Obama had positions in the last campaign that he has "evolved" from since then. To be truly fail and open minded, if you don't consider those, and evidently you don't, then you can't consider Romney's. So, I ask again for an example of promises that Romney has made in this campaign that conflict with each other. All you've listed is categories. Saying "Tax Plans" does not qualify as an example. I'm looking for something like, "I will not raise taxes on the middle class" and "We must all pay the burden of the debt".
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.
Can you give me an example of promises that Romney has made during this campaign that conflict with each other? I'm not saying that he hasn't, but I do not know of any and would like your enlightenment.
But the Libya press conference changed my mind. He was openly gloating. Maybe the Obama administration did screw up in Libya. But Romney saw this first as an opportunity to score points on Obama, and second as a tragedy, if he even thought it was a tragedy at all.
And the fact that Obama kept saying it was a protest of a video and not a terrorist attack for weeks after even the State Dept was claiming that there was no protest doesn't both you at all? It's one thing to criticize the president over inaction, and 16 hours of silence qualifies as inaction on the part of the White House, but to lie about the cause to try to minimize the political damage is simply disgraceful. And then there is there is the fundraising in Vegas while people were dying overseas at our embassies... I guess we just have different priorities.
Of course, the carriers hate SD slots, because they would rather you eat up all of your data accessing your stuff in the "cloud."
You can't say that about all carriers. Sprint, for example, offers unlimited data. I don't even think they offer a tiered plan where data is concerned. Since Sprint would gain nothing by forcing you to use bandwidth, I'm sure they'd prefer you to access data locally rather than bogging down their networks for no benefit.
Awesome! Thank you for proving my point. Go read my latest comment and then read yours and come back and tell me which one closer fits the description "Hate Machine". Also note that some loving, open minded leftists modded it "Flamebait" in order to make it not show up in the general thread, probably because I said Beck is libertarian and not "Beck if a fucking idiot who needs to die die DIE like hateful fucker he is". That would have been modded "Insightful +5". For example, this comment was modded (Score:4, Informative):
As the right-wing Hate Machine spews its filth over the public spaces, it consistently maintains it's just "calling things as they are", "exercising their free speech" or "avoiding political correctness".
But God forbid someone should call one of them names. Then suddenly out of the woodwork various arbiters of decency appear waving their fingers and going "tut-tut".
Here's a deal for you: why don't you go fuck off?
Mart
I feel informed. Does nothing in your comment scream "Hate" to you? I think it's in there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. And it's strange, just about every single comment I read is insulting Beck, calling him all kinds of names. I'm not seeing anyone "Hate Machines" come out of the wood work.
Take over in what sense? They made emergency loans to much of the car companies that otherwise would have gone bust (leaving mostly just Ford). And mandating health insurance so that you don't have poor contagious sick people walking the streets. There is no take-over there, either. So he was still crazy.
Buying $50 billion in stock is not "emergency loans". Also "emergency loans" don't give you the power to oust the CEO.
No, I've been living under a conservative Christian Democrat government the past 12 years, with a growing racist party in Parliament which actually got to govern in the last cabinet.
The world is not the USA, and your predictable right-wing false equivalencies are tiring.
Well, I can't really accurately reply to the "right wing" in your country since I don't know what country that is. And hell, your "right wing" may truly be "Hate Machines". But this article is about a US based libertarian talk show host who is falsely associated with the "right wing" because he, like all libertarians, favor a small, central government with most of the power given to the states and communities.
Beck is not a "right wing Hate Machine" like what you have described. He is simply, like many libertarians, susceptible to conspiracy theories. In this case, he took a guess that maybe a guy who really was there to track weapons used Eve Online to relay a message that they were about to be attacked.
