Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yeah, and when has that ever worked? Take the environment. Our history is long on industry ignoring the environment. We have the environmental rules we have today precisely because those "individuals and businesses" didn't police themselves. In a sense, all of our environmental laws are in reaction to bad acts committed by industry. Same goes for labor laws. None of these laws were handed down by the founding fathers. They became necessary along the way because too many people were negligent (again and again and again). It's pretty hard to argue that individuals and businesses will do the right thing when history provides an endless string of examples to the contrary.
Personally I'm glad to see Apple standing up for the important issues of our day, political or otherwise. What's ironic is that the right leaning criticism of Apple's "politics" completely ignores the fact that they are doing exactly what those critics want them to do: make things better without the government forcing them to do so. Apple chose to be fair and extend benefits to same-sex couples long before the government got involved. Apple goes above and beyond when it comes to the environment, not because government forces them, but because they choose to. Where are all the other businesses following their lead?
The SPLC is a "hate group"? Oh lord, how triggered these snowflakes are when people challenge their beliefs on an old book written by bronze-aged goat herders. Good grief!
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Yes, that is what conservatives used to believe, a very long time ago.
I would refer you to the voting record of "conservatives" in Congress since 1980 or so to see if that matches up to the doctrine you espouse, and also if -- when "businesses and individuals" do in fact get a chance to do some of the above-mentioned issues (environmental self-regulation, privacy self-regulation, immigration, capitalistic self-regulation) -- your theorem about their ability to do it better holds any water.
It’s not accurate to identify Republicans or the GOP as strictly conservative, just like it’s not accurate to label Democrats or the DNC as strictly liberal. For example, EACH of those parties when they control both House and Senate have proven they will spend recklessly and without concern for the national debt.
...the other thing I am really uncomfortable with is this call for government regulation of Facebook and google. These companies do what they do, people go along with it. Let’s not pretend that Apple is calling for regulation that don’t just happen to also result in financial gain for Apple. Always be suspicious of companies calling for regulation of their competitors. That is the path to fascism.
“...people go along with it.”
Really? That makes it right? People have gone along with unspeakable evil for eons.
“Let’s not pretend that Apple is calling for regulation that don’t just happen to also result in financial gain for Apple.”
The right has been so wrapped in its own ideologies and agendas for so long now that they have lost sight of values, integrity and doing the right thing. So, when a person or organization puts values, integrity and doing the right thing first, they call it "politics".
Eh, fuck Honeywell. Launching a smart thermostat in 2019 without Homekit support? Not that it's surprising. They've been sitting on their ass and deserve to go the way of the Blackberry.
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
I'm pretty sure Cook "understands" things just fine, regardless of your own political opinions. He might not agree with your philosophies, but that doesn't mean he understands things less. There's a much higher chance he understands things much more than you, and therefore comes to different conclusions based on a higher degree of wisdom. I've seen your attacks on Cook in previous posts, and they've always seemed extremely political, childish, and poorly argued with little merit.
Some ideologies are just more correct than others. These people calling for "ideological diversity" on Apple's board can just fuck right off and divest from Apple. Maybe, just MAYBE there's a reason why all these tech companies who have produced the vast majority of innovations of the last couple decades, who's employees tend to be in the very top percentile of education and intelligence, are left leaning?
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that.
Tim didn't claim to be politically Left progressive. So there's that.
The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Apple IS a business that is trying to do these things better than government. So it's hard to imagine what the so-called conservatives in this case are complaining about.
All of these issues could be eliminated if we all stopped allowing ANY political contribution aside from the individual voter. If a PAC or organization is allowed to contribute to any political party or politician, the system is ruined, which is what we have today. End the ability for organizations (companies, PACs, SuperPACs, etc.) to contribute ANY amount towards a political organization and/or individual politician. Additionally, limit how much an individual can contribute to $1,000 towards a political party, political organization, or politician. This will help end the wasted energy on arguing with each other. I hold zero allegiance or preference towards either major party in the US (the duopoly known as Democrat and Republican). I reject the "lesser of two evils" ideology and believe every individual should vote for whom they believe will do the best job, not who's political affiliated party has the best chance of winning (or defeating) the opposing party's selection. Until then, every single individual on this forum and in the US who is legally able to vote shares the burden of responsibility for the political issues we face today. Look in the mirror and fix yourself instead of blaming an elected leader. While you're blaming your neighbors, make sure you blame yourself as well.
I've held Apple stock for eighteen years now. One of these years I should go to a stockholder meeting. It just isn't high on my list.
For some, it's the only chance to check out some of the modern campus architecture. For folks in the SF Bay Area, it's not inconvenient to attend, other than signing up on the web (now down to a 5 minute window!).
In the old days it was a chance to meet with the likes of billionaire Larry Ellison (my late mother didn't care about that part, but chatted with him about his fascination with World War 2 era military aircraft) or hobnob with Dr. Art Levinson of Genentech. Pre-billionaire days (and Al Gore) there weren't metal detectors.
BTW I was sitting right next to the fellow who grumbled publicly about the $1M donation to SPLC. My partner and I couldn't believe there were folks who actually thought they could be seen as a hate group. The whole discussion by audience members was bizarre, until realizing that the multiple "both-sides" commenters possibly including climate deniers could have been plants. Ah, shareholders meeting gadflies.
Either way, though they might have had good origins, they now are certainly a hate group (oh, the irony). But, it makes a big difference who did the donating. (I actually know people who have been on their target list who are anything but hateful people... they basically use their lists to ideologically bully, best case, and at worse, could cause people to be harmed or killed.)
robbyx said: ... It's pretty hard to argue that individuals and businesses will do the right thing when history provides an endless string of examples to the contrary.
Personally I'm glad to see Apple standing up for the important issues of our day, political or otherwise. ...
But, isn't what the 'right thing' is what is up for debate in the first place?
I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more liberal think conservatives sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL
Of course, unregulated businesses won't often do the right thing, because... human nature. That's economics 101, which is so frustrating when I see conservative push for 'free market' as in unregulated. But, it's also equally frustrating, when I see liberals push for more socialistic solutions that put the power into the hands of some government officials... as if that hasn't been tried before.
While there are certainly just some hateful bigots (re: LGBT issues), or people who just want to pollute, etc. (re: climate change)... the core of the debates (by actual thinking people on both sides) are much, much deeper than that. For example, most of the so-called 'climate deniers' aren't denying some warming, some part of which is human-caused (ie: we're right in there with that 97% made up figure). The debate is over the proposed solutions, who will be harmed in and to what extent with each solution, and who is on the $$$ take in pushing certain solutions. Or, with LGBT stuff, the debate is over personal rights vs societal impact, and who gets to control 'public education' and what kinds of bullying are going on to accomplish those ends.
When we simplify this stuff down to black & white; right and wrong side of history; 'doing what is right' kind of slogans, then yeah, it's pretty easy to straw-man a particular 'side.'
Being pro-environment, pro-immigration (not “illegal immigration”), capitalist, and a strong believer in privacy doesn’t automatically make one a politically Left progressive, but somehow I think Tim doesn’t understand that. The difference is a conservative believes individuals and businesses can do those things better which are not constitutionally assigned to government (national defense, etc.).
Precisely. The Founding Fathers tried to make the federal government as limited in scope as possible by granting most governing power to the states.
The Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery alive for a few more years.
the other thing I am really uncomfortable with is this call for government regulation of Facebook and google. These companies do what they do, people go along with it. Let’s not pretend that Apple is calling for regulation that don’t just happen to also result in financial gain for Apple. Always be suspicious of companies calling for regulation of their competitors. That is the path to fascism.
Google, Facebook, Uber can't help themselves they will be regulated at some point, and Apple will end up throwing them out of the App store for the same reason lack of morals, they aren't going to stop....
relax, people, super majority of share holder were too smart to vote "for" such proposal. I was always want to attend shareholder meeting one of those future days. If too many of ideological proposals pop up at the meeting with someone holding 70ish shares, i might as well stay home. just wish those chaps don't zap energy away from Apple exes. That will be a tragety - everybody only has 24 hr a day. life is short. I personally believe some chaps just want attention to their "group" - used share holder meeting as free ads. I could be wrong ;-).
relax, people, super majority of share holder were too smart to vote "for" such proposal. I was always want to attend shareholder meeting one of those future days. If too many of ideological proposals pop up at the meeting with someone holding 70ish shares, i might as well stay home. just wish those chaps don't zap energy away from Apple exes. That will be a tragety - everybody only has 24 hr a day. life is short. I personally believe some chaps just want attention to their "group" - used share holder meeting as free ads. I could be wrong ;-).
