"Make the iPhone 5 ethically" petition gets 40,000 supporters, you can join too
0. phoneArena posted on 01 Feb 2012, 07:35
Last weeks a huge reporting effort by the NY Times kicked off a very important debate on overseas working conditions, focusing around Apple and quoting several former…
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. XiphiasGladius posted on 01 Feb 2012, 07:47 8 0
I hope not only apple will do things ethically but all tech manufacturers as well with no excuses.
3. bigdawg23 posted on 01 Feb 2012, 07:59 4 1
You may want to research it more as there is more information out there stating that much of what is being report is not accurate.
8. XiphiasGladius posted on 01 Feb 2012, 08:26 3 0
And I was only hoping that things will be done ethically.
9. remixfa posted on 01 Feb 2012, 08:59 9 8
ok, prove it. show some reports. because there has been noting but bad news, accidents, suicides, explosions, and report after report of slave labor conditions at apple's foxconn factories. they are the worst of the worst.
2. fervid posted on 01 Feb 2012, 07:58 2 0
Yeah...lets see how many of them sell when they cost $299+ for the base model like those devoted to Android have to pay lately. Apple and Microsoft already get chunks of Android sales, the carriers need to stop raising the price of them and spending millions, that could have been better spent, to beg for the iPhone.
4. random1204 posted on 01 Feb 2012, 08:05 8 2
I think it's funny he said "PATENTLY false" GET IT?! hahaha
6. micahrahn posted on 01 Feb 2012, 08:13 8 1
I say we put a petition together to have the next generation Apple products built in the United States. So what if it cost $50 extra. Its not like you are going to be buying a new iphone or ipad every month. I think $50-$100 extra for a product that you use everyday is a good trade off to bring jobs back to America.
14. Astreo posted on 01 Feb 2012, 10:33 2 2
50$? more like 100$-150$ more. americans dont like to be underpaid, they still have this idea that they DESERVE more money to do the same work as someone else. apple has to make that money up somehow. besides, american products arent always the best.
18. remixfa posted on 01 Feb 2012, 11:44 4 2
talk to the democrats that keep demanding minimum wage to go up. sounds nice, but it makes everyone who isnt minimum wage's paycheck less valuable, causes inflation, and devalues money.
21. Whateverman posted on 01 Feb 2012, 12:33 4 3
Yeah, how dare the Democrates want people to make enough to eat! Poor people should be use to not eating. Keep that money in the hands of the job creators they work for. They more they can hide overseas...the better for the American middle class, right?
You knew I couldn't let it go remix. :)
23. atheisticemetic posted on 01 Feb 2012, 13:38 4 2
you're ignorant 'whateverman' if you truly believe increasing minimum wage will help anything or anyone.
making money is fine...but what about it's VALUE? (you raise minimum wage and you raise the cost of products in store, thus doing nothing)
smh...where has all the logic gone
24. Whateverman posted on 01 Feb 2012, 15:07 3 1
First, that was really insulting dude, tone it down. Dont presume you know what subject i am knowledgable in or ignorant of just because you dont like my perspective. Remixfa and I always disagree when it comes to politics, but you'll be hard pressed to find two other people on this site who have as much respect for each as me and my brotha' mix!
Second, I've had the misfortune years ago to work for minimum wage and if you think that little $7 an hour wage should be enough to support a family, you are mistaken. Everything around us has gone up even as minimu wages were stagnant. I'm not saying it should be increased, but as the cost of living rises, so should the minimum wage for those who don't have the political plout to buy their own candidates, bills or laws. It's not about business vs the middle class or rich vs poor...it's about right vs wrong. And I jus happen to believe its wrong for greedy CEO's, companies, and politicians or both sides to ignore what their greed does to the other 99% of the population. You don't have to agree with me, you just have to vote...as will I.
28. atheisticemetic posted on 02 Feb 2012, 09:20 2 0
i agree i think it is wrong for companies to be corrupt in that way, but if you really think that increasing minimum wage as the cost of living goes up will STILL not prevent them from increasing the cost of living yet again...you're kidding yourself man
i'm sorry if you've had such misfortune at having a minimum wage job and i feel for you. However that still doesnt change my original point.
logic is emotionless...call me cold hearted and that's fine, but plz dont convince me that companies wouldnt become even more corrupt and raise the cost of living if we yet again raise the minimum wage standard. Because once we have more "money to spend" they can increase how much my toothpaste costs which solved nothing.
Second, i called you ignorant...NOT stupid, there is a difference and you cannot see pitch or tone, you merely hear it. i have more respect than to belligerently call someone stupid without knowing them.
disagree in politics that's fine...but i'm not being political...im being logical :)
most currencies are kicking our butt in terms of value; this is a scary thing for us.
(also if you're wages have gone down substantially between jobs you can still get unemployment while working)
30. Whateverman posted on 03 Feb 2012, 03:14 0 0
Well, again I'll say...I'm not saying minimum wages SHOULD go up. Just that it's in place for a reason. If it were up to the corporations, we would be making pennies per week. Maybe even less. Minimum wage was designed to improve the quality of life for all Americans and forcing companies to pay a fair wage for an hours work. But nothing I say will connivence you that this was necessary. I guess you don't care about the very poor either. Wink, Wink.
But let's move on... You're explaining the difference between ignorance and stupidity as if I don't have a clear understanding of the two words, or a dictionary. I can assure you, I know the difference even without opening my dictionary. What you need to see is that neither term is complementary no matter the tone or pitch. When I said "tone it down" I didn't mean it literally, I meant it figuratively. It just seems as though you are swinging a bit hard for someone I haven't personally attacked. I was just asking you to ease up a bit.
As for logic, I use it quit often. And when I apply logic to the current situation this country is in, I have to say we have tried this whole, "Give rich people more money and they'll give us higher wages and more jobs" thing for about ten years now. It ain't workin! Clinton-level taxes worked out great for everyone, even rich people. Why not go back to that? We've been doing the Bush tax cuts for more than 10 years and it still hasn't created any jobs! Let's just do what has already proven to work.
Lastly, I haven't worked for minimum wage in a good while now. I do very well for myself now, but that was good advice for anyone who isn't getting the kind of pay they need to survive. Get on unemployment before the republicans take that away too! It's not like they haven't tried already, right!
Away, I hope I haven't offended you because that wasn't my goal. Let's just agree to disagree. Is that cool?
27. Whateverman posted on 01 Feb 2012, 15:42 3 0
And since when did Americans (idk if you are) become so anti-American manufacturing? You say producing products here would raise the cost of products in the stores, yet there are plenty of American manufacturers who say otherwise. We can't all be in the service industry, some of us here have to make something other than excuses as to we we can't!
The only reason nothing is made here anymore is because these companies aren't ever satisfied. No matter how many billions they make, they always want to make more, which is understandable. But do it in a way that doesn't compermise everyone else's way of life. For instance, pay you fair share of taxes, make more products in the US and in other places. If that's not enough, come up with other products for us to buy. But you don't have to keep applyling all the underhanded ways to increase your profit margins. Make money and bring a better way of life to those who buy your products. It can be done.
29. atheisticemetic posted on 02 Feb 2012, 09:22 1 0
of this whateverman we do agree on
stop outsourcing and bring jobs HERE
as if companies dont have their billions to dive into their "ducktales pool" of money
31. Whateverman posted on 03 Feb 2012, 03:18 0 0
See, we are thinking alike already!!! You even used a classic Ducktales/Scrooge McDuck! If that doesn't make us distant cousins, I don't know what will!
Now com'on...gimmie a smile! :)
36. remixfa posted on 04 Feb 2012, 16:57 0 0
you see, i go on vacation for a few days, and i miss a fun conversation. :)
bullet point time! :)
1) the more everyone makes, the less everyone makes. The more money that is printed and availible the less each dollar is worth. Raising the minimum wage devalues money every time. When we were younger, you could get a big mac meal for like 4 or 5 bux. Now its 8-10 bux depending on where you live. The biggest reason for that price increase is minimum wage hikes. Minimum wage during the first example was 3.75. Its now 7.25 and above depending on location. Rent is up, energy is up, food is up and more.. is anyone actually better off since the minimum wage nearly doubled in a short period of time? Not one bit. In fact they are worse off.
Why is minimum wage propped up? To keep up with inflation? raising minimum wage helps raise inflation so thats a self defeating prophesy. How about "to buy votes". Thats the biggest reason.
And honestly, if you aren't a teenager or a person in a temporary bind between better jobs, you should be ashamed of yourself to live off of minimum wage. Obviously you made bad choices in your life to be at that job. Its not society's responsibility to take care of your bad decisions.
2) quit buying into the liberal mantras of "evil rich" and all that crap. The "rich" give something crazy like 80-90% of all donations that charity recieve. And not all the rich.. those evil republican rich. For some odd reason, democrats only want to spend other people's money, not their own. Bill Gates is one of the few exceptions to the rule. If it wasnt for those "evil rich", no one would actually be helping the poor... because....
3) The politicians dont care about the poor any more than they need to get votes. The politicians are by and large THE RICH.. and no matter what side you vote for, you are voting for A RICH PERSON. Do you really think that they are going to vote themselves into some stupid crazy high tax bracket? No. With every "tax increase" on the rich, comes another 20 "tax deductions" they can take out on themselves.
4) when politicians tax "the rich", they dont mean the insainly rich like Bill gates, Steve Jobs, or John Kerry.. they mean "The rich" as in "independent business owners that file under S-Corp status" that are not really rich. The truely rich get paid in dividends at 15%. Only Small business owners and a very very small percentage of "the rich" get a "paycheck in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you dont know what an "S-Corp" or "LLC" is, please do some research. They make up the vast majority of businesses in the US.
5) when politician tax those "rich" S-Corps, which again, are small businesses... they are hurting job creation. A small business can not take a tax hike like a large one can. That forces the small businesses to either raise prices or lay off people to offset the cost. Neither of which people like. This also gives more power to large corperations who then buy
37. remixfa posted on 04 Feb 2012, 17:03 2 1
5) when politician tax those "rich" S-Corps, which again, are small businesses... they are hurting job creation. A small business can not take a tax hike like a large one can. That forces the small businesses to either raise prices or lay off people to offset the cost. Neither of which people like. This also gives more power to large corperations who then buy politicians who help them continue to "tax the rich".. aka tax their competition right out of business.
6) which then increases unemployment and stifles business growth while growing those "fat cats" that liberals like to rage against.
7) which presents a problem, since most mega corporations have both democrats and republicans in their pockets. But do you know who their bigest "donations" go to? Those democrats like OBAMA and RIED and DODD and PELOSI, who get millions in yearly "campaign contributions" to keep "going after those evil rich".
8) While both sides are guilty of this, the democrats are much worse. The republicans by and large try to do things that help small businesses succeed.
9) what the republicans dont have is a central massive, and consistant advertising campaign to let you see this, unlike the democrats.. which have the bulk of "news stations" in their pocket.
10) so in essence, what you have is the democrats screwing over the populous in a very round about way, while blaming the whole thing on republicans. And you hear it so much you start to believe it unless you actually look into it. Much like how people love apple no matter how bad apple treats them.. people love the democrats no matter how often you get screwed by democrats.
11) quit finding articles that only agree with your preconceived notions and just read all articles. your mind will open up and see whats really going on. And its not pretty.
that should pretty much hit everything in one topic. :)
38. Whateverman posted on 04 Feb 2012, 19:57 0 1
LOL. I figured either a vacation or a data outage. :)
But anyway, I know there is nothing I can say to a republican or any conservative to convince them the sky is blue, so I'll just say this. In my lifetime, I've seen three republicans and two Democrates in office, and each time a rep was in charge...things were screwed up. When a dem was in charge, things were always much better or at least moving in the right direction. There was even a surplus for goodness sakes! But as soon as a rep took over, the country went straight to the crapper. Coincidence??? I think not.
The Dems aren't innocent at all. Clinton accidentally allowed an aspirin factory to be bombed. Obama didnt take advantage of having contorl of both houses, he extended the Bush tax cuts and gave the reps 90% of everything they wanted because the reps were holding unemployment being its hostage. Even if the Dems don't care about the poor, at least they don't outright hate them or want them to die. Remember that whole "Let em DIE!" thing?
My point is, I think when you vote for either party your still voting for the lesser of two evils. It's just that the Dems are like chicken pox while the reps are like AIDS. :)
39. remixfa posted on 04 Feb 2012, 20:22 1 0
clinton raised taxes to a draconian 64% on the highest tax brackets for 2 years. in 1994 the economy was starting to take a major downturn because of it. it was under the first republican congress in 40 years that forced clinton to lower taxes which created the economic boom you loved so much. (clinton was above all, a pragmatist, he wanted to be loved and reelected) in 1999 we had the dot com boom and bust which led to a wall street collapse, as well as the 1999 computer bug scare. this led to the SECOND recession under Clinton's term. (first one was 93/94). Lucky for him, he was about to pass the buck onto the new guy.. Bush. When Bush took over, we were in the middle of a huge recession. It was Bush's major tax cuts that brought us back to prosperity until 9/11/2001, which sent us into another tail spin economically. So in Bush's first term in office, he inherited a recession and another was thrown at him that wasnt his fault. It was Bush's pro-business policies that kept us from having a huge downturn and we actually had a good few years until 2006 when Pelosi took over the congress and Ried took over the senate in a mid term election. Then Chris Dodd and Nancy Pelosi wrote the housing bill that Bush signed.. which collapsed the market. The bill forced banks to start making sub-prime loans to people with bad credit (banks would never chose to do so by themselves, no matter what democrats have convinced you). That bill was the reason for the housing market collapse which started this huge economic downturn we are in. Then Pelosi, Ried and Dodd had bush sign off on TARP witch gave the next president a nearly unlimited slush fund to "save the economy" with. Bush signed it like a moron and then left office. Obama comes in and starts "saving things" (which was the democrat's intention the entire time, Bush was too unpopular to allow for another republican to be reelected and take credit for anything). Unfortunately the democrat's plan didnt go as well as they hoped and its backfired on them. Obama has now presided over the largest government power grab in history, the largest debt increase in history for any president, and the worst economic timing since the great depression, and it was almost completely at the hands of him and his fellow democrats.
WEM, you needed a history lesson. There it is.
40. remixfa posted on 04 Feb 2012, 20:24 1 0
there, this website has a chart for pretty much anything you can think of from 2001-2011. Pay special attention to GDP. And make sure you mark the special dates of 2006 and 2008 (democrat house/senate take over, the housing bill, and the 2008 housing collapse)
Also, there are some neat energy graphs in here too. look at the fuel pricing.
Obama has done more to hurt the middle and lower classes than any president since the new deal. He has shut down our oil drilling in the gulf, tried multiple times to tax energy makers (which then they turn around and throw that new cost into the product, which raises the prices for the consumer, and tried to force us to buy high cost hybrid vehicles. He has also tried new coal taxes, which again, only hurts the poor even more since 80% of american energy runs on coal power. He also wants to tax "low mileage" vehicles, which sounds nice until you realize that taxes almost every truck and medium/large vehicle in existence. I dont know too many rich people that drive around in trucks... but i do know a ton of working class people that do. And every last one of them would be hurt by it.
The biggest costs to the poor are not food and shelter, its energy. Obama is trying to hit energy the hardest, which hits the poor the hardest.
your falling for the democrats advertising lock stock n barrel the same way mizzy, gallito, and gemini fall for Apple's. Blindly defending and completely wrong.
41. Whateverman posted on 04 Feb 2012, 21:13 0 2
Nah, I have no intrest in a republican history lesson because if you really think Cliton more than double taxes, it's obvious who really needs the lesson. Clinton raised taxes from 31% to 39%, but youre just gonna believe what Fox News and good ol' Rush tells you to believe anyway. And of course you think Obama has done more damage, even though he made money from the auto and bank industry bailouts. Also let's for get the fact that he's killed two dictators, ended a war, prevented the total destruction of this country and some say the worlds economy, and gave healthcare to the people that reps want to just go away and die. Let's forget all of that, make up a few lies about how Dems are really just lucky to be in office when all of these booms just happen to come up only because of the ground work the reps did before them. You make a convincing argument to someone who doesn't know any better, but I actually lived it!
42. remixfa posted on 04 Feb 2012, 22:58 2 0
Yes. I was a little off on the 60%. I threw that from memory. Now i have to figure out where I got that from. The fact still remains, that his tax increase stalled the economy and it only grew after republicans forced him to reduce it.
Obama did what? say what?
Ended what war? When it took over we were invading 4 countries.. now we are invading 6!! And one of those countries was a supposed "ally" that he promised to be nice to, and the other was the illegal air raid in libya that was unconstitutional. What war did he end exactly?? lol
He killed who?!?! The intelligence that was gathered to kill Osama was gathered under Bush and all that "evil" waterboarding of Guantanimo detanies that you are against. Obama used to be against it until he was president, now he has expanded those powers even further. The only thing that Obama did was give the go ahead to pull the trigger. Yes, he gets credit for that, but not without giving Bush the credit for going after the bastard in the first place. Obama would have NEVER gone after Osama. Hillary.. maybe.. Obama, never.
Prevented what total destruction of the world's economy? Dont you pay attention? Italy and Greece have collapsed. Spain is right behind them. The EU is on the verge of a total dissolution and meltdown. America is worse off now than it was when he took over. We have double the debt, huge government expansions which cost trillions a year, and no income. We are 100% expenditures to GDP as a country. Thats WORSE than greece. The ONLY reason we are propped up at all is because we are the world's trade currency. The ONLY REASON unemployment LOOKS like its going down is because the government only counts unemployed people that are ON unemployment benefits and actively looking for a job. Unemployment went down because people ran past their 99 weeks of unemployment and got kicked off the system. True unemployment is hovering around 20%.
Know any better about what? how exactly have you lived it? How exactly have I not? When I was a young one, I believed all the crap that the liberals brain wash you to believe. I bought it hook and sinker. Unfortunately, i do way too much independent research to believe their crap. You assume that because I know the democrats are full of lies, that i must be a republican. I am neither. I dont think you actually read my responses.
All I hear is liberal mantra and blind defence. Other than the tax rate correction, you didnt present a single fact and only threw opinion and propaganda out.
I demand better of you!!! :) :) :)
43. tsarbomba posted on 05 Feb 2012, 11:40 1 0
Yes, indeed "let's for get the fact that he's killed two dictators, ended a war, prevented the total destruction of this country and some say the worlds economy, and gave healthcare to the people that reps want to just go away and die." because none of it is true. The CBO stated that the real unemployment number is above 10%. Greece needs another bailout. France and Germany are fronting the bill to Greece with money they do not have. This is what you call saving our economy and the world's?
You like to accuse people of watching Fox news as some sort of denigration. The same thing as listening to Rush. It is obvious what you read and listen to because of what you spew at us; Media Matters, MSNBC, CNN, all the rest of that tripe. Only by sticking with those regrettable talking points could anyone call 10% unemployment and over 40% of people in this country who are not the "1%" not paying taxes a wonderful thing under a liberal democrat president.
