Former VP Al Gore on Apple board of directors
- Thread starter substrate
- Start date
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
This is what worried me. Apple, even if this was meant as humor, is going to piss off people who don't agree with Gore's (or Steve's) ideology with statements (or postings) like this...
This is what worried me. Apple, even if this was meant as humor, is going to piss off people who don't agree with Gore's (or Steve's) ideology with statements (or postings) like this...
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Actually I could give you a very complete lesson on the US Electoral College, why it is there and how it works.
On that day more than 25,000 more citizens of Florida went to the polls to vote for Gore. The fact that those people's votes where not counted is one of the reasons why we had to have international election monitors present for the 2002 election in Florida.
Would you like to test just how deeply I've studied this issue?
Look more carefully, the up swing from wars is from war time production, not from watching CNN. People getting jobs to support the war effort is where you get an economic boost from. We are getting no new jobs from this war.
The Gulf War had no effect on the economy (other than bad), but if you want to credit Bush for anything (as I do) it is for reversing Reagan's policy of VooDoo economics by making the hard choice to raise taxes.
Yes, tax breaks for the rich... oh, I'm sorry, I mean middle class. Of course the Republican version of what is middle class starts with families making $250,000 a year.
And why didn't the first tax cut make any difference? Oh, wait, could it be that people out of work don't need a tax cut. Bush has taken a historic surplus that should have lasted 8 to 10 years and turned it into deficits the like this country has never seen before. He did this in less than three years!
The damage that Bush has done to this country and our world is staggering.
Maybe you need to learn the truth behind the jokes that people post here. You know the one, people saying that Gore said that he "invented the Internet". What was it that he really said?
Which he did. Before Gore there was a network created and used by the DOD, NSF and NCSA that was also being used by some Universities. This was a communication and research tool for people in these fields, but with no access for the general public. Gore was the person who first put the vision forward that this would be of great benefit to the general public. He lead all the major pushes for funding and creation of what we all take for granted today.
While making those pushes in Congress he was also writing a semi-regular column with Byte magazine. He talked about what he thought the internet could be used for beyond it's most sterile technical uses at the time. This person whose vision that became the Internet that we know today (maybe not exactly as he had thought it would be, but his core ideas and funding laid it's foundation) has more than enough qualifications for sitting on Apple's (and many other computer and software company's) board.
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
RacerX, you are so wrong about so many things I don't know where to start. But since this is a forum on OS X, I leave the debate to a private one if you care to continue...
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered over the last 24 years by their leader.
I love how you libs justify getting involved in Somalia, Kosovo, etc, and completely bypass Saddams murderous ways...
Funny, when Clinton lobbed 450 tomahawk missles in 1998 at Iraq, none of you batted an eyelash. And what did that achieve? Nothing.
We're going to liberate a country from a murderous tyrant. You really want to get on the side against such an action? Be my guest.
I love how you libs justify getting involved in Somalia, Kosovo, etc, and completely bypass Saddams murderous ways...
Funny, when Clinton lobbed 450 tomahawk missles in 1998 at Iraq, none of you batted an eyelash. And what did that achieve? Nothing.
We're going to liberate a country from a murderous tyrant. You really want to get on the side against such an action? Be my guest.
ksv
web developer
Read the parts of your post I left out once more and try to find the facts 
Ookay. So how did it just become so extremely important to free the people of Iraq from Saddam?
Saddam gassed 60000 kurds in the Gulf war. Bush killed how many when he bombed Afghanistan?
Yes, Saddam is a murderous tyrant. What is Bush? Clinton?
Do you have any idea how much 900 billion US$ is? 14 Norwegian State year budgets. USA could buy the whole of Iraq. Saddams own army could be bought to capture him, send him to Haag and leave the country with a big smile.
Where's the logic? Oil? Economy?
Disgusting.
Ookay. So how did it just become so extremely important to free the people of Iraq from Saddam?
Saddam gassed 60000 kurds in the Gulf war. Bush killed how many when he bombed Afghanistan?
Yes, Saddam is a murderous tyrant. What is Bush? Clinton?
Do you have any idea how much 900 billion US$ is? 14 Norwegian State year budgets. USA could buy the whole of Iraq. Saddams own army could be bought to capture him, send him to Haag and leave the country with a big smile.
Where's the logic? Oil? Economy?