Now I can forgive you for not understanding the political dynamics of US political talk radio, but I am unable to look past your speaking on the subject with such disdain for something you know nothing about. And it is true that "The world is not the USA", this article is about the USA, an embassy of the USA, and a talk show radio host from the USA sharing his conspiracy theories with others in the USA. If you don't understand what it's all about, then maybe you should simply read and sit this one out. After you've done a bit of research on the matter, listened to Beck a bit (I highly recommend "Moron Trivia"), and read about his views, where he stands, why people call him "right wing" and what "right wing" means in this country, then you might be able to speak on the matter without appearing foolish.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are, the guy who responded first who agrees with you really goes a long way to proving your point.
If you were not being sarcastic, I have to ask: If this is Bush's economy, and it was Bush's economy when Bush was president, and it was "on Bush's watch" when 9-11 happened seven months after he took office, at what point does this become Obama's economy and Obama's watch?
I'm sorry, but have you been in a coma for 12 years? Did you not hear the hatred that was spewed about Bush that is NOT spews about Obama. Hell, even the media is getting in on the game. See this "lady". And compare that to when Bush was president, HERE. It's actually the same reporter.
Also, two wrongs don't make a right, especially when you have to make one of the wrongs up to justify your hatred and bad behavior.
I remember thinking Beck was crazy when he said that the government was going to take over the auto and health industries. Of course, I thought he was crazy. Hell Bush was president!
So because Bain invests in a company that specializes in outsourcing, Romney "prefers" to employ overseas workers? Have you considered that maybe the company could make money, and is therefor a good investment? I don't know how well you did in economics, but that is what successful companies do.
Also, the article you pointed to is about a decision that Bain is making RIGHT NOW. Romney hasn't been a manager at Bain for years and has nothing to do with this decision. Trying to tie this action to Romney is like trying to tie Obama to.... Oh wait. He's never worked for a company. I guess it would be like blaming Obama because the Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama left the Senate and entered the White House.
So? Bain Capital invests in companies that employ people overseas. Lots of companies do that. Do you invest in Apple? How about Intel or AMD? Do you own an HTC phone, or a smart phone at all? Even the US Government has invests in companies that close down US plants to open them up overseas. Obama "invested" in GM. GM has closed down plants in the US to open new ones in Mexico and other places overseas. Do you think that Obama "prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America."? It's the same thing, isn't it? Well, except that Obama is using American tax dollars to do it against our will. Bain used freely invested money from investors.
Then, of course, there was that $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill off of their shores rather than our own. Isn't that preferring to ship jobs overseas rather than investing in jobs here in America?
The difference is that when Bain did it, it was because opening jobs overseas was the only way to save a company. When Obama did it, it was for.... Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil. Of course, like I said, Obama shipped jobs overseas with YOUR money against your will. Romney did not.
But the point is that you said "their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America", which is something you can't back up because it's not true. You WANT to believe it so bad that you are actively silencing the the logic portion of your brain that is screaming, "why would Romney WANT to give American jobs to overseas workers? That doesn't make sense". It's sad when you have to lie to yourself to keep justify your beliefs.
This is of course because their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America.
Care to explain this part? Do you really think that given the option or employing workers here or overseas, all things being equal, that Romney would choose to employ overseas workers?
While you might be technically accurate on the rest of your post (which I highly doubt but don't feel like getting into), you are straight-up wrong on BGH/bST.
I don't know. I've drank BGH/bST milk since I was a boy and my breasts fill out my bra just fine. What's the problem?
Thus, the right to lie. The court determined that Akre was not eligible to be covered by the whistleblower law because the FCC's policy against lying was not a law. Thus, they can broadcast a false news story and there's no law preventing it, nor can you be protected from being fired by whistleblower laws if you refuse to go along with it.
Fox and its affiliates are safe.
Akre and Wilson were trying to claim that Monsanto's response was a lie, therefor, they were allowed whistleblower status. The court ruled that Monsanto's lying was not a valid reason to gain whistleblower status. The court agreed.
Here, let me take the relevant portion of your own quote:
Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."
also
The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter
And this quote here is my favorite:
the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.
so the lower court ruled against everyone of Akres claims, except for the whistleblower status. The appeals court overturned that!
You don't seem to understand that the report was all Akres. If there was a lie from the station, it was in her report. Her beef was with the fact that this Fox affiliate wanted to actually give Monsanto a chance to reply to the allegations against them. I don't care what you think of Monsanto, they should at least have a chance to respond, don't you think? Well Akre and Wilson said that Monsanto would lie so that it shouldn't be aired.
But think about what you are saying here. You are saying that news networks should be allowed to report whatever they like, and it's perfectly OK to not offer the other side or any other form of counter argument simply because the network or the reporter disagrees with the response. If the counter argument is false, do what every other network does. "The group we are reporting against has said X, Y and Z. Studies have shown that to not be true." Nope, instead, these losers wanted to go on the air, hammer a company and them deny them a response. When the network disagreed, they threw a temper tantrum, quit and sued.
Although, it doesn't surprise me that someone who hates FoxNews enough to lie about them would want to deny the opposing view a response.
Before anyone starts jumping on Fox News for whatever axe they have to grind with them, please substitute Fox News with "CNN" or "MSNBC" and ask yourself if your vitriol would be just the same.
"CNN went to court and won the right to lie in news broadcasts" "MSNBC went to court and won the right to lie in news broadcasts"
Nope, doesn't work.
Vitriol unchanged.
Jo_ham went on Slashdot to lie about Fox News.
Yeah, that's actually true.
See, the story you are talking about wasn't even FoxNews. It was a Fox affiliate in Florida. Next, neither FoxNews nor the affiliate ever argued for the right to lie. Here are the facts:
A reporter for a Fox affiliate in Florida did a hit piece on Monsanto. Fox decided not to air it. When they finally did air it, they wanted a response from Monsanto. Well, the reporter had a fit and refused to do the story if it included a Monsanto response. So, Fox did the right thing and fired her and her partner. Well, they sued trying to claim "whistle-blower" status, lost, and were then ordered to pay Fox's legal fees.
Where the "argued for the right to lie" bit comes in was from a person who is against GMO foods and hates Monsanto. He said that Monsonto's response to the store was a lie, so Fox was arguing for the right to lie. People picked it up and it spread, even though it wasn't the truth. The people like you heard it, believed it because it is what you WANTED to believe, and spreads it far and wide.
Jane Akre was the reporters name. Feel free to look it up. The report was on BGH (bovine growth hormone) that Akre and Wilson were saying had severe, negative health effects. Well, dairy farmers still use BGH, and this was over 12 years ago and most milk drinkers are not dead... so it appears that Akre and Wilson were wrong. They were actually the ones suing Fox to air a false report. It was them who went to court, arguing to lie.
I agree that that map app is flawed, but first releases of anything usually is.
So you're saying they've adopted the Microsoft way: release software which is horribly bug infested, let the user's who've paid for the product tell you what's wrong, then go about fixing the problems you either knew about or were too lazy to fix in the first place because you saved a few bucks by not doing testing.
Pretty much, yeah! The difference is that Apple users are not paying for this app. It comes with the new iPhone. I don't think there were many in line waiting overnight to purchase the new iPhone5 simply because it had a map app. They were there to get the latest and greatest that Apple has to offer.
Because if you want Google's data you play by Google's rules, and Google has things they want that Apple didn't want to give them.
Google is not the only company that offers maps with turn by turn directions. I'm actually surprised that Apple simply didn't buy a company that already has things up and running like they did with Siri. They could have purchased TomTom, for example and had everything up and running immediately. All they would have needed to do is write the app. I can't see how that would have been that much more expensive that starting from scratch and eating all the negative press.
as someone who bought apple shares before 2007 - i can only hope that fucking up then throwing money at problems to fix them carelessly is not the long term post steve jobs plan.
Good, fast and cheap; pick two! Fast was a necessity and they obviously didn't spend enough money to make it good. Now they have to. They went for what their executives called "good enough" knowing that it certainly wouldn't hamper sales, and it hasn't. Apple has never had free navigation so even a crappy app is better than what they had before. They are receiving negative press over this but I don't see a whole lot of Apple users jumping ship. Like the Samsung commercial, Apple users are saying, "we'll get that fixed next time."
Steve Jobs would have never apologized. He woudl've given it just the right spin that everyone would feel contrite over making jokes at Apple's expense. The next release would be perfect, as Steve would have demanded, and the kerfuffle would be consigned to largely forgotten history.
Tim Cook goofed.
I agree that that map app is flawed, but first releases of anything usually is. I have no doubt that this will be fixed in short order as Apple has gobs of money to throw at the problem and knowledge of where the problems are.
There is no better beta test than a general release.
Disclaimer: I am an Android user and by no means an Apple fanboi. Frankly, I despise the company for abusing the court system for their anticompetitive practices. However, you have to give Apple credit here for admitting flaws. It's not something the company often does and they should get credit for it.
Here is a picture of the Ranch. Notice the caption:
George W. Bush (center) is joined by Condoleezza Rice (left) and Paul Wolfowitz, (right) as they talk with reporters before the start of an intelligence briefing from the CIA at Bush's ranch
Obama doesn't attend CIA briefings when he's in Washington!
These [washingtonexaminer.com] guys put it another way:
According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.
But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family's 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.
So we should never vote for presidents that don't own a large private ranch, or that come from states that are popular vacation spots?
LOL! If you had ever been to Crawford, I don't think you'd be saying that. Think Kansas with scrub brush and less people. The Bush ranch is certainly no vacation home.
I don't ask Romney to fix kernel bugs just as I don't look to Linux for political advice. Both should stick to what they know.
You imply that Romney is a source for political advice. The current (supposedly left-leaning but maybe not) polls speak otherwise.
You are correct. Romney is not the best of politicians. His specialty is management. He has a record of taking things that are failing and turning them around. Bain Capital is an example as it was on the verge of bankruptcy when Romney took over as CEO. The Olympics are another example.
The least important part of a politicians job is politics. That's what gets him elected, but it has very little to do with how well he runs the executive branch. Obama has absolutely no managerial experience. I believe that's why we are stagnant on crap right now. Every job he ever had, he was part of a committee. He's never had to balance a budget, hire someone, promote someone, fire someone. He's never had to make the decision that will ruin the lives of 100's to save the jobs of thousands. He's never had to negotiate a debt settlement or make a function more efficient. Now he's in charge. When he's presented with a decision, he looks around to see how others are voting, but everyone else is just staring at him. He's a hell of a politician, but that doesn't run the country.
And credible polls like Gallup and Rasmussen show the race as a dead heat.
Bush vacationed at his Ranch near Crawford Texas. He had an office at his ranch and worked from it. He hosted world leaders, had cabinet meetings, the whole nine yards. It actually saved the taxpayers money because his house is truly "green" and is much easier to secure than the White House.
Strange that I didn't see Obama meeting with any world leaders on any of his trips to Hawaii. I don't recall Merkel tagging along when they went to a Broadway show. I didn't see Netanyahu with Obama on The View or David Letterman.
And when Bush was on vacation, the unemployment rates was not over 6%. People can't find jobs while Michelle is whooping it up in Aspen on the backs of the taxpayer.
According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.
But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama had positions in the last campaign that he has "evolved" from since then. To be truly fail and open minded, if you don't consider those, and evidently you don't, then you can't consider Romney's. So, I ask again for an example of promises that Romney has made in this campaign that conflict with each other. All you've listed is categories. Saying "Tax Plans" does not qualify as an example. I'm looking for something like, "I will not raise taxes on the middle class" and "We must all pay the burden of the debt".
Obama made concrete promises and failed to live up to them, Romney promises something different every time he opens his mouth.
Can you give me an example of promises that Romney has made during this campaign that conflict with each other? I'm not saying that he hasn't, but I do not know of any and would like your enlightenment.
