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.
How well did that "freedom" work to eliminate slavery, protect the environment, create safe work places, etc? Classic libertarian thinking. I got mine, screw everybody else. Social Darwinism.
Those are not the values that made America prosperous. Those are the values that would turn us into something more like India, where billionaires build luxury skyscrapers as personal homes, towering over miles of wretched slums. America would break into another civil war before that was allowed to happen.
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.
Absolutely. Like a true Republican, Carly wants to tell everybody what to do & how to live.
How well did that "freedom" work to eliminate slavery, protect the environment, create safe work places, etc? <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Classic libertarian thinking. I got mine, screw everybody else. Social Darwinism.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Those are not the values that made America prosperous. Those are the values that would turn us into something more like India, where billionaires build luxury skyscrapers as personal homes, towering over miles of wretched slums. America would break into another civil war before that was allowed to </span>
happen.
You are using classic red herrings to divert from the illogic of your position.
Also, interestingly enough your opinion on India is an excellent argument against democracy, which is what India has and America does not have.
And this woman thinks she's qualified to be president of the country? ROFLOL
What bugs me is anyone who thinks they're qualified to be president when they have absolutely no experience whatsoever. Does the fact that she already ran for office and lost qualify her to be President? If one is really serious about being president, at least become a congressperson, senator, mayor or governor first. Even those positions don't necessarily qualify someone to be president, but at least most would get some knowledge of how the system works.
She's no different than Trump. This is just about ego.
If she chose her own replacement at HP, would she have chosen someone who had never been an executive?
Even if one does assume that being a CEO is a good qualification for being president (CEOs actually make lousy presidents because they're not used to having almost everything they do being controlled by a Congress and interpreted by the Courts and they don't have to care about what the people think, aside from how it impacts sales), she failed at it. And I think everyone would agree that being president is harder.
So would her position as president be that she supports these new discriminatory laws or would it be that she would stop doing business with many other countries? Would she use the bully pulpit of the presidency to say that CEOs should not speak out on any political or civil rights issues?
It isn't surprising how completely this discussion has slipped off the rails. Fiorina stirred the political pot, and turned the spotlight on herself, which was precisely her intention. But what hardly anyone noticed is that she did it without expressing a clear opinion on the subject herself. This is the utility of charging others with hypocrisy, particularly for scoring political points. You are morally bankrupt because you haven't taken a public position on everything. I am morally superior because I won't tell you what I actually believe. It's an old, cheap trick. You could not cut the irony with a hacksaw. But just look up the pages of comments here to see how neatly this gambit works.
Absolutely. Like a true Republican, Carly wants to tell everybody what to do & how to live.
Carly's a classic narcissist. They could put her picture next to the word in the dictionary. She's absolutely loathsome, and has shown it time and time again. The fact that someone as vile as she would even think to attack someone like Tim Cook would be hilarious if it weren't so nauseating.
Carly's a classic narcissist. They could put her picture next to the word in the dictionary. She's absolutely loathsome, and has shown it time and time again. The fact that someone as vile as she would even think to attack someone like Tim Cook would be hilarious if it weren't so nauseating.
OTOH, that's what narcissists do. So ... *shrug*
All politicians, heck, even all actors are narcissists. Having said that, she was certainly the second worst CEO in HP's history, next to Leo Apotheker.
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.
Said by SpamSandwich in reply to: "Originally Posted by Z8O1
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?
Spam, like Rip Van Winkle, you must have just woken up from a long sleep:
"On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).[26]
What bugs me is anyone who thinks they're qualified to be president when they have absolutely no experience whatsoever. Does the fact that she already ran for office and lost qualify her to be President? If one is really serious about being president, at least become a congressperson, senator, mayor or governor first. Even those positions don't necessarily qualify someone to be president, but at least most would get some knowledge of how the system works.
She's no different than Trump. This is just about ego.
Best line I ever heard was about the Perot candidacy. "The Presidency is not an entry-level position."
"The person best suited for the presidency is the one least likely to pursue the position."
—Me
There's some truth to that. But there are so many details to how Washington works, what pressure groups there are, what's the real way that laws come into being and how the staffs operate and the various executive Departments - you need to know those to be effective or you'll be rolled. Take President Carter. I respect him greatly as a person. But he came into the Presidency as an outsider, knowing almost nothing about how things work in Washington. So he didn't know how to operate the levers, wasn't able to delegate in a way that things actually happened and so wound up trying to do everything personally and it nearly killed him. His one success was one he could do as an individual - but frankly it's one that a senior diplomat could have done most of. And when the Iran Hostage Crisis hit, it all completely unravelled.
