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.
Anyway, not trying to incite more political discussion. Back to the topic.
We're like the Hogwart's Express... off the rails and headed into a ravine, so I don't think additional diversions are going to harm the conversation at this point. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Good lord. 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.
In addition, any perception that Apple is receiving "marching orders" from Washington is distasteful and will tarnish their image somewhat. Why even invite such associations?
Thanks for being the first nut job to make this political. WAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAA!
This. Regardless of ones politics this gives the impression that when the government says "jump" Apple says "how high?". Is Apple a company known for not paying suppliers quickly enough? Why isn't Amazon at this meeting?
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.
Oh, dear. Oh, dear.
…the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation…
That’s called “the laws that founded the government.” Winning an election ? you get 100% of what you want all the time, unquestioningly. That you are able to vote but cannot comprehend this is terrifying. It’s sort of the entire idea behind our government.
In my opinion, the NSA's standard operating procedures were none of his doing as that was establish by the previous administration
Let’s establish a few things. These procedures are not standard, first of all. But are they bad? If so, why has he not moved to revoke them? Why does it matter who put them in place when the only person capable of removing them does nothing to do so?
…nor do I care about the current collapse of the middle east.
Hey, me neither. Let them fight a war with each other for a change.
I'm tired of the US having to police the world.
The premier military power on the planet inherently has a duty to its interests, allies, and domestic beliefs to do so.
I would prefer we had our own missile defense shield and totally impenetrable borders.
We can have that AND projection of power. Have you seen what they’re doing with lasers these days? We’re pretty close to actually having the Star Wars program that Reagan tricked the commies into thinking we had.
…we shouldn’t commit ground troops to invade anywhere…
Here’s something I don’t understand. We’ve used aircraft in war since WWI. We’ve used artillery in war since the same.
So… why do we not level wherever we’re invading with bombing runs, fighter runs, and artillery bombardment before we have an American soldier within 20 miles of the coast?! How difficult can this be? It’s not physically impossible or even improbable. Why do we need humans there first?
…North America.
I’m for the peaceful annexation thereof, but that’s me.
Apple is a valuable brand, the best brand name in the world.
The Obama brand is one of the worst and most unpopular names in the US currently, and Apple should not be tarnishing their good name by associating with it.
& of course. #3 WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Nope. If it's a good idea companies should just do it. No need for a meeting or a summit which is basically just a photo op for the White House.
In that world we would only be able to read bibles, and, ironically, watch porn.
Seriously, though, we also wouldn't have seat belts or a single auto recall, non-propriety network protocols, or even train track rails that are a consistent width apart.
In that world we would only be able to read bibles, and, ironically, watch porn. Seriously, though, we also wouldn't have seat belts or a single auto recall, non-propriety network protocols, or even train track rails that are a consistent width apart.
Seems to me that you’re willfully ignoring all of history when you say this.
Okay? Are you just very selective on what is civi discourse? I have read plenty of remarks on this site that were far worse than mine & had no response like this given to them. How come certain people on this site have to make everything about politics? Apple signed up.
…the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation…
That’s called “the laws that founded the government.” Winning an election ? you get 100% of what you want all the time, unquestioningly. That you are able to vote but cannot comprehend this is terrifying. It’s sort of the entire idea behind our government.
The entire idea of government is to create an environment that benefits the citizens. When the Republicans filibuster in order to block good legislation, even bills that they themselves sponsored just so Obama will not get any credit for helping to pass a popular law, that is abuse of the laws founding the government, but it is unsurprising that you don't comprehend that.
Okay? Are you just very selective on what is civi discourse? I have read plenty of remarks on this site that were far worse than mine & had no response like this given to them. How come certain people on this site have to make everything about politics? Apple signed up.
Mentioning politics, especially when the article has the name Obama in the title, isn't bad in and of itself. I don't agree with several of the positions taken by posters here but they aren't attacking a forum poster. Your comments are attacks on the person. If you had said, 'Your position is so nutty you just triggered my peanut allergy," it would be fine.
Well, when the alternative narrative is that he's "the most hated since the end of WW2" then a different, less hysterical view can be useful. The Gallup approval polls actually show that even at his worst points, Obama's pollings have been above the respective worst of Bush 2.0, Bush 1.0, Carter, Nixon, Truman, Ford, Reagan... hell actually every President since WW2 except Kennedy and Eisenhower!
