Ousted HP CEO Carly Fiorina calls Apple's Tim Cook a hypocrite for stance on Indiana law

1101113151620

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 394
    She's just jealous of his success. Why would anyone trust her to be a presidential candidate when she failed to run a company, Plus, she's missing a point here...Mr. Cook is concerned with America...what does this have to do with Saudi Arabia?
  • Reply 242 of 394
    diegogdiegog Posts: 135member

    So your premise is that if he takes up one cause...he has to take them all up or he's a hypocrite...

     

    Got it.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

     

    Who the hell says it has to do something?  He can still speak out anywhere at any time on anything.  He's well known and talks to many high up people around the world.  Doesn't those country will do anything to change, but SO WHAT!!!!!  


  • Reply 243 of 394
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    The Timothy quote is much better. An woman quoting the Book, selecting the parts that suit her, when it actively demands that she stays silent, that is a hypocrite.
    dbolander wrote: »
    Carly, a hypocrite is running on a platform of efficient government after you exemplified the opposite in your leadership of HP and then left with a 25 million dollar parachute.
  • Reply 244 of 394

    "Fiorina, who fancies herself a candidate for the presidency in 2016..."

     

    With hatchet-editorialism-disguised-as-news – and authored under a generic "AppleInsider Staff" banner, no less – it appears that "the staff" fancies this so-called "news article" to be reputable journalism.

  • Reply 245 of 394
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Zapf Brannigan View Post

     

    "Fiorina, who fancies herself a candidate for the presidency in 2016..."

     

    With hatchet-editorialism-disguised-as-news – and authored under a generic "AppleInsider Staff" banner, no less – it appears that "the staff" fancies this so-called "news article" to be reputable journalism.


    Public criticism of the Apple CEO seems an appropriate subject for Ai to report on. It's not like they report "rumors from the far East that possible presidential candidate Fiorina might have said something not so nice about some group of Americans have surfaced".

  • Reply 246 of 394
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    flaneur wrote: »
    From James Mellaart, The Earliest Civilizations of the Near East, about the excavations at the town of Çatal Hüyük, Anatolia, dating from about 4000 years before Moses:

    "There was no war for a thousand years."

    Compare to your Bible, written in the era of nomadic goatherd petty warlords, wherein there is constant war.

    There wasn't enough people.
  • Reply 247 of 394
    koopkoop Posts: 337member
    eightzero wrote: »
    There is a difference between doing business in a country with its own sovereignty; and speaking up as a citizen of a self-governing republic and commenting on its law making.

    Well said.

    American companies have their say on legislation all the time. Mostly its for corrupt lobbying and writing the laws themselves. Tim Cook wants to have a voice to support something noble and now a right wing former ceo wants to silence him. They can shove it.
  • Reply 248 of 394
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    z8o1 wrote: »

    So you still think that "owners of a privately-owned small business" can put up a sign saying "we do not serve or sell to black people, non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals? Are you serious?

    I'd never do business with such a person, but yes I believe people should be able to do exactly that. Freedom isn't always pretty and people have developed ideas that freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of choice no longer apply.

    If the "average American" refuses to defend the right of others to make choices that are stupid or harmful to themselves, then I am saying they don't really understand what it means to be free.
  • Reply 249 of 394
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    focher wrote: »
    Such a perfect point. Businesses aren't "private". They are, by definition, quite the opposite. Don't want to serve gays, lesbians, blacks, Mexicans, whatever. Don't start a business. Done. Businesses aren't "private property", either. They are regulated artificial entities allowed for the sole purpose of benefiting society.

    The legal purpose of a business is to make a profit. That's it. Making a profit IS the benefit because it creates economic activity. A business is not a cookie jar.
  • Reply 250 of 394
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,266member
    Let me break it down to explain it to you, Carly:

    Tim Cook is an American.

    He runs an American company.

    It is an American law.

    Oh one more thing....

    you sucked as a CEO. You did no favors for HP with your bad paranoid decisions.
  • Reply 251 of 394
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,398member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post

    As to why Christians concentrate so much on the Old Testament vs. Jesus's teachings, that is a mystery to me as well.

    Interesting point.

     

    Maybe we should call them OldTestamentians instead of Christians.

  • Reply 252 of 394
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    We're talking about the owners of a privately-owned small business. A large corporate entity that is traded on a stock exchange is a different matter altogether.

    Incorrect. All forms of business organization -- proprietorship, partnership, corporation, non-profits, etc. -- are enabled their existence by the laws created by the state (although they do not need the permission of the state to set up shop or to dissolve their business).

     

    There is no conceptual difference between any of the organizational forms on that score.

  • Reply 253 of 394
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,398member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Zapf Brannigan View Post

     

    "Fiorina, who fancies herself a candidate for the presidency in 2016..."

     

    With hatchet-editorialism-disguised-as-news – and authored under a generic "AppleInsider Staff" banner, no less – it appears that "the staff" fancies this so-called "news article" to be reputable journalism.


    Hey, who said AI was reputable?<img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />

  • Reply 254 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post



    I heard a similar argument from the right saying that "liberals" (is there anything more demonic in the US!) are hypocrites because they want equality for homosexuals in Indiana, but are also wanting a nuclear deal with Iran, who demonize gay people.



    They don't seem to understand that just because you can't make everything better, it doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make something better.



    If Cook and others are able to play a part in making the world a more equal place, good on them.



    Same goes for the CEO of Wal Mart who's pressure seems to have had a positive outcome in Alabama.



    I think it's a deflection tactic.  Instead of dealing with the discomfort of their own bigotry, they want to find something else to say about Tim Cook.

     

    It's similar to how Fox and Talk Radio say bring up black on black crime whenever a cop shoots an unarmed black person.

  • Reply 255 of 394
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Incorrect. All forms of business organization -- proprietorship, partnership, corporation, non-profits, etc. -- are enabled their existence by the laws created by the state (although they do not need the permission of the state to set up shop or to dissolve their business).

    There is no conceptual difference between any of the organizational forms on that score.

    State laws are not the same as Federal.
  • Reply 256 of 394
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MessagePad2100 View Post

     



    I think it's a deflection tactic.  Instead of dealing with the discomfort of their own bigotry, they want to find something else to say about Tim Cook.

     

    It's similar to how Fox and Talk Radio say bring up black on black crime whenever a cop shoots an unarmed black person.




    Exactly.

     

    It's also like whenever someone answers a question with a question.  

  • Reply 257 of 394
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    aaronj wrote: »

    Exactly.

    It's also like whenever someone answers a question with a question.  

    Why would anyone answer a question with a question? ????
  • Reply 258 of 394
    mstone wrote: »
    The shareholders would immediately sue him if he did speak out against China. I think he is smart enough to know that by carelessly harming Apple in criticizing China, he would be breaking the spirit of the law. Tim would rather not break the law.

    <a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans 13.1-7" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);margin:0px;padding:0px;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;" target="_blank">Romans 13:1-7</a>
     states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

    Not that I believe any of that.

    Did you clip the section from Romans where it said "unless it's a republican or the government of Indiana"?
  • Reply 259 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    State laws are not the same as Federal.

    I think you misunderstand my use of the word 'state'. (See 5 a/b/c/ or 6).

  • Reply 260 of 394
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post



    Ok, while we're on that topic, why are churches tax exempt? Why am I forced to subsidize religious groups with my tax dollars?

     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post





    Religions do a lot of good around the world and help many poor people. You always have the crooks and nut cases like any other large organization and they seem to be the ones people associate most with the religion unfortunately. 

     

    The thought that some churches may be doing work to help the poor is entirely irrelevant, since that is not the legal justification for their tax-exempt status, nor is charity work a pre-requisite for that status. All churches in the US are granted this privilege with no strings attached.

     

    The "help" that some of these churches provide to poor people around the world is usually focused more on proselytizing than on providing meaningful economic or medical assistance. And in fact, some of these churches have done immeasurable harm in places like Uganda, where they've spread their delusional hate speech against gays, paving the way for the country's politicians to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=0

     

    And that's not counting all the obscenely wealthy evangelists fleecing their followers for their own personal enrichment. http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/money/6-outrageously-wealthy-preachers-under-federal-investigation.html

     

    It is obscene that organizations like these are even allowed to exist, let alone be granted tax exempt status.

Sign In or Register to comment.