You lived it, but it appears, you didn't really pay attention. In reality, we are all living it.
Obama had nothing to do with any military successes. Bin Laden's death happened DESPITE Obama's presidency.
44. Whateverman posted on 05 Feb 2012, 13:36 0 0
It's funny how.you used the word "accuse" when I talk about those of you who watch Fox. It's almost as if you know what you're watching is wrong. It's even funnier that you have so many other news stations listed as though all these other stations are the ones who got it wrong. That's why I don't blame remix for getting the fax wrong, because he's getting his news from spin doctors who will lie, cheat, and even hack people's accounts just so they can make up a story.
Everything I stated was fact! You guys give Bush the credit for Sadaam even though he didnt pull the trigger, so why can't Obama take credit for the last two dictators snuffed out under his watch? That's the problem I have with some republicans, they have all these double standards that only apply to dems. And you guys refuse to see anyone else's point of view, its always all or nothing and usually your all means people (usually lot people) have to die! The right act as if they own the tradmark to Christianity yet most don't ever stop to ask what would Jesus do? Would Jesus tell a 30 year old accident victum to die because he doesn't have health insurance? Would he take money from schools and give them to big business? And would he except any man who converted to Christianity from Muslim, or would he continually turn him away?
Republicans have nothing to offer this country because they don't care about this country. All they care about is keeping people in the dark and distracted on things like fake birth certificates, and terrorist fist bumps, just so you don't see them stealing your pentions, 401k's, you rights of collective bargining and even your right to vote in some states.
You guys don't have to believe anything I say. Just put up one of your own candidates that have a brain, some common sense, that pays their fair share of taxes(so I guess the Bain Capitalist that doesn't care about poor people is out) with morals (there goes the historian womenizer) that cares enough about the country and the people in it to do what's best for US all. If you can find one, I'll vote for him. Until then, I'll stick with the.much lesser of two evils. Good day gentlemen.
45. remixfa posted on 05 Feb 2012, 14:53 0 0
lol, considering more than half of obama's people have been caught evading taxes and still havent payed, you have no point. :) Also, Obama is only as intelligent as his teleprompter. Mr "ive been to all 57 states" and "if we only tuned our cars, we would be oil independent" is not so smart without someone telling him what to say.
46. Whateverman posted on 05 Feb 2012, 15:38 0 0
Better to read from a teleprompter than his hand. :) Besides, anyone could get caught up reading from those things. Look at what happened to Ron Burgundy of Action News...:D
47. remixfa posted on 05 Feb 2012, 22:16 1 0
liberal excuses, half truths, slogans, and not a shred of truth.
your honor, the defense rests. Liberals don't actually pay attention. end of story. :)
48. Whateverman posted on 05 Feb 2012, 22:27 0 2
Yeah, okay. Those republican colored glasses prevent you from seeing the true about anything that isn't a conservative point of view. Like I said, I'll go with the chicken pox instead. :)
50. tsarbomba posted on 06 Feb 2012, 08:24 1 0
One more thing - why should a conservative consider a liberal point of view when liberalism is in direct ideological opposition to cosnervatism?
You are almost correct because we should not be listening to any more liberal ideas because that typically result in loss of individual liberty.
51. remixfa posted on 06 Feb 2012, 09:58 1 0
lol, im a libertarian, not a conservative. both sides are wrong. its all one big party. the only difference is on the left you have the communist fringe, and on the right you have the religious fringe.
proves, yet again, you didnt read anything i wrote. :)
54. Whateverman posted on 06 Feb 2012, 13:27 0 0
Seriously, even though I think you SOUND like a rep, I know youre a libertarian. I'm sorry if I offended you. I won't try put you in a box the same way some ios fans try to do. And although we disagree I do believe you have some very insightful comments so I always read them. I respect you too much not to.
49. tsarbomba posted on 06 Feb 2012, 08:20 1 0
Typically incorrect. Accuse is the term I use because of your usage - it is negative and denigrating, just like your aloof perspective on what is accurate and what isn't. Once again, your inferences are incorrect, but they suit your argument.
The lesser of two evils is never a democrat. The likes of you keep taking everything on the right out of context deliberately in order to spew their hate and filth. Liberals are truly vile.
Another mistake you make is that you never associate your political opposition with ideology - it is either republicans or democrats. That is intellectually dishonest.
Another dishonest foil you maintain is the sad and weak argument that Bush can take credit for Sadam, so Obama can take credit for bin Laden. The difference is that Bush supports the military and did not move to cut military jobs. Obama did and he despises the military. Therefore, Obama is not credited with such a success.
Yet another ridiculous and juvenile point you make is the whining complaint that republicans (again, you ignore ideology) refuse to see anyone else's point. Regrettably, we have had someone else's point shoved down our throats for the past 3 years. I think if we ignored liberals and did not even take them seriousy, America would be stronger. Even another sad, weak and darkly funny complaint is that republicans want people to die. It is laughable for anyone who thinks they have even an average intellect to believe that. To address that stupid premise, if that were the case, we'd be killing ourselves leaving only politicians alive to keep making citizen-killing laws. That is the highest level if stupidity.
I am not shocked, but I lament your complete repuslion to facts. You want to count how many pensions were paid to UAW members? How much of that was taxpayer money? Who gave them that money? Dodd-Frank saved people's pensions?
Also, your grasp of Christianity and Christians is sideways and, as typical, wrong. Your mocking tone suggests an utter lack of knowledge.
I really suggest that you actually get informed before you spout your Media Matters talking points. Do a little research before you put your foot in your mouth again because this is sadly funny.
53. Whateverman posted on 06 Feb 2012, 13:20 0 1
Well there it is. The angry good ol boy, who can't handle the reflection in the mirror. Why u mad? You got awfully personal in that rant, using words an phrases like juvenile, stupidity, and person of average intelligents. I really struck a nerve huh?
See this is exactly why I try not.to discuss politics with anyone especially on the internet. Someone always gets their feelings hurt and then goes on the attack. The old Whateverman would have verbally disembowel you in overly brutal Keith Olberman in a last comment like fashion and leaving you silently contemplating , "what the heck did I do to deserve all that". But I'm not trying to go there with you. I gonna turn the other check and show you the respect you've denied me. And don't get it twisted, that isn't mocking Christianity... I am a Christian. As such, I ask myself what would Jesus do all the time and I can't help but to believe that Jesus would want us all to help those who can't help themselves. I believe that helping each other is what Jesus wants us to do, and its obvious that the republicans don't. They care nothing about those less fortunate than themselves. Why else would the vote against higher taxes for anyone making more that 250,000 dollars, yet they fought tooth and nail to increase the payroll tax, which would be an extra 1,000 dollars in taxes for the average American family.
You don't want to believe republicans want people to die, but the proof is in the republican debates. When the question was asked what to do about a 30 year old accident victim with no insurance, someone in the crowd yelled let him die! That person was horrible and he could have just ended with him, but then the rest of the crowd applauded him. There is also the fact that the republicans are trying to privatize social security and totally get rid of medicare. So what else am I to think?
Unless you say why should you listen to a democrat's ideas. Well the answer came from Herman Cain himself. He said we should concentrate on solutions instead of party, and when we do that we would rise above all the difficulties that we are facing now. President Obama will take a republican idea presented to congress and it gets voted down mostly by republicans. Republicans vote against their own ideas simply because president obama presented it. To me that's truly disingenuous and it proves that what Mitch Mcconnell said was absolutely true. The republicans 1 and only goal at this time is to make sure President Obama is a 1 term president. Even if it means destroying american lives in the process.
55. tsarbomba posted on 07 Feb 2012, 08:52 0 0
No nerve struck, as you put it, you flatter yourself. Your premise - once again - is wrong and flawed. You assume, typically, that a controverting opinion is somehow a personal attack. That is typically how liberals feel. The reflection in the mirror to which you try to allude is also a humorously false premise - there is no dichotomy other than the split between liberalism and conservatism and that is across the nation. It is apparent that it is your mirror that reflects what you want it to see.
Your complaint is something that you should read again and hopefully find interesting because you credit yourself with being above the fray and you do not consider all those other perspectives you think everyone else should - which in turn makes you disingenuous and not credible. Terms like "juvenile", "stupidity" and "person of average intellect" are used to define concepts, which I did, accurately, so your inability to accept that is your problem. You are welcome to take it personally, but the terms are used to define discussion points. You are convinced of your own wit and these terms do not stroke your ego, so I understand how someone could consider such definition as a personal attack. However, the choice to be offended is yours alone.
You try to not discuss politics on the internet? You have been rather prolific so far. You again assume feelings are hurt because your feelings have been hurt. I do not think you should project that onto anyone else. If you truly have a legitimate point, it will stand on its own; you do not have to try the sad, old templated tools of emotional victimization to try and sway an argument.
I find it cute that you think an "overly brutal Keith Olberman" style of reply would be anything more than shooting a BB at a tank. Olberman's wit and wisdom is a far cry from respectable and credible. I suggest you find yourself a better role model.
56. tsarbomba posted on 07 Feb 2012, 08:54 0 0
Your complaint: "what the heck did I do to deserve all that" is a simply narcissistic conundrum. To correct your premise, it isn't about what you did to deserve anything; you just have to accept that not everything you say is brilliant.
You once again try to misguide the topic by complaining about a lack of respect. Any lack of respect is perceived by you alone. Remember, your initial salutations in the early parts of this dialog were directed at stereotypes and prejudices you have, so why is it only now that respect is an issue? I thought so.
I will not get into a theological debate in these forums, but I will offer this: we are to help those who can't help themselves. However, HALF of the country is not paying taxes. The other half is paying all the taxes AND now all the healthcare guarantees. In my humble opinion, Jesus would want us to also get those can help off their behinds and get busy. Teach a man to fish, you see. Additionally, to encourage people to be lazy and to live off the government teat is in no way honorable or, yes, Christian. Help those in need; and help them to help themselves.
What you consider obvious renders you completely oblivious. Republicans wanting to kill people is tired and old. Let it go, it truly makes no sense at all. Voting for higher taxes on what the government is now defining as wealthy is a means to take more money from those who create small business and thus jobs. Taxing the people who pay the most in taxes simply takes more money from those who earn it in order to re-distribute it to those who do nothing. Crushing taxes are not the answer. Go back to history - lower taxes means higher tax revenue. Punishing the achievers is wrong and reduces the size of the economy. The government is not the one organization that knows how best to spend money.
The payroll tax is meant to fund Social Security, is it not? You should want that thing higher and higher. Regrettably, I, personally, do not think we should have either Social Security or a payroll tax; or we should privatize SS so we can get out of it what we are able to earn on it ourselves. Raising taxes is something we should avoid as often as possible.
So one person at a debate - who is not running for office and could have been a leftist plant - defines the entire Republican Party as willing murderers? You have to do better than that. This is what I meant about being intellectually dishonest.
57. tsarbomba posted on 07 Feb 2012, 08:54 0 0
What you are supposed to think; I say tongue-in-cheek, not to speak for you - is that by privatizing SS, people are able to invest that money to try and get more out of it, instead of all payroll taxes being spent on anything but SS. The government does not have the best answer for this. Americans are the most charitable people in history and capitalism has saved more people and created more charitable organizations that socialism, communism, monarchy in history. Let the people keep what they earn and be charitable. Medicare is in the same situation as SS - too few people paying into it and too many using it. It is unsustainable. Let us do better with our own money.
Your view on how legislation is passed is a bit skewed. Republicans do not vote against anything simply because Obama presents it. The President cannot present legislation anyway. What happens is that if an idea that is liked by a party, we'll say Republicans, as you did, and a law is presented, by the opposition party, it usually has many other things attached to it that are considered undesirable by the initial presenters. In this case, voting for the bill could have detrimental or the opposite effect of what the bill was initially. Watch CSPAN. Please keep in mind that Republicans had NO MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OR SENATE until November of 2010. There is still a Republican minority in the Senate.
Obama is making sure Obama is a one-term president because American lives are being destroyed. I know you know all there is to know about that and how Obama is saving the world when he's not playing golf, but just for one moment, look at the real CBO provided unemployment numbers. Look at other countries who tax wealth or the rich to pay for the "poor". Find a successful socialist country that is an economic powerhouse where the people are free to choose. We are headed down the path of Greece and the EU. Heck, even some EU countries are wanting to re-privatize their health care systems because their economies are crippled by nationalized health care.
Bah, I have to go to work now.
58. remixfa posted on 07 Feb 2012, 09:13 1 0
I know Im not going to change your mind, and your not going to change mine, which is why we normally dont talk about it. But your points lack evidence.
