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

145679

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    That's rather misleading - point to a bill that is 100% conservation and does nothing else but promotes conservation. There is no bill that has but 1 thing listed and that is "ask Americans to be more energy efficient" - there's always something else tied to it. All the bills are loaded with so many things you can say Republicans oppose x, y, and z and you can say Democrats oppose that same x, y, and z just because they were part of a different bill that was geared for something else.



    That's akin to saying Republicans don't want people to have health care - every sane person wishes everyone had health care - that's not the argument. The argument is 1) how to implement it and 2) how to pay for it.



    Are you being politically naive, or are you attempting to act that way?



    We all know that 100% "pure" bills are impossible. The closest time was during the first five years or so of the Bush administration when the party rubber stamped most everything that came their way.



    That's not going to happen anymore.
  • Reply 162 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Are you being politically naive, or are you attempting to act that way?



    We all know that 100% "pure" bills are impossible. The closest time was during the first five years or so of the Bush administration when the party rubber stamped most everything that came their way.



    That's not going to happen anymore.



    I'm saying that pointing to a vote on a particular bill (which I'm guessing is the basis for your claim) is misleading. The Republicans put out a health care bill that would cover a lot of people but the Democrats opposed it so does that mean Democrats oppose public health care? Republicans have also put out conservation bills that the Democrats have opposed (based on other things in the bill) so does that mean Democrats oppose conservation? It's a cat and mouse game that's 100% political. Like I said, no sane person is against people having health care and no sane person wants you to burn through all your money on utilities (that's actually bad for the retail business, as was shown when the oil prices were so high, so even if the Republicans are 100% pro-business it's in their best interest to limit the amount of money spent on utilities so they can spend money elsewhere to stimulate the economy as a whole, not just a few oil companies. Also note that high oil prices hurt refineries profit margins so it's not good for them either).



    Of course pure bills are impossible, that's my point. Until there is a pure bill it's rather hard to say any one party opposes something like conservation of energy.



    That's not going to happen anymore? The Bush administration never went "nuclear" in the Senate and that's still on the table as a serious option - I don't think we've heard the last of the rubber stamp so long as any 1 party controls the White House, Senate and the House.
  • Reply 163 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    I'm saying that pointing to a vote on a particular bill (which I'm guessing is the basis for your claim) is misleading. The Republicans put out a health care bill that would cover a lot of people but the Democrats opposed it so does that mean Democrats oppose public health care? Republicans have also put out conservation bills that the Democrats have opposed (based on other things in the bill) so does that mean Democrats oppose conservation? It's a cat and mouse game that's 100% political. Like I said, no sane person is against people having health care and no sane person wants you to burn through all your money on utilities (that's actually bad for the retail business, as was shown when the oil prices were so high, so even if the Republicans are 100% pro-business it's in their best interest to limit the amount of money spent on utilities so they can spend money elsewhere to stimulate the economy as a whole, not just a few oil companies. Also note that high oil prices hurt refineries profit margins so it's not good for them either).



    Of course pure bills are impossible, that's my point. Until there is a pure bill it's rather hard to say any one party opposes something like conservation of energy.



    That's not going to happen anymore? The Bush administration never went "nuclear" in the Senate and that's still on the table as a serious option - I don't think we've heard the last of the rubber stamp so long as any 1 party controls the White House, Senate and the House.



    Except that the Republican bills are only being offered as weak substitutes to the other bills, or are being offered in order to make it impossible to get any agreement on either, and to therefor have the matter drop entirely. They aren't serious bills in their own right.
  • Reply 164 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Time to let it go, man.



    Please, please, at some point - 22 years is a long time - take advantage of all the plurality of views and scientific thinking that this great country has to offer, and not be blinded by the nonsense on either the left or the right. Please try to keep an open mind. O/w, you're falling into the same intellectual trap that you did when/where you grew up.



    I am sorry but living there for 22 years isn't something you just forget about. Especially when I see what the left in this country is doing to change America in a fundamental way. I did not come here to have the government tell me what to do, what to drive or what to eat or force me to do anything I don't want to do. I saw what happened in Venezuela and the people that I knew from there, almost to a man said the same thing to me when I warned them about Hugo Chavez: "It will never happen to us; our country is different..."About 10 years later they have themselves another Cuba.
  • Reply 165 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Except that the Republican bills are only being offered as weak substitutes to the other bills, or are being offered in order to make it impossible to get any agreement on either, and to therefor have the matter drop entirely. They aren't serious bills in their own right.



    Wrong. There have been many serious Republican bills but there is nothing they can do since Dems have a super-majority. Dems really don't need a single Republican vote but they cry wolf because they don't want to own their own horrible bills all by themselves.
  • Reply 166 of 196
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by X38 View Post


    Then you will reach a very big number since his is pretty much the only traditional media company running counter to the general collapse of the traditional media business.



    Now THAT would be funny if it weren't so scary a thought.



    Seriously, though. Since when does someone besides the editorial board publish a daily "must cover these stories in THIS way" bulletin to each and every one of it's holdings?



    Ever watch a taping of FAUX News in several different markets on the same day. Ever notice Murdoch "demanded" catch phrases used to prevent lawsuits and allow them to pose conjecture and their own opinions as "quoted" facts.



    Ever hear the phrase "Some people say..." at the start of most FAUX News hack jobs?



    But you're saying here that they are the only "traditional media business"?



    WOW.
  • Reply 167 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    I am sorry but living there for 22 years isn't something you just forget about. Especially when I see what the left in this country is doing to change America in a fundamental way. I did not come here to have the government tell me what to do, what to drive or what to eat or force me to do anything I don't want to do. I saw what happened in Venezuela and the people that I knew from there, almost to a man said the same thing to me when I warned them about Hugo Chavez: "It will never happen to us; our country is different..."About 10 years later they have themselves another Cuba.



    You are exaggerating what is happening.



    We've had Republican presidents in the past who did more radical things than what is happening now.



    When Eisenhower first proposed to built up the national highway system in the 50's, he was accused of being a Socialist.



    Tax rates those days went as high as 90%, not a typo. Was that Socialist?



    When Nixon went to China, he was accused of selling out.



    Keep things in perspective.
  • Reply 168 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    Wrong. There have been many serious Republican bills but there is nothing they can do since Dems have a super-majority. Dems really don't need a single Republican vote but they cry wolf because they don't want to own their own horrible bills all by themselves.



    They don't have a super majority as the Republicans did for so long. Realistically, they would need over 65 Senators for that because they can't count on all Democrats for every vote.Democrats aren't as monolithic a party as the Republican party has become.



    And they have nowhere near that in the house either.



    And no, those competing bills aren't serious.



    And before you say anything about me, I was a Republican for most of my life. When I was 18, I voted for Nixon. Voted for him again. Voted for Reagan twice. Then for Bush senior the first time.



    But the party has moved too far to the right for me.
  • Reply 169 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    They don't have a super majority as the Republicans did for so long. Realistically, they would need over 65 Senators for that because they can't count on all Democrats for every vote.Democrats aren't as monolithic a party as the Republican party has become.



    And they have nowhere near that in the house either.



    And no, those competing bills aren't serious.



    And before you say anything about me, I was a Republican for most of my life. When I was 18, I voted for Nixon. Voted for him again. Voted for Reagan twice. Then for Bush senior the first time.



    But the party has moved too far to the right for me.



    What's too far to the right?Reps lost because the last candidate, Juan MacCain the RINO is exactly what we don't need; someone who supports giving citizenship to illegal aliens, co-sponsored the bill by Feingold and who has the motivational skills of a brick.
  • Reply 170 of 196
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    What's too far to the right?Reps lost because the last candidate, Juan MacCain the RINO is exactly what we don't need; someone who supports giving citizenship to illegal aliens, co-sponsored the bill by Feingold and who has the motivational skills of a brick.



    Well, I think bringing religiosity into politics as Republicans has done, is moving to the right. It's certainly the wrong direction for politics. his should be personal, not a matter of national politics.



    Bush was attempting to turn the country into an oligarchy. That's pretty right wing.



    You should remember that it was Reagan, the Conservative poster boy who first gave illegals amnesty.
  • Reply 171 of 196
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    I am sorry but living there for 22 years isn't something you just forget about. Especially when I see what the left in this country is doing to change America in a fundamental way. I did not come here to have the government tell me what to do, what to drive or what to eat or force me to do anything I don't want to do. I saw what happened in Venezuela and the people that I knew from there, almost to a man said the same thing to me when I warned them about Hugo Chavez: "It will never happen to us; our country is different..."About 10 years later they have themselves another Cuba.



