      And just what is it that you think the Chinese want from the CoC for their donations? And what is it they want from the candidates they are buying?

      Jes askin’.

      • Ingemar Johansson

        I couldn’t begin to wonder.

        A fleet of C-130’s maybe?

        Source: Global Times [02:22 October 11 2010]

        By Hao Zhou

        US President Barack Obama has proposed to Congress terminating the suspension of C-130 cargo aircraft export licenses to China, according to a letter published Friday on the White House’s website.

        This proposal, which is regarded by some Chinese analysts as blandishments to China after the US stiffly pressed China to revaluate its yuan, is still subject to review and approval by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

        The White House didn’t release the quantity or price of the C-130s in the proposal.

        If it gets the green light, the C-130 transport aircraft, nicknamed “Hercules,” would become the first heavy military equipment that the US has exported to China since 1989.

  5. Ingemar Johansson

    More foreign money ends up in Dems pockets.

    • JC

      So… let’s end the possibility of any foreign money entering U.S. politics. Can we agree on that one, IngyJo, vardøgr of Big Swede? Could congress work together on that one issue?

      • Ingemar Johansson

        Agreed…..but only after you guys admit this was a feeble attempt to fire up your base with false accusations.

        • mr benson

          don’t hold your breath

        • JC

          Which false accusations?

          And speaking of “firing up your base with false accusations” if you start putting conditions a=on working together, you’ll have to admit your own false accusations, too. Ready to go there, Big IngyJo?

  6. Ingemar Johansson

    This one JC.

    When did you stop beating you wife?

    • JC

      What you may call a false accusation is an unknown situation. It is an accusation, and there is nothing “false” about it. But an accusation does not make it a proven point.

      Fortunately for the CoC, reporting regulations don’t force them to prove–or disprove–the accusations.

      But as they say, money is fungible. You throw good money in the same pot as bad money, and when you spend from that pot, your going to end up spending some bad money. And when that pot is $75 million large, then of course people are going to make accusations. CoC could open its books and disclose donors, and the problem would go away. Or they could do what they are doing which does nothing to dissuade (or prove or exonerate) the the accusations.

      You believe in the notion of taking bad money and making it “good?” Because that seems to be what the CoC is doing.

      But lets pose the converse question: if the CoC isn’t spending all that foreign money on elections, then what are they trying to buy from the CoC instead?

      • Ingemar Johansson

        In other words use McCarthyism.

        “The Democratic National Commitee [sic] is using the same sort of tactic and logic that Sen. Joe McCarthy used in the 1950s: Level a headline-grabbing and unsubstantiated charge, like the State Department is filled with communists, and then say it is up to the State Department and the employees so charged to prove it is not true.”

        • Ingemar Johansson

          And when you’ve lost the NY Times you’ve lost everything.

          “But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

          In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

          Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.”

          You era is over. The internet and it’s informed users are not your friends.

          • JC

            Um, the Sierra Club does nothing similar to what the CoC is doing. It separates it political operations from its non political operations by using two different corporations–one a 501(c)(3) and the other a 501(c)(4).

            I assume the NRA does the same thing, as most nonprofits don’t want to lose their 501(c)(3) due to political issues.

            Now the AFL-CIO, I’m not sure about. It may be comparable to the CoC. But bottom line, I don’t really care what one misinformed (about the 501(c)(3/4) issue ) writer at the NY Times says. I’ve worked in the nonprofit industry long enough to know the distinctions, and how funding has to be treated.

            The CoC has a couple of choices. It can either eat the bad press (money is fungible), it could disclose, or it could separate its operations.

            Whining about “McCarthyism” isn’t going to cut it for them.

            • Ingemar Johansson

              I think we can both agree that the squishy middle/independents will be the deciding factor in many of these close races.

              I’m thinking that there’re smart enough to separate a truthful ad from a baseless attack.

              And dumb enough not to care about the accounting differences between a 501c3 and a 501c4.

              In short, you’re screwed.

            • JC

              “I think we can both agree that the squishy middle/independents will be the deciding factor in many of these close races.”

              Um, I don’t agree with that. I think the deciding factor in the close elections is going to be dem turnout. As in the dems are not as enthused about htis election as the republicans. So anything the dems can do to rile up their base and get them out, they’ll do.

              And the CoC story seems to have done just that. Nothing like a story (true or false) about foreign money being funneled into our elections through a corporation that is spending $75 million to elect republicans to get folks excited about voting against that money.

        • JC

          Uh, leveling McCarthyism in this case is a little like invoking the Hitler meme about Obama. Way over the top analogy. Doesn’t work here.

          • Ingemar Johansson

            Doesn’t have to work here.

            It works out there.

            • JC

              Uh, not really.

              • Ingemar Johansson

                On second thought, maybe it does work here.

                “More than 4 of 10 likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now are either less supportive or say they no longer support him at all, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 7-10.”

              • Starla

                Or in other words…6 (SIX) of 10 people that once supported President Obama…STILL DO!

              • Ingemar Johansson


                According to predictions 40% of you guys are staying home or crossing party lines.