Now that's not a ringing endorsement, his approval average is tracking lower than a few more, but it adds a bit of context more than a single poll that comes hot off the heels of a bad few months of press that is inevitably going to bias the results.
Mentioning politics, especially when the article has the name Obama in the title, isn't bad in and of itself. I don't agree with several of the positions taken by posters here but they aren't attacking a forum poster. Your comments are attacks on the person. If you had said, 'Your position is so nutty you just triggered my peanut allergy," it would be fine.
That would've been far more clever and amusing. I tip my hat to you, Soli. ????
Well, when the alternative narrative is that he's "the most hated since the end of WW2" then a different, less hysterical view can be useful. The Gallup approval polls actually show that even at his worst points, Obama's pollings have been above the respective worst of Bush 2.0, Bush 1.0, Carter, Nixon, Truman, Ford, Reagan... hell actually every President since WW2 except Kennedy and Eisenhower!
Now that's not a ringing endorsement, his approval average is tracking lower than a few more, but it adds a bit of context more than a single poll that comes hot off the heels of a bad few months of press that is inevitably going to bias the results.
If a president intends to violate and ignore the Constitution, they may as well be likable, eh?
By which I don't mean to compare Obama to Lincoln, but I'm saying that relatively minor infractions or successes won't dominate his legacy as President if he manages to settle them by the end of his term. They might make him out to be a monster in some current "who is the worst president ever" polls, but those kind of polls are fleeting and silly in the grand scheme of things.
The problem with polls like that is that people are far more familiar with recent events and tend to forget about the past presidents, especially 18-24 year olds because they were too young to remember very many past presidents. If you look at the actual numbers, Obama and Bush are within a couple points of each other and ranked worst and second worst. You might notice there is a lot of disparity between men and women in the polls. The women seem to give him a much higher rating.
Carter, Ford, and Truman technically have a less favorable ratings than Obama and we don't really know what his rating will be when he finally leaves office. It could actually improve a few points if things get better with the economy and foreign affairs.
By which I don't mean to compare Obama to Lincoln, but I'm saying that relatively minor infractions or successes won't dominate his legacy as President if he manages to settle them by the end of his term. They might make him out to be a monster in some current "who is the worst president ever" polls, but those kind of polls are fleeting and silly in the grand scheme of things.
I guess that we'll have to check back on this thread in 50 years from now, because I truly believe that he will go down as one of the most ineffective and worst presidents ever. Most transparent admin ever, indeed. The amount of corruption and lawlessness is off the charts.
I guess that we'll have to check back on this thread in 50 years from now, because I truly believe that he will go down as one of the most ineffective and worst presidents ever. Most transparent admin ever, indeed. The amount of corruption and lawlessness is off the charts.
This is the first comment you've made where I agree with every word.....110%
Comments
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.
We're like the Hogwart's Express... off the rails and headed into a ravine, so I don't think additional diversions are going to harm the conversation at this point.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Good lord. 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.
In addition, any perception that Apple is receiving "marching orders" from Washington is distasteful and will tarnish their image somewhat. Why even invite such associations?
Thanks for being the first nut job to make this political. WAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAA!
This. Regardless of ones politics this gives the impression that when the government says "jump" Apple says "how high?". Is Apple a company known for not paying suppliers quickly enough? Why isn't Amazon at this meeting?
Not job #2. WAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAA!
Hmm…
Oh, dear. Oh, dear.
…the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation…
That’s called “the laws that founded the government.” Winning an election ? you get 100% of what you want all the time, unquestioningly. That you are able to vote but cannot comprehend this is terrifying. It’s sort of the entire idea behind our government.
In my opinion, the NSA's standard operating procedures were none of his doing as that was establish by the previous administration
Let’s establish a few things. These procedures are not standard, first of all. But are they bad? If so, why has he not moved to revoke them? Why does it matter who put them in place when the only person capable of removing them does nothing to do so?
Hey, me neither. Let them fight a war with each other for a change.
The premier military power on the planet inherently has a duty to its interests, allies, and domestic beliefs to do so.
We can have that AND projection of power. Have you seen what they’re doing with lasers these days? We’re pretty close to actually having the Star Wars program that Reagan tricked the commies into thinking we had.
Here’s something I don’t understand. We’ve used aircraft in war since WWI. We’ve used artillery in war since the same.
