+ Reply
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Obama Administration Vetoes Partial Ban on Import and Sale of Certain Apple Products

is a discussion within the

Mac News

forums, a part of the

General Apple/Mac

section;
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...inion-network/
...
  1. #41
    My iPhone is a Part of Me Feanor64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    834
    Thanked 447 Times in 234 Posts


  2. #42
    The Dude Abides mr117's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    595
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 100 Times in 74 Posts

    "Opinions" are what someone thinks. Opinions presented as "facts" are another thing altogether. And a network that is the communicative arm of a political party is, well, giving out propaganda.
    Senior

  3. #43
    iPhoneaholic NSXrebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    437
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts

    F*** Democrats
    F*** Republicans

    If you can't afford health insurance, don't have kids.
    Along with all sorts of other BS.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
    APPLE FTW!!!

  4. #44
    My iPhone is a Part of Me Feanor64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    609
    Thanks
    834
    Thanked 447 Times in 234 Posts

    So it's not propaganda when a news networks lineup is 85 percent opinion which is almost always liberal? Gimme a break

  5. #45
    The Dude Abides mr117's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    595
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 100 Times in 74 Posts

    If opinion is presented as opinion, I don't care which party or wing it represents. When opinion is presented as, literally, facts, then it is not representing news or reality. When an organization is run by the "former" head of a political party, and hires members of the same party to present "facts" on the station while they are actively involved in running for elective office, it is not news, it is propaganda. If you watched Fox on the night Obama won his second election, and saw the meltdown of a key Republican player on the air live, then it must be clear that "news" as I understand it is not being presented by that network.

    Oh, and I wouldn't care what either Al Sharpton nor Rachael Maddow say as to their opinions (neither one interests me). But I am certain that NBC does keep a rein on what facts are presented, and that political players aren't hired by the station to advance their personal goals in elective politics. MSNBC does follow what remains of the old rules of a news organization. Fox is an entertainment organization which delivers propaganda in the furtherance of a single political party.

    There is a difference between the two organizations.
    Senior

  6. #46
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
    Really? So NOTHING Obama has done has been a good or positive thing to you, EXCEPT for allowing Apple to sell off old stock? Really?

    So getting equal pay for women
    Sorry but Obama had nothing to do with that.
    , keeping student loans available and relatively cheap (how many members here are in high school or college right now?)
    First of all, again Obama did nothing of the sort. Second, student loans as well as college tuition has gotten more expensive across the board, no cheaper. Obviously you're just talking out of your ***.
    , putting into place a consumer protection agency to help all of us
    Once more, he had nothing to do with this. This already existed for years.
    , getting semi-universal health care that gave 4 million children living in poverty health care as well as allowing parents to keep their kids on their insurance until the age of 26 (again, how many high school and college kids are reading this right now?), stopping insurers from refusing to insure you if you have a pre-existing ailment
    Please read all 2,000+ pages of that bill you're referring to and you may not be so eager to praise it. It doesn't even eliminate pre-existing ailments. What it is is a very poorly conceived bill that'll just end up raising taxes even more then they already have been under this Administration to fun the program, as well as the army of new IRS agents being hired and trained to enforce it. Enjoy.
    , ending Bush's war in Iraq, all these and more are as nothing compared to letting Apple sell old stock?
    Again, giving credit where it seriously isn't due. The Iraq campaign was already ending by the time he took process. I'm not going to get into whether or not it was a premature exit, though.
    What is it about the right wing in America now that thinks that all our problems would go away if only Obama was gone?
    You know, I don't hear any so-called "right wingers" saying that, but rather putting blame where it's due. Just like how there are people who believe that Apple can never do any wrong, the same applies to Obama, where there are people who'll defend him no matter how hard he screws up.
    Is it because he is a Democrat?
    No, it's because of what he's actually done. It's not about race, party affiliation, etc, it's about his record, and it speaks for itself.
    Or you think (wrongly) that he is foreign-born?
    Again, it's you who's bringing this sort of thing up. It seems to come up anything a leftist tries to defend Obama. No one here has said anything of the sort. Again, it comes down to his record, and his inability to lead a nation which he was demonstrated. Just take a look at what's going on around the country, and you might be surprised at how bad it's gotten in a lot of places and for a lot of people.
    That he is not one of "us?" Or that (my belief) that he is Black in a country always previously run by Whites? And that NOTHING he has done is good, even when it is obviously good for them?
    Again, why are you trying to make things like race an issue here?

    Please get it through you head: Most people who dislike President Obama do so because of his performance as President of the United States, simple as that. It's not a race problem, for most it's not even a issue of being a Democrat, but just what he as actually done during his time as President.

    I'm not going to go any further here, as you seem to be just rewriting the same arguments over and over. If you want to support the current president, then go ahead. What I dislike the most, however, is people who try to claim that we should look past things like race, etc, and then at the same time want to give someone special treatment because of exactly that. and in the case of Obama, it's like people want to give him leeway seemingly because of it, to the point of allowing him to get away with just about anything, acting like what ever he does, no matter how negative the impact, is perfectly ok. The last time I saw such accommodating behavior was, to be frank, in a special ed class. which I got to witness a lot when I worked IT at an elementary school.

  7. #47
    The Dude Abides mr117's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    595
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 100 Times in 74 Posts

    Since your first response is so terribly terribly incorrect there is no use in replying to anything else you wrote:

    "he Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.
    An earlier bill seeking to supersede the Ledbetter decision, also called the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was first introduced in the 110th United States Congress but was not successfully enacted at that time, as it was passed by the House but failed in the Senate."
    Senior

  8. #48
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    132
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
    Since your first response is so terribly terribly incorrect there is no use in replying to anything else you wrote:

    "he Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins
    What does this have to do with the President, though? Presidents sign many things, but really had nothing else to do with it, but rather Congress. This was going to go through no matter what President would be have been in the Oval Office. We are talking about a man who as Senator had a rather consistent voting record of "present", and only casting a real vote when the matter at hand was insignificant, so I would really like to know what exactly made him qualified for his present post? Keep in mind I ask this in the most color-blind way, as I would have the same concerns regardless of what he looks like. I'm sick and tired of double standards and treating someone like a special snowflake who can never screw up in some people's eyes.

+ Reply
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts