I have never understand the venom people have with Al Gore being on Apple's board of directors. Would you please enlighten me to why you do not like the man?
Want the short list?
Truthfully, if you have to ask, you'll have a hard time understanding why. I think today most people are pretty aware of the huge disconnect between the elite few that are hand selected for political office.........and real people.
But, there are still those that believe that political leaders are actually real people that get legitimately nominated/elected for office.
To be one of these people, you need not be a person, but a soulless monster, wiling to set aside all moral/logical obligation to the world, and do what you're told....and you will go far. Al Gore is a prime example of this....not only did he play ball well enough to get to the level of vice president of the US, but he was willing to be the poster child for "global warming" which morphed into "all climate change of any kind" and "carbon tax". It took a real nut job to convince it would be a good idea to attach your name and face to such a scam.
So, on the whole, I'd prefer to delude myself into believing Apple is not the kind of company that lays down to the government and lays down to social engineering scams.....but I can't, as much as I try. Al Gore being a glaring example.
-----
P.S. Do not attack me over climate change comments. The climate does change, every minute of everyday. But when political leader shouts "Carbon TAX!" as the answer....you are being scammed.
Politics is a cesspool that should be avoided by companies...
I wish it was avoidable but it does appear for Apple to best serve their customers best they need to be more involved. We've seen what has happened to Apple from a lack of lobbying (and by extension what hasn't happened to Amazon and Google from extensive lobbying efforts).
I have never understand the venom people have with Al Gore being on Apple's board of directors. Would you please enlighten me to why you do not like the man?
It reads like you two want to Apple to do what John Boehner does and oppose anything Obama says regardless of its merit.
I don’t recall anyone saying anything about Boehner–or any republican, neo or paleo–whatsoever.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Is that the message we want express?
Yes, as the analogy is only valid insofar as it doesn’t take into consideration the actions of the characters in question. The unpopular kid, in this sense, is not unpopular because of trifles of subjectivity.
I don’t recall anyone saying anything about Boehner–or any republican, neo or paleo–whatsoever.
Huh? Boehner opposes anything Obama does just as SpamSandwich is suggesting Apple should do here. Even if they doing it for completely different reasons the result is the same.
Yes, as the analogy is only valid insofar as it doesn’t take into consideration the actions of the characters in question. The unpopular kid, in this sense, is not unpopular because of trifles of subjectivity.
So if an unpopular kid does something that is ood and just the other characters shouldn't just react negatively to everything he does without any objective consideration? That's usually not how these movies end. Even William Zabka's character congratulated Daniel-san at the end of the movie.
Huh? That hasn’t been the case for a while. They’re in line with quite a few things.
So if an unpopular kid does something that is ood and just the other characters shouldn't just react negatively to everything he does without any objective consideration?
But now you’re introducing more conditionals, implying things that have never been stated.
But now you’re introducing more conditionals, implying things that have never been stated.
What conditionals? A movie reference? That was suppose to be funny.
The point doesn't change. If [someone] makes a decision I don't like I won't support it. if they make a decision I do like I'll support it. I do that very frequently on this site with people I give thumbs up yet usually disagree with as well as disagreeing with people I usually tend to agree with. Right now, we're doing that. I'll judge each comment on their own merit, regardless of the poster, and I hope you do the same.
The implication that no objective consideration has been taken. I rather think that’s what Spam is doing, yeah? He made no comment about politics other than on the grand scale of federal dissatisfaction.
Based on the comments, "Apple needs to be a bit more aware that there is "not a lot of love left" for this president, this administration and anything to do with Washington right now," "They need to not be so closely tied to an administration that has so many negatives associated with them," "It's aligning Apple too closely with an unpopular president that I take issue," it reads that Apple shouldn't do anything that Obama wants simply because he is unpopular. I don't see anything objective that considers the benefits of the SupplierPay initiative for businesses.
Really? I'd say it gives an impression that Apple are engaged and willing to sacrifice their own margins to support the broader market. That's responsibility, not weakness.
