Steve Jobs gave pre-release iPad 2 to President Obama

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Pure capitalism is the freest market. I some what agree with your overall sentiment in this post but...government being hands off is free market. Government regulation in any way is anti free market no matter how you spin it. You need a balance of business and government involvement to keep the economy growing. China has struck that balance and it's a communist country.



    Pure Capitalism requires a self-correcting mechanism [regulations evenly leveled] and oligopolies and conglomerations by eating up the competition would be illegal.



    Otherwise, Pure Capitalism reverts to a Monopoly.
  • Reply 62 of 84
    christophbchristophb Posts: 1,482member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Pure Capitalism requires a self-correcting mechanism [regulations evenly leveled] and oligopolies and conglomerations by eating up the competition would be illegal.



    Otherwise, Pure Capitalism reverts to a Monopoly.



    Or central "management". The road to serfdom.



    You summed it up well.
  • Reply 63 of 84
    Technically, POTUS already have early access to unreleased Apple products (if POTUS request it) when the following occurs



    (1) When Apple submit its product to FCC for certification, I am sure POTUS will get his/her hands on unreleased Apple product FAST if he/she choose to ring up FCC Chairman



    (2) When Apple plan to ship ANYthing containing encryption (especially outside of US), it will be subject to US intelligence agencies' "very close attention" stealthy



    One side note, regardless your political believe, one should at least try to respect POTUS. It is an extremely tough and dangerous "job", I assume.



    my 2 cents...
  • Reply 64 of 84
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    The funny thing is that they would hire more people here in the US if only the citizens of the US were educated and qualified for the positions they would be offering them.



    You know... I think in some ways you have a very good point about the importance of education. I think many of our issues in this country would be solved if people were actually better educated and this belief was instilled in our culture. If we had this, I think our democracy and economy would have a better chance of succeeding. Too few people vote. Those that do vote, don't invest enough in their education to make good decisions. Being mislead by politicians that take advantage of the fact that most people don't have the education to understand the way the economics work. Sometimes, I think it is on purpose that our government spends so little on public education. The most important people in our society, our teachers, are not respected by society as a whole and are compensated very little in return.
  • Reply 65 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snova View Post


    You know... I think in some ways you have a very good point about the importance of education. I think many of our issues in this country would be solved if people were actually better educated and this belief was instilled in our culture. If we had this, I think our democracy and economy would have a better chance of succeeding. Too few people vote. Those that do vote, don't invest enough in their education to make good decisions. Being mislead by politicians that take advantage of the fact that most people don't have the education to understand the way the economics work. Sometimes, I think it is on purpose that our government spends so little on public education. The most important people in our society, our teachers, are not respected by society as a whole and are compensated very little in return.



    +1.

    Well said!!
  • Reply 66 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post


    Speaking of direction, Obama will have his choice from a litany of iPad map apps to help find his way back to Chicago on January 20, 2012.



    LOL! Typical, low info Obama hater [psst... the election is in late 2012 and Obama gets SWORN BACK IN in 2013. [watch dumb FUX "News" much? Pretty graphics, NO intelligence = "We Distort. You Confide." Yeah, I thought so].



    The a$$-kicking that McCain [probably would be dead by now from the pressure of having to try and think - and not just brain dead as he has been for the past 5 years]/Palin [would've been the one to kill McCain being the bloodsucker that she is as well as probably nearly killed most of the "REAL" American majority population who are NOT Rebublican] got in '08 will be small potatoes compared to the rout that Obama '12 is going to give whatever nut d'jour the domestic vast minority tearrorist's pick this time around!



    RonARand Paul?... pfff!!!



    Got my popcorn in hand and ready to watch the circular firing squad that is the post '08 Repugnant Partea all get ready to do their best to shoot themselves in their own footsies... and onesies, being the babies that they are.
  • Reply 67 of 84
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacQuest View Post


    Got my popcorn in hand and ready to watch the circular firing squad that is the post '08 Repugnant Partea all get ready to do their best to shoot themselves in their own footsies... and onesies, being the babies that they are.



    As we get out the popcorn for some entertainment, our economy and democracy sinks to a new level. Sorry, I don't find so much entertainment in this. Our electoral process is broken and in despair. Society is being mislead by politicians. We are their pawns. This has turned into a WWF/WWE contest, which has nothing to do with reality.
  • Reply 68 of 84
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post






    Excellent response to the madness on this thread.
  • Reply 69 of 84
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iCupertinoMDN View Post


    Technically, POTUS already have early access to unreleased Apple products (if POTUS request it) when the following occurs



    (1) When Apple submit its product to FCC for certification, I am sure POTUS will get his/her hands on unreleased Apple product FAST if he/she choose to ring up FCC Chairman



    (2) When Apple plan to ship ANYthing containing encryption (especially outside of US), it will be subject to US intelligence agencies' "very close attention" stealthy



    One side note, regardless your political believe, one should at least try to respect POTUS. It is an extremely tough and dangerous "job", I assume.



    my 2 cents...



    Well said.



    I realize it is a chicken and egg situation, but the infantile, polarized attitudes prevalent in US society these days and demonstrated so well in blogs such as this is certainly reflected in our Congress' lack of ability to conduct the country's business.
  • Reply 70 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Well considering the fact that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, I would bet money that he knows that document inside and out...



    Unlike most - if not all - of the anti-Obama posters on here.
  • Reply 71 of 84
    darenwdarenw Posts: 14member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    Apple has been busy making a lot of enemies lately and giving products early to the President can be construed as bribery. Some places I have worked I would have not even been allowed to accept such gifts.



    If the iPad is left at the White House when Obama leaves office (please, no politics here), then it is a gift to the Office of the President and not a personal one, and does not entail personal enrichment, or bribery.



    Anytime the President goes to WestBumistan or wherever on a state visit, he's presented with a rare and expensive gift. It's kind of standard protocol. Then he has to hand it over, register it, and leave it behind when he leaves office. Why is this any different?
  • Reply 72 of 84
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post


    I wish Jobs activated it first and penned a secret letter via Notes on how to be a leader. Obummer could've used the advice.



    Jealous?
  • Reply 73 of 84
    gmhutgmhut Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShaolinDave View Post


    What would have been really cool is if they preloaded a copy of the constitution, then maybe he'd actually read it.



    Like you've got it memorized. You do know the man spent his time in an Ivy league school studying the constitution? Then again, you probably didn't know that. He doesn't have a "Heroes of the WWE" trading card, where you get all your facts. How's your pursuit of "Heroes of NASCAR" collectable chicken buckets from KFC coming along, got 'em all yet? I betchya do.
  • Reply 74 of 84
    shenshen Posts: 434member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Well considering the fact that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, I would bet money that he knows that document inside and out...



    Stop it, basic reason has no place in this.
  • Reply 75 of 84
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,629member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I think that it's a bad idea to give anybody highly secretive Apple products before they're launched, and that includes the POTUS. I don't believe that any public officials should be allowed to receive gifts or favors from any company, as it is highly improper, it's a conflict of interests and it verges on bribery.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Negafox View Post


    Apple has been busy making a lot of enemies lately and giving products early to the President can be construed as bribery. Some places I have worked I would have not even been allowed to accept such gifts.



    Really? Do you think a U.S. President of any party is really going to show Apple favoritism because he/she received a $500 electronic device? A large campaign contribution...maybe. Would you rather the POTUS purchased such a device with taxpayer money? The White House has received such gifts for decades or more. I seem to remember that back in the 1960s, Avery Fisher donated a state of the art sound system. Was that a bribe too?



    And why do I feel like you probably support the idea that companies are people and should be able to donate as much money as they like to political campaigns. The same people who don't have a problem with our current criminal system of campaign finance and don't have a problem with paid lobbyists seem to have a problem with Obama receiving a $500 retail gift.



