Outreach Program for Women is grateful to the following organizations and companies for their generous sponsorship of the previous round: Equalizer: Wikimedia Foundation Promoters: Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Mozilla, Open Source Robotics Foundation Includers: Cloudera, Debian, GNOME Foundation, Linaro, OpenStack Foundation, Rackspace, Red Hat...
If DropBox is forced to comply with a warrant from the government it will be the responsibility of the Obama administration and the courts for the warrant, not Rice.
You also seem to be overlooking the possibility of her using her knowledge of the national security apparatus to be able to push back when appropriate.
What i dont like is late comers to companies that get IPO, and then these get millions, ahead of the hardworking coders who started there from day 0.
I dont mind her there, but if the company IPOs for billions, she should not get a cent, as I cannot see anything she can contribute that would add to the book value or earnings values./*
The people that were there from the beginning agreed to join based on their offers of whatever stock options they got. It is the job of the technical staff to create the product, but they add nothing to the reputation of the company to investors. One of the reasons board members are chosen is to add credibility to the company's governance which increases investor confidence and willingness to invest. If the company IPOs for billions it is likely that her being there helped that.
Saddam wasn't a "jerk," he was a genocidal maniac and tyrant.
Saddam was under scrutiny and restrictions after invading and annexing Kuwait. The removal of his army from Kuwait and sanctions against him were fully supported by the UN. The only reason his sovereignty was threated was due to his acts of aggression and repeated noncompliance. It is BS to claim the US acted unilaterally against Saddam. Saddam had his forces attack US forces hundreds of times, each one an act of war. I think it is sad that Saddam still finds so many apologists, defenders, and advocates for his position even to this day. Where were all the protesters when Saddam began his aggressions? Biding their time to protest against the US, that's where. The so-called "anti-war" movement has repeatedly discredited itself on his behalf.
Saddam was charged, tried, and executed by the Iraqi government, not the US, for crimes he committed in Iraq. I'm pretty sure that the US didn't go back in time to the Dujail massacre and plant bodies there for Saddam to be charged with in the future. I'm not sure why you would think that he couldn't or shouldn't be charged for those crimes.
I'm often astonished at the strange things that you post.
You're confused (or irrational?) on multiple levels. The question isn't if I "like" or "dislike" George Soros, but rather:
1. Did he pay for the study in question? Yes. 2. Has the study been discredited on questions of methodology? Yes. 3. Was the goal political in the above? Obviously. That is the purpose of his many foundations and donations.
The CIA does not fall under the control of either the Department of State or Secretary Rice, and the National Security Advisor is an advisor, not a policy maker.
If you think that the corporate board members of DropBox are personally manipulating your data you may misunderstand their business model and the role of corporate boards.
It isn't that she isn't bothered by "mere moral questions" so much as she made what she thinks were the best decisions she could and is comfortable with that. Your disagreement with her decisions doesn't mean that she is indifferent to the issues.
The Justice Department cleared waterboarding as it was performed as not constituting torture as it is legally defined even if it was coercive. If it is torture then you have to explain why the US still continues to waterboard thousands of its own troops. Even Attorney General Holder says that the waterboarded of American soldiers is not torture. Some people want it both ways.
Jordan, Egypt, and etc., are not the United States. They are responsible for their own actions.
DropBox has done nothing but add Rice to its board. Google is actively engaged in questionable activities.
I think what this boils down to is you want to punish DropBox for some things that Rice did 10 years ago that you disagree with. It has nothing to do with how DropBox does business, or what she will actually do on the board.
Would you think it unfair for DropBox to fire all employees that donate to progressive causes?
Will you be making it a practice in the future to scour the corporate boards and executives for people you disagree with as part of the buying decision for minor conveniences like DropBox?
Actually Saddam didn't keep terrorists out of Iraq, he provided them refuge, financing, and training. He just didn't have much to do with al Qaida. When al Qaida started conducting terrorist attacks in Iraq it resulted in massive loss of life for Iraqis which resulted in a large drop in support for al Qaida in the Arab and Muslim world. Their financing was significantly reduced, and many of their agents were captured or killed. Part of the reason that Afghanistan settled down for several years was the shift in effort from Afghanistan to Iraq by al Qaida. Eventually al Qaida was forced to flee Iraq and Afghanistan started heating up again. Al Qaida would have been stronger if it had not gone to Iraq.
I very much doubt that Rice thought waterboarding was a nifty idea, and it wasn't her call in any event. Even if she did, the US has waterboarded probably tens of thousands of people, all of whom were US soldiers except for three (3) terrorists, the most recent of which was 11 years ago. If that is the basis for your decision I think you are on very shaky ground.
Google has been going after increasing amounts of government business, including intelligence agencies. Google has been sanctioned by several governments for privacy violations. If appearances matter then I think you should look twice.
Your post presents me with a conundrum. Is it simply wrong headed, or a troll? The US didn't lose the war, the democratically elected Iraqi government clearly is independent and very much not a puppet government, and the rest of your statement is likewise questionable at best.
Just pointing out the fact that Rumsfeld's incompetence caused the cost of the whole Iraq mess to be at least twice what it should have been.
I'm pretty certain that Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Saddam's loyalists deciding to continue to fight on in a guerilla war, or for the internecine warfare to occur based on long simmering grievances, or for al Qaida to wage a campaign of terrorism to try to establish control.
The House has been passing budgets, the Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid (D-NV) has not.
The Bush tax cuts have been continued by the Obama administration because they were judged to be a sound method of stimulating the economy. The economy would be in better shape if the Obama administration was not roiling the waters with a rapidly increasing regulatory burden of which Obamacare is no small part. (Note how they keep pushing out compliance deadlines? Guess what would happen if they tried to enforce them?)
We don't want anything to do with a corporation that has Condi on the board. We determine what we want our worlds to be like... and we don't want Condi Rice in our world. At all.
I take it then what you want is a world of Saddams, Slobodan Miloevis, and Kim Il Sungs?
I want everything she touches to be radioactive.
Probably won't happen. Saddam didn't actually get the bomb, try though he did. On the other hand, Iran is still trying.
She earned it.
You should probably hope you don't get the world your policies would lead to.
The real issue here is that in the wake of Snowdon's revelations about widespread surveillance of the general public by three letter government agencies, a former National Security Advisor is being appointed to the board of a widely used online storage site that has thus far managed to convince some people that it is on the side of privacy.
No, that's not the real issue. Rice is long out of office and has no say over government policy. DropBox as a corporation has nothing to do with that in either case. The real question to examine is, "Does Condoleezza Rice have the background to make a positive contribution to the board responsible for corporate governance?" The answer is clearly yes. Your objection is pretty much entirely hand waving.
The US and its allies actually killed a relatively small number of Iraqis. The overwhelming majority of them were killed by either terrorists or Iraqis militias as part of the internecine conflict.
Saddam killed far more people than were killed during the US presence in Iraq even if you take the wild figures from the discredited study paid for by George Soros.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you think Poe's law applied to the post you responded to?
Outreach Program for Women is grateful to the following organizations
Outreach Program for Women is grateful to the following organizations and companies for their generous sponsorship of the previous round: ...
Equalizer: Wikimedia Foundation
Promoters: Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Mozilla, Open Source Robotics Foundation
Includers: Cloudera, Debian, GNOME Foundation, Linaro, OpenStack Foundation, Rackspace, Red Hat
Ceiling Smasher - $52,000 - 8 interns
Equalizer - $32,000 - 5 interns
Promoter - $19,000 - 3 interns
Includer - $6,250 - 1 intern
The sponsorship per intern includes $5,500 (USD) stipend, $500 travel allowance, and a $250-500 administrative fee for the GNOME Foundation.
Well that's mighty white of you.
If DropBox is forced to comply with a warrant from the government it will be the responsibility of the Obama administration and the courts for the warrant, not Rice.
You also seem to be overlooking the possibility of her using her knowledge of the national security apparatus to be able to push back when appropriate.
Apparently she was such a "failure" at Stanford that Pennsylvania State University tried to recruit her to be their President.
What i dont like is late comers to companies that get IPO, and then these get millions, ahead of the hardworking coders who started there from day 0.
I dont mind her there, but if the company IPOs for billions, she should not get a cent, as I cannot see anything she can contribute that would add to the book value or earnings values. /*
The people that were there from the beginning agreed to join based on their offers of whatever stock options they got. It is the job of the technical staff to create the product, but they add nothing to the reputation of the company to investors. One of the reasons board members are chosen is to add credibility to the company's governance which increases investor confidence and willingness to invest. If the company IPOs for billions it is likely that her being there helped that.
Your imagination seems to the be source of a disturbing amount of what you "know."
And don't forget this: Liberal Fascism available from Amazon.
Saddam wasn't a "jerk," he was a genocidal maniac and tyrant.
Saddam was under scrutiny and restrictions after invading and annexing Kuwait. The removal of his army from Kuwait and sanctions against him were fully supported by the UN. The only reason his sovereignty was threated was due to his acts of aggression and repeated noncompliance. It is BS to claim the US acted unilaterally against Saddam. Saddam had his forces attack US forces hundreds of times, each one an act of war. I think it is sad that Saddam still finds so many apologists, defenders, and advocates for his position even to this day. Where were all the protesters when Saddam began his aggressions? Biding their time to protest against the US, that's where. The so-called "anti-war" movement has repeatedly discredited itself on his behalf.
By your (implied) logic,....
Saddam was charged, tried, and executed by the Iraqi government, not the US, for crimes he committed in Iraq. I'm pretty sure that the US didn't go back in time to the Dujail massacre and plant bodies there for Saddam to be charged with in the future. I'm not sure why you would think that he couldn't or shouldn't be charged for those crimes.
I'm often astonished at the strange things that you post.
You're confused (or irrational?) on multiple levels. The question isn't if I "like" or "dislike" George Soros, but rather:
1. Did he pay for the study in question? Yes.
2. Has the study been discredited on questions of methodology? Yes.
3. Was the goal political in the above? Obviously. That is the purpose of his many foundations and donations.
I'm pretty sure there was some substance to the charges against Saddam.
Activists harness oxymorons for plowing the fields before planting the seeds of our discontent.
The CIA does not fall under the control of either the Department of State or Secretary Rice, and the National Security Advisor is an advisor, not a policy maker.
If you think that the corporate board members of DropBox are personally manipulating your data you may misunderstand their business model and the role of corporate boards.
It isn't that she isn't bothered by "mere moral questions" so much as she made what she thinks were the best decisions she could and is comfortable with that. Your disagreement with her decisions doesn't mean that she is indifferent to the issues.
The Justice Department cleared waterboarding as it was performed as not constituting torture as it is legally defined even if it was coercive. If it is torture then you have to explain why the US still continues to waterboard thousands of its own troops. Even Attorney General Holder says that the waterboarded of American soldiers is not torture. Some people want it both ways.
Jordan, Egypt, and etc., are not the United States. They are responsible for their own actions.
DropBox has done nothing but add Rice to its board. Google is actively engaged in questionable activities.
I think what this boils down to is you want to punish DropBox for some things that Rice did 10 years ago that you disagree with. It has nothing to do with how DropBox does business, or what she will actually do on the board.
Would you think it unfair for DropBox to fire all employees that donate to progressive causes?
Will you be making it a practice in the future to scour the corporate boards and executives for people you disagree with as part of the buying decision for minor conveniences like DropBox?
Your macro expansion seems to have failed. Why don't you type out the lies you intended to post and we can pick them apart.
I appreciate self-negation.
Actually Saddam didn't keep terrorists out of Iraq, he provided them refuge, financing, and training. He just didn't have much to do with al Qaida. When al Qaida started conducting terrorist attacks in Iraq it resulted in massive loss of life for Iraqis which resulted in a large drop in support for al Qaida in the Arab and Muslim world. Their financing was significantly reduced, and many of their agents were captured or killed. Part of the reason that Afghanistan settled down for several years was the shift in effort from Afghanistan to Iraq by al Qaida. Eventually al Qaida was forced to flee Iraq and Afghanistan started heating up again. Al Qaida would have been stronger if it had not gone to Iraq.
I very much doubt that Rice thought waterboarding was a nifty idea, and it wasn't her call in any event. Even if she did, the US has waterboarded probably tens of thousands of people, all of whom were US soldiers except for three (3) terrorists, the most recent of which was 11 years ago. If that is the basis for your decision I think you are on very shaky ground.
Google has been going after increasing amounts of government business, including intelligence agencies. Google has been sanctioned by several governments for privacy violations. If appearances matter then I think you should look twice.
Your post presents me with a conundrum. Is it simply wrong headed, or a troll? The US didn't lose the war, the democratically elected Iraqi government clearly is independent and very much not a puppet government, and the rest of your statement is likewise questionable at best.
Just pointing out the fact that Rumsfeld's incompetence caused the cost of the whole Iraq mess to be at least twice what it should have been.
I'm pretty certain that Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Saddam's loyalists deciding to continue to fight on in a guerilla war, or for the internecine warfare to occur based on long simmering grievances, or for al Qaida to wage a campaign of terrorism to try to establish control.
The House has been passing budgets, the Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid (D-NV) has not.
The Bush tax cuts have been continued by the Obama administration because they were judged to be a sound method of stimulating the economy. The economy would be in better shape if the Obama administration was not roiling the waters with a rapidly increasing regulatory burden of which Obamacare is no small part. (Note how they keep pushing out compliance deadlines? Guess what would happen if they tried to enforce them?)
We don't want anything to do with a corporation that has Condi on the board. We determine what we want our worlds to be like... and we don't want Condi Rice in our world. At all.
I take it then what you want is a world of Saddams, Slobodan Miloevis, and Kim Il Sungs?
I want everything she touches to be radioactive.
Probably won't happen. Saddam didn't actually get the bomb, try though he did. On the other hand, Iran is still trying.
She earned it.
You should probably hope you don't get the world your policies would lead to.
The real issue here is that in the wake of Snowdon's revelations about widespread surveillance of the general public by three letter government agencies, a former National Security Advisor is being appointed to the board of a widely used online storage site that has thus far managed to convince some people that it is on the side of privacy.
No, that's not the real issue. Rice is long out of office and has no say over government policy. DropBox as a corporation has nothing to do with that in either case. The real question to examine is, "Does Condoleezza Rice have the background to make a positive contribution to the board responsible for corporate governance?" The answer is clearly yes. Your objection is pretty much entirely hand waving.
The US and its allies actually killed a relatively small number of Iraqis. The overwhelming majority of them were killed by either terrorists or Iraqis militias as part of the internecine conflict.
Saddam killed far more people than were killed during the US presence in Iraq even if you take the wild figures from the discredited study paid for by George Soros.
Saddam supported terrorism in addition to his many other crimes. It just wasn't necessarily al Qaida that he supported.
The world is far better off with Saddam's regime being replaced by a democratic government.
Next?