But the Libya press conference changed my mind. He was openly gloating. Maybe the Obama administration did screw up in Libya. But Romney saw this first as an opportunity to score points on Obama, and second as a tragedy, if he even thought it was a tragedy at all.
And the fact that Obama kept saying it was a protest of a video and not a terrorist attack for weeks after even the State Dept was claiming that there was no protest doesn't both you at all? It's one thing to criticize the president over inaction, and 16 hours of silence qualifies as inaction on the part of the White House, but to lie about the cause to try to minimize the political damage is simply disgraceful. And then there is there is the fundraising in Vegas while people were dying overseas at our embassies... I guess we just have different priorities.
You don't understand. When Romney changes a position, it's called "flip flopping".
When Obama changes a position, it's called "evolving".
Of course, the carriers hate SD slots, because they would rather you eat up all of your data accessing your stuff in the "cloud."
You can't say that about all carriers. Sprint, for example, offers unlimited data. I don't even think they offer a tiered plan where data is concerned. Since Sprint would gain nothing by forcing you to use bandwidth, I'm sure they'd prefer you to access data locally rather than bogging down their networks for no benefit.
Awesome! Thank you for proving my point. Go read my latest comment and then read yours and come back and tell me which one closer fits the description "Hate Machine". Also note that some loving, open minded leftists modded it "Flamebait" in order to make it not show up in the general thread, probably because I said Beck is libertarian and not "Beck if a fucking idiot who needs to die die DIE like hateful fucker he is". That would have been modded "Insightful +5". For example, this comment was modded (Score:4, Informative):
As the right-wing Hate Machine spews its filth over the public spaces, it consistently maintains it's just "calling things as they are", "exercising their free speech" or "avoiding political correctness".
But God forbid someone should call one of them names. Then suddenly out of the woodwork various arbiters of decency appear waving their fingers and going "tut-tut".
Here's a deal for you: why don't you go fuck off?
Mart
I feel informed. Does nothing in your comment scream "Hate" to you? I think it's in there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. And it's strange, just about every single comment I read is insulting Beck, calling him all kinds of names. I'm not seeing anyone "Hate Machines" come out of the wood work.
Take over in what sense? They made emergency loans to much of the car companies that otherwise would have gone bust (leaving mostly just Ford). And mandating health insurance so that you don't have poor contagious sick people walking the streets. There is no take-over there, either. So he was still crazy.
Buying $50 billion in stock is not "emergency loans". Also "emergency loans" don't give you the power to oust the CEO.
No, I've been living under a conservative Christian Democrat government the past 12 years, with a growing racist party in Parliament which actually got to govern in the last cabinet.
The world is not the USA, and your predictable right-wing false equivalencies are tiring.
Well, I can't really accurately reply to the "right wing" in your country since I don't know what country that is. And hell, your "right wing" may truly be "Hate Machines". But this article is about a US based libertarian talk show host who is falsely associated with the "right wing" because he, like all libertarians, favor a small, central government with most of the power given to the states and communities.
Beck is not a "right wing Hate Machine" like what you have described. He is simply, like many libertarians, susceptible to conspiracy theories. In this case, he took a guess that maybe a guy who really was there to track weapons used Eve Online to relay a message that they were about to be attacked.
Now I can forgive you for not understanding the political dynamics of US political talk radio, but I am unable to look past your speaking on the subject with such disdain for something you know nothing about. And it is true that "The world is not the USA", this article is about the USA, an embassy of the USA, and a talk show radio host from the USA sharing his conspiracy theories with others in the USA. If you don't understand what it's all about, then maybe you should simply read and sit this one out. After you've done a bit of research on the matter, listened to Beck a bit (I highly recommend "Moron Trivia"), and read about his views, where he stands, why people call him "right wing" and what "right wing" means in this country, then you might be able to speak on the matter without appearing foolish.
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. If you are, the guy who responded first who agrees with you really goes a long way to proving your point.
If you were not being sarcastic, I have to ask:
If this is Bush's economy, and it was Bush's economy when Bush was president, and it was "on Bush's watch" when 9-11 happened seven months after he took office, at what point does this become Obama's economy and Obama's watch?
I'm sorry, but have you been in a coma for 12 years? Did you not hear the hatred that was spewed about Bush that is NOT spews about Obama. Hell, even the media is getting in on the game.
See this "lady".
And compare that to when Bush was president, HERE. It's actually the same reporter.
Also, two wrongs don't make a right, especially when you have to make one of the wrongs up to justify your hatred and bad behavior.
Examples? Citations? Please share.
I remember thinking Beck was crazy when he said that the government was going to take over the auto and health industries. Of course, I thought he was crazy. Hell Bush was president!
So because Bain invests in a company that specializes in outsourcing, Romney "prefers" to employ overseas workers? Have you considered that maybe the company could make money, and is therefor a good investment? I don't know how well you did in economics, but that is what successful companies do.
Also, the article you pointed to is about a decision that Bain is making RIGHT NOW. Romney hasn't been a manager at Bain for years and has nothing to do with this decision. Trying to tie this action to Romney is like trying to tie Obama to.... Oh wait. He's never worked for a company. I guess it would be like blaming Obama because the Senate hasn't passed a budget since Obama left the Senate and entered the White House.
So... Try again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html
So? Bain Capital invests in companies that employ people overseas. Lots of companies do that. Do you invest in Apple? How about Intel or AMD? Do you own an HTC phone, or a smart phone at all? Even the US Government has invests in companies that close down US plants to open them up overseas. Obama "invested" in GM. GM has closed down plants in the US to open new ones in Mexico and other places overseas. Do you think that Obama "prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America."? It's the same thing, isn't it? Well, except that Obama is using American tax dollars to do it against our will. Bain used freely invested money from investors.
Then, of course, there was that $2 billion loan to Brazil to drill off of their shores rather than our own. Isn't that preferring to ship jobs overseas rather than investing in jobs here in America?
The difference is that when Bain did it, it was because opening jobs overseas was the only way to save a company. When Obama did it, it was for.... Actually, I have no idea why Obama would invest in Brazilian oil and not Gulf of Mexico oil. Of course, like I said, Obama shipped jobs overseas with YOUR money against your will. Romney did not.
But the point is that you said "their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America", which is something you can't back up because it's not true. You WANT to believe it so bad that you are actively silencing the the logic portion of your brain that is screaming, "why would Romney WANT to give American jobs to overseas workers? That doesn't make sense". It's sad when you have to lie to yourself to keep justify your beliefs.
This is of course because their own candidate for president prefers to ship jobs off overseas than to invest in America.
Care to explain this part? Do you really think that given the option or employing workers here or overseas, all things being equal, that Romney would choose to employ overseas workers?
While you might be technically accurate on the rest of your post (which I highly doubt but don't feel like getting into), you are straight-up wrong on BGH/bST.
I don't know. I've drank BGH/bST milk since I was a boy and my breasts fill out my bra just fine. What's the problem?
Thus, the right to lie. The court determined that Akre was not eligible to be covered by the whistleblower law because the FCC's policy against lying was not a law. Thus, they can broadcast a false news story and there's no law preventing it, nor can you be protected from being fired by whistleblower laws if you refuse to go along with it.
Fox and its affiliates are safe.
Akre and Wilson were trying to claim that Monsanto's response was a lie, therefor, they were allowed whistleblower status. The court ruled that Monsanto's lying was not a valid reason to gain whistleblower status. The court agreed.
Here, let me take the relevant portion of your own quote:
Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."
also
The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter
And this quote here is my favorite:
the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.
so the lower court ruled against everyone of Akres claims, except for the whistleblower status. The appeals court overturned that!
You don't seem to understand that the report was all Akres. If there was a lie from the station, it was in her report. Her beef was with the fact that this Fox affiliate wanted to actually give Monsanto a chance to reply to the allegations against them. I don't care what you think of Monsanto, they should at least have a chance to respond, don't you think? Well Akre and Wilson said that Monsanto would lie so that it shouldn't be aired.
But think about what you are saying here. You are saying that news networks should be allowed to report whatever they like, and it's perfectly OK to not offer the other side or any other form of counter argument simply because the network or the reporter disagrees with the response. If the counter argument is false, do what every other network does. "The group we are reporting against has said X, Y and Z. Studies have shown that to not be true." Nope, instead, these losers wanted to go on the air, hammer a company and them deny them a response. When the network disagreed, they threw a temper tantrum, quit and sued.
Although, it doesn't surprise me that someone who hates FoxNews enough to lie about them would want to deny the opposing view a response.
Before anyone starts jumping on Fox News for whatever axe they have to grind with them, please substitute Fox News with "CNN" or "MSNBC" and ask yourself if your vitriol would be just the same.
"CNN went to court and won the right to lie in news broadcasts"
"MSNBC went to court and won the right to lie in news broadcasts"
Nope, doesn't work.
Vitriol unchanged.
Jo_ham went on Slashdot to lie about Fox News.
Yeah, that's actually true.
See, the story you are talking about wasn't even FoxNews. It was a Fox affiliate in Florida. Next, neither FoxNews nor the affiliate ever argued for the right to lie. Here are the facts:
A reporter for a Fox affiliate in Florida did a hit piece on Monsanto. Fox decided not to air it. When they finally did air it, they wanted a response from Monsanto. Well, the reporter had a fit and refused to do the story if it included a Monsanto response. So, Fox did the right thing and fired her and her partner. Well, they sued trying to claim "whistle-blower" status, lost, and were then ordered to pay Fox's legal fees.
Where the "argued for the right to lie" bit comes in was from a person who is against GMO foods and hates Monsanto. He said that Monsonto's response to the store was a lie, so Fox was arguing for the right to lie. People picked it up and it spread, even though it wasn't the truth. The people like you heard it, believed it because it is what you WANTED to believe, and spreads it far and wide.
Jane Akre was the reporters name. Feel free to look it up. The report was on BGH (bovine growth hormone) that Akre and Wilson were saying had severe, negative health effects. Well, dairy farmers still use BGH, and this was over 12 years ago and most milk drinkers are not dead... so it appears that Akre and Wilson were wrong. They were actually the ones suing Fox to air a false report. It was them who went to court, arguing to lie.
HERE are the facts of the case.
I agree that that map app is flawed, but first releases of anything usually is.
So you're saying they've adopted the Microsoft way: release software which is horribly bug infested, let the user's who've paid for the product tell you what's wrong, then go about fixing the problems you either knew about or were too lazy to fix in the first place because you saved a few bucks by not doing testing.
Pretty much, yeah! The difference is that Apple users are not paying for this app. It comes with the new iPhone. I don't think there were many in line waiting overnight to purchase the new iPhone5 simply because it had a map app. They were there to get the latest and greatest that Apple has to offer.
Because if you want Google's data you play by Google's rules, and Google has things they want that Apple didn't want to give them.
Google is not the only company that offers maps with turn by turn directions. I'm actually surprised that Apple simply didn't buy a company that already has things up and running like they did with Siri. They could have purchased TomTom, for example and had everything up and running immediately. All they would have needed to do is write the app. I can't see how that would have been that much more expensive that starting from scratch and eating all the negative press.
as someone who bought apple shares before 2007 - i can only hope that fucking up then throwing money at problems to fix them carelessly is not the long term post steve jobs plan.
Good, fast and cheap; pick two! Fast was a necessity and they obviously didn't spend enough money to make it good. Now they have to. They went for what their executives called "good enough" knowing that it certainly wouldn't hamper sales, and it hasn't. Apple has never had free navigation so even a crappy app is better than what they had before. They are receiving negative press over this but I don't see a whole lot of Apple users jumping ship. Like the Samsung commercial, Apple users are saying, "we'll get that fixed next time."