President Obama had a bit more experience, but not that much more, and frankly had mostly gotten as far as he had through personal charisma and working with people who all agreed with him and in a position where any opposition could be herded into the position. So when he faced a hostile Congress with enough numbers they couldn't be ignored, he had no way to work around them - and he let himself get rolled way too often. I don't agree with all the policies he wanted to implement, but it's not good for the country to have the President look weak. Compare that to President Clinton, who for all his faults, he knew how to wheel and deal. He was willing to take his half a loaf and declare victory. And even though he didn't get a fraction of what he ran on, he was very effective in getting as much as possible given the environment and come across looking strong.
Here's what I'm hoping for whoever is elected President in 2016 - they start with "We have a lot of issues we disagree with. But there's a lot we agree on. I'm going to spend my first year working on those things we agree on" - and in that year, lay the groundwork for the compromises to get what that President wants in deals that the opposition gets some of what they want. And yes, I'm saying that regardless of whether the President is of my party or my political views or not - after decades of increasing acrimony and stalemate, ideological strife tearing us apart, we need to find some way of coming together. Because if you view the political viewpoints as black and white, we're about evenly split down the middle which is the making of a civil war (which is why politics has gotten so nasty and ineffective). But when you view them as a spectrum, most of us are mostly near the middle and only a few issues have that major divide. The President who can do that has to be an insider, one who knows everyone, knows where the bodies are buried.
Best line I ever heard was about the Perot candidacy. "The Presidency is not an entry-level position."
"The person best suited for the presidency is the one least likely to pursue the position."
—Me
Perhaps an oversimplification - the Presidency is a crappy job, but many people simply aspire to positions of authority, of which this is one of the pinnacles. The best candidate is one who does it from the motivation of civic duty, and such a candidate obviously has to pursue it at some level. Pursuit of the position, for the right reason, should not be an automatic negative.
If Cook really wants to make his point, maybe he should close the Apple Retail Stores in Indy and Mishawaka. At this point, it's just a personal opinion piece as opposed to a company core belief. Still, a negative opinion piece penned by the boss of the world's most valuable company certainly carries a fair amount of weight and definitely helped get the state governor's attention.
Really? How can she even think of running for president after her captastic tenure as ceo of HP?
"She has frequently been ranked as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time"
This latest coment just proves my point. Clueless
I watched her little interview. She was incredibly cold and feelingless in person. Reading her words on this forum doesn't begin to reflect her strident and cold voice as she delivered her sound bites. Put her in charge at Guantánamo Bay and hardened terrorists will be begging for waterboarding to be brought back.
She does have a point. Many of the countries Apple does business in have life in prison or the death penalty for being gay. I've never heard Cook speak out against those regiemes. That's the problem with business people getting involved in politics. Cook should stick to his day job. I'm sure the gay rights movement could survive without him.
If Cook really wants to make his point, maybe he should close the Apple Retail Stores in Indy and Mishawaka. At this point, it's just a personal opinion piece as opposed to a company core belief. Still, a negative opinion piece penned by the boss of the world's most valuable company certainly carries a fair amount of weight and definitely helped get the state governor's attention.
Well, I don't know about Mishawaka, but in Indy discrimination based upon sexual orientation is illegal already, by city ordinance (or whatever they call it).
Perhaps an oversimplification - the Presidency is a crappy job, but many people simply aspire to positions of authority, of which this is one of the pinnacles. The best candidate is one who does it from the motivation of civic duty, and such a candidate obviously has to pursue it at some level. Pursuit of the position, for the right reason, should not be an automatic negative.
There's another saying which perfectly applies here: "Power corrupts".
I have. Oddly enough, my opinion is unchanged - while your interpretation is one possible one, it is not the only possible interpretation and frankly your interpretation was shown to be unworkable. Basically, you want us to live under the Articles of Confederation even though the Constition was necessary but the Articles of Confederation proved to be incapable of handling even the small nation we were at the time (and would be disastrous in our current much larger and more populous nation). Furthermore, there is a mechanism involved to alter the constitution for either correction of mistakes in it or to clarify its intent (the Bill of Rights being the most famous clarification, I'd say that granting the vote another clarification). Weirdly, there's no support for an amendment along the lines you want it.
In the legal system of the United States in this early part of the 22nd century, your interpretation is not binding and is not the system we work under. If you wish it to be that system, of course you can work to make it so (and in the process discover how small a minority that view actually is) but without that work, wishing it were not so or saying "but it shouldn't be" is meaningless.