    Given your personal experience I would think you would have some passing notion of what "socialism" actually is or what genuinely intrusive government controls look like.



    Which industries has Obama nationalized, again? What draconian controls on your person or cohort has Obama enacted? Have your free speech rights been curtailed? Your right to assembly? Your right to worship as you please, or to access to the legal system, or keep and bear arms? Do you actually believe that expanding access to health care is some kind of evil plot to enslave you?



    The Bush administration presided over a genuinely shocking extension of government power, granting the president the "right" to simply imprison and hold indefinitely any American citizen, without charges or access to the legal system. Did you fret about government invasiveness them? Did you speak up when the Bush administration assured us that, in order to protect us from terrorists, it would be necessary to vastly expand the government's power to monitor its citizens, and to do so unfettered by any judicial oversight?



    Painting Obama as some kind of totalitarian tyrant is absurd. I realize its an absurdity that a certain element of the country is enthusiastically embracing, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.
  • Reply 172 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Given your personal experience I would think you would have some passing notion of what "socialism" actually is or what genuinely intrusive government controls look like.



    Which industries has Obama nationalized, again? What draconian controls on your person or cohort has Obama enacted? Have your free speech rights been curtailed? Your right to assembly? Your right to worship as you please, or to access to the legal system, or keep and bear arms? Do you actually believe that expanding access to health care is some kind of evil plot to enslave you?



    The Bush administration presided over a genuinely shocking extension of government power, granting the president the "right" to simply imprison and hold indefinitely any American citizen, without charges or access to the legal system. Did you fret about government invasiveness them? Did you speak up when the Bush administration assured us that, in order to protect us from terrorists, it would be necessary to vastly expand the government's power to monitor its citizens, and to do so unfettered by any judicial oversight?



    Painting Obama as some kind of totalitarian tyrant is absurd. I realize its an absurdity that a certain element of the country is enthusiastically embracing, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.



    Expanding access to the health care system... suuuure, if by that you mean government takeover of it and forcing people to get health insurance or get fined or go to prison. That's unAmerican right there. A President telling the head of any given corporation to step down as he did with the GM CEO_what the hell do you call that? Anyone with half a brain knows that the surveillance you mention was done on individuals who were already being watched, or suspected of terrorism, not just any citizen and many a plot was discovered thanks to that. Which is precisely why very quietly, Obama has not done anything to stop that program.

    Have a nice debunked day.
  • Reply 173 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Well, I think bringing religiosity into politics as Republicans has done, is moving to the right. It's certainly the wrong direction for politics. his should be personal, not a matter of national politics.



    Bush was attempting to turn the country into an oligarchy. That's pretty right wing.



    You should remember that it was Reagan, the Conservative poster boy who first gave illegals amnesty.



    I agree that religion and politics don't mix well. Don't agree with the oligarchy thing since there have been many left-wing ones as well. I also think that Romney would have made a great candidate and got shut down because of his religion which is really stupid because the man knows how the economy works and it was/ is precisely the economy that was the main issue for most of us during these past elections.
  • Reply 174 of 196
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    Expanding access to the health care system... suuuure, if by that you mean government takeover of it and forcing people to get health insurance or get fined or go to prison. That's unAmerican right there. A President telling the head of any given corporation to step down as he did with the GM CEO_what the hell do you call that? Anyone with half a brain knows that the surveillance you mention was done on individuals who were already being watched, or suspected of terrorism, not just any citizen and many a plot was discovered thanks to that. Which is precisely why very quietly, Obama has not done anything to stop that program.

    Have a nice debunked day.



    So you figure it works to just make up shit about things you don't like, while excusing actual excesses with a flippant little "it's OK if they abridge your rights if they think you're up to something."



    You don't strike me as having thought very seriously about these matters. Oh, I don't think "debunked" means what you think it does.
  • Reply 175 of 196
    daseindasein Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    I still see cars driving down the highway at 60, 70 and even 80 mph with their windows down and, quite possibly the A/C on - that's a double whammy.