In this case it sounds like a bunch of ideologues who put their ideology ahead of all else and are trying to propagate that ideology and impose it on others. ISIS did the same. So did the Nazis.
Comments
Yeah, and when has that ever worked? Take the environment. Our history is long on industry ignoring the environment. We have the environmental rules we have today precisely because those "individuals and businesses" didn't police themselves. In a sense, all of our environmental laws are in reaction to bad acts committed by industry. Same goes for labor laws. None of these laws were handed down by the founding fathers. They became necessary along the way because too many people were negligent (again and again and again). It's pretty hard to argue that individuals and businesses will do the right thing when history provides an endless string of examples to the contrary.
Personally I'm glad to see Apple standing up for the important issues of our day, political or otherwise. What's ironic is that the right leaning criticism of Apple's "politics" completely ignores the fact that they are doing exactly what those critics want them to do: make things better without the government forcing them to do so. Apple chose to be fair and extend benefits to same-sex couples long before the government got involved. Apple goes above and beyond when it comes to the environment, not because government forces them, but because they choose to. Where are all the other businesses following their lead?
Preach!
Really? That makes it right? People have gone along with unspeakable evil for eons.
“Let’s not pretend that Apple is calling for regulation that don’t just happen to also result in financial gain for Apple.”
Sometimes a banana is just a banana.
So, when a person or organization puts values, integrity and doing the right thing first, they call it "politics".
it's not inconvenient to attend, other than signing up on the web (now down to a 5 minute window!).
In the old days it was a chance to meet with the likes of billionaire Larry Ellison (my late mother didn't care about
that part, but chatted with him about his fascination with World War 2 era military aircraft) or hobnob with
Dr. Art Levinson of Genentech. Pre-billionaire days (and Al Gore) there weren't metal detectors.
BTW I was sitting right next to the fellow who grumbled publicly about the $1M donation to SPLC. My partner
and I couldn't believe there were folks who actually thought they could be seen as a hate group. The whole
discussion by audience members was bizarre, until realizing that the multiple "both-sides" commenters possibly
including climate deniers could have been plants. Ah, shareholders meeting gadflies.
Either way, though they might have had good origins, they now are certainly a hate group (oh, the irony). But, it makes a big difference who did the donating.
(I actually know people who have been on their target list who are anything but hateful people... they basically use their lists to ideologically bully, best case, and at worse, could cause people to be harmed or killed.)
I get the impression, sometimes, that people who lean more liberal think conservatives sit around thinking up wrong-things to do and then pushing for them. LOL
Of course, unregulated businesses won't often do the right thing, because... human nature. That's economics 101, which is so frustrating when I see conservative push for 'free market' as in unregulated. But, it's also equally frustrating, when I see liberals push for more socialistic solutions that put the power into the hands of some government officials... as if that hasn't been tried before.
While there are certainly just some hateful bigots (re: LGBT issues), or people who just want to pollute, etc. (re: climate change)... the core of the debates (by actual thinking people on both sides) are much, much deeper than that. For example, most of the so-called 'climate deniers' aren't denying some warming, some part of which is human-caused (ie: we're right in there with that 97% made up figure). The debate is over the proposed solutions, who will be harmed in and to what extent with each solution, and who is on the $$$ take in pushing certain solutions. Or, with LGBT stuff, the debate is over personal rights vs societal impact, and who gets to control 'public education' and what kinds of bullying are going on to accomplish those ends.
When we simplify this stuff down to black & white; right and wrong side of history; 'doing what is right' kind of slogans, then yeah, it's pretty easy to straw-man a particular 'side.'
The Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery alive for a few more years.
Google, Facebook, Uber can't help themselves they will be regulated at some point, and Apple will end up throwing them out of the App store for the same reason lack of morals, they aren't going to stop....