Privatizing social security is a good thing. On average social security nets you about a 1% and change gain.. EVEN WITH economic downtimes, over the long haul private accounts have never gained less than 6%. Democrats want to scare you into thinking that the stock market wont be there, or your 401k will dissapear, and all this other nonsense, so mother government can take care of you cradle to grave. And its not true. Many countries have gone to private accounts instead of federal SS, and every one of them has their retirees retire on a much higher income than our SS retirees do.
You keep thinking that government is the answer, when its not. Government is the problem. No one wants people to die. No candidate said that. And if some moron in the crowd said that at a debate, then thats on some moron, and it does not represent the party. You would have to pretend there isnt morons in both parties for that to hold true. And we both know there are morons in both parties.
Punishing someone for making money and giving it to some lazy A-Hole does not fix the problem. There are people out there with a genuine need for help, but they are the minority. When clinton tried to do a welfare overhaul, his own commission found that something as crazy as only 4 or 5% of people on welfare actually needed it long term, the rest were gaming the system. (dont quote me, that was from memory, but it was an absurdly low single digit number)
Throwing more money at people does not fix the problem, it just encourages them to beg for more money to be thrown. Just like giving 12 million illegal immigrants amnesty doesnt solve the border issue.. it just encourages more people to break the law by coming here illegally and hoping it happens again.
You dont reward someone for being bad. you dont reward them for lazy. If they dont genuinely need long term care help, then they need to be off the system. If your such a bleeding heart, then open your house to them and take care of them and quit forcing the rest of us who think that personal responsibly is the key to a good life... to have to take care of those that insist on mooching.
Democrats always want to use everyone else's money, but yet you never see them helping directly. Republicans give the vast majority of all charitable donations. Evil evil republicans helping the poor directly instead of through the government and its huge beaurocracy where money just dissapears.
61. Whateverman posted on 09 Feb 2012, 12:47 0 0
See, even in your reply there are things that we agree on, but both parties spin it in a different why. I don't think government is the answer for everything either, but the reps want you to think that everyone on the left believes so. May privatizing SS isn't a bad thing, but where are the numbers. So far all the evidence shows otherwise.
Reps spin raising tax on the wealthy into punishing the well to do. But if they are paying 10-15% in taxes, while I have to pay 30%...are they punishing people for NOT being wealthy? That's what it looks like if we're going to substitute the words taxes for punishment.
I honestly believe the reps do donate more then Dems, all the Dems are broke! Poor people typically don't donate as much as people with more disposable income. So that's great that the republicans at least throw the poor a bone every once in a while. But let's be real, it's not all going to the poor, and the vast majority of these donations are to avoid paying taxes even more than they already do. Ex: Mr. Richman buys a painting for 10 million dollars. He then donates the painting to his buddies private museum where it's appraised for twice that. Mr. Richman Now has a charitable donation for 20 million dollars that he write off on his taxes. Not ALL republicans are donating paintings but you know this is happening at those higher levels of donations, and again on both sides.
There are crazies on both sides for sure. We typically don't elect our crazies to office as much as the republicans, but I'm sure a few have slipped by. Ex: Rob Blagojevich is the perfect example! But you gotta admit, the republican crazies are always the ones getting elected.
Republicans also want you to think Democrates want to reward laziness. How crazy is that!?! I work 40-50 hours a week, pay some serious taxes especially when i work overtime. Do you really think I want my hard earned tax dollars to go to some guy and his girlfriend wife or whatever, with 6 kids, while all the do is sit on their asses, smokin weed and playing Xbox all day? Nobody wants that! If I can get up and go to work, so can they!
The key to success in politics seems to be keeping the general public uninformed of their true intentions and at war with each other. Both parties want to keep control of all three branches of government but they go about it in different ways. The republicans are the strong arms who are willing to do anything to win, including stealing elections, throwing out ballot boxes from democratic districts, and impeaching Presidents for BJs. And the Democrates are like little whinny girls who just b*tch and moan about all the bad things going on in Washington. They won't make a freakin' move unless the republicans say its okay, and give up on important things way too easy. Short and sweet...the Democrates in office are they biggest collection of p*ssies ever assembled! If I can just get a combination of the two parties, I would be happy. So...
62. remixfa posted on 09 Feb 2012, 13:11 0 0
there are many countries on privatized ss, and they are all doing better at retirement. Google it.
crazies on both sides. socialists are crazy. pelosi, Obama, Hillary, and Reid all travel in socialist cirlcles. the heads of the democrat party are all known socialists. Hence rthey are crazy. republicans elect way less evangelical nuthobs than Democrats elect socialists, since Democrats lie to the electorate and evangelists run as themselves.
they do reward laziness. you can make 30-50k a year by refusing to work and popping out a few kids. all those social benefits really add up. also the bottom 50% pay no taxes. you either get back every cent of income tax, or you get more back than you paid. those "evil rich" that get 15% taxes on dividends don't get a tax refund like you do. the system is set up to make you think you pay a higher percent when you actually paid nothing.
those that live off of government programs overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats as they always promise more benefits. thus Democratic reward laziness in exchange for locked votes.
also the republicans as a whole donate more than Democrats as a whole.. even the non rich ones. I also hate to break it to you that the richest people in government are almost all democrats. pelosi and john Kerry are both billionaires. and neither donates a penny.. in fact Kerry like so many other Democrats just got caught skirting 5 million in taxes on his yacht ... yet they tried to raise taxes on people making 33k a year in 2010. bet you didn't know that did you?
you need to pay more attention to what's actually going on instead of just thinking you are.
63. Whateverman posted on 09 Feb 2012, 13:46 0 0
Remix...I'm actually AGREEING with you on a lot of what you're saying, but you still not seeing it. I'm telling you I don't want to pay for lazy people and you're telling me I do.
I agreed the republicans are donating more, but you haven't commented on the point I brought up. Are these not huge tax write-offs or what? I also acknowledged that it was both sides, but you keep pointing it out as though I haven't.
The crazies live on the right! You know it, I know it. Say it with me...9 9 9! How about Rick Perry, Newt Gengrich, Michelle Bachman, and the mother of all crazy...Sarah freakin Palin. This woman would have been next in line if McCain had kicked the bucket! Talk about praying the president remained in good health!
And everyone who voted for raising the taxes on the income bracket you pointed out are republican!
The people you listed are only considered socialist by republicans.
You and this other guy keep telling me what I need to learn and what I need to do. Again, you guys are taking and making this way too personal. If it upsets you this much, let's not talk about it any further, because you are both starting to come off as a little condescending. I'm not mad at about anything you guys are saying, but you guys don't seem capable of discussing any of these topics without telling me what I need. So let's just agree to disagree. Good day my friend.