So only some people get to fulfill their bigotry. It's just a little discrimination, it's just a little violation of people's rights, so we should accept it, right?
Wrong.
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".
Comments
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.
How well did that "freedom" work to eliminate slavery, protect the environment, create safe work places, etc? Classic libertarian thinking. I got mine, screw everybody else. Social Darwinism.
Those are not the values that made America prosperous. Those are the values that would turn us into something more like India, where billionaires build luxury skyscrapers as personal homes, towering over miles of wretched slums. America would break into another civil war before that was allowed to happen.
Your 'point' is only valid when HP opposes the Indiana law.
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.
Absolutely. Like a true Republican, Carly wants to tell everybody what to do & how to live.
You are using classic red herrings to divert from the illogic of your position.
Also, interestingly enough your opinion on India is an excellent argument against democracy, which is what India has and America does not have.
Obamacare: The new Godwin's Law that automatically ends all arguments that 'Democrats are better than Republicans'.
And this woman thinks she's qualified to be president of the country? ROFLOL
What bugs me is anyone who thinks they're qualified to be president when they have absolutely no experience whatsoever. Does the fact that she already ran for office and lost qualify her to be President? If one is really serious about being president, at least become a congressperson, senator, mayor or governor first. Even those positions don't necessarily qualify someone to be president, but at least most would get some knowledge of how the system works.
She's no different than Trump. This is just about ego.
If she chose her own replacement at HP, would she have chosen someone who had never been an executive?
Even if one does assume that being a CEO is a good qualification for being president (CEOs actually make lousy presidents because they're not used to having almost everything they do being controlled by a Congress and interpreted by the Courts and they don't have to care about what the people think, aside from how it impacts sales), she failed at it. And I think everyone would agree that being president is harder.
So would her position as president be that she supports these new discriminatory laws or would it be that she would stop doing business with many other countries? Would she use the bully pulpit of the presidency to say that CEOs should not speak out on any political or civil rights issues?
It isn't surprising how completely this discussion has slipped off the rails. Fiorina stirred the political pot, and turned the spotlight on herself, which was precisely her intention. But what hardly anyone noticed is that she did it without expressing a clear opinion on the subject herself. This is the utility of charging others with hypocrisy, particularly for scoring political points. You are morally bankrupt because you haven't taken a public position on everything. I am morally superior because I won't tell you what I actually believe. It's an old, cheap trick. You could not cut the irony with a hacksaw. But just look up the pages of comments here to see how neatly this gambit works.
Absolutely. Like a true Republican, Carly wants to tell everybody what to do & how to live.
Carly's a classic narcissist. They could put her picture next to the word in the dictionary. She's absolutely loathsome, and has shown it time and time again. The fact that someone as vile as she would even think to attack someone like Tim Cook would be hilarious if it weren't so nauseating.
OTOH, that's what narcissists do. So ... *shrug*
All politicians, heck, even all actors are narcissists. Having said that, she was certainly the second worst CEO in HP's history, next to Leo Apotheker.
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.
Said by SpamSandwich in reply to: "Originally Posted by Z8O1
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?
Spam, like Rip Van Winkle, you must have just woken up from a long sleep:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/WhiteTradeOnlyLancasterOhio.jpg
"On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964.[24][25] It invoked the commerce clause[24] to outlaw discrimination in public accommodations (privately owned restaurants, hotels, and stores, and in private schools and workplaces). This use of the commerce clause was upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 US 241 (1964).[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Courts
If you were not yet born in 1964, then I would at least assume you learned the law of the land in grade school or high school?
Or are you just living in a fantasy world of your own making?
What bugs me is anyone who thinks they're qualified to be president when they have absolutely no experience whatsoever. Does the fact that she already ran for office and lost qualify her to be President? If one is really serious about being president, at least become a congressperson, senator, mayor or governor first. Even those positions don't necessarily qualify someone to be president, but at least most would get some knowledge of how the system works.
She's no different than Trump. This is just about ego.
Best line I ever heard was about the Perot candidacy. "The Presidency is not an entry-level position."
"The person best suited for the presidency is the one least likely to pursue the position."
—Me
"The person best suited for the presidency is the one least likely to pursue the position."