Steve Jobs would have never apologized. He woudl've given it just the right spin that everyone would feel contrite over making jokes at Apple's expense. The next release would be perfect, as Steve would have demanded, and the kerfuffle would be consigned to largely forgotten history.
Tim Cook goofed.
I agree that that map app is flawed, but first releases of anything usually is. I have no doubt that this will be fixed in short order as Apple has gobs of money to throw at the problem and knowledge of where the problems are.
There is no better beta test than a general release.
Disclaimer: I am an Android user and by no means an Apple fanboi. Frankly, I despise the company for abusing the court system for their anticompetitive practices. However, you have to give Apple credit here for admitting flaws. It's not something the company often does and they should get credit for it.
Wow. He spent some time playing golf. Big fucking deal.
Call me when he spends 3 years on vacation like bush.
http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/
Here is a picture of the Ranch. Notice the caption:
George W. Bush (center) is joined by Condoleezza Rice (left) and Paul Wolfowitz, (right) as they talk with reporters before the start of an intelligence briefing from the CIA at Bush's ranch
Obama doesn't attend CIA briefings when he's in Washington!
These [washingtonexaminer.com] guys put it another way:
According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.
But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family's 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.
So we should never vote for presidents that don't own a large private ranch, or that come from states that are popular vacation spots?
LOL! If you had ever been to Crawford, I don't think you'd be saying that. Think Kansas with scrub brush and less people. The Bush ranch is certainly no vacation home.
I don't ask Romney to fix kernel bugs just as I don't look to Linux for political advice. Both should stick to what they know.
You imply that Romney is a source for political advice. The current (supposedly left-leaning but maybe not) polls speak otherwise.
You are correct. Romney is not the best of politicians. His specialty is management. He has a record of taking things that are failing and turning them around. Bain Capital is an example as it was on the verge of bankruptcy when Romney took over as CEO. The Olympics are another example.
The least important part of a politicians job is politics. That's what gets him elected, but it has very little to do with how well he runs the executive branch. Obama has absolutely no managerial experience. I believe that's why we are stagnant on crap right now. Every job he ever had, he was part of a committee. He's never had to balance a budget, hire someone, promote someone, fire someone. He's never had to make the decision that will ruin the lives of 100's to save the jobs of thousands. He's never had to negotiate a debt settlement or make a function more efficient. Now he's in charge. When he's presented with a decision, he looks around to see how others are voting, but everyone else is just staring at him. He's a hell of a politician, but that doesn't run the country.
And credible polls like Gallup and Rasmussen show the race as a dead heat.
Wow. He spent some time playing golf. Big fucking deal.
Call me when he spends 3 years on vacation like bush.
http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/
Bush vacationed at his Ranch near Crawford Texas. He had an office at his ranch and worked from it. He hosted world leaders, had cabinet meetings, the whole nine yards. It actually saved the taxpayers money because his house is truly "green" and is much easier to secure than the White House.
Strange that I didn't see Obama meeting with any world leaders on any of his trips to Hawaii. I don't recall Merkel tagging along when they went to a Broadway show. I didn't see Netanyahu with Obama on The View or David Letterman.
And when Bush was on vacation, the unemployment rates was not over 6%. People can't find jobs while Michelle is whooping it up in Aspen on the backs of the taxpayer.
These guys put it another way:
According to presidential watcher Mark Knoller of CBS, George W. Bush, at this time of his presidency, had made 30 visits to his Texas ranch spanning all or part of 220 days. The Obama’s vacation day count is less than half of that.
But his have become more controversial because of the costs associated with moving the first family to a public vacation spot, unlike the Bushes to their remote ranch in Crawford, Texas. For example, the Hawaii Reporter said the first family’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii would exceed $1.5 million.