|reply to tubbynet |
Re: Pennsylvania Consumer's First is kaput, yet they join?
During your original statement you supposed that if somebody is investing money for a cause there must be some return ( you did use the general construct "you")
My response was this:
"The fact that you suppose nobody would invest in anything without something in return is not only wrong but highly irrelevant"
Which is true. Again a counter example would be the Gates foundation. (there are countless, but that's an easy one)
Now on to the troubling part for you, my next statement:
In this case, google absolutely wants something in return, but how they are doing it is more ethical. Rather than pay political zombies, they found somebody who champions there position. Not only more effective, but more morally sound as well.
I did notice your convenient omission of "In this case"
Something tells me you comprehended my original point just fine but rather then debate on the merits you took the low road.