Slashdot Mirror
Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.""
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.""
The difference between SA and Indiana is that SA makes Apple a shit-ton of money.
but i agree with her on this issue
Here is a little reminder for everyone:
bad + bad != good
good + bad > bad + bad
good + good > bad + good
So if somebody complains about someone promoting good + bad, do not forget that that this is better than bad + bad, although good + good would be even better. Perhaps it's not possible to solve all the problems of the world in one step, and perhaps not everyone who cannot solve all problems of the world in one step is a hypocrite.
Thank you for your attention!
... you're a fool that will quickly find no one can be your supporter.
All of politics these years are irrelevant social justice spats?
We have real problems, like the national debt going to be $20T, meaning every man, woman, and child has over $62.5k hangin over their head (household of mother, father, and 2.3 kids = around $270k) and everyone is spatting over who can get married and a bunch of nonissues such as bad thoughts about certain groups.
It's been long past where most places cared about lifestyle and we're still spazzing about making everyone feel cuddled. Holy fuck.
She sure fixed Lucent and HP. Totally incompetent and destructive. In over her head and spouting gibberish is her stock in trade.
Does this mean that President Fiorina will cut off ties to Saudi Arabia once elected? Didn't think so....
One one hand I agree with her sentiments. But her view needs to expand beyond attacking a couple of people. IMHO the US has a bizarre relationship with the Saudis, who seem to be able to get away with a shitload of things that other countries in the middle east get beat down for. But I cannot explain why the US turns a blind eye to it all, except possibly in the name of oil.
On the other hand, she said all of this on Hannity, and he is not known to be the bastion of logic (or even at times coherent thought). And I say this from first hand listening experience. In addition during the last US federal election Hannity was basically running an "anybody but Hillary" campaign, so I am not surprised by the "Hillary bashing" coming out on that show now.
Disclaimer, I can't vote in US elections. So don't start accusing me of being for or against any political party. I merely observe.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Is this for real? Is she implying that Cook should have ruined 90% of Apple's business because of his personal stance on gay rights? I dislike Apple as much as anyone can, but this is utter bullshit.
-Tim Cook personally goes on record saying certain speffic laws are bad for America.
-The company he works for does business with other counties, some of which are worse then some states.
Where is the hyprocracy exactly? I must be missing something.
While I am not entirely sure about how discriminatory the Indiana law is ( I have heard convincing arguments on both sides) the idea that Tim Cook should use the same logic when addressing an issue of rights in the US (a democratic country of which he is a citizen) as in Saudi Arabia (a monarchy with heavy religious influence, to which he is a foreigner) is absolutely ludicrous. If anything, it only says he should be more proactive about issues in the US, since it sets an example, good or bad, for the rest of the world, and it is more within his sphere of influence. This also seems to be trotting about hand in hand with the idea that Apple is somehow boycotting Indiana, which is itself a bizarre falsehood.
Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent.
First off, since Fiorina has run a large multinational, she know damn well that the CEO's personal morality on an issue matters very little regarding where the company does businesses. This is just pandering to conservatives by someone who hopes to run for office. Did HP stop doing business in China because of Fiorina's personal sense of morality? Didn't think so.
Last time I checked, Tim Cook was a US citizen so it hardly seems inappropriate to hold your own country to a higher standard than places where you don't actually get a vote. Furthermore it's a little hard to criticize a foreign country for something that your own country is doing. Fix your home first and then you can hold the moral high ground. These "religious freedom" laws are nothing more than attempts to codify bigotry and circumvent parts of the constitution.
I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights.
Aaaannnd now we get to what is really going on. Any republican presidential hopeful for the 2016 election is going to engage in a huge amount of Hillary bashing. Anyone who has actually dealt with foreign countries would (or should) know that progress in human rights sometimes comes in slow, painful, incremental steps. Someone who has been Secretary of State would know this well. The US had slavery and jim crow laws and huge civil rights abuses for most of its history. Problems we are still dealing with today. Anyone who thinks the US is in a position to lecture on human rights hasn't read a history book lately. Fiorina knows or ought to know this so she's just pandering to idiots who lack the ability to grasp nuance. Sad thing is that it works.
