x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

"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

posted on 05 Feb 2012, 22:16 1

47. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

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. :)

posted on 05 Feb 2012, 22:27

48. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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. :)

posted on 06 Feb 2012, 08:24 1

50. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 06 Feb 2012, 09:58 1

51. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

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. :)

posted on 06 Feb 2012, 13:27

54. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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.

posted on 06 Feb 2012, 08:20 1

49. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 06 Feb 2012, 13:20

53. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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.

posted on 07 Feb 2012, 08:52

55. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 07 Feb 2012, 08:54

56. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 07 Feb 2012, 08:54

57. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 07 Feb 2012, 09:13 1

58. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

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.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 12:47

61. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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...

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 13:11

62. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


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.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 13:46

63. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 15:22

64. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

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

posted on 10 Feb 2012, 00:42

65. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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-sneak​y-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.

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 11:33

59. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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...

posted on 09 Feb 2012, 11:36

60. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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?

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 12:02 7

19. Doakie (Posts: 2227; Member since: 06 May 2009)

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.

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 08:13 4

7. thnkthru3 (Posts: 73; Member since: 25 Dec 2011)

Ditto. Bring the manufacturing of iphone to the US where it would certainly be performed both ethically and be good for our economy!

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 09:00 6

10. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)

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.

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 09:04 7

11. PAPINYC (banned) (Posts: 2315; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)

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.

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 10:30

13. Astreo (Posts: 102; Member since: 05 May 2011)

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?

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 10:38 3

15. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 13:06 2

22. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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.

posted on 03 Feb 2012, 08:22

33. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 03 Feb 2012, 10:47

34. Whateverman (Posts: 3284; Member since: 17 May 2009)

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?

posted on 04 Feb 2012, 16:09 1

35. tsarbomba (Posts: 16; Member since: 11 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 06 Feb 2012, 10:01

52. remixfa (Posts: 14605; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)


what he said. :)

posted on 01 Feb 2012, 11:38 5

17. Doakie (Posts: 2227; Member since: 06 May 2009)

Because Apple sucks! iPhone sucks! Tim Cook sucks! :)

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories