Tim Cook to attend State of the Union Address with Michelle Obama

$329 says that part of Obama's speech will talk about companies bringing some manufacturing jobs back to the US, and use Apple/Cook as an example. Any takers??

Come on, I could use the $329 for...something.

yep...move great positive press for Apple! :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sau124 

Looks like Apple will be mentioned again - Remember Apple being singled out in the presidential debate?

I don't remmber...how were they mentioned?

Found one...not really positive but not a really negative...

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-17/business/35501732_1_second-obama-romney-debate-debate-moderator-presidential-debate

*sigh* now this should be bothering people.  stay away from Washington Tim!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe 

Great visibility for Apple. It's amazing that Americans can't just be proud of the fact that Apple is an American company, or that we elected a President twice with no regard for the color of his skin.

You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end. Only one of your two statements is factual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenbf 

$329 says that part of Obama's speech will talk about companies bringing some manufacturing jobs back to the US, and use Apple/Cook as an example. Any takers??

 

I think you might be right on the money. It is a logical step for Apple to make given its huge cash reserves.

It would be a good example for all corporates to think more about balancing corporate economic interests (that inevitably leads to the off-shoring of jobs) with national economic interest (that should focus on on-shore job creation). The focus on corporate economic interests is a major problem in all advanced economies, not just the USA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe 

It's amazing that Americans can't just be proud of the fact that ... that we elected a President twice with no regard for the color of his skin.

We did?  I would say it's arguable it was an electoral asset....  ...not that campaigns are constrained from the narratives they choose to use, so just saying....

...and if Hillary's the Dem nominee in 2016, that too will garner more votes for an historic shift than it will cost in lost votes from misognynists....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

 

You forgot to add "in my opinion" at the end. Only one of your two statements is factual.

Oh, not this shit again. You do realize that there's a massive amount of people who voted AGAINST Obama because he's black, right?  If the nastiness of the last few years have proven anything, it's that racism/bigotry/xenophobia is alive and well in the US. Stop dismissing his success as something due to his skin color- it's cowardly and cheap. 

Remember when John Sculley attended that State of the Union address in the early 1990's?

Nothing good ever comes from things like this.

Originally Posted by sippincider 
Remember when John Sculley attended that State of the Union address in the early 1990's?

 

Nothing good ever comes from things like this.

"I saw Tim Cook down yonder at the Piggly-Wiggly. Nothin' good ever came from shoppin' on you's own…"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

"I saw Tim Cook down yonder at the Piggly-Wiggly. Nothin' good ever came from shoppin' on you's own…"

 

Well, sir, IIRC this was just before Sculley got dismissed from Apple.  Not to mention it's a Bad Thing for non-politicians to be playing with politics in the first place.

Too bad moderators can't be blocked.  indeed.

I think it's pretty safe to say the number of people who voted for Obama because of his skin color vastly outweighs those who voted against him for that same reason.

Originally Posted by sippincider 
Well, sir, IIRC this was just before Sculley got dismissed from Apple.  Not to mention it's a Bad Thing for non-politicians to be playing with politics in the first place.

Oh come off it. Pretending that there is any cause and effect here is nonsense.

Cooke handing out iPad mini's and energy bars as the representatives enter the auditorium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy 

 

Oh, not this shit again. You do realize that there's a massive amount of people who voted AGAINST Obama because he's black, right?  If the nastiness of the last few years have proven anything, it's that racism/bigotry/xenophobia is alive and well in the US. Stop dismissing his success as something due to his skin color- it's cowardly and cheap. 

I agree with you, this poster has major issues with just about everyone.

Why he hasn't been banned, is one of the mysteries of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 


Provide evidence or please shut up.

LOL !  You want him/her to go around the US and poll people ?  How else can the "evidence" be provided.

How about thinking before your reflexes take over your brain. Telling some one to shut up is insulting, and confirms my negative feelings about you as a person.

I am of the opinion that Cook's attendence is nothing but a "photo opportunity" to mingle next to the US President.

I guess this is Apple PR department going hell-bent to paint Apple in a good light after all the negative publicity (unfairly) that has been shoved at its door.

Steve Jobs hated Obama's business hostility and told him he'd be a 1-term president. Yet, he still sat down and had dinner with the President. Someone said earlier that you have to play the game. I agree. There are educational goals as well as repatriation ideas that deserve to be voiced by all parties.

I hate that racism is bandied about so easily by those on the left. If we are a racist country, we are doing a very poor job of it. (Ironically, the black iPhone was first and it took a long time before Apple introduced the white one. Tongue deeply in cheek.)

