Of course you're right. There's no debate over this question, like say, physicists getting together to debate quantum mechanics, in a desire to all get to the

Of course you're right. There's no debate over this question, like say, physicists getting together to debate quantum mechanics, in a desire to all get to the truth together. This is a fight, a struggle over how the pie gets divided up. Any statement someone makes is basically just a declaration of how there bread is buttered - are they a worker, a programmer, a creator of wealth? Or are they some parasite heir who collects dividends from Intel, or are a limited partner for some VC? Or worse a flunky for one of those types. There's one question to ask, really. WHO came up with this law? Was it the programmers, DBAs etc. getting together pushing for these laws? Was it even the H1-Bs - who are chained to companies like a slave chained up at a plantation? Of course not. Whose faces do we see on the fwd.us page? Mark Pincus - fresh off of ripping his workers off of their options. Keith Rabois, Khosla partner - he was bounced from Square because he was playing grab-ass with one of his underlings who he was porking - the underling filed a lawsuit. Mr. Lace Curtain political mover and shaker himself Ron Conman - Conman is lace-curtain Irish, meaning he takes the dishes out of the sink before he pisses in it. Blah blah blah, VCs, "super-angels", incubatorers, current/former CEOs (Bill Gates) blah blah. Really we don't even see whose pulling the strings. They love to shove some 20/30-something techie CEO like Zuckerberg or Drew Houston on there. But really it's all for the people the CEOs got their money from. Which is not even the VCs, because they're front men too. It's the heirs who give money to the VCs, the limited partners we never see. They're the kind of people Nixon said on his tapes that hung out at the Bohemian Grove, the San Francisco heirs whose hands he felt like washing after he shook it. Even Nixon felt disgusted by these heirs.