—Me
There's some truth to that. But there are so many details to how Washington works, what pressure groups there are, what's the real way that laws come into being and how the staffs operate and the various executive Departments - you need to know those to be effective or you'll be rolled. Take President Carter. I respect him greatly as a person. But he came into the Presidency as an outsider, knowing almost nothing about how things work in Washington. So he didn't know how to operate the levers, wasn't able to delegate in a way that things actually happened and so wound up trying to do everything personally and it nearly killed him. His one success was one he could do as an individual - but frankly it's one that a senior diplomat could have done most of. And when the Iran Hostage Crisis hit, it all completely unravelled.
President Obama had a bit more experience, but not that much more, and frankly had mostly gotten as far as he had through personal charisma and working with people who all agreed with him and in a position where any opposition could be herded into the position. So when he faced a hostile Congress with enough numbers they couldn't be ignored, he had no way to work around them - and he let himself get rolled way too often. I don't agree with all the policies he wanted to implement, but it's not good for the country to have the President look weak. Compare that to President Clinton, who for all his faults, he knew how to wheel and deal. He was willing to take his half a loaf and declare victory. And even though he didn't get a fraction of what he ran on, he was very effective in getting as much as possible given the environment and come across looking strong.
Here's what I'm hoping for whoever is elected President in 2016 - they start with "We have a lot of issues we disagree with. But there's a lot we agree on. I'm going to spend my first year working on those things we agree on" - and in that year, lay the groundwork for the compromises to get what that President wants in deals that the opposition gets some of what they want. And yes, I'm saying that regardless of whether the President is of my party or my political views or not - after decades of increasing acrimony and stalemate, ideological strife tearing us apart, we need to find some way of coming together. Because if you view the political viewpoints as black and white, we're about evenly split down the middle which is the making of a civil war (which is why politics has gotten so nasty and ineffective). But when you view them as a spectrum, most of us are mostly near the middle and only a few issues have that major divide. The President who can do that has to be an insider, one who knows everyone, knows where the bodies are buried.
Best line I ever heard was about the Perot candidacy. "The Presidency is not an entry-level position."
"The person best suited for the presidency is the one least likely to pursue the position."
—Me
Perhaps an oversimplification - the Presidency is a crappy job, but many people simply aspire to positions of authority, of which this is one of the pinnacles. The best candidate is one who does it from the motivation of civic duty, and such a candidate obviously has to pursue it at some level. Pursuit of the position, for the right reason, should not be an automatic negative.
I watched her little interview. She was incredibly cold and feelingless in person. Reading her words on this forum doesn't begin to reflect her strident and cold voice as she delivered her sound bites. Put her in charge at Guantánamo Bay and hardened terrorists will be begging for waterboarding to be brought back.
If Cook really wants to make his point, maybe he should close the Apple Retail Stores in Indy and Mishawaka. At this point, it's just a personal opinion piece as opposed to a company core belief. Still, a negative opinion piece penned by the boss of the world's most valuable company certainly carries a fair amount of weight and definitely helped get the state governor's attention.
Well, I don't know about Mishawaka, but in Indy discrimination based upon sexual orientation is illegal already, by city ordinance (or whatever they call it).
Perhaps an oversimplification - the Presidency is a crappy job, but many people simply aspire to positions of authority, of which this is one of the pinnacles. The best candidate is one who does it from the motivation of civic duty, and such a candidate obviously has to pursue it at some level. Pursuit of the position, for the right reason, should not be an automatic negative.
There's another saying which perfectly applies here: "Power corrupts".
I have. Oddly enough, my opinion is unchanged - while your interpretation is one possible one, it is not the only possible interpretation and frankly your interpretation was shown to be unworkable. Basically, you want us to live under the Articles of Confederation even though the Constition was necessary but the Articles of Confederation proved to be incapable of handling even the small nation we were at the time (and would be disastrous in our current much larger and more populous nation). Furthermore, there is a mechanism involved to alter the constitution for either correction of mistakes in it or to clarify its intent (the Bill of Rights being the most famous clarification, I'd say that granting the vote another clarification). Weirdly, there's no support for an amendment along the lines you want it.
In the legal system of the United States in this early part of the 22nd century, your interpretation is not binding and is not the system we work under. If you wish it to be that system, of course you can work to make it so (and in the process discover how small a minority that view actually is) but without that work, wishing it were not so or saying "but it shouldn't be" is meaningless.
So only some people get to fulfill their bigotry. It's just a little discrimination, it's just a little violation of people's rights, so we should accept it, right?
Wrong.
Discrimination and/or bigotry by individuals is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Disgusting certainly, but not at odds with the personal liberties that are supposedly protected equally for all Americans. Don't be surprised if in twenty years it's illegal to criticize the government or spend your own money on something that "society" has deemed "selfish".