If this is good for the broader market businesses shouldn't need a government law or White House summit to implement it. The optics of this to me is Apple taking orders from the Obama administration. IMO those aren't good optics.
Probably ought to lobby to fire Cook, because he sure as hell doesn't give a damn about optics.
It reads that Apple shouldn't do anything that Obama wants simply because he is unpopular.
I will agree with this sentence after clarifying that the emphasis I am using to agree with it is placed on the word ‘anything’.
Apple should not do ANYTHING that Obama wants–meaning a jump/how high situation–but not not do anything he wants–rejecting off hand everything put forth to them.
Hey, Spam.You’re still reading the thread; chime in here. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I will agree with this sentence after clarifying that the emphasis I am using to agree with it is placed on the word ‘anything’.
Apple should not do ANYTHING that Obama wants–meaning a jump/how high situation–but not not do anything he wants–rejecting off hand everything put forth to them.
Hey, Spam.You’re still reading the thread; chime in here.
Isn't the end result a complete shutout? If one is unpopular and you should ignore them because they are unpopular don't they then become more unpopular? How can one correct their unpopularity if even good things are to be ignored?
Why not? Markets can be wrong, markets can be self-destructive and markets can fail. So can government and regulation of course, neither are perfect. [/QUOTE]
Markets fail when the government and GSE's manipulate them (e.g. housing bubble, savings-n-loan, great depression, etc.) Free markets "fail" when they're replaced by innovation, aka creative destruction (e.g. VHS, cassette tape, walkman, etc.)
I will agree with this sentence after clarifying that the emphasis I am using to agree with it is placed on the word ‘anything’.
Apple should not do ANYTHING that Obama wants–meaning a jump/how high situation–but not not do anything he wants–rejecting off hand everything put forth to them.
Hey, Spam.You’re still reading the thread; chime in here. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Sorry, I just got back. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I personally see no reason for Apple to adopt this program. What does Apple get out of the deal? Although largely symbolic, it is unnecessary and it appears to be mere sucking up to Washington. As someone else stated, if it was a good idea Apple would've done it already!
Apple "contributes" to the economy as a follow-on effect to them being successful and they have become successful by focusing like a laser on customers and making great products. How does this puppet-show created by Washington improve Apple's products or customer satisfaction?
Apple isn't responsible for the state of economy. Washington messed it up (along with the Federal Reserve) and this is more of Washington's feckless response to a country that is still withering from idiotic decision making and laws that have harmed US competitiveness.
Most companies use net 30 and unless Apple is getting additional tax credits for voluntarily reducing their available funds (and it does not matter how much Apple has in the bank), they should not do a damn thing.
If that were the case, but it’s what has made them unpopular that renders them unheeded.
Obama isn't really that unpopular. He earned 51% of the vote in the last election and his approval rating is down to 43% recently. Not great, but under the circumstances, certainly understandable. He has accomplished some pretty significant goals. For one, he got us out of the recession, that he inherited, passed Health Care Reform, killed Osama Bin Laden, ended US involvement in Iraq, among some other positive things. I'd still like to see gun control and immigration reform though.
Personally I believe no other Democrat could have done a better job than Obama given the continuous external crises and the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation imposed by Republicans.
In my opinion, the NSA's standard operating procedures were none of his doing as that was establish by the previous administration, nor do I care about the current collapse of the middle east. We should never have been there in the first place. It is a tragedy that so many people have died in those conflicts but it is certainly not Obama's fault because he didn't get us into those conflicts, he is getting us out. I'm tired of the US having to police the world.
I would prefer we had our own missile defense shield and totally impenetrable borders. If some country or rouge citizens of the world attack our property or citizens then I'm all for using precision bombing, missiles, etc., but we shouldn't commit ground troops to invade anywhere, especially not to protect the citizens of some other country. Sorry Japan, sorry Korea, sorry Taiwan, sorry Israel, sorry Europe, sorry Africa. No more foreign financial or military aid. If we are going to protect any other region it should be limited to North America.
