It depends on whether your objection is moral or not. If you just think their product is inferior ("McDonald's food is gross!") then I don't think there's anything wrong with using their stock to make money. But if you object to their business practices (Including the overall effects their products have) then arguably you're compromising your morals for profit, which is bad. (Compare "McDonald's food is gross!" with "McDonald's exploits its employees in an unethical manner!" or "McDonald's restaurants have played a seriously negative effect on American health choices and the food industry!") Pretty similar with the use, as well. There's nothing unethical with eating food that you think tastes bad, but eating food from a company that does blatantly unethical things in order to produce that food is unethical.
)
That really depends on the quality of the post you make.
IMO that would be an appropriate bump.
The Tea Party is a movement, not an actual party. There's no particular set agenda or policies. As far as I can tell, they generally don't want to abolish Social Security. (Or Medicare) But they want to cut government spending. They're weird, and haven't done their math, but by and large they don't seem actually hostile to the more traditional government programs. (They just think they should be run better, and shouldn't be expanded) EDIT: According to the NYT, a "plurality" think Social Security and Medicaid are worth their cost to taxpayers. Make of that what you will.