  7. Ingemar Johansson

    Major backlash.

    Rove-backed group raised $13M since attacks from Obama
    By Michael O’Brien – 10/13/10 10:02 AM ET
    The GOP-aligned American Crossroads said Wednesday it has raised over $13 million since coming under attack from President Obama.

    The group and its campaign affiliate, Crossroads GPS, said it had easily surpassed its initial fundraising goal of $50 million to spend on behalf of Republicans, and has increased its target to $65 million, according to spokesman Jonathan Collegio.

    The boffo numbers come after a week in which Obama led Democrats in attacks on the group, which is affiliated with GOP strategists Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove. Both are veterans of President George W. Bush’s White House.

    Obama accused American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of possibly receiving money from foreign donors and corporations to fund their electoral activities, a charge the groups deny.

    The administration has shown no sign of relenting in their attacks toward the groups, which could have a major impact in the final weeks before Nov. 2, when voters head to the polls in crucial midterm elections.

    Collegio said the attacks had only driven interest in the group’s activities, and that the increased fundraising would allow Crossroads to spend an additional $10 million in House races, and $5 million more in Senate races.

    The Chamber, also in light of Democratic attacks, vowed only to “ramp up” its political activities in the closing weeks of the campaign.

    • JC

      Backlash? Nah. The money was most likely coming anyways. Now they get to play politics some more in an effort to stifle anybody commenting on it, and about what will be our new corporatized congress.

      Ain’t gonna work IngyJo. You’z gotsta call ’em as ya see’z ’em.

      What is it I read today? Republicans have a 9:1 advantage in “independent” money raising. Now that all those rich conservatives figure they can buy a candidate, it should be lots of fun when all the republicans can put up in 2012 presidential is going to be a bunch of tea partiers funded by the Koch bros. and their ilk.

      Yes, the united corporations of america are quickly dissolving the united “states” into a nothing more than a money grubbing morass of insanity.

  8. Ingemar Johansson

    I was wrong.

    You guys do have a message.

    Breaking: Barbara Boxer Approved Code Pink Trip to Fallujah to Donate $600,000 to Extremists to Murder US Soldiers
    Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 5:32 AM
    So would aiding and abetting terrorists to kill US soldiers qualify as behavior unbefitting of a sitting US senator?

    On October 12, Scott Swett at the American Thinker reported that Senator Barabara Boxer (D-CA) along with Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Henry Waxman (D-CA) secured diplomatic courtesy letters that allowed anti-American Code Pink activists to travel to Fallujah, Iraq. The radicals traveled to Fallujah in late 2004 to donate $600,000 worth of humanitarian aid to the people who had just killed 51 Americans and wounded 560 more earlier that month. Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah was the heaviest US urban combat since the Vietnam War.

    After the report was published at American Thinker the article was deleted at Islam Online.
    But, thanks to the internet archive a copy of the article is still available:

    • JC

      Ah, I see the right wing crazy internet circle jerk has gone off on another disinformation bender. Fortunately,as you say: “You [sic] era is over. The internet and it’s informed users are not your friends.”

      Give the internet 24 hours, and the truth shall be known:

      “In fact, the Islam Online article cited by Swett notes that the $600,000 raised by Code Pink, military family members and other organizations was for “humanitarian aid to the refugees of the war-torn city of Fallujah,” not insurgents. As Reuters reported on December 3, 2004, “More than 200,000 people who fled Fallujah ahead of the US offensive have yet to return and many are in desperate need of aid, with temperatures in Iraq heading towards freezing, a new UN emergency report says.”

      The suggestion that this was somehow “aiding and abetting terrorists” is a total fabrication. As Nadia McCaffrey — who joined the humanitarian aid delegation that delivered the money trip after losing her son in Iraq – told Rick Sanchez on the May 30, 2005 edition of CNN’s Newsnight (accessed via Nexis):

      NADIA MCCAFFREY, MOTHER OF KILLED U.S. SOLDIER: The day he decided to enlist, the day after 9/11. He didn’t thought a second that he would be one day deployed to Iraq and end up his life there. Patrick was the first combat death in 58 years, the first soldier, National Guard to be killed in action in 58 years from California. He believed in the goodness of his country and his people. And he stood up for that to the moment he was killed. He was attacked by both sides of his body, through his vest.

      And even wounded, he run to the other soldier to make a shield of himself. This picture is the one that was taken 40 minutes before his death. And the flowers that he has, that he is holding were given by the children.

      He also, I’ll show you after, took a picture at the same time of a little girl from the Humvee who was giving him a big flower that he later will have in his hand, holding her little brother. And that says it all. He would say to us — you know, he would call every day and he would say to us, the children are my highlight.

      I think the gesture that we did, not just me, but the other parents, mothers, to go and meet with other parents and give the humanitarian aid of $600,000 for the children of Fallujah, that this was the most important thing, really. The children didn’t start to war.”

      Nothing like a bunch of RWC’s exploiting a dead soldier and his family, and war refugees to make a political attack. Sick.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,671,359 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • October 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Sep   Nov »
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: