WSJ: Apple's Chamber departure not in shareholders' interests

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,545member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by weisbear View Post


    Mel, the moderate moderator who augments this discussion.



    Have you read the WSJ opinion article. Pretty clear to me what poster is referring to.



    Excuse me if I am way off on your function. I have never experienced moderators who weigh in on topic discussions and take positions on one side or other. Glad to see that you folks are not letting these discussions succumb to the stature of early Yahoo discussion groups. I realize that this is really not an intellectual group, merely a fan group of Apple, but you and your fellow moderators had done fairly well in controlling the palaver. Kudos.



    It really wasn't that clear. Asking him to be more specific is always a good idea.



    We control little, as you can tell by your comments here.



    As are other mods here, I was a member first.



    But if this was some other sites, more than half of the posts would have been deleted.



    Is that what some want?
  • Reply 62 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,545member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    Actually they're very progressive on a number of fronts: education reform, health reform, tort reform, tax reform, etc... Granted, they take a business standpoint, just as you would expect an environmental group to take an environmental standpoint on an issue. Those are anything but status quo positions. They're not against environmental change either, just ones that don't make economic sense. They push for relaxing the nonsense holding back implementing more nuclear facilities and nuclear processing just as France does and just as the former head of Greenpeace has. You can't ignore the financials of a situation...it's the 800 pound gorilla that will never go away. Leaving an organization like the CoC was a dumb stunt, and the Journal was simply pointing out that it will, at some point, take a bite out of their butt. Smart companies don't do politics in the limelight.



    It depends on what is meant by progressive.



    I've subscribed to the WSJ for longer than I can remember. If I didn't like the publication, I wouldn't be spending upwards of $500 a year for it.



    But just because they support, or don't support something, doesn't make it good or bad.



    Companies get little out of the chamber other than the right to contribute to the salaries of the staff, and the lobbying efforts.



    The entire goal of the organization is to prevent legislation that members think will hurt their businesses, and to support that which they think will help them. nothing wrong with that offhand.



    But not every company has the same goals as to legislation. What will hurt one company will benefit another.



    Why should companies who disagree with the goals of the organization remain a member if they don't believe their best interests are at heart, or for that matter, the best interests of the country? Are conservatives now against a company doing that?



    The fact that the most important companies to leave have been power generating companies. Those are the companies that would benefit most from the chambers efforts. It's expected that more will do so. So if they are leaving...



    Apple doesn't benefit from being there.



    They do benefit from being a member of the Business Roundtable.
  • Reply 63 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It really wasn't that clear. Asking him to be more specific is always a good idea.



    We control little, as you can tell by your comments here.



    As are other mods here, I was a member first.



    But if this was some other sites, more than half of the posts would have been deleted.



    Is that what some want?



    Mel, I think MOST want to stick to the topic at hand. If someone wants to opine on something not germane to the topic, they should have the heading "OT" on the post.



    I did not know that you were the arbiter of poster decorum based upon your longevity. I guess experience trumps all. My comments are completely innocuous and meant to bring the discussion back to a rational level. Is that what you, as a moderator, are seeking?

    Still a pretty good group of later posters. Like I said, Kudos.
  • Reply 64 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,545member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by weisbear View Post


    Mel, I think MOST want to stick to the topic at hand. If someone wants to opine on something not germane to the topic, they should have the heading "OT" on the post.



    I did not know that you were the arbiter of poster decorum based upon your longevity. I guess experience trumps all. My comments are completely innocuous and meant to bring the discussion back to a rational level. Is that what you, as a moderator, are seeking?

    Still a pretty good group of later posters. Like I said, Kudos.



    Any mod can decide what to edit, delete, and to whom belongs the black star.



    But we just try to keep things from becoming too extreme. People have to be allowed to vent a bit. It's preferred that they don't state extreme political views hough.
  • Reply 65 of 196
    First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these f-ers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the f- up before we become the USR of A.
  • Reply 66 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these fuckers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the fuck up before we become the USR of A.



    Seriously, no offense intended, but imho, you really should: (i) Get out more; (ii) Read more; (iii) Think more.
  • Reply 67 of 196
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these fuckers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the fuck up before we become the USR of A.



    Wow. Forgot to take your meds again, eh?
  • Reply 68 of 196
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post


    Right. Fox News is the most watched news channel in the US. The ratings for their primetime lineup dwarfs MSNBC and CNN and has for years. Murdoch is definately not in tune with the way America feels. He's out of touch. Most Americans support and crave a super left wing liberal agenda. That's why Obama's ratings are so high - cause people really love bigger government and higher taxes. I'm sure Murdoch's empire is falling soon. Hold your breath.



    Thanks. You just proved my point as to why it would be a good thing to happen.
  • Reply 69 of 196
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,952member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these f-ers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the f- up before we become the USR of A.