Obama isn't really that unpopular. He earned 51% of the vote in the last election and his approval rating is down to 43% recently. Not great, but under the circumstances, certainly understandable. He has accomplished some pretty significant goals. For one, he got us out of the recession, that he inherited, passed Health Care Reform, killed Osama Bin Laden, ended US involvement in Iraq, among some other positive things. I'd still like to see gun control and immigration reform though.
Personally I believe no other Democrat could have done a better job than Obama given the continuous external crises and the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation imposed by Republicans.
In my opinion, the NSA's standard operating procedures were none of his doing as that was establish by the previous administration, nor do I care about the current collapse of the middle east. We should never have been there in the first place. It is a tragedy that so many people have died in those conflicts but it is certainly not Obama's fault because he didn't get us into those conflicts, he is getting us out. I'm tired of the US having to police the world.
I would prefer we had our own missile defense shield and totally impenetrable borders. If some country or rouge citizens of the world attack our property or citizens then I'm all for using precision bombing, missiles, etc., but we shouldn't commit ground troops to invade anywhere, especially not to protect the citizens of some other country. Sorry Japan, sorry Korea, sorry Taiwan, sorry Israel, sorry Europe, sorry Africa. No more foreign financial or military aid. If we are going to protect any other region it should be limited to North America.
First and foremost, US presidents are not elected by the popular vote, they are elected by the Electoral College.
Second, we're not out of the recession/depression. If QE (quantitative easing was stopped today and interest rates increased, the economy would implode again...which it should, by the way).
Third, Obama and Democrats were completely unopposed during the first part of his term and they managed to ram through the ACA with no Republican involvement. It's bad for the country and very bad that the Federal government is now involved in something that should be deregulated instead and completely opened up to let the wonders of competition squeeze out inefficiencies.
Fourth, the NSA operates with the oversight of Congress. Don't believe for a second that what has been going on is the result of a rogue agency.
Fifth, I completely agree that US foreign policy is a major contributor to the instability of other countries and has undermined any and all notions of freedom and fairness. Foreign aid should be stopped and our troops should be called back home everywhere.
Comments
Only just, and the incumbent will always carry a current bias for those kinds of questions, whether good or bad.
Obama's average approval rating still seem to be tracking above Bush's at exit.
Great. He's 'less hated than Bush'... LOL.
I have never understand the venom people have with Al Gore being on Apple's board of directors. Would you please enlighten me to why you do not like the man?
Want the short list?
Truthfully, if you have to ask, you'll have a hard time understanding why. I think today most people are pretty aware of the huge disconnect between the elite few that are hand selected for political office.........and real people.
But, there are still those that believe that political leaders are actually real people that get legitimately nominated/elected for office.
To be one of these people, you need not be a person, but a soulless monster, wiling to set aside all moral/logical obligation to the world, and do what you're told....and you will go far. Al Gore is a prime example of this....not only did he play ball well enough to get to the level of vice president of the US, but he was willing to be the poster child for "global warming" which morphed into "all climate change of any kind" and "carbon tax". It took a real nut job to convince it would be a good idea to attach your name and face to such a scam.
So, on the whole, I'd prefer to delude myself into believing Apple is not the kind of company that lays down to the government and lays down to social engineering scams.....but I can't, as much as I try. Al Gore being a glaring example.
-----
P.S. Do not attack me over climate change comments. The climate does change, every minute of everyday. But when political leader shouts "Carbon TAX!" as the answer....you are being scammed.
I wish it was avoidable but it does appear for Apple to best serve their customers best they need to be more involved. We've seen what has happened to Apple from a lack of lobbying (and by extension what hasn't happened to Amazon and Google from extensive lobbying efforts).
It has to do Gore's claim of a mythical beast¡
[VIDEO]
I don’t recall anyone saying anything about Boehner–or any republican, neo or paleo–whatsoever.
Is that the message we want express?
Yes, as the analogy is only valid insofar as it doesn’t take into consideration the actions of the characters in question. The unpopular kid, in this sense, is not unpopular because of trifles of subjectivity.
