Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights 653
HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.""
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. "You've got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country," former president Bill Clinton said in March. "And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.""
Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference between SA and Indiana is that SA makes Apple a shit-ton of money.
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's also the fact that it's easier to put pressure on Indiana than on Saudi Arabia.
It's easy to demand that companies step into the foreign policy realm, and I'm sympathetic to that argument - but as a general rule, a company taking a foreign policy stance has no effect other than simply giving up the market altogether. It's on the domestic side that they have a lot more influence.
If one wants pressure on countries with these sort of behaviors, it should come from the top: the White House. However, things like womens' and gay rights are usually seen as "interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries", and they're often hesitant to do that., preferring instead fo keep relations friendly to maintain support for issues that they consider of greater geopolitical import, such as containing rogue states, preventing proliferation, stopping terrorist groups, etc. Of course, this opens them up to charges of hypocrisy.
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
a company taking a foreign policy stance has no effect other than simply giving up the market altogether. It's on the domestic side that they have a lot more influence.
But if a company believes in a goal so much that they are willing to influence on the domestic side, then shouldn't they also care enough about it to be willing to give up on the foreign market? The fact that they don't makes it seem like it's just another publicity stunt. Not that there is anything wrong with a company doing a publicity stunt, but we shouldn't give them any moral *credit* for doing so.
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we can believe that the gay man may actually believe in gay rights. He can't do jack shit about SA but give up money as a publicity stunt. He helped get indiana to change the law. He's the ceo because he can tell when something would be without benefit.
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
perhaps he holds Indiana to higher standards than he expects from the most despotic countries on the planet?
Re: (Score:3)
Well you and I as individuals are "in" one society. If we're talking about a multinational company with strong business presence in many different societies, you can't really say that.
I mean if you're talking about the company's headquarters, even that fails because technically the global headquarters of Apple is in Ireland, not the US! What is this Irish company doing criticizing a US state? :)
If they're willing to apply pressure to a US state, why not Saudi Arabia? They have the means, and they publicly s
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:3)
Because he lives in the United States, not Saudi Arabia. And it worked in Indiana, when it would not succeed against Saudi Arabia.
Saving $35 more important to Apple (Score:3)
I think we can believe that the gay man may actually believe in gay rights.
That is not the debate. The debate is what does he believe in more, saving $35 on the manufacture of an iPhone or gay rights. So far saving the $35 seems more important.
$35 being the estimated increased cost of building an iPhone in the US where gays have rights.
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Indiana is the low hanging fruit in this case: For US political purposes, politicians that cultivate 'pro-business' images either also cultivate 'values', or tend to work with those who do. Here, the legislature was hoping to throw the 'values' voters a bone by solving a mostly imaginary problem, ideally without any political cost to themselves(except a little extra antipathy from the liberals who weren't going to vote for them anyway).
That puts Apple(and the assorted other companies that have denounced the move, it's a bit of a list) in a fairly strong position: they can't necessarily stop Indiana from doing something; but they can make it clear that you can't burnish your social-conservative credentials without risking your pro-business credentials. It's a natural 'wedge' issue. If Apple and others say nothing, people who are basically interested in business get to pander to social conservatives for free. If they say something, that won't change the game for politicians whose primary support is social conservative; but it will make the ones who listen to the local chamber of commerce much jumpier about doing this sort of thing.
Without access to that particular political dynamic, their ability to influence a foreign market is a great deal weaker, if present at all.
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. The realities of political influence over Indiana and Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with Fiorina's statement. It's all about the political calculation she's making. And that seems to be "fighting gay rights is a non-starter in America today, but running for office in America as a Republican requires that I fight gay rights. So I'll put out a false equivalency that's transparently stupid (because stupid doesn't matter once you get into the realm of he said, she said) and accuse a business leader of hypocrisy as a cover for my own hypocrisy in supporting a law I don't really believe in - but have to pretend to believe in in order to be a viable candidate".
Carly, you are toast - not that you didn't start out as toast. Your only role in 2016 (if you have a role at all) is to be able to level catty 'critiques' of Hillary because, y'know, you're a woman too. I'm glad to see you're so eager to sell your soul for such a trivial moment in the spotlight.
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
The same Carly that almost destroyed singlehandedly the legacy of 3 of the greatest legends of Silicon Valley: Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and Digital Equipment Corporation. She better should shut up.
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But if a company believes in a goal so much that they are willing to influence on the domestic side, then shouldn't they also care enough about it to be willing to give up on the foreign market?
False equivalency much? A company or individual being smart enough to pick battles which can be won is not being hypocritical. Refusing to do work with Saudi Arabia now would accomplish nothing. Perhaps refusing to do business with them 30 years from now if their own internal opinion on gay rights grows enough could do some good. And most likely only companies who continue to do business with them would have that leverage at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Spot on. And, taking actions which negatively affect the holdings of a stock owner in a publicly traded company will not go over well. Since foreign corporations operate at the discretion of the local government, attempting to meddle in their internal affairs will likely result in loss of that market. That is certainly not popular with investors.
there are always excuses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Laughably untrue. JFK was a true democrat in that his tax cut was targeted at the middle class. He showed that cutting taxes on the people that comprise the bulk of the populace has an economic stimulating effect. They warned at the time that cuts to only the richest among us would NOT stimulate the economy and would only serve to punch holes in the federal budget.
The problem for the Republicans is that they went batshit crazy on the tax cut idea and decided that the best tax cut was one on the richest amon
Re:Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between SA and Indiana is that SA makes Apple a shit-ton of money.
The difference between SA and Indiana is that Indiana protects religious freedom and despite not providing uniquely gay services, no businesses really discriminate against gays, while Saudi Arabia stones gays to death.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There are a number of Negroes who were lynched and hanged in Indiana because Indiana is the birthplace of the KKK. Discrimination vs. gays is just a new twist on ugly, self-righteous bigotry. Nobody's religious freedom was being infringed upon prior to this awful piece of legislation. And now the state is giving cover for hate crimes. Beautiful.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So in other words the prior comment about there having been specific bigotry in Indiana was fallacious, but you're hopeful that in time they will do something that will reinforce your world view.
Got it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
jcr has a point. If Indiana is as homophobic as SA, then how many have been killed?
This whole Indiana thing has been noting but bullying on the left's part. "Gay marriage" is nothing more than a ploy to force acceptance on people who have serious religious object to homosexual acts and supporting such acts. If this were not the case why is it that people who believed that a "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we're married." All of a sudden, that piece of paper is so important because homosex
Re: (Score:3)
Supporting such acts by selling them a cake? Which is the part of the Bible that prohibits making food for homosexuals? It must have been in a part I didn't read like The Book of Your Ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because trying to change with state policies about marriage has something to do with religious freedom. My marriage has nothing to do with religion -- my wife and I were married in a facility that is usually a nightclub by a good friend with no mention of religion. We specifically sought to remove any references to religion in our wedding ceremony because my wife and I aren't churchgoers. I'm sure there are some folks who don't approve of that sort of thing -- should they get veto power over my non-tra
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
> All of a sudden, that piece of paper is so important because homosexuals are the ones with traditional views of marriage.
The marriage contract opens the doors to wide range of economic benefits. Denying those benefits is ultimately what's wrong.
Then perhaps the right path to that is to get the benefits divorced from what many believe to be a religious institution.
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of people including religious folks like myself might be OK with that. But the issue at stake now is whether personal objections to someone elses behavior can be allowed. From what I see in this thread and from the objections to the law in the news, the intention is that a christian pastor could be forced to marry 2 people against his personal convictions, and that a shopkeep could be forced to serve customers whose actions he disapproves of.
Why is that a problem? Well, from the Chik-fil-a and other boycotts, I get the impression that the gay rights advocates strongly support the idea of boycotting a business based on what they believe. Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs. Is bizarre system truly what is wanted, or is it a double standard because THEIR beliefs are "correct"?
Not only that-- would it truly be bigotry if I found out my neighbor was in an adulterous relationship, or abused his children, or was opposed to adoption services for orphans, and because of those flaws I refused to serve him in my business out of principle? Many christians would say that being in a homosexual relationship is analogous to adultery or fornication, but dare to refuse to serve THEM over such a principle and its bigotry. What?
People need to understand that there is a difference between bigotry and disapproving of an ethos or behavior. This isnt about finding a class of person and saying "i hate them", its about saying "I dont support that lifestyle". You dont like it? Fine, dont go to those businesses-- just be aware you're doing literally the same thing that Indiana businesses are arguing for by boycotting a lifestyle or ethos.
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, since you asked for it Law that forces pastor to marry gays in Idaho city [washingtontimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I content that as long as religious people hold a legal distinction which prevents other people from discriminating against them, that religious people should hold no special ability to refuse service based on their beliefs.
If religious people wish to hold a special right to discriminate, they should themselves lose any right to be protected from discrimination. Or they should shut the fuck up.