    The cooling might have been because of high altitude particulate pollution blocking sunlight. Nova had an excellent program on this called "Dimming The Sun", they went over how the data was gathered, how the data was checked, made a pretty convincing case. A lot more convincing than going onto a forum and throwing around profanities and hyperbole anyways.
  • Reply 70 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    Wow. Forgot to take your meds again, eh?



    No, genius. I am just someone who had to live under socialism for 22 years and I know what's going on in this country.
  • Reply 71 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The WSJ is a very conservative journal. Its business articles are usually good, but its editorials are often not.



    In the aggregate, I would actually not call them 'conservative' except for their editorial pages. The rest of WSJ is surprisingly middle-of-the-road. I agree that the articles are generally better than the editorials and the op-ed (but that might also be a function of my political predilections, which gravitate towards the center.)
  • Reply 72 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The cooling might have been because of particulate pollution blocking sunlight. Nova had an excellent program on this called "Dimming The Sun", they went over how the data was gathered, how the data was checked, made a pretty convincing case. A lot more convincing than going onto a forum and throwing around profanities and hyperbole anyways.



    What about all the other times when Earth has been colder or hotter than today?How does Gore explain that one?It's all cyclical and it will continue to be that way after we are long gone.
  • Reply 73 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    First they called it global cooling in the 70's , then they called it global warming and when that didn't work anymore the idiots on the left, headed by the biggest robber baron of all, Al gore, started calling it global climate change so that no matter what happens they are always right. For these f-ers it's all about more government control over our lives. Wake the f- up before we become the USR of A.



    It's really terrific that you have it all digested and intelligently compartmentalized. If there's any additional cranial capacity to absorb the great truths on origin, here's a current clarification from the EPA:



    Quote:

    Climate change refers to any significant changes in climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:



    · natural causes (changes in the sun's intensity, changes in ocean circulation, etc.)



    · human activities (burning fossil fuels, deforestation, urbanization, etc.)



    Global warming is an average increase in the Earth's temperature, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human. Today, "global warming" commonly refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.



    The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use because it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures.



    But, changing the terms was suggested early on by Republican consultant Frank Luntz in a memo to George W. Bush in 2002, in part stating:



    Quote:

    Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.



    Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.



    The phrase global warming should be abandoned in favor of climate change, and the party should describe its policies as conservationist instead of environmentalist, because most people think environmentalists are extremists who indulge in some pretty bizarre behavior... that turns off many voters.



  • Reply 74 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post


    You got your cable channels mixed up...



    PMSNBC is the cable channel that obsesses over Palin and Rush to the point that some, like that dork Keith "I still think Bush is in office" Olbermann, needs psychiatric counseling as in yesterday and the rest I just term as brown noses, not brown shirts, brown noses... Because they have their heads stuck up so far Obama's a$$ they couldn't report the news accurately if their life depended upon it!





    Obama - "Change We Can Believe"



    Rush - "How's that change working out for you?!"



    Me - Republican Party should fold, Tea Party should take it's place!"





    Well, we can't argue with that, I guess. With the "teabagging" and all that stuff, you obviously know everything there is about brown-nosing. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
  • Reply 75 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    What about all the other times when Earth has been colder or hotter than today?How does Gore explain that one?It's all cyclical and it will continue to be that way after we are long gone.



    Here.
  • Reply 76 of 196
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,952member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    What about all the other times when Earth has been colder or hotter than today?How does Gore explain that one?It's all cyclical and it will continue to be that way after we are long gone.



    Of course, it's cyclical, but I don't think it makes sense to use that as an excuse to ignore possible man-made causes that are pushing the changes faster than they would otherwise. Overall temperatures have been higher and lower, but I don't think temperature swings have been as drastic as they are now short of a geologic era changing catastrophe.
  • Reply 77 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post


    It's really terrific that you have it all digested and intelligently compartmentalized. If there's any additional cranial capacity to absorb the great truths on origin, here's a clarification from the EPA:



    Because so are soooooo schmart: By definition, climate is ALWAYS changing. I am not fooled by any of their B.S. Everytime the government comes up with some scheme to supposedly protect us from ourselves, we are the ones that end up paying for it by means of higher taxes and added fees. The Earth has been cooling since 1998 and that is why they now call the hoax climate change. Sorry if you can't see this hoax for what it is.
  • Reply 78 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    Because so are soooooo schmart: ...



    Sorry if you can't see this hoax for what it is.



    Thank you.



    Apology accepted ... I guess.
  • Reply 79 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Of course, it's cyclical, but I don't think it makes sense to use that as an excuse to ignore possible man-made causes that are pushing the changes faster than they would otherwise. Overall temperatures have been higher and lower, but I don't think temperature swings have been as drastic as they are now short of a geologic era changing catastrophe.



    I really think everyone here would benefit from reading this thread about so called climate change. Very informative, with a few real scientists heavily involved in the discussion.



    http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=646331
  • Reply 80 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle View Post


    Thank you.



    Apology accepted ... I guess.



    Whatever.
Sign In or Register to comment.