So… why do we not level wherever we’re invading with bombing runs, fighter runs, and artillery bombardment before we have an American soldier within 20 miles of the coast?! How difficult can this be? It’s not physically impossible or even improbable. Why do we need humans there first?
I’m for the peaceful annexation thereof, but that’s me.
Apple is a valuable brand, the best brand name in the world.
The Obama brand is one of the worst and most unpopular names in the US currently, and Apple should not be tarnishing their good name by associating with it.
& of course. #3 WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
In that world we would only be able to read bibles, and, ironically, watch porn.
Seriously, though, we also wouldn't have seat belts or a single auto recall, non-propriety network protocols, or even train track rails that are a consistent width apart.
Seems to me that you’re willfully ignoring all of history when you say this.
@Splif, that isn't civil discourse.
Okay? Are you just very selective on what is civi discourse? I have read plenty of remarks on this site that were far worse than mine & had no response like this given to them. How come certain people on this site have to make everything about politics? Apple signed up.
…the relentless obstacles to passage of legislation…
That’s called “the laws that founded the government.” Winning an election ? you get 100% of what you want all the time, unquestioningly. That you are able to vote but cannot comprehend this is terrifying. It’s sort of the entire idea behind our government.
The entire idea of government is to create an environment that benefits the citizens. When the Republicans filibuster in order to block good legislation, even bills that they themselves sponsored just so Obama will not get any credit for helping to pass a popular law, that is abuse of the laws founding the government, but it is unsurprising that you don't comprehend that.
Mentioning politics, especially when the article has the name Obama in the title, isn't bad in and of itself. I don't agree with several of the positions taken by posters here but they aren't attacking a forum poster. Your comments are attacks on the person. If you had said, 'Your position is so nutty you just triggered my peanut allergy," it would be fine.
Great. He's 'less hated than Bush'... LOL.
Well, when the alternative narrative is that he's "the most hated since the end of WW2" then a different, less hysterical view can be useful. The Gallup approval polls actually show that even at his worst points, Obama's pollings have been above the respective worst of Bush 2.0, Bush 1.0, Carter, Nixon, Truman, Ford, Reagan... hell actually every President since WW2 except Kennedy and Eisenhower!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating#Historical_comparison
Now that's not a ringing endorsement, his approval average is tracking lower than a few more, but it adds a bit of context more than a single poll that comes hot off the heels of a bad few months of press that is inevitably going to bias the results.
That would've been far more clever and amusing. I tip my hat to you, Soli. ????
If a president intends to violate and ignore the Constitution, they may as well be likable, eh?
Seemed to work out ok for Lincoln.
By which I don't mean to compare Obama to Lincoln, but I'm saying that relatively minor infractions or successes won't dominate his legacy as President if he manages to settle them by the end of his term. They might make him out to be a monster in some current "who is the worst president ever" polls, but those kind of polls are fleeting and silly in the grand scheme of things.
Obama isn't really that unpopular. He earned 51% of the vote in the last election ...
First and foremost, US presidents are not elected by the popular vote, they are elected by the Electoral College.
Okay then if you want to go with the Electoral College then he won with 61%.
Hmm…
The problem with polls like that is that people are far more familiar with recent events and tend to forget about the past presidents, especially 18-24 year olds because they were too young to remember very many past presidents. If you look at the actual numbers, Obama and Bush are within a couple points of each other and ranked worst and second worst. You might notice there is a lot of disparity between men and women in the polls. The women seem to give him a much higher rating.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056
Carter, Ford, and Truman technically have a less favorable ratings than Obama and we don't really know what his rating will be when he finally leaves office. It could actually improve a few points if things get better with the economy and foreign affairs.
Nice try. No.
Seemed to work out ok for Lincoln.
By which I don't mean to compare Obama to Lincoln, but I'm saying that relatively minor infractions or successes won't dominate his legacy as President if he manages to settle them by the end of his term. They might make him out to be a monster in some current "who is the worst president ever" polls, but those kind of polls are fleeting and silly in the grand scheme of things.
I guess that we'll have to check back on this thread in 50 years from now, because I truly believe that he will go down as one of the most ineffective and worst presidents ever. Most transparent admin ever, indeed. The amount of corruption and lawlessness is off the charts.
I guess that we'll have to check back on this thread in 50 years from now, because I truly believe that he will go down as one of the most ineffective and worst presidents ever. Most transparent admin ever, indeed. The amount of corruption and lawlessness is off the charts.
This is the first comment you've made where I agree with every word.....110%