You can believe any damned thing you like, but the right to refuse service to a customer is a right NOBODY else ha
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
Forcing a pastor to marry someone they convictionally believe is ineligible to marry is about as pure an example of violating religious beliefs as you can find. You are in essence forcing them to create a legal contract between God and them that they think is invalid and sinful to create.
Might as well take a page from the Romans and force them to offer incense to the president.
It draws a false equivalence which says "you are bad to refuse to buy from assholes who want the legal right to refuse to serve you".
No, Im asking why there is a double standard whereby you can "ethically" refuse to patronize a business whose beliefs you disagree with, but they cannot ethically refuse to service you.
In which case they're no better than the Taliban or ISIL ... it's just people claiming their religion gives them the right to do anything they so choose.
You're insisting that you have the right to force other people to violate their beliefs to fit your whims.
Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
Name me ONE other context in which a business owner can refuse to serve someone.
Every other context that does not involve a "protected class". This is a fundamental right of businesses. A grocer can refuse to sell you anything at all for any reason at all (and this has been upheld by SCOTUS on a number of different contexts) so long as it does not violate the very specific exceptions (ie, protected classes-- race, disability, etc).
If you want more source than that, here [legalmatch.com]
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
or here [legalzoom.com] or good old yahoo answers [yahoo.com] (which gets it basically right!).
For all of your vehemence, you seem to be ignorant of what the law is and says. The equal protections acts created exceptions to a general rule that businesses DO have the right to toss you out if they dont like you, your behavior, or your haircut.
If your puny little religious mind thinks you deserve to be able to refuse service,
My puny religious mind is going off of widely understood legal precedent, and showing how that is rational. Maybe you should do the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then perhaps the right path to that is to get the benefits divorced from what many believe to be a religious institution.
That's a great idea, let the stupid decide what the laws should be. Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal institution. It's a contract and it always has been. The religious ceremony literally means nothing legally. You can be married without a ceremony and you can be not married despite having the ceremony. The ceremony is the fluff, the marriage certificate you sign during (or after) the ceremony is the actual important part. Marriage is civil law.
Furthermore, in America marriage has n
Re: (Score:2)
Which ones? The only one I know of is a small pizza shop that said they would serve anyone who comes in but not cater a gay wedding. I'm not sure if there are any gays who would actually have pizza as their wedding food unless it was some fancy wood fired made to order on site gourmet pizza every one was raving about which rules that shop out.
Re: (Score:3)
And after the indiana legislation, several businesses have refused to do business in indiana. How is one boycott bigotry, and the other isnt?
One is boycotting based on intrinsic attributes of a person, such as being black or homosexual. One is boycotting based on decisions made, such as being a member of a hate group or passing legislation with the intention to discriminate.
If you don't see the difference, I'm not sure how to continue any discussion on the matter.
Basic arithmetics of good (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a little reminder for everyone:
bad + bad != good
good + bad > bad + bad
good + good > bad + good
So if somebody complains about someone promoting good + bad, do not forget that that this is better than bad + bad, although good + good would be even better. Perhaps it's not possible to solve all the problems of the world in one step, and perhaps not everyone who cannot solve all problems of the world in one step is a hypocrite.
Thank you for your attention!
Re: (Score:3)
This is also known as the excuse of "the greater good", a concept that should scare libertarians quite a bit...
In the name of a "Greater Good" many lesser evils may be done.
Re: (Score:3)
It should only scare libertarians that don't understand libertarianism.
Libertarianism as expressed by John Galt leads to anarchy, like in the earhly paradises of Haiti and Somalia.
Libertarianism sprinkled with a dose of reality is liberalism (laissez faire) in the true sense of the world.
True liberalism tries in as much as possible to get the state out of the way as much as possible, but keep it firmly in place where it belongs: (1) education, (2) services best provided as compulsory insurance (defense, policing, fire department, infrastructure, health, unemployment insurance,
If you demand all your supporters be flawless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you demand all your supporters be flawless.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hypocrisy" has a clear definition. Tim Cook is NOT a hypocrite on that issue. Fiorina is WRONG.
The worst that can be said is that Tim Cook has a "double standard" when it comes to advocating for gay rights in the USofA vs other countries.
Yet he also appears to be effective in advocating for gay rights in the USofA. Where is Fiorina's advocacy?
Fiorina is being a "concern troll" on these issues.
Even worse, she is being a concern troll for topics that she does not personally support. How much Saudi business did she turn down at HP? How much of her money has she spent on advocating for gay rights?