Being labeled racist is easily as offensive as racism itself.

I just had a thought. I saw some doctor on a viral video that gave a speech with Obama present. He spoke out against high taxes and Obamacare with Obama looking pretty uncomfortable. I don't think Cook has Jobs' brass balls to do something like that. He seems too gentlemanly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 


Provide evidence or please shut up.

Ah, I see you didn't request the same for this comment:

"You do realize that there's a massive amount of people who voted AGAINST Obama because he's black, right?  If the nastiness of the last few years have proven anything, it's that racism/bigotry/xenophobia is alive and well in the US. Stop dismissing his success as something due to his skin color- it's cowardly and cheap. "

How come?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

Ah, I see you didn't request the same for this comment:

 

"You do realize that there's a massive amount of people who voted AGAINST Obama because he's black, right?  If the nastiness of the last few years have proven anything, it's that racism/bigotry/xenophobia is alive and well in the US. Stop dismissing his success as something due to his skin color- it's cowardly and cheap. "

 

How come?

Actually, that's a fair question.

I had thought about doing so, but then judged that his statement was an empirically correct one with very high likelihood. Why? It would be true even if a few million people voted against him because of 'race', which, even though it's a 'massive' number would be a small proportion of people who actually voted. Second, that statement would be true also for those who voted for him because of his race (although, I'll admit that's not the way he intended it). Third, your own post implicitly acknowledges this premise!

The problem with your statement was that you were making a relative comparison between one type of 'racist' versus another -- i.e., you were claiming that the number that voted for him because of race outnumbers the number that voted against him because of his race -- and that, unfortunately, requires empirical support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sacto Joe 

Great visibility for Apple. It's amazing that Americans can't just be proud of the fact that Apple is an American company, or that we elected a President twice with no regard for the color of his skin.

LOL,  two comments.   FIrst, I think he got elected BECAUSE of the color of his skin.  Secondly, hard to be proud when we elected a President twice with no regard for his experience or ability to do the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy 

 

Oh, not this shit again. You do realize that there's a massive amount of people who voted AGAINST Obama because he's black, right?  If the nastiness of the last few years have proven anything, it's that racism/bigotry/xenophobia is alive and well in the US. Stop dismissing his success as something due to his skin color- it's cowardly and cheap. 

Sorry, but that is just plain ignoring the facts.   Folks voted against him because he has been the absolute worst US President in modern history.  He came to the job with ZERO experience, was voted in BECAUSE he was articulate and in some cases because he was black.     It is not racism to disagree with a President who shows not clue as to how to run a small business, let alone the largest economy in the world.   EVERY FACT SUPPORTS THAT!   We are not in the worst recovery in the history of the United States.  His only answer is "it would have been worse"  LOL

Welcome to PO. Seemed better than to just delete the entire thread… 

Though why we think such discussion is even needed (or would solve anything) here is beyond me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram 

Actually, that's a fair question.

 

I had thought about doing so, but then judged that his statement was an empirically correct one with very high likelihood. Why? It would be true even if a few million people voted against him because of 'race', which, even though it's a 'massive' number would be a small proportion of people who actually voted. Second, that statement would be true also for those who voted for him because of his race (although, I'll admit that's not the way he intended it). Third, your own post implicitly acknowledges this premise!

 

The problem with your statement was that you were making a relative comparison between one type of 'racist' versus another -- i.e., you were claiming that the number that voted for him because of race outnumbers the number that voted against him because of his race -- and that, unfortunately, requires empirical support.

 

Look at the 2008 democratic primary,  African-Americans overwhelmingly voted for Obama over Hillary Clinton.  In some states Obama received 90%+ of the African American vote.  Considering the ideology of Obama and Clinton are very similar it's hard not to chalk that up to voting based on race.  Clinton didn't receive 90% of the white vote.

Your argument is flawed. Obama received 93% of the black vote in 2012 and 95% in 2008. But look back just one election prior, in 2004, when John Kerry took 88% of the black vote. Historically African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic. So the difference is 5-8% more of the black vote for Obama. The black vote only makes up about 13% of the countries total voting population. 5-8% of 13% equals >1% of the entire voting population. So even if that percentage difference was entirely motivated by racial preference for Obama, which would be categorically wrong, it is such an insignificant number compared to the margins of both Obama's victories.

Math is our friend here. Obama didn't win because he is black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

*sigh* now this should be bothering people.  stay away from Washington Tim!

*like*

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteelers 

He has to make nice with Washington as much as he can.

If that's true (and it probably is) it's a sad testimony to the current state of affairs.