will she explain why off-shoring is good and will her stand on immigration be to open the door sand expand opportunities for people to come here? If not, will she accept that she is a hypocrite for arguing those positions forcefully when she was a CEO and now backs away form them when they become a political liability? As for her entering the presidential race, I'm sure many republicans are happy because she can attack Hillary and they need just to set back and watch without having to take positions they may later regret. Let her take the early fire and when she is done they have an easier path to capture the hill.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
This is all about Fiorina positioning herself for her bid for the Republican presidential candidacy, however, her comments are pure bullshit. You can't require a trillion dollar multi-national company stop doing business in every jurisdiction that has laws or policies the CEO disagrees with and It's not hypocrisy to use your free speech rights to advocate against policies that are abhorrent to you. It's also not hypocrisy to allow people from countries that have policies you're fighting against to give money to your charitable organization. However, Fiorina is holding other people to standards to she would never hold herself to, and that is hypocrisy. Of course, Fox News not only airs this bullshit but airs it uncritically and that's one of the reasons so many people despise Fox News. The only reason this is news is that she is making a bid for the presidency, otherwise this would another be "washed-up has-been says stupid things" story on page 27.
Frankly, I expect better from Fox News and I expect better from someone who wants to be president than moronic reactionary criticism.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
One one hand I agree with her sentiments.
You agree with pandering? You think that Cook should support bigoted laws? You think that a corporate CEO shouldn't speak out against a law that is plainly discriminatory in his own country? You think that Apple should stop doing business any place that has a law that the CEO personally disagrees with? You think that HP ever changed where they did business based on Fiorina's personal moral compass? What exactly in her sentiments do you think is anything positive?
On the other hand, she said all of this on Hannity, and he is not known to be the bastion of logic
She's pandering to the conservative base of her party because she hopes to run for office. Hannity is a great place for conservatives to do that. Logic has nothing to do with his show and never did.
Tim stated his objection to an act of the Indiana legislature. He did not say that Apple's going to refuse to do business in that state.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Other people have already repeated this talking point ad nauseum, so I guess I'm not surprised to read that Carly repeated this flawed strawman. However, her calling someone a hypocrite is a bit hilarious - not as much as the demon sheep ad, but almost. Cenk Uygur discusses and demolishes the GOP's penchant for this sort of thing here: Sean Hannity Thinks Outrage At Anti-Gay Law Should Be Redirected: https://youtu.be/B7IJ5MbRN2k
Carli is good for the party and the rest of the republican candidates. She's the only one that can call Hillary a hypocritical bitch without the first response being that it's from a sexist.
... expect her to say provocative things just for the sake of drawing attention to herself. Why else would someone go on Fox News?
It's more important than their "sexuality", so yeah he is a hypocrite.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Well considering she is not debating anyone, it seems there is only "one" side to this debate.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
While I am not entirely sure about how discriminatory the Indiana law is
I think it is clearly an attempt to allow people to act in bigoted ways against unprotected minority groups under the aegis of protecting their "religious" rights. It allows religious people to impose their religious morals on others while limiting the government's ability to protect others from those impositions. Personally I think it is a gross violation of separation of church and state cleverly disguised to appear to support that very same principle. It seems most targeted at LGBT individuals but I have little doubt it will be used against atheists and probably various non-protected minorities as well.
Wikipedia has a reasonable summary of the bill. Frankly there is very little I've seen to suggest it is anything other than an attempt by religious conservatives to codify their right to discriminate against others into law.
"Hypocrisy" has a clear definition. Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue. Fiorina is WRONG.
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
Yet he also appears to be effective in advocating for gay rights in the USofA. Where is Fiorina's advocacy?
Fiorina is being a "concern troll" on these issues.
Even worse, she is being a concern troll for topics that she does not personally support. How much Saudi business did she turn down at HP? How much of her money has she spent on advocating for gay rights?
While I agree with you that she is not presidential material, can we tone done the misogyny a bit. It really makes it hard to support your argument.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
First, let me be clear that I'm not disputing that she's merely strewing birdseed for the conservative election pigeons. Of COURSE she is doing that. However, your response is full of logical inconsistencies:
Did you have the same response when he was righteously sermonizing on how the people of Indiana and Arkansas choose to run their lives? It seems that his personal morality matters very MUCH on where Apple will choose to do business (and fwiw, the predictable chain of other "conscientious" attention-whores who likewise lined up to promptly jump on the bandwagon criticizing those states).
I don't recall her leaping to the public pulpit to lecture anyone on their choices, either?
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
As opposed to deeply tendentious people who cheerfully support (rationalizing where necessary) a presidential candidate who has - illegally - received campaign donations from foreign governments despite their heinous civil rights records. Hey, the ends justify the means, right?
-Styopa
There is Palin, but Fiorina is new and more experienced.
I'd create a "Black Pot" award and send it to people - especially politicians and people with political aspirations like Fiorina.
The trouble is, Congress would bankrupt the organization in a month.
All of the Tea Bagger claims that she made are true. My bitch hired the best private investigators to find these facts out.
I can see this both ways. On the one hand, Fiorina is right. Saudi Arabia, China, etc. have despicable human rights records and roundly deserve criticism and boycotts.
On the other hand, Apple is a US-based company and is much more likely to have influence in the US than elsewhere. We should recognize that we need to fight injustice everywhere, but just because we aren't able to effectively fight it in China that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and ignore it in the US.
What Apple et. al. really should do is ensure that their employees in China are as well-treated on the job as American workers. Not to do that would be utterly hypocritical.
I will contend that in this day and age, when we talk about any -ism in this country, what we are really talking about is "capitalism". (There is evidence that it's always been that way, of course, but I'm going to keep this as succinct as possible.)
Rich people will always put profit first. If the product doesn't sell to women, no big deal; if it does, marketing blitz including a few token scholarships. Support a few redundant laws that establish women as a protected class, even. (Side note: let's ask Fiorina how she feels about supporting women with children below the poverty line and watch the fireworks.)
If gay rights is an issue, address it where it's at least tolerated without an overwhelming amount of violence as being progressive, and look like a hero paying lip service to American exceptionalism. Anywhere where it is not largely accepted, pipe down; no need to drive up operating costs. (Let's ask Republicans about alternative suppliers that support gay rights, though...isn't this game fun?)
For extra fun, let's see if we can bait Fiorina into calling Democrats hypocrites on things like racism, or belief.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Good point. Like always. FUCK APPLE!
Everyone in the tech world knows Fiorina's an idiot. I guess now the California Republican Party can find it out, too. Lucky them!
But I don't know why I'm complaining. She makes Hillary look great! The more clowns the R's pack into their car, the more their makeup rubs onto the ringmasters who are trying to drive. Fun times...
That is all.
Poor A/C, one stands up to tyranny by disagreeing. One attacks tyranny by laughing. Carl's opinion is itself comedy, he believes he can buy this election. He will be proved expensively wrong.
You DO understand that "Carly" is a she, right?
This isn't some guy named Carl.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Giving them money would be hypocrisy. Taking their money, that's something else.
On the other hand, manufacturing in China, that's hypocritical.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's called don't pick a fight you can't win.
So what you are saying is he should pull manufacturing from China ? You know where he is the customer ? Unfortunately gay rights doesn't seem to be worth 10 cents a phone
If Google can withdraw from China, a huge market, then other companies do not have an excuse. They are in those countries because they can make money and don't really care what else happens. If Indiana fought back hard against them, they would just run to the federal government and, through the use of political donations and lobbyists, get their way. With a few exceptions, how can anyone defend big companies in this day and age?
what Carly Fiorina thinks about.. anything?
I didn't even care what she thought when she was a tech CEO -- despite the fact I use a lot of HP systems.
That one is my favorite. "But there were racist Democrats half a century ago, so now Republicans are immune from criticism!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
You could also tell Tim Cook to put his money where his mouth is, but it isn't his money. It's the shareholders' money, and he is ultimately beholden to them.
Really? Tim Cook disagrees with you... " “If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock,” "
and don't forget Lucent. She's an idiot peddling for votes. I do however agree with what she's saying on this set of topics however.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
If anyone knows hypocrisy, Fiorina qualifies.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
In 1993 Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA into law. The bills were introduced by Ted Kennedy in the senate, and Chuck Schumer in the house. Every single house member voted for it. All but three in the senate voted for it. What has changed since 1993? Were all the politicians who voted for it back then being discriminatory? If not, how is the Indiana legislature any different?
I agree with this on principle, however, in practice, it would mean we don't deal with any other country outside of Europe. Impractical.
The world has different ideas of morality than Americans. Even Americans have different ideas about morality within the country. Tolerance, oddly enough, means tolerating the intolerant.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(No referencing the Old Testament. Unless you're A: Willing to be judged by all of it and B: ignoring the New Covenant but.
... she is arguing against globalization, which is usually the darling of the 1-percent set. Curious, indeed.