Re:If you demand all your supporters be flawless.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So... What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(No referencing the Old Testament. Unless you're A: Willing to be judged by all of it and B: ignoring the New Covenant but.
Re: (Score:2)
I will contend that in this day and age, when we talk about any -ism in this country, what we are really talking about is "capitalism". (There is evidence that it's always been that way, of course, but I'm going to keep this as succinct as possible.)
Rich people will always put profit first. If the product doesn't sell to women, no big deal; if it does, marketing blitz including a few token scholarships. Support a few redundant laws that establish women as a protected class, even. (Side note: let's ask F
Re: (Score:3)
There are racists in any group. Have you heard the racism coming from Sharpton?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called don't pick a fight you can't win.
So what you are saying is he should pull manufacturing from China ? You know where he is the customer ? Unfortunately gay rights doesn't seem to be worth 10 cents a phone
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least Carly Fiorina has made it clear she's no hypocrite by throwing her hat into the ring for the presidency, of Algeria.
Why does it seem (Score:5, Insightful)
All of politics these years are irrelevant social justice spats?
We have real problems, like the national debt going to be $20T, meaning every man, woman, and child has over $62.5k hangin over their head (household of mother, father, and 2.3 kids = around $270k) and everyone is spatting over who can get married and a bunch of nonissues such as bad thoughts about certain groups.
It's been long past where most places cared about lifestyle and we're still spazzing about making everyone feel cuddled. Holy fuck.
Re:Why does it seem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea ... is to keep the country divided.
Well, then why do you stick to whatever side you're sticking to, rather than compromising? Why are you dividing, rather than uniting? Be the bigger man and go over to the other side! Unite us again, O' great sage!
But I don't think that this is appealing to you. Odd that...
Re:Why does it seem (Score:4, Insightful)
We're in an era of "how do you feel?"
That is to say, in order to win hearts and minds, politicians, journalists, and others are trying to override the "mind" part, using engagement of feelings before the brain can even smack the snooze alarm. Feelings are simple, analysis is hard. Lure people into doing the simple thing so they have no desire to get to the hard thing.
Thus, we hear things like Hillary asking if we'd like to see a woman president. A lot of the media nowadays is laser-focused on making sure women achieve parity whether or not it's practical so much that if you dare question that sentiment (never mind the obvious agenda that favors Hillary over most other candidates), you're branded a misogynist.
Now people's feelings are overwhelmed with the ideas of justice and suppressing hatred (and how those things make us feel) that the question "But is the woman in question the right person for the job?" gets lost in all all the other noise, rhetoric and general shouting over each other.
fiorina (Score:3, Informative)
She sure fixed Lucent and HP. Totally incompetent and destructive. In over her head and spouting gibberish is her stock in trade.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Or not be a Republican? She needs to look at her own party before she ever has the right to complain about someone else being a hypocrite.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
She's going to merge the USA & Canada, keep the worst bits of both and the best bits of neither, then sell the resulting mess to Vanautu for a dollar.
Hawaii won't be part of the deal; she'll get that as her golden parachute.
Re: (Score:2)
She's going to merge the USA & Canada, keep the worst bits of both and the best bits of neither, then sell the resulting mess to Vanautu for a dollar.
Hawaii won't be part of the deal; she'll get that as her golden parachute.
IF this isn't +5 funny, please fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that President Fiorina will cut off ties to Saudi Arabia once elected? Didn't think so....
No, no, no...you see, she's not criticizing Tim or Hilary for their stances. She's criticizing them for doing business with people that don't share their stances.
Fiorina, on the other hand, hates both fags and women. Hence, she's not a hypocrite herself for being FROM Silicon Valley or having done just as much business with China. So it's all good!
On one hand (Score:2)
One one hand I agree with her sentiments. But her view needs to expand beyond attacking a couple of people. IMHO the US has a bizarre relationship with the Saudis, who seem to be able to get away with a shitload of things that other countries in the middle east get beat down for. But I cannot explain why the US turns a blind eye to it all, except possibly in the name of oil.
On the other hand, she said all of this on Hannity, and he is not known to be the bastion of logic (or even at times coherent though
What bit of this pandering do you agree with? (Score:5, Insightful)
One one hand I agree with her sentiments.
You agree with pandering? You think that Cook should support bigoted laws? You think that a corporate CEO shouldn't speak out against a law that is plainly discriminatory in his own country? You think that Apple should stop doing business any place that has a law that the CEO personally disagrees with? You think that HP ever changed where they did business based on Fiorina's personal moral compass? What exactly in her sentiments do you think is anything positive?
