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

11415171920

Comments

  • Reply 321 of 394
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    You clearly know nothing about the Bible. Fortunately this forum is full of people who have degrees in history, philosophy, religious studies and literature so no neo-con-Christian brainwashed indoctrinated ditto head is going to get away with any typical talk radio talking point. You are not the person to argue that case though.


     

    I,ve read your stuff. You can't talk too. Maybe every one here (including myself...) should just shut the hell up on this subject because this is becoming just tedious. Everyone's said their piece and no ones going to move (as is the case for most discussion on anything relating to religion).

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     

    I agree with you. He has the right to practice what ever religion he chooses (or none at all). He does not have the right to impose those beliefs on the rest of society through law. I think the whole thing amounts to pandering to part of the Republican base. They need this constituency to win elections. So why not try to pass a law that essentially will get struck down. Now said politician can say I tried but the activist courts and left wing blah, blah, blah doesn't believe in the Constitution. See what I have done...I'm on your side. We will continue the fight. Vote for me and I'll set you free. What essentially happened here is a disagreement between the business wing and the religious wing of the Republican party. Guess who lost.


     

    The irony is that this "activist court" is as right wing as it gets. Just thinking of the Hobby Lobby decision and Citizen United decisions make me sick (The US is going full tilt towards a Corporate Government were individuals are mere speed bumps). Maybe they think that Roberts will have another stroke and accidentally support their idiocy...

  • Reply 322 of 394
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gilly33 View Post





    You can disagree with the comment but you show your utter ignorance when calling I assume you mean the Bible made up. Do some honest investigation before you spit out crap comments.

     

    The new testament was written decades after the purported facts and selectively edited my man later with a distinct editorial slant by the then current church. Then, it got translated quite a few times from the original were other modifications were made. That's a fact. And yes, scholars will agree on that one.

     

    The old testament is even worse, hundreds and hundreds of years of oral history put down in 8-1 century BC (most in 8-6 century bc) . From WIki

     

    "The process by which scriptures became canons and Bibles was a long one, and its complexities account for the many different Old Testaments which exist today. Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, identifies the Old Testament as "a collection of authoritative texts of *apparently divine* origin that went through a human process of writing and editing."[18] He states that it is not a magical book, nor was it literally written by God and passed to mankind. By about the 5th century BC Jews saw the five books of the Torah (the Old Testament Pentateuch) as having authoritative status; by the 2nd century BC the Prophets had a similar status, although without quite the same level of respect as the Torah; beyond that, the Jewish scriptures were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books"

     

    So, yes, even a ardent catholic would say that it is made up.  Fundamentalists (which believe the Bible should be taken litteraly, think different off course.

     

    So, you can spare me the emo response. Doesn't mean it isn't a great text anyway. Or that much of it may confer some wisdom (especially the new testament). BTW, I've got a lot of catholic school behind me: 11 years of it.

  • Reply 323 of 394
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    apeterson wrote: »
    All the Indiana law is meant to do is prevent gay activists from shutting down mom-and-pop businesses who do not wish to be conscripted into the culture wars to honor things they are spiritually repelled by. If I am a Christian (which I personally am not) and I feel that homosexuality is a sin (which I personally do not), it should not be possible for some hate group posing as a "civil rights" organization to send a couple of gay activists into my shop and basically serve me with a legal demand that I perform some service for them at their wedding, be it baking a cake or taking pictures. That's all this Indiana law is meant to do. My sympathies are ENTIRELY with the little shops, the ones some of you are perhaps sending hate mail and death threats to, because those shops have the temerity to NOT AGREE with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality. And let's clear something else up while we're at it. Disagreement is not the same as hatred. They may exist on the same emotional continuum, but they are worlds apart, in the same way that an AK-47 is worlds apart from a Colonial-era musket, though both are firearms. I see far more honest-to-God pedal-to-the-metal hatred on the part of liberals and the left (including in this thread). It's disgusting and it makes my heart sick.

    And what about an atheist business owner who doesn't want to bake a cake for a Christian bigot wedding? The law says that atheist business owner cannot refuse on the basis of the customer's religion. So someone who is offended by a specific religion is forced by the government to not discriminate but it's ok to let someone discriminate because of religion?
  • Reply 324 of 394
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,408member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    The new testament was written decades after the purported facts and selectively edited my man later with a distinct editorial slant by the then current church. Then, it got translated quite a few times from the original were other modifications were made. That's a fact. And yes, scholars will agree on that one.

     

    The old testament is even worse, hundreds and hundreds of years of oral history put down in 8-1 century BC (most in 8-6 century bc) . From WIki

     

    "The process by which scriptures became canons and Bibles was a long one, and its complexities account for the many different Old Testaments which exist today. Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, identifies the Old Testament as "a collection of authoritative texts of *apparently divine* origin that went through a human process of writing and editing."[18] He states that it is not a magical book, nor was it literally written by God and passed to mankind. By about the 5th century BC Jews saw the five books of the Torah (the Old Testament Pentateuch) as having authoritative status; by the 2nd century BC the Prophets had a similar status, although without quite the same level of respect as the Torah; beyond that, the Jewish scriptures were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books"

     

    So, yes, even a ardent catholic would say that it is made up.  Fundamentalists (which believe the Bible should be taken litteraly, think different off course.

     


     

    "The first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected, and approved by a pagan emperor for church use."

     

    "Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God... Emperor Constantine offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence... The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine..."

     

    http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

  • Reply 325 of 394
    I find it quite amusing how hypocritical the Apple FanBoy base is when it comes to Apple criticisms. That's right I forgot.. Apple can do no wrong... Cook is allowed to his opinions but when he speaks up and represents a company their policies are fair game. Fiorina is completely right in her observation.
  • Reply 326 of 394
    8thman8thman Posts: 15member
    "OUSTED" Carly?
    Steve Jobs was smart about not discussing politics.
    You should be too.
    PLEASE KEEP APPLE COVERAGE NON-POLITICAL!
  • Reply 327 of 394
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,408member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hoverlow View Post



    I find it quite amusing how hypocritical the Apple FanBoy base is when it comes to Apple criticisms. That's right I forgot.. Apple can do no wrong... Cook is allowed to his opinions but when he speaks up and represents a company their policies are fair game. Fiorina is completely right in her observation.



    Where's the hypocrisy? It's not as if Fiorina is being criticized for merely voicing an opinion. She has the same right to free speech as anyone else. On the contrary, she's being criticized for the opinion itself: a reactionary, insensitive, and bigoted world view expressed in a nonsensical attack on Tim Cook for having the courage to publicly comment on an important issue.

     

    Fiorina argues that Tim Cook is hypocritical to criticize state legislatures' so-called religious freedom laws because Apple does business in countries with poor human rights track records. Her indignation might have a hint of legitimacy if Cook had announced Apple was withdrawing its business from states with discriminatory laws while continuing to do business in countries like Saudi Arabia. But he didn't.

     

    What Tim Cook did was to stand up and declare Apple's opposition to this deplorable new wave of regulations, pointing out that they are not only unjust and immoral, but also bad for business, jobs, and economic development. Given Fiorina's well established track record as a failed business executive, she would be wise to listen carefully to a business executive who's company is actually successful.

  • Reply 328 of 394
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Independent Min View Post



    Tim's behavior perfectly matches the definition of hypocrisy "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform." Tim's article in the Washington Post on Monday said "I was never taught, nor do I believe, that religion should be used as an excuse to discriminate." Meanwhile, he remains silent while Saudi Arabia bases their legal system on the religious Sharia Law which practices the purest form of discrimination by executing people for being gay. Bravo Carly for pointing out Tim's hypocrisy - she got the definition right.

     

    Probably the shittiest "first" post I've ever seen. There aren't even any official Apple Stores in Saudi Arabia, Apple does not do any business there. Tim lives in the US, his company is HQed in the US, and he is affected by US laws. Why the **** should he not be more concerned about his own country, a country in which he wields influence? Also, your entire claim of hypocrisy is based on a massive lie, which is what Tim somehow supports the Saudi Arabian government and policies. Please, point me to such evidence. Otherwise, anyone who ever condemns ANYTHING is a "hypocrite" if they don't simultaneously condemn every single bad thing in the world ever, at the exact same time- which would take a while, I'm thinking. I guess you're also a hypocrite, because you only mentioned "Saudi Arabia" and not any other countries with henious human rights records against gays, etc?

     

    I don't see why people like you can't be honest enough to just come out and say you WANT gay people to be discriminated against, instead of coming up with these hilarious and baseless accusations of "hypocrisy" in order to deflect from your real views. So childish, and mind-numbingly dishonest on every level. Tim Cook hasn't shown a shred of hypocrisy, and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for blatantly twisting and abusing the definition of that word beyond all recognition for your own transparent agenda. If these are the best attacks that Cook haters can make, then that speaks volumes about the correctness of his stance. The entire premise your claims are intellectually bankrupt, at best. 

  • Reply 329 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by robbyx View Post





    And what about an atheist business owner who doesn't want to bake a cake for a Christian bigot wedding? The law says that atheist business owner cannot refuse on the basis of the customer's religion. So someone who is offended by a specific religion is forced by the government to not discriminate but it's ok to let someone discriminate because of religion?

    Are you saying every Christian is a bigot or does the hypothetical atheist baker take the time to get to know the customer and quiz them on their views before coming to that conclusion?

     

    Since there are many bakers in any city or certainly in any county in the 50 states of the USA, I would imagine that most Christians (or anyone in general) would prefer not to have their cake made by someone who had no desire to make it for them.  Have you heard the phrase "I'm going to take my business elsewhere?"  We live in a capitalistic society regardless of religion.  There is someone in the general vicinity of everyone who would gladly perform most any legal service for everyone for a price.  Because of this it seems like utter nonsense for anyone to desire said service to be performed by someone who doesn't want to perform that service for them.  

     

    If you legally force someone to make you a cake/flower arrangements/photos, but their heart isn't in the work (even if they aren't trying to sabotage things at all) you will likely be unsatisfied with the results.  Does that sound like something you want for your wedding or any other event?

  • Reply 330 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by robbyx View Post





    And what about an atheist business owner who doesn't want to bake a cake for a Christian bigot wedding? The law says that atheist business owner cannot refuse on the basis of the customer's religion. So someone who is offended by a specific religion is forced by the government to not discriminate but it's ok to let someone discriminate because of religion?



    "Christian bigot"? In your mind are all Christians automatically "bigots"? But let's take your question on face value anyway. An atheist baker should, in my opinion, be entirely free to refuse baking a cake. ANY law that forces someone to act against their deeply held beliefs is wrong.

  • Reply 331 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 8thman View Post



    "OUSTED" Carly?

    Steve Jobs was smart about not discussing politics.

    You should be too.

    PLEASE KEEP APPLE COVERAGE NON-POLITICAL!



    Sorry, but the genie's out of the bottle. You can thank Tim Cooke for that.

  • Reply 332 of 394
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    apeterson wrote: »

    "Christian bigot"? In your mind are all Christians automatically "bigots"? But let's take your question on face value anyway. An atheist baker should, in my opinion, be entirely free to refuse baking a cake. ANY law that forces someone to act against their deeply held beliefs is wrong.

    And a white person who refuses service to a black person because of deeply held beliefs? We've already been there as a nation and we're not going back.
  • Reply 333 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    I don't give a crap how they feel. If they want to live in a theocracy, they know where they are. The constitution and the supreme court will kill them back to their own churches and home were religion can be exercise in privacy.

     

    The use of "culture war" means your some GOP zombie reading off a cue card; that's it.


     

    It sounds to me like you've welded your mind shut to any view other than your own. You're also one of the nastier posters on this thread.

     

    It is precisely because I DON'T want a "theocracy" -- a liberal/statist one -- that I am in favor of the Indiana law.

     

    What's so bad about theocracies anyway? What's your opinion on liberal/statist/socialist theocracies? Is it in fact theocracies that you actually object to, or just theocracies organized around ideas that YOU DON'T LIKE.

     

    And for the record -- what difference does it make whether I take my ideas off of cue cards or rough them out myself through multiple drafts? They're my ideas. I embrace them. Just as you embrace yours, I assume. By your logic I could call you a "socialist zombie". The term "culture war" is perfectly legit. It's an accurate description of what's happening out there. And your side are the aggressors. Yeah, I vote Republican. But I used to vote Democrat. I was a proud liberal up until the mid 1990s. Bill Clinton was the last lib I voted for. Who do you vote for? Where do you get your news from? I assume you use a Mac (I do too -- I'd guess that when it comes to tech, we have similar opinions ... do you hate iTunes 12 as much as I do?)

     

    Anyway, we disagree on this. Them's the breaks.

  • Reply 334 of 394
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by apeterson View Post

     

     

    What's so bad about theocracies anyway?


    Check history for your answer.

    Theocracy is a form of government in which clergy have sovereignty over a territory and official policy is either governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group. Sound good to you? Than move to Iran. You also misused the word in your little (predictable) socialists leftist rant. You also make the arrogant assumption that all Christians agree with this law as it was originally written. it was way to broad. I agree with you some of the name calling gets out of hand but it happens on both side & the religious right is no stranger to that tactic. The Republican party as turned it into an art form. Divide and conquer. You yourself resorted to the same tired tactic.

  • Reply 335 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

    The irony is that this "activist court" is as right wing as it gets. Just thinking of the Hobby Lobby decision and Citizen United decisions make me sick (The US is going full tilt towards a Corporate Government were individuals are mere speed bumps). Maybe they think that Roberts will have another stroke and accidentally support their idiocy...


     

    While you can argue that the decision of Citizen United was too broadly written. What the FEC was claiming was that it had the right to censor anything they wanted by calling it a "commercial". It wasn't just, or even primarily, the makers of the movies they were claiming jurisdiction over, but the cable company itself for showing it. Imagine what Nixon could've done with that. The Washington Post articles clearly were advertisements for the Democratic party, you can't publish them. More currently, every Michael Moore movie could be called a political commercial and censored. When asked, the FEC lawyer even said that yes, they have the right to ban publication of books if they think it can be described as a political commercial.

     

    And yes, corporations do have constitutional rights. The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations (not sure if they are publicly held, but definitely corporations) and claiming that meant they didn't have freedom of the press would be scary indeed. Similarly, most movies and TV shows are made by corporations, you want the government to say that there's no freedom of speech for them and able to just shut them down? Most books are published by corporations, you want the government to be able to go in and say "you must stop publication and we're seizing all copies, no you can't claim first amendment because you are a corporation." If sued, they have the right to jury trials. Police wanting information from them must get warrants first.

     

    There may have been ways to limit the decision in Citizen United. But to overturn it, to declare that none of the Bill of Rights applies to corporations, is not something we want to see.

  • Reply 336 of 394
    ascottascott Posts: 5member
    She's right though.
  • Reply 337 of 394
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post

     

     

    While you can argue that the decision of Citizen United was too broadly written. What the FEC was claiming was that it had the right to censor anything they wanted by calling it a "commercial". It wasn't just, or even primarily, the makers of the movies they were claiming jurisdiction over, but the cable company itself for showing it. Imagine what Nixon could've done with that. The Washington Post articles clearly were advertisements for the Democratic party, you can't publish them. More currently, every Michael Moore movie could be called a political commercial and censored. When asked, the FEC lawyer even said that yes, they have the right to ban publication of books if they think it can be described as a political commercial.

     

    And yes, corporations do have constitutional rights. The Washington Post and the New York Times are corporations (not sure if they are publicly held, but definitely corporations) and claiming that meant they didn't have freedom of the press would be scary indeed. Similarly, most movies and TV shows are made by corporations, you want the government to say that there's no freedom of speech for them and able to just shut them down? Most books are published by corporations, you want the government to be able to go in and say "you must stop publication and we're seizing all copies, no you can't claim first amendment because you are a corporation." If sued, they have the right to jury trials. Police wanting information from them must get warrants first.

     

    There may have been ways to limit the decision in Citizen United. But to overturn it, to declare that none of the Bill of Rights applies to corporations, is not something we want to see.


     

    Who is "we", are you on the court or constitutional expert? Plenty of these have found Roberts court appaling, with poorly explained and reasoned decisions and rubber stamp judges.

     

    Me, I'm betting on Citizen United eventually being shredded until there is just a small sliver left. May take 50 years to happen. But, it will happen.

  • Reply 338 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eightzero View Post



    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.

     

    Or maybe just caring more about where you live and maintaining that life compared to others. Wouldn't be the first time for an executive of a multinational corporation.

  • Reply 339 of 394
    Like a lot feminists in this country, Tim Cook is being a bit two-faced.

    To say it is appropriate to comment on the treatment of people in our country, but not in other countries because they are "sovereign," has to be one of the biggest self delusions I have ever heard. If it's not OK here, it's not OK there, and people like Mr. Cook should be honest about it. Based on the OK here but not there logic, the UN should be disbanded. What right have they to mess with anyone's sovereignty?

    Some of you folks need to reconsider your self justifications for condemning your fellow citizens, while giving the true butchers and misogynists of the world a free pass.
  • Reply 340 of 394
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     



    So let me see if I've got this right:

     

    Lot had a couple blokes round who he didn't know from Adam.  A bunch of yokels came to his door and wanted to get man-friendly with the blow-ins, so Lot tried to buy them off by offering them his two virgin daughters instead - as you do - because they were just women, not entitled to have an opinion in the matter, or feelings, and though being family, were far less important to him than the unknown blow-ins feelings.

     

    Later, Lot decides his two daughters aren't that bad at all, in fact, they're actually quite sexy, so he decides he might as well bed both of them - well you wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings - and proceeds to make the most of the situation, and after a lot of hard effort there's a whole lot of begating - which after yet more begating - ends up with this bloke called Jesus something-or-other, which makes everything just fine and peachy.

     

    And the book all this is from is highly acclaimed as something to set your moral compass by?

     

    I reckon Monty Python wrote it.


     

    Wait, so if generations of "squeaky clean" self-righteous people were Jesus' descendants instead, it would make more sense as a moral compass? If that were the case, guys like Joel Osteen wouldn't mind the revisionist history.

Sign In or Register to comment.