64. remixfa posted on 09 Feb 2012, 15:22 0 0
no.. history lesson. Hillary was a member of the Communist party in college. the people Obama credits for his "political education" in his own books were communist. bill Aires is a communist terrorist that blew up American buildings. pelosi and Reid are no different. do some basic Google searches and open your eyes to that truth.
the 9_9_9 plan was a flat tax. so everyone chipping In is crazy to you? Bachmann was a lunatic, and newt is a slimy political opportunistic idiot. the others were not crazy. the media made u think Palin was crazy because she is a danger to the liberal women's institutions. that and Democrats did not want a woman running against Obama or Hillary because it would have split the female and. "historic " vote. she could have used better handling by her advisors but she definitely is not crazy.
if you think donating 3 million to get a 100k tax deduction is a great money saving strategy, I want to be your accountant.
the difference is conservative people actually reach out with their own hands and help people, liberals �want to force people to give money if they want to or not... a.d its always someone elses money.. never from their personal check book
65. Whateverman posted on 10 Feb 2012, 00:42 0 0
Yeah, yeah...republicans have nothing in their pasts and are all perfect from birth. No scandals, no skeletons in their closets or dirty laundry of any kind like C Street, sex with paiges, Keating five, or Witchcraft in their backgrounds at all, right? And Sara Palin made me think Sara Palin crazy. Doubling down on Paul Revere warning the British just confirmed it for me. Also, the fact check didn't pan out on Hillary being a communist. It was more like she worked for a guy who people THOUGHT was the head of the communist party USA in Cali, so that didn't stick.
The Bill Ayres connection was so thin it was laughable. The two of them were on an Anti-Poverty committee at one time. And Ayres donated $200 bucks to Obama's senate re-election campaign. Does that really scream, "Hey look, I'm a terrorist" to you? Well, to you it might. But have you checked into republican ties to Bill Ayres...I did. Found a lot of interesting people on the right linked to him as well.
Another interesting thing I found out, very little of republican donations actually go to the poor. In large, most donations are to alumni associations, colleges and their sports teams, art museums (We already talked about that) and also cultural centers. Which is still good, but doesn't quit paint as good of a picture as donating to the poor. It's all about the taxes my friend, not the needy. Have a look at some of the ways rich people avoid taxes... http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/2011/03/5-sneaky-ways-the-super-rich-avoid-taxes/
You can believe whatever you like about the generosity of conservatives and I'll just go by what I see. It's like you said, we won't convince each other of anything.
59. Whateverman posted on 09 Feb 2012, 11:33 0 0
No surprise in your response at all. Of course you don't think using words like "stupidity" or "juvenile" are personal attacks. Why would you admit that? But let's not play games, nor insult, question or be convinced of each others or our own intelligence. You know that if I used these terms in my response to you or infer wether or not your statements came from someone with "average intelligence", you would probably take it as a personal attack. You can pretend your not, but I know it when I see it. I just don't want to go that route because I'm not trying to make enemies here. We're just talking.
I said I TRY, not to discuss politics but I am human. Just as a comment like "Waterboarding is torture" and "Bush is a war criminal" may trigger you to post a comment, I am no different. If you look at some past articles that turned political, you will often find a comment from me saying, "Let's keep it about the phones". But like I said I am human and get sucked into it just as many others do.
I found the metaphor about the BB and tank very funny. Not "ah, that's so cute" kind of funny like your statement about Keith O, but seriously...I thaught that was a good one. Touché.
"Your complaint: "what the heck did I do to deserve all that" is a simply narcissistic conundrum. To correct your premise, it isn't about what you did to deserve anything; you just have to accept that not everything you say is brilliant.".
I think you may have misread what I was saying there. It wasn't going to be me saying that, but the moment has past and like I said, i don't wanna go there with you.
"You once again try to misguide the topic by complaining about a lack of respect. Any lack of respect is perceived by you alone. Remember, your initial salutations in the early parts of this dialog were directed at stereotypes and prejudices you have, so why is it only now that respect is an issue? I thought so.". What on earth are you talking about! No seriously, what are you talking about?
Believe it or not, most poor people would love an opportunity to learn to "fish". The problem is the inequality in access, the lack of resources and opportunities which can be measured in simple things like college enrollment statistics or even examining the digital divide. Not everything as black and white as some may think. Helping those who help themselves is what most people want, even the poor. But many people who have made it forget that they had a hand up to where they are, and they often times don't extend that same courtesy to someone looking for a hand up as well.
I'm not gonna go through the rest of your post because frankly, it's too long and I'm wasting my breath tell you why I don't vote republican. I did read it all and the condescension was duly noted :) But the thing is, I used facts, real numbers and real words from the republican party and their followers. You can dismiss the, "Let em die!" comment and cheers after if you like, but that...
60. Whateverman posted on 09 Feb 2012, 11:36 0 0
has nothing to do with my "stereotypes and prejudices". That has everything to do with the republican party and the batsh*t crazy that comes out of their mouths. Mitt pays less in taxes than I do, he pays 14% and I pay 30%, yet republicans don't see anything wrong with that. I've seen people die because Bush didnt read his security reports and spend over 400 days on vacation. Yet the republicans get upset if Obama plays golf or has Friday date night with his wife. How about all the outrage because the first lady wants kids to eat their vegetables, or because she hugged the Queen of England back when the Queen hugged her first! How about all the mock food stamps with Obama face on it surrounded by chicken and watermelon, the monkey with an Obama sticker on his head, the terrorist fist bump reports and the "Hip Hop BBQ" party the President supposed to have had? But this is about my "stereotypes and prejudices"? Some republicans are so hateful, they even attack each other for perceived endorsements of the president. For example; former republican major and movie star Clint Eastwood is under attack for making a commercial about the American auto industry coming back stronger then ever. So how republicans think that's an endorsement for President Obama. So Karl Rove attacks and many others follow his lead without thinking.
You're making this about me and I'm making it about the republican party. If you retold some of these stories using fictional characters, some would think these were horrible people. But it seems you aren't willing to admit that these acts are the acts of a heartless republican party. One minute their screaming about imaginary "death panels" they were appalled with the Dems for creating and the next they're cheering "let em' die!" Which is it?
19. Doakie posted on 01 Feb 2012, 12:02 7 1
What people need to get through their heads is it doesn't HAVE to cost any more money to the end user. Apple has a 71% profit margin on their iPhone 4. There is so much room in there for a production change costs. If the buyers of Apple products spoke up and refused to buy the iPhone 5 or 6 unless the poor production environment changed and refused to buy it for an inflated price, Apple would have to change and stick to their original price structure. People who figure a 60+% profit margin from Apple is mandatory are retards. Use your brains and realize the Apple isn't the "Think different" company for independent thought hippies anymore. They are the personification of Corporate Greed. They are the richest company in the world carried on the backs of cheap abused suicidal labor, and financially broke Apple fanatics that ask for more and are thankful that Apple takes a disproportionate amount of their money. I fail to understand the complacency of Apple owners, they act like hippies against corporate greed one minute then buy a phone that is sold to them by the biggest greedy corporation.
7. thnkthru3 posted on 01 Feb 2012, 08:13 4 1
Ditto. Bring the manufacturing of iphone to the US where it would certainly be performed both ethically and be good for our economy!
10. remixfa posted on 01 Feb 2012, 09:00 6 4
i signed it. i hope it gets shoved up Cook's arse. He was the one in charge of supply contracts while SJ was running the company, so he is directly involved in foxconn working conditions.
11. PAPINYC (limited) 2 days ago posted on 01 Feb 2012, 09:04 7 1
I fully support this. There have been far to many iSuiCiDes in China alone over the demanding and taxing Apple production quota. These production factories are the "sweatshops" of the 21st century with absolutely no regard to employee "quality of life"; they really are more like slave camps with just the minimal of wage pay. And, the bitter irony is these factory workers, for the most part, have attained higher education and have some degree of intelligence for 'it's not like they're wrapping chocolate' or 'bagging cotton'. The U.S. government, however, will turn a blind eye since most of those morons in Washington own iPhones and/or iPads and are directly guilty of supporting these Apple sweatshops.
13. Astreo posted on 01 Feb 2012, 10:30 0 8
Im sorry did you just say iSuicides? really? wow.
on topic though id like to say this, 50K signatures means there are only 50K people that probably dont even own an iphone that have signed that if they dont buy the next phone is nothing to apple. im not defending what they are doing but reports have come out that they arent the onles ones...so why is everyone just pointing to them? because they are in the states? probably. why should we hold them above what everyone else is doing?
15. tsarbomba posted on 01 Feb 2012, 10:38 3 4
Additionally, it would be fiscal suicide for Apple to bring the entire operation to the US. Instead of trying to fix the symptoms, fix the problem and get rid of the EPA and so many other crushing federal regulatory problems. Then Apple could bring it all here- then it would help our economy.
22. Whateverman posted on 01 Feb 2012, 13:06 2 1
No one is saying don't build in China. If Foxconn is in the process of building 5 brand new facilities just for future Apple products, why can't Apple look for facilities right here? You can't say it's fiscal suicide to build in the US, when more their 60 and 70% pure profit.
And please don't fall for that get ride of the EPA stuff. Regulation is needed to keep people safe from from companies like Apple. It's sounds great as a sound bite, but if it were to actually happen, you know many people will die in the name of profit.
33. tsarbomba posted on 03 Feb 2012, 08:22 0 0
Apple can look for facilities here in the US, but EPA and other regulatory strongarms, with their supposed environmental protection policies, make the costs of building such facilities too expensive for companies like Apple. There is too much regulation in place to make the process fiscally sounds.
Your argument sounds like Apple can simply plop a building down and assemble these things and rake in cash, but that is not accurate. If it were so simple, Apple would be doing it.
Please don't fall for the argument that without the EPA we'd be dying at our jobs. Regulation is needed for many things, but not all regulation is helpful or necessary. The EPA is the biggest obstacle to so much productivity growth, even for companies with less harsh reputations as Apple.
34. Whateverman posted on 03 Feb 2012, 10:47 0 1
We are talking about it being too expensive for the largest tech company in the US, not some mom and pop start up. If they made their devices here they would make 50% profit instead of 70%. That still means Apple is the largest tech company in the US and if they wanted to make that money back, they could have added it to the cost of the final product, because it's obvious people would be willing to pay it.
Please, don't you fall for the Fox News talking points. Ask anyone who has handled asbestos how important regulations are. Or people with flammable water due to fracking done by gas companies. And let's not forget the cancer clusters created when kids went to schools located under high energy power lines. The EPA may not be perfect, but they are needed. These guys on tv that tell you otherwise can't even tell us why it's needs to go. What has the EPA done to halt any progress here, can someone give some real examples as to why they need to be dismantled?
35. tsarbomba posted on 04 Feb 2012, 16:09 1 0
If you think Apple's reasoning for not assembling in the US is a 20% drop in profits, you better learn more about that precious EPA regulation you preach about. There is more than just EPA regulation.
You address only surface arguments while ignoring actual obstacles to such a thing happening in the US-
You ignore a very relevant point: Would Apple create its own workforce or hire a domestic company to assemble the products. First, what domestic company can do the work? Is there such a company in the US at this time? If Apple had to create its own workforce, they would be slapped with more payroll taxes, more precious health benefits for employees if they chose to offer them, more building and waste regulation, if the place was to be built in California there is all that "green building" crap they would be slapped with, union coddling for the actual construction - which would take years... there is a lot that would decrease profits and not by a simple 20%, but a much, much larger amount. With as many taxes and regulations there are currently, Apple may have very little profit if these devices were to be assembled here.
Just because Apple is the most valuable company does not mean they can afford everything.
Please don't fall for the premise that acting aloof somehow gives one authority and credibility - it doesn't. I think you watch more Fox News than I do to know their talking points. Regardless, The EPA is banning over-the-counter asthma inhalers. They are reviewing a possible ban on lead bullets & banned oil-based paint in 6 states due to phantom health risks. They want to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. They think it is a biological poison. That is all the proof I need that perfectly expresses the excessive and overreaching authoritative grip the EPA has been granted; and should be revoked. Some regulation is necessary, but if the EPA will not be eliminated, its power must be significantly lessened, as well as all other regulatory departments that staunch the growth of our economy.
To have the idea that all companies will kill everyone for profit is fundamentally ludicrous. To have the idea that is always required governmental oversight to correct even the slightest issue is equally ludicrous.
52. remixfa posted on 06 Feb 2012, 10:01 0 0
what he said. :)
17. Doakie posted on 01 Feb 2012, 11:38 5 1
Because Apple sucks! iPhone sucks! Tim Cook sucks! :)