On the other hand, she said all of this on Hannity, and he is not known to be the bastion of logic
She's pandering to the conservative base of her party because she hopes to run for office. Hannity is a great place for conservatives to do that. Logic has nothing to do with his show and never did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, he should oppose laws that harm gays in minor ways, but not worry so much about the laws that hurt them in major ways? Because if the Indiana thing is an indication of how much he opposes laws that harm gays in minor ways, then w
Re: (Score:2)
then why isn't he upset by Saudi (or most of Africa, for that matter) laws that harm gays in major ways
How do you know he is not upset ? I'm guessing he is upset, but probably figures he has no power to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
(I'd think imprisonment or death is a bigger problem than where to get your wedding cake made, but that may just be me)?
You obviously underestimate the importance of wedding cakes to gay couples getting married....
Re:What bit of this pandering do you agree with? (Score:5, Insightful)
As human beings, we have limited agency. Tim Cook's words hold great sway here in the US. Much less in a place like Saudi Arabia.
Why do you want him to waste his political capital in fruitless words about the House of Saud and their backwards religion when he can affect change here and now? Why are Republicans all about doing ineffective things? I guess Sean had an expert in that when he brought in Fiorina as a guest!
Re: (Score:2)
You agree with pandering?
I said no such thing, and you are deliberately mis-representing my position for your own benefit - as can be seen by your ignoring the anything past the first sentence in my first paragraph. However I will concede that perhaps I should have prepended my statement with "in general".
So why have you ignored my US/Saudi comment? Do you think that the US should be a country of "do as I say and not as I do' in the international realm? Do you salivate at the application of the monroe doctrine? Do you support t
So he should have ruined Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this for real? Is she implying that Cook should have ruined 90% of Apple's business because of his personal stance on gay rights? I dislike Apple as much as anyone can, but this is utter bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course she is. She's going to take the stance that makes people harp on the flaws that aren't in line with their values.
If it causes division within the opposing party, more's the better.
This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
End run on separation of church and state (Score:3, Interesting)
While I am not entirely sure about how discriminatory the Indiana law is
I think it is clearly an attempt to allow people to act in bigoted ways against unprotected minority groups under the aegis of protecting their "religious" rights. It allows religious people to impose their religious morals on others while limiting the government's ability to protect others from those impositions. Personally I think it is a gross violation of separation of church and state cleverly disguised to appear to support that very same principle. It seems most targeted at LGBT individuals but I h
Re: (Score:2)
Nuance is a pesky thing, ain't it?
Personal morality and pandering (Score:5, Interesting)
Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent.
First off, since Fiorina has run a large multinational, she know damn well that the CEO's personal morality on an issue matters very little regarding where the company does businesses. This is just pandering to conservatives by someone who hopes to run for office. Did HP stop doing business in China because of Fiorina's personal sense of morality? Didn't think so.
Last time I checked, Tim Cook was a US citizen so it hardly seems inappropriate to hold your own country to a higher standard than places where you don't actually get a vote. Furthermore it's a little hard to criticize a foreign country for something that your own country is doing. Fix your home first and then you can hold the moral high ground. These "religious freedom" laws are nothing more than attempts to codify bigotry and circumvent parts of the constitution.
I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights.
Aaaannnd now we get to what is really going on. Any republican presidential hopeful for the 2016 election is going to engage in a huge amount of Hillary bashing. Anyone who has actually dealt with foreign countries would (or should) know that progress in human rights sometimes comes in slow, painful, incremental steps. Someone who has been Secretary of State would know this well. The US had slavery and jim crow laws and huge civil rights abuses for most of its history. Problems we are still dealing with today. Anyone who thinks the US is in a position to lecture on human rights hasn't read a history book lately. Fiorina knows or ought to know this so she's just pandering to idiots who lack the ability to grasp nuance. Sad thing is that it works.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure she'll mention the Affordable Care Act soon enough.
Re:Personal morality and pandering (Score:4, Informative)
I'm very confused. Wasn't Carla Fiorina an instrument of HP's down-slide with her involvement in the "Pre-texting" scandal where she hired private investigators to spy on the other board members? How soon we forget. It was a similar situation with RCA's board near it's end that pushed the decision to sell to GE.
What's good for the goose... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, let me be clear that I'm not disputing that she's merely strewing birdseed for the conservative election pigeons. Of COURSE she is doing that. However, your response is full of logical inconsistencies:
Did you have the same response when he was righteously sermonizing on how the people of Indiana and Arkansas choose to run their lives? It seems that his personal morality matters very MUCH on where
Re: (Score:3)
Yet in the US social progress needs to come IMMEDIATELY, as soon as someone stamps their precious little foot?