    What I am surprised at is that Jobs gave it to the President in advance of release. Apple is so paranoid about secrecy you'd think that Jobs would not have done this until after release. I wonder if he made the POTUS sign a non-disclosure and screw the device to the Oval Office desk.
  • Reply 76 of 84
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,629member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by svnipp View Post


    I suppose it simply not possible that 2012 could have been a typo... I suppose that you are more of an MSNBC fan for your news, and I'm guessing that you seem to have your head in the sand concerning the polling on independents and young voters. Obama is losing huge portions of these two key groups that put him in the White House. I'm not saying that the Republicans have 2012 (when the election happens) sown up, but you are smoking some powerful stuff if you think that Obama has an easy road to re-election.



    I have to say that I do like the "circular firing squad" line however misplaced it might be. I do always find it odd though that the left claims compassion and then spouts such hatred and vile comments about anyone who disagrees with them.



    Yes, it's true that Obama has been losing support on the left, but that's because he's moved so far to the right and seems to completely cave on every fight with the Republicans. I agree that his road to re-election will be tough. Obama's problem is that many will vote for anyone who is "not-Obama" (or sit out the election) because they're disappointed in his performance, even though whoever is "not-Obama" will support policies they disagree with even more. But voters have never been either well-informed about the issues or logical, which is why simple slogans and tags are so successful in winning elections and the Republicans are much better at this than the Democrats.



    I think Obama will pull out a win if the Republicans run an ultra-conservative and he'll lose if the Republicans run Romney or Christie, although much will depend upon where jobs and the economy are between now and November of 2012. IMO, no President, conservative or liberal, is really going to be able to do anything about jobs. Big companies have found they can make do with far less and there isn't enough demand (Apple perhaps excepted) for them to hire more. What I thought Obama could have done was use the bully pulpit of the presidency to guilt companies into hiring, but we live in a society where there is so little respect for our leaders that most CEOs wouldn't care (although I still think if the POTUS of either party pulls you into the White House and asks you to hire for the sake of the country, you'd be hard pressed not to do it.)



    I do disagree with your comment that the left "spouts such hatred and vile comments about anyone who disagrees with them". One night of viewing, let's say Fox vs. MSNBC or a Tea Party demonstration vs. the Wall Street protestors (even though both claim to hate the banks and investment firms and actually have a lot in common) should put that to rest. Look at the Republican debate where the audience applauded the fact that Texas has put more prisoners to death than any other state, booed a mention of a gay soldier and supported the idea that a young man without health insurance should be left to die. IMO, those were all pretty vile responses. You wouldn't hear anything like that from the mainstream left. I don't see anything on the left that compares to the birther and "death panel" claims on the right except for the extreme left morons who think that 9/11 was an inside job, although there are probably extreme conservatives who think the same way.
  • Reply 77 of 84
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I think that it's a bad idea to give anybody highly secretive Apple products before they're launched, and that includes the POTUS. I don't believe that any public officials should be allowed to receive gifts or favors from any company, as it is highly improper, it's a conflict of interests and it verges on bribery.



    It didn't say that SJ "gifted" it to him.



    How do we know that Obama didn't pay for it and Steve brought him what he paid for?

    Maybe the govt bought it and it is a tool the Prez needs to do his job?
  • Reply 78 of 84
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,629member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thrang View Post


    Surprised that with all that advance knowledge, Obama couldn't come up with an idea to tax it...



    You do know that in spite of the hype, Federal income taxes are at the lowest they've been in over 30 years, right?



    The highest marginal rate during the Nixon administration was 70%. During the Reagan administration it was 50%. It's now 35%. That's one of the primary reasons we're broke. (That and the fact that we're fighting two wars and the Bush administration's Medicare prescription benefit, although Democrats who now claim to have been against that are also hypocrites.)



    Since most Republicans and liberal haters seem to love Ronald Reagan so much, maybe we should return to the tax rates that we had during his presidency.