Huh? Boehner opposes anything Obama does just as SpamSandwich is suggesting Apple should do here. Even if they doing it for completely different reasons the result is the same.
So if an unpopular kid does something that is ood and just the other characters shouldn't just react negatively to everything he does without any objective consideration? That's usually not how these movies end. Even William Zabka's character congratulated Daniel-san at the end of the movie.
Huh? That hasn’t been the case for a while. They’re in line with quite a few things.
But now you’re introducing more conditionals, implying things that have never been stated.
What conditionals? A movie reference? That was suppose to be funny.
The point doesn't change. If [someone] makes a decision I don't like I won't support it. if they make a decision I do like I'll support it. I do that very frequently on this site with people I give thumbs up yet usually disagree with as well as disagreeing with people I usually tend to agree with. Right now, we're doing that. I'll judge each comment on their own merit, regardless of the poster, and I hope you do the same.
The implication that no objective consideration has been taken.
I rather think that’s what Spam is doing, yeah? He made no comment about politics other than on the grand scale of federal dissatisfaction.
Based on the comments, "Apple needs to be a bit more aware that there is "not a lot of love left" for this president, this administration and anything to do with Washington right now," "They need to not be so closely tied to an administration that has so many negatives associated with them," "It's aligning Apple too closely with an unpopular president that I take issue," it reads that Apple shouldn't do anything that Obama wants simply because he is unpopular. I don't see anything objective that considers the benefits of the SupplierPay initiative for businesses.
Really? I'd say it gives an impression that Apple are engaged and willing to sacrifice their own margins to support the broader market. That's responsibility, not weakness.
If this is good for the broader market businesses shouldn't need a government law or White House summit to implement it. The optics of this to me is Apple taking orders from the Obama administration. IMO those aren't good optics.
Probably ought to lobby to fire Cook, because he sure as hell doesn't give a damn about optics.
I will agree with this sentence after clarifying that the emphasis I am using to agree with it is placed on the word ‘anything’.
Apple should not do ANYTHING that Obama wants–meaning a jump/how high situation–but not not do anything he wants–rejecting off hand everything put forth to them.
Hey, Spam.You’re still reading the thread; chime in here.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Isn't the end result a complete shutout? If one is unpopular and you should ignore them because they are unpopular don't they then become more unpopular? How can one correct their unpopularity if even good things are to be ignored?
If that were the case, but it’s what has made them unpopular that renders them unheeded.
Why not? Markets can be wrong, markets can be self-destructive and markets can fail. So can government and regulation of course, neither are perfect.
[/QUOTE]
Markets fail when the government and GSE's manipulate them (e.g. housing bubble, savings-n-loan, great depression, etc.) Free markets "fail" when they're replaced by innovation, aka creative destruction (e.g. VHS, cassette tape, walkman, etc.)
Read [URL=http://library.mises.org/books/Henry Hazlitt/Economics in One Lesson.pdf]Economics in One Lesson[/URL] by Henry Hazlitt (for free).
[I]Edit: Properly quoted Crowley.[/I]
I will agree with this sentence after clarifying that the emphasis I am using to agree with it is placed on the word ‘anything’.
Apple should not do ANYTHING that Obama wants–meaning a jump/how high situation–but not not do anything he wants–rejecting off hand everything put forth to them.
Hey, Spam.You’re still reading the thread; chime in here.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Sorry, I just got back.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I personally see no reason for Apple to adopt this program. What does Apple get out of the deal? Although largely symbolic, it is unnecessary and it appears to be mere sucking up to Washington. As someone else stated, if it was a good idea Apple would've done it already!
Apple "contributes" to the economy as a follow-on effect to them being successful and they have become successful by focusing like a laser on customers and making great products. How does this puppet-show created by Washington improve Apple's products or customer satisfaction?
Apple isn't responsible for the state of economy. Washington messed it up (along with the Federal Reserve) and this is more of Washington's feckless response to a country that is still withering from idiotic decision making and laws that have harmed US competitiveness.