If it's actually PROGRESS, why wait? Because another minority (hardcore religious Christians) stamps their feet? Amazing how that works...
So when she starts talking jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Partisan Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all about Fiorina positioning herself for her bid for the Republican presidential candidacy, however, her comments are pure bullshit. You can't require a trillion dollar multi-national company stop doing business in every jurisdiction that has laws or policies the CEO disagrees with and It's not hypocrisy to use your free speech rights to advocate against policies that are abhorrent to you. It's also not hypocrisy to allow people from countries that have policies you're fighting against to give money to your charitable organization. However, Fiorina is holding other people to standards to she would never hold herself to, and that is hypocrisy. Of course, Fox News not only airs this bullshit but airs it uncritically and that's one of the reasons so many people despise Fox News. The only reason this is news is that she is making a bid for the presidency, otherwise this would another be "washed-up has-been says stupid things" story on page 27.
Frankly, I expect better from Fox News and I expect better from someone who wants to be president than moronic reactionary criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not like you can expect Carly Fiorina to know how to run a massive multi-national company in anything but the most superficial sense ... because she was pretty much incompetent.
What she is doing is speaking to her own perceived base who feel it should be a religious right to discriminate. And in that group, someone who will defend their right to be assholes is someone to listen to.
But, sometimes Republicans have a difficult time understanding the actual meaning of "hypocrisy", because they're am
Re: (Score:2)
You can't require a trillion dollar multi-national company stop doing business in every jurisdiction that has laws or policies the CEO disagrees with and It's not hypocrisy to use your free speech rights to advocate against policies that are abhorrent to you.
What is worse? Someone refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or cutting someone's head off because they are gay?
Of course, the former wasn't happening in the first place. It was a drummed up story by the left. But don't let actual facts get in the way.
Re: (Score:3)
What is worse? Someone refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or cutting someone's head off because they are gay?
The latter, of course, but you are engaging in the same bullshit as Fiorina. Has it ever occurred in your sorry excuse for a brain that Tim Cook might oppose both activities? When will you navel-gazing idiots learn that "somebody else did something worse" is never a good reason for tolerating injustice?
Of course, the former wasn't happening in the first place. It was a drummed up story by the left. But don't let actual facts get in the way.
Then why pass a law to enable anti-gay people to break contracts with gay people? It certainly wasn't "the left" that passed the law. Get a clue before you spout your ignorant nonsense.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Regurgitation of a GOP Talking Point... (Score:2)
Fiorina's a politician now... (Score:5, Funny)
In Defense of My Bitch Carly (Score:2)
Conflicted (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see this both ways. On the one hand, Fiorina is right. Saudi Arabia, China, etc. have despicable human rights records and roundly deserve criticism and boycotts.
On the other hand, Apple is a US-based company and is much more likely to have influence in the US than elsewhere. We should recognize that we need to fight injustice everywhere, but just because we aren't able to effectively fight it in China that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and ignore it in the US.
What Apple et. al. really should do is ensure that their employees in China are as well-treated on the job as American workers. Not to do that would be utterly hypocritical.
Good point (Score:2, Funny)
Mo' clowns in the car = mo' fun! (Score:3)
Everyone in the tech world knows Fiorina's an idiot. I guess now the California Republican Party can find it out, too. Lucky them!
But I don't know why I'm complaining. She makes Hillary look great! The more clowns the R's pack into their car, the more their makeup rubs onto the ringmasters who are trying to drive. Fun times...
Taking their money is not hypocrisy (Score:2)
Giving them money would be hypocrisy. Taking their money, that's something else.
On the other hand, manufacturing in China, that's hypocritical.
Doesn't anyone care (Score:2)
what Carly Fiorina thinks about.. anything?
I didn't even care what she thought when she was a tech CEO -- despite the fact I use a lot of HP systems.
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree with her in what way? SA and other markets do not have a contitution like ours. They do not give people the freedom to say and do what they want. The 2 groups are not analogous.
Re:not very often that i agree with carly fioni (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that Cook should not speak out against any social issue until he fully researches how the issue is handled everywhere in the world and only after he has prepared a complete response that is all-encompassing?
Fiorina's statement is a standard deflection technique to change focus from the good things an opponent does to something less good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You DO understand that "Carly" is a she, right?
This isn't some guy named Carl.
Re: (Score:3)