Disgusting.
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
The best estimates of innocent Afghani's killed in Operation Anaconda are between 1000/3000. While any loss of life is regrettable, that country did harbor the terrorists responsible for many more deaths than that (add up WTC 93, both Embassies bombed, USS Cole WTC 2001, etc).
The US has become quite adept at waging a surgical war. War sucks, that's a given. But it is necessary from time to time.
Why would I care how much 900billion is in Norwegian terms? How is that relevant to anything? If it were possible to pay an Iraqi to kill/capture Saddam, don't you think the US would have tried it? We've got a $25 million dollar price on bin Ladens head, and look what that's achieved. Dozens of countries urged him to go in to exile, and even promised he would be protected from prosecution. No dice.
If you are even trying to equate two presidents of the US with Saddam then I guess there's little point getting through to you.
The logic is this. There's a hole in the ground in lower Manhattan where the lives of almost 3000 people ended on Sept. 11. We no longer live in a world where we can assume terrorists can't strike us here at home. While there may not be a direct link to Saddam and Al Qaeda, there is a strong link to Saddam and other terrorists. Knowing what we know about him, it's only a matter of time before he is involved in, either directly/or indirectly, a terrorist attack on the US. Couple this with his violations of the 1991 cease fire terms, his continued violation of over 15 UN Resolutions, and his violation of UN Resolution 1441, and you have a much stronger case for this war than just about any other war fought in the last 20 years.
You know, I think it basically comes down to there being two kinds of people these days.
Type A people were changed by Sept. 11 forever. They refuse to sit back and wait for another attack, instead identifying the largest threats and putting in plans of action to remove those threats.
Type B people believe the world is the same place now as it was before Sept. 11. They believe we shouldn't do anything to provoke another attack (like we did anything to provoke the first one). They believe we can't act on a threat until we are hit again. The smoking gun they are waiting for, unfortunately, will come in the form of a smoldering city.
But I love your logic there-
"Yes, Saddam is a murderous tyrant. But he only kills his own people. It's none of our business".
I imagine that's about the same argument Neville Chamberlin gave in the late 30's regarding Germany...
Back to Gore though (which is what this post was about right?)... Can anybody here give me 3 useful qualities he can bring to the board?
The US has become quite adept at waging a surgical war. War sucks, that's a given. But it is necessary from time to time.
Why would I care how much 900billion is in Norwegian terms? How is that relevant to anything? If it were possible to pay an Iraqi to kill/capture Saddam, don't you think the US would have tried it? We've got a $25 million dollar price on bin Ladens head, and look what that's achieved. Dozens of countries urged him to go in to exile, and even promised he would be protected from prosecution. No dice.
If you are even trying to equate two presidents of the US with Saddam then I guess there's little point getting through to you.
The logic is this. There's a hole in the ground in lower Manhattan where the lives of almost 3000 people ended on Sept. 11. We no longer live in a world where we can assume terrorists can't strike us here at home. While there may not be a direct link to Saddam and Al Qaeda, there is a strong link to Saddam and other terrorists. Knowing what we know about him, it's only a matter of time before he is involved in, either directly/or indirectly, a terrorist attack on the US. Couple this with his violations of the 1991 cease fire terms, his continued violation of over 15 UN Resolutions, and his violation of UN Resolution 1441, and you have a much stronger case for this war than just about any other war fought in the last 20 years.
You know, I think it basically comes down to there being two kinds of people these days.
Type A people were changed by Sept. 11 forever. They refuse to sit back and wait for another attack, instead identifying the largest threats and putting in plans of action to remove those threats.
Type B people believe the world is the same place now as it was before Sept. 11. They believe we shouldn't do anything to provoke another attack (like we did anything to provoke the first one). They believe we can't act on a threat until we are hit again. The smoking gun they are waiting for, unfortunately, will come in the form of a smoldering city.
But I love your logic there-
"Yes, Saddam is a murderous tyrant. But he only kills his own people. It's none of our business".
I imagine that's about the same argument Neville Chamberlin gave in the late 30's regarding Germany...
Back to Gore though (which is what this post was about right?)... Can anybody here give me 3 useful qualities he can bring to the board?
Ugg
Registered
1. Gore was very instrumental in encouraging the development of the internet in the US.
2. He has widespread name recognition outside the US and in order to maintain its longterm viability Apple needs to expand its foreign sales.
3. He is a very good diplomat, something that every American company that sells their goods abroad will need in the aftermath of war in Iraq.
2. He has widespread name recognition outside the US and in order to maintain its longterm viability Apple needs to expand its foreign sales.
3. He is a very good diplomat, something that every American company that sells their goods abroad will need in the aftermath of war in Iraq.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
I'm sorry, but I can not except private debates. These are things that should be talked about in the light of day and not behind closed doors. We, both you and I, owe it to everyone here to make the truth known. Hiding that truth means that we don't feel that others are up to the task of knowing the truth. I feel they are up to the task.
For the sake of everyone who thinks I'm right, you owe it to them to set the record straight. You are doing them an incredible disservice by leaving them believing what I have posted.
The truth is for everyone.
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
Funny, after running my figures through the proposed Bush Tax Cut calculator (visit intuit's website to run it), my family income of approx $80K/year, hardly rich evil republican levels, would see around $5K in tax reduction. But hey, I must be rich and evil, so I guess my wife, child and I don't really deserve to keep the money that I worked my ass off for. Thank god for democrats here to decide who is deserving of tax cuts and who isn't.
The first tax cut didn't make a difference because of Sept. 11! Have you forgotten about that?!?!?! That effectively threw cold water on the short term stimulus derrived from the tax cut. And due to concessions made to appease the democrats, most of the tax cut was backloaded, and to be phased in over the next 10 years. What the current proposed tax cut would do is speed up those costs and make them permanent. As a small business owner, I could really use the relief now, not 8 years from now.
More complete and utter BS. Next thing you'll say is that Black Helicopters (funded by republicans, of course) armed with cigarette smoking aliens kept people of color away from the poles in Nov. 2002. Several independent left leaning newspapers had the opportunity to reaxamine the Florida results, and all came to the same conclusion, Bush still won the vote with a couple of hundred votes. The only way Gore could win was to change the standing rules for counting votes, and change the rules only in Counties where there was a democratic majority. And that is still just hypothetical. The votes were counted, counted again, and counted yet again, and Bush won each time. Get over it man, it's been 2 years!
Yeah, right. This is a perfect example of the left leaning mind. Terrorists kill 3000 people, Dictators give the UN the finger, and you want to charge Bush with doing staggering damage to this country and our world? Can you even hear yourself utter such ridiculous statements?
Let's review a couple of facts:
1) The WTC was attacked in 1993. This should have been our wake up call, but the Clinton administration didn't quite get the message. Apparenlty lobbing a couple of missles at an Aspirin factory in the Sudan was a sufficient response.
2) Two of our embassies were attacked simultaneously. Again, Clinton's response is a joke. We don't want to offend anybody!
3) the USS Cole is attacked, and Clinton doesn't do a single thing about it.
Had Clinton acted at some point to the Al Qaeda threat after 3 attacks, maybe they would have thought twice before attempting to attack the WTC in 2001. Never mind the fact that the Sudanese were willing to turn over bin Laden in 1996, and Clinton turned them down.
I'm sorry, from where I'm standing, Bush is finally righting the wrongs of the Clinton/Albright foreign policy, which (with the exception of Kosovo) was to let terrorists and small insignifcant countries (Somalia) slap us around, and hope we don't anger them any further.
Oh, and Clinton did some good work with North Korea, too. "So, you want us to give you humanitarian relief? OK, but you have to promise not to develop any nuclear weapons, OK?". Yeah, that was a smart move.
Please, Clinton/Gore passed the foreign policy buck for 8 years, and Bush has to now clean up their mess (and the mess of Bush 41 not finishing GulfWar1, thanks to the UN).
You know what - the rest of the world may resent us, but they damn well will respect us, something they didn't do during 1992-2000.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
I love these facts. Lets take a closer look at these.
With regards to fact 1, during the first WTC case and trial al Qaeda was not named, and bin Laden's links were not strong enough to bring him into the trial as a name conspirator. Also we did not fire missiles because of that incident, but because of the incident sited in fact 2.
As pointed out, our response to the embassy bombings was a missile attack. Clinton was not getting support for further action from the House and Senate (though I can't for the life of me figure out why... do you want to take a guess at that one?). As for offending anyone outside the US, Clinton didn't have the problems with getting support that Bush seems to be plagued with.
Now to my favorite fact of your list, the attack on the Cole. When did the attack occur? October of 2000. When did we first suspect that al Qaeda was involved? Mid December 2000. When did we have evidence of al Qaeda's involvement? The end of January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 22, 2001.
Who didn't do a single thing about al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole with full knowledge of who was responsible? At least Clinton tried to respond to the embassies with some show of force. Bush did... what?
Leaning left or right, facts are facts. Dates don't lie. The Clinton administration had al Qaeda very high on it's priority list, and the Bush administration (even in light of the bombing of the USS Cole) put it very low. Bush sleep walked through his first 8 months in office leading up to September 11, 2001. Maybe those 3000 people didn't need to die, Gore would not have treated policies by the Clinton administration as low priority just because they were "Clinton" policies.
Let me repeat that, 3000 people didn't need to die. That alone, without any other action/non-action by Bush is staggering enough.
And the fact that many Bush administration officials were part of the arming of Iraq in past administrations was a smart move? The fact that Clinton was doing what South Korea wanted in the way of a diplomatic solution should not be held against him. Personally, the idea of relaxing our stance in South Korea sounds like a better idea at this point. Let them remember why we are there and let them ask for our help. They are currently taking us for granted anyway. Japan and China are as much at risk as South Korea, we should step back and wait for South Korea to feel a need for our help.
Hardly. Respect is earned, and we haven't earned any respect. We have generated fear and distrust. To the rest of the world 5% of the population is telling the other 95% how to do their business. That is as far from democracy as I think you can get.
Wow, that is more than most the families I know make in a year (special the ones who lost jobs after Bush took office).
Before we jump into this, lets take a look at the term evil. I didn't apply that, you did. Why? We should stick to facts, figures, dates, places, people and events. It makes both of us look bad when you can't stick to the strengths of your arguments. We don't need that.
So you get to save $5K on $80K earned, Cheney is going to save $300+K if the next tax cut goes through. I would not call either of you hurting. I do find it funny that you don't support the United States though. I have no problem paying my taxes, and I make less than you. On the other hand I feel lucky, because there are people doing much worse than myself out there and the social services that were there to help people in times of need (like a recession) are now missing because of a massive tax cut and ever increasing deficits.
Do you care about this country? Do you care about your fellow citizens? Is that $.06 per dollar earned to high a price for the health of the United States? Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?
Do tax cuts help the poor/working poor? No, they don't see any real changes either way. Do people who are doing fine (better than average... $17-25K per year) need the additional help when the country is having problems? No. Would the services that are being closed off by the ever increasing deficits created by the tax cuts help those in need? Yes.
Self interest are the heart of Republican ideals. The problem is that they are usually the interests of the people who have the money to fund Republicans. The greater national good means very little to many Republicans (I would again, remove George H. W. Bush from that group as he was a true public servant).
As a small business owner I would love to see people both back at work and feeling comfortable that they are going to still have a job a month from now. People spend when they feel that they are in a good position. When jobs are being cut and government services are disappearing at the same time to help those people if they do need them, people don't spend money. This war is uncertainty, which means people don't spend money.
As I said before, if this was a war that required the government to rev up production to support it, we would have a boost. This war is more like a video game, even a football game. There is nothing for us to do but watch. And when it is over, nothing is going to have changed.
The Government needs to return to pre-Bush taxation and start investing in internal job creating projects. We can't do that with histories largest known deficits. Bush, like his father before him, needs to make the choice. His father was a public servant, so the choice was easy, but Bush only serves his self interests.
With regards to fact 1, during the first WTC case and trial al Qaeda was not named, and bin Laden's links were not strong enough to bring him into the trial as a name conspirator. Also we did not fire missiles because of that incident, but because of the incident sited in fact 2.
As pointed out, our response to the embassy bombings was a missile attack. Clinton was not getting support for further action from the House and Senate (though I can't for the life of me figure out why... do you want to take a guess at that one?). As for offending anyone outside the US, Clinton didn't have the problems with getting support that Bush seems to be plagued with.
Now to my favorite fact of your list, the attack on the Cole. When did the attack occur? October of 2000. When did we first suspect that al Qaeda was involved? Mid December 2000. When did we have evidence of al Qaeda's involvement? The end of January 2001. When did Bush take office? January 22, 2001.
Who didn't do a single thing about al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole with full knowledge of who was responsible? At least Clinton tried to respond to the embassies with some show of force. Bush did... what?
Leaning left or right, facts are facts. Dates don't lie. The Clinton administration had al Qaeda very high on it's priority list, and the Bush administration (even in light of the bombing of the USS Cole) put it very low. Bush sleep walked through his first 8 months in office leading up to September 11, 2001. Maybe those 3000 people didn't need to die, Gore would not have treated policies by the Clinton administration as low priority just because they were "Clinton" policies.
Let me repeat that, 3000 people didn't need to die. That alone, without any other action/non-action by Bush is staggering enough.
And the fact that many Bush administration officials were part of the arming of Iraq in past administrations was a smart move? The fact that Clinton was doing what South Korea wanted in the way of a diplomatic solution should not be held against him. Personally, the idea of relaxing our stance in South Korea sounds like a better idea at this point. Let them remember why we are there and let them ask for our help. They are currently taking us for granted anyway. Japan and China are as much at risk as South Korea, we should step back and wait for South Korea to feel a need for our help.
Hardly. Respect is earned, and we haven't earned any respect. We have generated fear and distrust. To the rest of the world 5% of the population is telling the other 95% how to do their business. That is as far from democracy as I think you can get.
Wow, that is more than most the families I know make in a year (special the ones who lost jobs after Bush took office).
Before we jump into this, lets take a look at the term evil. I didn't apply that, you did. Why? We should stick to facts, figures, dates, places, people and events. It makes both of us look bad when you can't stick to the strengths of your arguments. We don't need that.
So you get to save $5K on $80K earned, Cheney is going to save $300+K if the next tax cut goes through. I would not call either of you hurting. I do find it funny that you don't support the United States though. I have no problem paying my taxes, and I make less than you. On the other hand I feel lucky, because there are people doing much worse than myself out there and the social services that were there to help people in times of need (like a recession) are now missing because of a massive tax cut and ever increasing deficits.
Do you care about this country? Do you care about your fellow citizens? Is that $.06 per dollar earned to high a price for the health of the United States? Are your self interests that much more important then our collective interests?
Do tax cuts help the poor/working poor? No, they don't see any real changes either way. Do people who are doing fine (better than average... $17-25K per year) need the additional help when the country is having problems? No. Would the services that are being closed off by the ever increasing deficits created by the tax cuts help those in need? Yes.
Self interest are the heart of Republican ideals. The problem is that they are usually the interests of the people who have the money to fund Republicans. The greater national good means very little to many Republicans (I would again, remove George H. W. Bush from that group as he was a true public servant).
As a small business owner I would love to see people both back at work and feeling comfortable that they are going to still have a job a month from now. People spend when they feel that they are in a good position. When jobs are being cut and government services are disappearing at the same time to help those people if they do need them, people don't spend money. This war is uncertainty, which means people don't spend money.
As I said before, if this was a war that required the government to rev up production to support it, we would have a boost. This war is more like a video game, even a football game. There is nothing for us to do but watch. And when it is over, nothing is going to have changed.
The Government needs to return to pre-Bush taxation and start investing in internal job creating projects. We can't do that with histories largest known deficits. Bush, like his father before him, needs to make the choice. His father was a public servant, so the choice was easy, but Bush only serves his self interests.
solrac
Mac Ninja
OH MY GOD OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG Al Gore... LOLOLOL
This got to be more of a publicity stunt than anything.
This is the funniest quote:
(On why, among other things, Al Gore is a good candidate to be on Apple's Board)
HAHAHAHHAAH
They didn't mention that he also is the inventor of the Internet!!!
HAHAHAHAH
Wooh, they should make him the board clown!!! GRRRAAHHH AHAHHAHA LOL
This got to be more of a publicity stunt than anything.
This is the funniest quote:
(On why, among other things, Al Gore is a good candidate to be on Apple's Board)
HAHAHAHHAAH
They didn't mention that he also is the inventor of the Internet!!!
HAHAHAHAH
Wooh, they should make him the board clown!!! GRRRAAHHH AHAHHAHA LOL
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
Check out http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/
They are reporting that George W Bush is demanding a recount. It is a funny story, worth a read.
They are reporting that George W Bush is demanding a recount. It is a funny story, worth a read.