    Now having said all that, State taxes and real-estate taxes have skyrocketed over the last 30 years. Why? Because as tax receipts have declined at the federal level, the feds have been providing less funding to the states and the states, in turn, have been providing less funding to the localities. That's why it's such a joke when a Senate or House member up for re-election claims, "I voted against increased taxes". Maybe they did, but they just pushed the problem down the line to the localities.
  • Reply 79 of 84
    svnippsvnipp Posts: 430member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post


    Yes, it's true that Obama has been losing support on the left, but that's because he's moved so far to the right and seems to completely cave on every fight with the Republicans. I agree that his road to re-election will be tough. Obama's problem is that many will vote for anyone who is "not-Obama" (or sit out the election) because they're disappointed in his performance, even though whoever is "not-Obama" will support policies they disagree with even more. But voters have never been either well-informed about the issues or logical, which is why simple slogans and tags are so successful in winning elections and the Republicans are much better at this than the Democrats.



    I think Obama will pull out a win if the Republicans run an ultra-conservative and he'll lose if the Republicans run Romney or Christie, although much will depend upon where jobs and the economy are between now and November of 2012. IMO, no President, conservative or liberal, is really going to be able to do anything about jobs. Big companies have found they can make do with far less and there isn't enough demand (Apple perhaps excepted) for them to hire more. What I thought Obama could have done was use the bully pulpit of the presidency to guilt companies into hiring, but we live in a society where there is so little respect for our leaders that most CEOs wouldn't care (although I still think if the POTUS of either party pulls you into the White House and asks you to hire for the sake of the country, you'd be hard pressed not to do it.)



    I do disagree with your comment that the left "spouts such hatred and vile comments about anyone who disagrees with them". One night of viewing, let's say Fox vs. MSNBC or a Tea Party demonstration vs. the Wall Street protestors (even though both claim to hate the banks and investment firms and actually have a lot in common) should put that to rest. Look at the Republican debate where the audience applauded the fact that Texas has put more prisoners to death than any other state, booed a mention of a gay soldier and supported the idea that a young man without health insurance should be left to die. IMO, those were all pretty vile responses. You wouldn't hear anything like that from the mainstream left. I don't see anything on the left that compares to the birther and "death panel" claims on the right except for the extreme left morons who think that 9/11 was an inside job, although there are probably extreme conservatives who think the same way.



    I have agreements and disagreements with your post above. First of all, I think it's a great post in that it's respectful and that is much appreciated. I concur that there is a great deal of dislike for Wall Street on both sides of the political spectrum and something needs to be done, but I'm not going to pretend to understand the financial sector well enough to make any suggestions. I also agree that Obama is going to have to overcome a lot of "anyone but Obama" voters. We are also in agreement on the level of engagement of the majority of voters however I would have to say the Democrats are better with the slogans than Republicans as in, "Yes we can."



    I think you are wrong on a President having an impact on job creation. Specifically regulations on businesses have a huge impact on employers. I'm most concerned with these unelected agencies writing regulations with relatively little oversight. For instance the NLRB issue with Boeing opening it's new 787 plant in S. Carolina. I'm not saying business should be unregulated, but the regulations need to be well thought out and not political pay back to certain groups. Additionally, businesses operate on what's good for business and not on some patriotic or ideologically motivated scheme, just look at Solyndra.



    I don't think members of the Congressional Black Caucus who accuse the Tea Party of wanting to "see blacks hanging from trees", or James Hoffa calling the Tea Party "sons of bitches", or Maxine Waters saying "the Tea Party can go to hell" are what you might call shining examples of a tolerant left. These aren't small time left wing crackpots like Rosanne Barr saying something like Wall Street bankers worth more than $100 million should be beheaded. These are congressmen/women and leaders on the left. As to the gay soldier getting booed, it was like 2 people out of 5000 and the booing didn't start when he announced he was gay but after he phrased his question. I suppose the booers may have been politely waiting for him to finish the question before booing his sexuality, but really... I honestly don't know anything about the guy being left to die.
  • Reply 80 of 84
    It's good to be the king!



    In any case, I wonder if Steve expressly asked Obama to "not let anyone see the gadget for (at least) one month"... I mean he's a public figure, it takes only one journalist/paparazzo to ruin a massive expectation/secrecy campaign, quite comparable to what we are experiencing now
Sign In or Register to comment.