Most companies use net 30 and unless Apple is getting additional tax credits for voluntarily reducing their available funds (and it does not matter how much Apple has in the bank), they should not do a damn thing.
If that were the case, but it’s what has made them unpopular that renders them unheeded.
Obama isn't really that unpopular. He earned 51% of the vote in the last election and his approval rating is down to 43% recently. Not great, but under the circumstances, certainly understandable. He has accomplished some pretty significant goals. For one, he got us out of the recession, that he inherited, passed Health Care Reform, killed Osama Bin Laden, ended US involvement in Iraq, among some other positive things. I'd still like to see gun control and immigration reform though.
Personally I believe no other Democrat could have done a better job than Obama given the continuous external crises and the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation imposed by Republicans.
In my opinion, the NSA's standard operating procedures were none of his doing as that was establish by the previous administration, nor do I care about the current collapse of the middle east. We should never have been there in the first place. It is a tragedy that so many people have died in those conflicts but it is certainly not Obama's fault because he didn't get us into those conflicts, he is getting us out. I'm tired of the US having to police the world.
I would prefer we had our own missile defense shield and totally impenetrable borders. If some country or rouge citizens of the world attack our property or citizens then I'm all for using precision bombing, missiles, etc., but we shouldn't commit ground troops to invade anywhere, especially not to protect the citizens of some other country. Sorry Japan, sorry Korea, sorry Taiwan, sorry Israel, sorry Europe, sorry Africa. No more foreign financial or military aid. If we are going to protect any other region it should be limited to North America.
Obama isn't really that unpopular. He earned 51% of the vote in the last election and his approval rating is down to 43% recently. Not great, but under the circumstances, certainly understandable. He has accomplished some pretty significant goals. For one, he got us out of the recession, that he inherited, passed Health Care Reform, killed Osama Bin Laden, ended US involvement in Iraq, among some other positive things. I'd still like to see gun control and immigration reform though.
Personally I believe no other Democrat could have done a better job than Obama given the continuous external crises and the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation imposed by Republicans.
In my opinion, the NSA's standard operating procedures were none of his doing as that was establish by the previous administration, nor do I care about the current collapse of the middle east. We should never have been there in the first place. It is a tragedy that so many people have died in those conflicts but it is certainly not Obama's fault because he didn't get us into those conflicts, he is getting us out. I'm tired of the US having to police the world.
I would prefer we had our own missile defense shield and totally impenetrable borders. If some country or rouge citizens of the world attack our property or citizens then I'm all for using precision bombing, missiles, etc., but we shouldn't commit ground troops to invade anywhere, especially not to protect the citizens of some other country. Sorry Japan, sorry Korea, sorry Taiwan, sorry Israel, sorry Europe, sorry Africa. No more foreign financial or military aid. If we are going to protect any other region it should be limited to North America.
First and foremost, US presidents are not elected by the popular vote, they are elected by the Electoral College.
Second, we're not out of the recession/depression. If QE (quantitative easing was stopped today and interest rates increased, the economy would implode again...which it should, by the way).
Third, Obama and Democrats were completely unopposed during the first part of his term and they managed to ram through the ACA with no Republican involvement. It's bad for the country and very bad that the Federal government is now involved in something that should be deregulated instead and completely opened up to let the wonders of competition squeeze out inefficiencies.
Fourth, the NSA operates with the oversight of Congress. Don't believe for a second that what has been going on is the result of a rogue agency.
Fifth, I completely agree that US foreign policy is a major contributor to the instability of other countries and has undermined any and all notions of freedom and fairness. Foreign aid should be stopped and our troops should be called back home everywhere.
A bit simplistic. It would be impossible to deny that under Obama the NSA's reach has been expanded and the military given legal cover for powers they never had prior to Obama.
http://www.alternet.org/story/155045/how_obama_became_a_civil_libertarian's_nightmare
Anyway, not trying to incite more political discussion. Back to the topic.