    You're absolutely right bigmc6000....but boy does it suit a hedonist's fancy; especially at night through the desert on the way back from a good trip to Vegas.
  • Reply 176 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    So you figure it works to just make up shit about things you don't like, while excusing actual excesses with a flippant little "it's OK if they abridge your rights if they think you're up to something."



    You don't strike me as having thought very seriously about these matters. Oh, I don't think "debunked" means what you think it does.



    Please tell me genius: what have I made up? You are the one making B.S. excuses for atrocities like Obamacare and cap-and-trade. Negro please...
  • Reply 177 of 196
    White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn speaking to a High School class in June of this year (2009).



    In the video, the Obama staffer reveals who she looks to for guidance in political philosophy, which would be none other that Charmin Mao, the Chinese Communist Dictator that was responsible for the death of over 70 Million people.



    The Obama appointee also reveals how Chairman Mao came to power through ?fighting his own war? and recommending this as a course of action to these teenagers.



    Here is just another in the long line of radical Marxist/Communists surrounding our President and working out of the White House. And, at the same time, indoctrinating our children.



    This video is from the Glenn Beck program and is approximately 5 ½ minutes long.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJjoruQs0Y

    __________________
  • Reply 178 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn speaking to a High School class in June of this year (2009).



    In the video, the Obama staffer reveals who she looks to for guidance in political philosophy, which would be none other that Charmin Mao, the Chinese Communist Dictator that was responsible for the death of over 70 Million people.



    The Obama appointee also reveals how Chairman Mao came to power through ?fighting his own war? and recommending this as a course of action to these teenagers.



    Here is just another in the long line of radical Marxist/Communists surrounding our President and working out of the White House. And, at the same time, indoctrinating our children.



    This video is from the Glenn Beck program and is approximately 5 ½ minutes long.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJjoruQs0Y

    __________________



    Your continued stream of nonsense and uncritical citations of the irresponsible idiots continues.



    I only include Beck's false and distortedd claim for others' interest on this topic. You haven't contextually or sensibly responded to any that posters have provided on any topic. The subtlety and necessity of context eludes you. You are simply intent on repeating utter diatribes of adolescent crap that don't warrant a serious response. [Hence my use of crap]



    Full Transcript and video clip



    Quote:

    Throughout most of his October 15 Fox News program, Glenn Beck falsely claimed that White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. In fact, in the video that Beck aired as evidence to support his claims, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or atrocities -- rather, she commented that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally."



    Dunn did not praise any of Mao's ideology or atrocities in video Beck aired



    Dunn cited anecdotes about Mao and Mother Teresa to counsel that "[e]verybody has their own path." In the video of a speech to high school graduates earlier this year, Dunn cited Mao's response to skeptics who pointed out that their party was facing steep disadvantages while fighting the Nationalist Chinese: "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." After asking the audience to "think about that for a second," she said, "You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path." Likewise, Dunn cited Mother Teresa's response to a young person who wanted to work at her orphanage in Calcutta: "Go find your own Calcutta." Dunn then reiterated: "Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge."



    For further perspective on how some politicians regard Mao's political philosophy for strategies on winning elections go to Karl Rove's column on his referral to George Bush, or Goldwater's adviser, Stephen Shadegg stating "in all ... campaigns where I have served as consultant I have followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung." ... warning, you must not be wearing tin foil when reading. Reserve that for gaggle-eyed Beck viewing.
  • Reply 179 of 196
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by danvid36 View Post


    You are an idiot and a sheeple. Did you watch the video that I posted???Obviously not because what's on there is indefensible and videos cannot be refuted. Keep bullshitting yourself by calling video evidence of the criminals in this administration "crap" . That only makes you look like a fucking moron.



    "Evidence of criminals"? I thought you were the one who was worried about Obama's totalitarian state, but you seem to be ready to criminalize citing the wrong historical figures.



    Maybe mentioning Mao should get you thrown in a secret government prison. It's the only way to stop the totalitarian takeover.
  • Reply 180 of 196
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    "Evidence of criminals"? I thought you were the one who was worried about Obama's totalitarian state, but you seem to be ready to criminalize citing the wrong historical figures.



    Maybe mentioning Mao should get you thrown in a secret government prison. It's the only way to stop the totalitarian takeover.



    So it is ok with you having government officials that admire and talk to children about someone who killed 70 million of his own???Is it???
Sign In or Register to comment.