No point worrying too much about Saudi Arabia as its about to become progressive. With global warming continuing at its current pace, the entire Arabian subcontinent will be completely unlivable in 50-100 years. The social changes there will be massive as the unstoppable momentum of global warming will dictate it soon enough.
At least Carly Fiorina has made it clear she's no hypocrite by throwing her hat into the ring for the presidency, of Algeria.
... Because... um... I guess she hates gays and women and can therefore do business with whatever oppressive regimes she wants? Carly's a non-starter in the Republican race because it's way too easy to point out that having successfully run HP into the ground, she now wants a chance to do the same for the country. She seems to want to be a character in an Ayn Rand novel. Presumably like Rand Paul, she grew up spanking it to Atlas Shrugged. And we've already seen how that style of management works on the small scale. It won't work any better at the level of a large country.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The whole idea behind keeping such divisive topics in the forefront (ie abortion, immigration, gay rights, etc) is to keep the country divided.
So you think that discrimination and bigotry will magically go away if we decide to not talk about them anymore and pretend everything is alright? These are important topics that need to be discussed.
She pulled HP out of all those countries that didn't have decent women rights. Oh yeah, only thing is, she didn't.
Awesome. Can we get the printed manual on gay gestapo rules since you obviously wrote the book?
I'm fed up with all these whining sexist bitches like Fiorina (one of the richest women in the US) that think they're soooo hard done by because vagina.
She'd be a LOT more credible if she stood up for actual equality and PEOPLE'S rights instead ranting about only women's rights.
She's pointing out that it's hypocrisy to advocate for one while refusing to advocate in a much worse case like Saudi Arabia.
She doesn't have to advocate herself in order to say this. She just has to be *consistent*. She can be consistent by not advocating for both just as much as by advocating for both.
No, she's not. She's pointing out that someone else is being hypocritical. She didn't say he should get out of Saudi Arabia; she objected to the *combination* of being in Saudi Arabia but not wanting to do business in Indiana.
Ultimately, this is the issue. Identity politics prevent people from says words unless they are the proper ethnicity, sex, background, etc. I'd be more interested in why no one in America can duplicate Hillary's commodities work, or her ability to raise foreign donor money, actually from said Saudis.
'fraid that's not possible unless she gets herself photographed waving a rifle, dry-humping a bag of cheetos at a Ted Nugent concert, she's only 2nd tier stupid Republican.
Apple is owned by its shareholders, not Tim Cook. If Tim Cook was to withdraw from all those countries for his personal beliefs, no matter what they are, he would be deposed by the shareholders and sued to high heaven. He can speak out all he wants (and he should) but he ultimately answers to his shareholders.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
She's pointing out that it's hypocrisy to advocate for one while refusing to advocate in a much worse case like Saudi Arabia.
But that's not hypocrisy. Look up the definition.
Pretty rich for an Irish company to be criticizing a state in the USA.
But nobody can agree on how to fix the debt. Some believe it's best to let it gradually solve itself, and/or pay it down during future boom years. After all, our huge WW2 debt was fixed this way.
Others believe in so-called "austerity", but the record on austerity was poor during the Hoover years, UK, Europe in general, and Kentucky. Austerity seems to make economies stagnant, compounding the problem by keeping revenues low.
Plus, one can argue we are already in a period of austerity, as total gov't spending has been mostly flat relative to GDP (local, state, and fed).
I doubt the differing opinions are likely to come together if politicians simply think and talk about it long enough. Sometimes opinions just plain differ. The right is always going to believe that "smaller gov't" is the only fix and the left will believe a stimulus the best fix and centrists will always believe something in between is the best. After a good many political debates over the years, I've concluded that most are stuck in their viewpoints on such and are not changeable.
Table-ized A.I.
So Carly Fiorina is a candidate who has nothing to offer. All she is able to do is mud sling at others who are far better than her. She's a classic tear down candidate and as such should not be voted for. Unless she runs against someone worse like Hillary. *sigh*
Do we really want to hold our own states to the same standard as Saudi Arabia? Does Tim Cook, Apple, or anybody in the US have the same influence in both areas?
Fiorina is definitely going to run. She's pandering to the dumbest set of Republican voters.
Agreed. She's saying she has no intentions of getting anything done. I haven't a shred of doubt she buys a product from one of those countries she talks about. I'm just glad she got this baseless asinine mud slinging out of the way early so I can write her off.
At least Cook is in a position where he can continue to "make a difference" which is why he said he came out in the first place. Can't expect to get everyone to follow you overnight if ever.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
I think the real hypocrisy is that Tim isn't speaking out to the same degree about the discrimination in his own company/state. The widespread discrimination against women and minorities is well documented, but I guess as a white male those kinds of discrimination aren't worth talking about, even though he really could have a significant impact on these issues that go well beyond a speaking point. And he could help a lot more people. What percentage of the population of Indiana is gay, a few percentage points? What percentage of Silicon Valley is female or non-white? A whole lot more than a single digit percentage.
when she was CEO of HP......obviously she must be against women's rights and gay rights. Thanks for letting us know, Carly.
Seriously, Tim should be proud to have brought out the schoolyard bully in Carly.
"You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,"
Translation: "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether the check is big enough to cover the costs of getting you elected and thus warranting a political policy kickback later on down the road."
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I'm probably burning all my karma points with this but here goes... There are a lot of people out there that have views I find distasteful but I don't believe that I should be able to deny them the ability to earn a living because of that (beyond voting with my pocketbook) so here is my question: Why is it ok for the government to force a business to cater a gay pride event or be destroyed but not ok to force an African American businessman to cater a white pride event? Maybe I have misunderstood the majorities position on this but I don't think I should be allowed to use the government as a tool to destroy a business owned by a black family because they don't wish to be stuck in the back kitchen serving a group of whites.
He's gay and claims to be a Christian. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (or Moses or Jesus or the Apostle Paul).
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. -- Luke 3:11
How many shirts do you own, PRMan?
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
How can Republicans criticize Obamacare when they support Israel that has universal health care?
I think Carly is confusing the battles (perhaps intentionally). Indiana (as part of the US) actually has a law that talks about freedoms for all men (lets assume it means all people) and specifically calls for a separation of church and state so religious influence can not be forced upon the local population.. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia do not have those notions in their foundation. So its more of the hypocrisy of the US and the states that is at fault.. (all men are created equal.. ok.. well, they are not "men" so it doesn't apply.. Marriage shall be applied equally.. well, lets narrowly define what a marriage is instead of the general understanding that its an institutional/legal contract between two consenting adults, so we can exclude them).
Tim cook, as a CEO, has quite limited powers of influence outside of his "country".. So Apple doesn't sell in China.. (boo hoo.. the people there will buy their phones elsewhere, or import, like what they did before). But in the US, he shuts down plants, well, that has actual measurable impact because it impacts everyone there, and people no matter what they feel will vote with their wallets. (ie: No job (or a lower paying job, property values go down because of lower income/less jobs, education suffers (less money available to educational sector because its re-allocated to more "important" services (debatable but whatever), etc.. Those won't happen there, so its matter of picking your battle where you can actually have an impact. (and don't forget, CEO is not absolute ruler.. he runs a publicly traded company with shareholders, so he still has to turn a profit (or make sure all the majority shareholders are ok with lower profits for "a cause" otherwise, just what.. he gets kicked out, and any impact he was attempting to make would get pushed out with him. Its a delicate line and one that is not easily walked.
And don't forget, the bigger you are, your own local government (US) will often times encourage you to not rock the boat too much if they want to take to task another action. We don't live in a bubble that we can do absolutely ANYTHING we want.
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
1) you aren't camapgning against Tim Cook
2) Complaining about someone who complains about a place that is a against gay rights makes you sound like you are against day rights
3) Which countries did HP do business with when she was in charge that don't have a good record on women's rights?
Yeah none of those will come and bite you in the ass.
Curious how a CEO, who 'gave' corporate funds (what should have been shareholder profits) to feed numerous political spending has a sense she can speak out about a CEO of another company, who is just speaking out, without putting a check in the mail.
Why do lefties always demand Soviet-style uniformity?
She's not even demanding her supporters be flawless. She's saying that Cook shouldn't speak out on an issue that he has strong views on because of a completely unrelated situation elsewhere.
(BTW I don't necessarily agree with my fellow liberal's interpretation of the Indiana law, though I admit I'm no lawyer and there may be something huge I'm missing, but Cook has every right to say what he believes about something happening in his own damned country, and those who demand he remain silent should go boil their heads.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
She's not really calling for social justice, she's a right wing politician.
What offends her is not that Apple makes money from countries where people discriminate against women and gays, what offends her is not that the government has alliances with countries where people discriminate against women and gays - no one thinks that president Fiona would break off relations with the whole middle east and Africa.
What she means is that she hates liberals for caring about gays at all. Ie., she's against liberal social justice.
That she's so confused that she supports the feminist half of it, but attacks all of it should make it clear why you shouldn't vote for the right. Too emotional, too tribal to make any sense at all.
Funny, he said the same sort of thing at Robert Byrd's funeral. Democrats excuse anything that keeps them in power. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...
I wonder what HP's policy for manufacturing and sourcing are with regards to human rights?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
I'm not even sure it's a "double standard". The US is (supposedly) built on the premise of equality and fairness for *all* its citizens. The same cannot be said for (all) other countries or cultures. I'm not supporting the bias of those other countries/cultures, just saying that Indiana and Arkansas are not China and Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure Carly knows this, but is being, as you said, a "concern troll" - which makes her the hypocrite.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There is not a blanket refusal of services to "Christians," "Atheists" or what ever other classification we can come up with. What is being discusses is a very narrow good/service to something that some people find distasteful, so they would prefer not to take part in one.
That's what's being discussed, as if this were a narrow law for protecting religious cake-bakers. Maybe that's what they have in mind when they write this stuff. But it also will protect doctors who refuse to see adopted children of gay couples (this has already happened in Michigan thanks to the federal RFRA). The law they passed in Indiana goes further than the RFRA and other religious freedom laws across the country, which prohibit intrusions on religious freedom by the government. This one extends that policy to include not only to protection from government, but similar "intrusions on religious freedom" by private parties., which necessitates the removal of the "anti-discrimination" window dressing that the prior religious freedom laws have. Before Indiana passed the law, it was sent a letter by 30 law professors, pointing out the likely consequences:
The proposed law seeks to override this reasoned balance among rights by bluntly and categorically granting religious liberty rights a special status. In so doing, the proposed law jeopardizes parallel compelling state interests such as public health and safety, equality, and other fundamental liberties. What is more, without language that prohibits the shifting of the costs of religious liberty rights secured under the state RFRA to third party rights-holders that do not share the religious beliefs of the claimants, the proposed RFRA risks exposing the state to valid claims that it has violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution, a provision that prohibits the law from preferring religious over non-religious policies and practices. Further, adopting a measure such as the proposed RFRAs, one that creates a legal mechanism by which the costs of religious liberty may be shifted to third parties, raises serious Establishment Clause concerns under the federal Constitution insofar as it risks governmental endorsement or support of religion, and can be reasonably read as the state advancing religious interests. The use of state power in the services of religion or religious interests clearly runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.
In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the stateâ(TM)s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer's, their landlord's, their local shopkeeper's, or a police officer's private religious beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not "open a door" to conversation, but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic society.
Note the word ONLY in that statement. ROI is still high on the list, bashing Indiana shows that it is not ONLY about ROI, bashing SA, well that may lead to investor lawsuits.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
So how was it a double standard. Remember to compare apples to apples.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
1) he did not say you could not use the Old tesaiment, just that if you use it you have to use all of it, such as split hooves, mixed fabrics divorce, adultery stoneings and all that. You dont get to being out what it says on gays and then ignore everything else.
2) see number 1
3) see number 1
4) where in the quote was homosexuality brought up again?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
There are racists in any group. Have you heard the racism coming from Sharpton?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Government debt is different from your personal debt, The US government could spend over $500 billion dollars per year in debt and not grow the debt as a percentage of the GDP, Government income to relative to the taxable money, as the economy grows, the population grows, and inflation goes, the government revenue also grows. Basically, the current GDP is 17.7 trillion dollars, so inflation(1.5-2%) with growth (3%) is $885 dollar increase for the following year, as long as the government deficit spending is that or less, the debt is as a percent of the gdp staying the same or shrinking.
So long as the US governments debt is denominated in US dollars, and the US government still controls the US dollar, then their is nothing to worry about, as debt is simply something governments have, and it is always measured in values comparable to the national GDP($17.7 trillion for 2014).
Only the most foolish of idiot governments would want their debt denominated in a foreign currency, or a currency in which the government does not control the central bank(see: Greece).
We in the US have neither problem, our problem is within our slash and burn politics of the right wing, that thinks massive cuts to the highest economic multiplier things in our budget(health care, social security, food stamps), will somehow not shrink growth to the point that it is negative, and reduce tax collections to the extent that the cuts have been canceled out(again see: Greece).
At first I had no idea why Fiorina would run for president. . .but now I get it, she's the attack dog for Hillary.
Amazingly similar to how Underwood used Jackie Sharp to attack Dunbar in House of Cards.
Jesus said nothing. Paul did comment on it, however, so Christians often use that as the basis of their new testament argument. Also the new covenant doesn't mean you completely ignore mosaic law, but I admit to being quite confounded by the distinction. Bottom line, though is that Jesus said to "love your neighbor as yourself." It's in two of the gospels. He didn't make exceptions for homosexuals. And Jesus DID comment on divorce (Matthew 19:9) and you don't see a lot of Christians denying services to remarried people whose original spouses didn't commit adultery.
Tim Cook is protesting a law that gives businesses the freedom to boycott customers by....
boycotting customers.
Now THAT is truly hypocritical!
I think we can believe that the gay man may actually believe in gay rights.
That is not the debate. The debate is what does he believe in more, saving $35 on the manufacture of an iPhone or gay rights. So far saving the $35 seems more important.
$35 being the estimated increased cost of building an iPhone in the US where gays have rights.
Hypocrite.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
For Tim Cook she compares completely different circumstances (doing business with a company that has poor human rights vs enacting legislation to restrict human rights).
For Clinton, she gives no evidence whatsoever that receiving money from these countries has influenced the Clinton Foundation's policies in any detrimental way towards women.
This is just typical political grandstanding and nonsense.
Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
No. One can also say Cook chooses profits over gay rights. If he can save $35 on the manufacture of an iPhone by manufacturing in a country that is hostile to gays he will do it. That seems hypocrisy not double standard, he is materially benefitting from his silence and/or lack of action.
$35 is the estimated increase in manufacturing costs for making iPhones in the USA where gays have rights.
I'm guess you didn't actually read what Tim Cook said.
Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.
By saying that his message to people "around the world" is that Apple will not tolerate discrimination, and then continuing to do business in countries that are very much discriminatory, he is engaging in hypocrisy.
If you don't think so, hit me with your definition. Mine is "the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not actually hold."
He claims to have this principle of not tolerating discrimination, yet he does. Care to explain how that's wrong?
Basically some of you are saying that you would have sided with the third reich instead of someone like Bonhoeffer? He died in prison for refusing to go along with teachings that he found reprehensible. He took a stand against tyranny and paid for it with his life.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Hold on, being against something isn't the same as not openly advocating for it.
If Fiorina is for women's rights but does business with countries that don't have strong women's rights, that's sad. But it only becomes hypocritical when she openly says "We're not going to tolerate discrimination against women" and then continues to do business with those countries, while singling out and punishing one or two smaller targets. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
I didn't say she's hypocritical, although she would have to be if she was for women's rights or gay rights. I'll leave it up for her to choose which poison she's harboring.
And lowering yourself to her level by namecalling accomplishes what, exactly?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think Ms. Fiorina is simply wrong because Tim Cook is being VERY CONSISTENT on Indiana and Saudi Arabia.
In one case he's supporting puritanical fanatics who want to use state power to control the beliefs and behaviors of citizens, forcing them to follow his beliefs.
In the other case he is supporting exactly the same thing.
Whether you're a woman in Saudi Arabia who wants to decide for herself who she will spend time with, who she will produce children for, who she will cook for, etc.., or whether you're a baker in Indiana who wants to decide for herself who she will spend time with, who she will produce baked goods for, who she will cater for, etc., Tim Cook does not have your back (except perhaps with a whip). Tim wants to allow people to compel you to do things against your will.
30 years ago I supported the right of gays to decide who they would engage in activities with without government interference. Today i support the right of bakers to do the same thing. Somehow this support for freedom once made me a progressive and now makes me a bigot. Suppose being a progressive and being a bigot are the same thing?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Back in 2001 while ensconced at HP I had little love for Fiorina, the fact is she now has the obvious high ground. Now if she were still at HP and the Saudi's wanted to buy servers to track gay people realize she would probably take the deal.
Cook should look at the facts of the law in Indiana and chill.
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
What did Jesus say about slavery? The abolition of slavery in the West has it's roots firmly in the Christian worldview (we are created equals in the image of God)...and yet Jesus never condemned slavery - what gives!? Same goes for homosexuality in my view.
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” -- Matthew 22:37-40
Also (though not said by Jesus)
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” -- Galatians 5:14
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
That is, well, a big jump to a conclusion there, son. Not mentioning something is not active refusal. At the moment, the situation in places like Saudi Arabia is such that advocacy there could even hurt the ones you are trying to help. Also the "we" factor is not to be ignored, as in "we Americans are better than that. Stop going backwards, Indiana" works better than preaching from the outside. All this assumes that Tim Cook has enough time and resources to call out every case of discrimination, of course. I personally feel Tim doesn't mention SA because it's basically like saying water is wet.
Though Apple does not release sales numbers by country, it's pretty safe to say that Indiana is still a bigger business than Saudi Arabia is, due to demographics and sales outlets. So I don't give that argument much weight.
Well, Palin had her moment, but showed Carly that there's an opening there that she can exploit to get perhaps a veep spot. Running companies into the ground like she did is not a hinderance in the Republican business world –heck, it's a sign of healthy locust appetite to them! So now all she needs is some bona fides on the social front, to attacking a popular CEO in her supposed field can let her appear to be sticking it to the arrogant artsy fartsy liberals. Fnord.
Really?
You are welcome on my lawn.
For a loyal member of the Republican Party to criticize Cook and Clinton on these points is hypocrisy.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...
http://www.westernjournalism.c...
http://www.theblaze.com/storie...
Yes.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
SOURCES: Newsmax, Lew Rockwell and The Blaze.
Very funny.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So, you are saying that because you don't trust those sources, the statements must be lies.
Are you that blinded by your beliefs in the infallibility of the left that you can't even read the articles and attempt to understand that these things happened?
He called the Ferguson protesters Pimps and Hoes. Would he be ok with a white person saying the same thing?
He calls white people crackers, like derogatory names are acceptable for white people, when you know he would be flipping out if someone called a black person by any of the numerous derogatory names.
He defamed a New York prosecutor, Steven Pagones, saying he was involved in the rape of Tawana Brawley, that was found overwhelmingly to be fabricated.
He called Hasidic Jews "Diamond Merchants"
Heck, the Blaze link has snippets of video/audio from actual Sharpton speeches, see for yourself.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing."" Non-Sequitorial platitudes from Bill Clinton. Shocker. Saying nothing, while evoking emotion is his forte.
So, there's a Republican candidate running on a platform of "I vow to say that anything a Democrat says or does is Unamerican, Treasonous, a war on Religion (Christianity of course being the only valid religion) and/or hypocritical. How? Mainly by waiting for them to say how everything I believe in is discriminatory and disgusting then attacking them as hypocrites and liars because they only criticized me for saying I think gay people are subhumans who don't deserve the same rights as people who live by the tenets set forth in a 2000 year old novel, while completely failing to mention some some 3rd world Warlord who kills gay people outright. I will then go on Fox News and tell the world how it's Hillary and Obama's fault that the Warlord hates gays because they failed to go back in time and make Richard Simmons answer a fan letter that was sent by said Warlord to him in 1979; all while Sean Hannity performs analingous on me just off camera."
/. plans to report on every bit of stupidity that falls out of political candidates mouths, well... it'll be just like every other "news" site in the U.S.
What makes that newsworthy?
If
Let gays deal with gays issues;
Let women deal with women issues;
Casteism
When you wrote: "Paul believed no one at all should have sex, ever again." you completely lost it. First, CITE the PARAGRAPH where Paul in-context said this (Paul wrote in paragraphs, the sentence (verse) numbers were inserted later by scholars to aid in navigating the text). You cannot, of course, because he said no such thing.
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none... He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband... But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."
I leave it to you to look up the verse yourself, smartass.
By YOUR reckoning, the church would have died-out immediately with nobody able to lead a church.
Paul and his contemporaries believed that Christ would return during their lifetimes, thus that not only was there no point in further procreation, but that such things were a waste of the very limited time they had left in which to spread the message of salvation.
My use of gender sounds disrepectful?
What T.Cook says or doesn't say is insignificant compared to what the influx of the american (western) culture that comes from selling the Apple (and similar) stuff does to these countries' human (and similar) rights. It might not be evident instantly, but the base currents are changing.
I've never been to Indiana, but I guess the case is pretty different there, so a more direct approach might be needed.
hm, a rare "Troll" moderation. It might not be an informative or useful post, but I bet her name makes a lot of people sick, much more so than an average occurrence of the word "Fuck".