Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's so funny to see that most people don't like him because of how he spun Obama's lies but 5 years ago Obama could do no wrong to 90% of the people here.

----------



No it seems that the overwhelming majority have come to the realization that Obama is the worst president since WWII...

Man this really brought out the wing nuts..

Guess you were asleep during the last administration, which makes Obama's mishaps look pretty much like nothing.
 
There is a HUGE difference between keeping a product under wraps and "covering the butt"

No there's not. Both involve "telling the public what your boss told you to tell them."

So like I said earlier, it just comes down to whether you trust Tim Cook or not.

Do you? If so it shouldn't matter who they hire.

If not, it shouldn't matter who they hire.
 
I am not really a big fan of the guy but he surely is qualified for the position.

Qualified, yes, but his reputation precedes him and tarnishes the message before he even begins it.

----------

Man this really brought out the wing nuts.

Baffles me how those who use "wing nuts" as a disparaging label fail to notice that "right" is not inherently an implied part thereof; the term as used applies to both right and left. Consequence: anyone using the term is witlessly insulting themselves in the process.
 
What if Apple was considering Ari Fleischer or Dana Parino? Both former George W Bush press secretaries. Dana Parino is now on Fox News.

Those would also, probably, be good choices. I don't know much about either, but anyone who can sling the lies of our past two administrations has to be good at lying (I'd hope).

----------

It's so funny to see that most people don't like him because of how he spun Obama's lies but 5 years ago Obama could do no wrong to 90% of the people here.

----------



No it seems that the overwhelming majority have come to the realization that Obama is the worst president since WWII...

Source?
 
No there's not. Both involve "telling the public what your boss told you to tell them."

So like I said earlier, it just comes down to whether you trust Tim Cook or not.

Does he really need Carney so badly he'd alienate 50% of his customers? I doubt it. So now I'm starting to distrust Cook's judgment.

Do you? If so it shouldn't matter who they hire.

That's absurd. There's a spectrum of hirelings. On the left side you've got the incompetent and divisive, then as you move toward the right side, it's the competent and unifying. Carney's on the far left. Surely there are better choices from the right side.
 
Well they need to replace Katie Cotton, and as long as I do not see Carney on stage at WWDC or other Keynotes, he may be ok for the job.
 
Does he really need Carney so badly he'd alienate 50% of his customers? I doubt it. So now I'm starting to distrust Cook's judgment.



That's absurd. There's a spectrum of hirelings. On the left side you've got the incompetent and divisive, then as you move toward the right side, it's the competent and unifying. Carney's on the far left. Surely there are better choices from the right side.

I didn't realise anyone in the Obama administration was a communist...

That said I doubt 50% of Apples customers would be horrified. Most people don't care about politics and no one outside the US cares about Americas sports team like politics to really care if Apple hired someone from US politics.
 
I didn't realise anyone in the Obama administration was a communist...

Well that came up out of the blue. So you think Carney's a Commie? Sounds like an extreme opinion to me....

That said I doubt 50% of Apples customers would be horrified. Most people don't care about politics and no one outside the US cares about Americas sports team like politics to really care if Apple hired someone from US politics.

So what's the magic number? You're as arrogant as Cook if you think Apple can disregard any customers. As for who cares about politics, Americans don't like someone else's politics shoved in their face, so if Carney became an Apple employee, we'd think about buying elsewhere.
 
For all of you with your panties all wadded up your butts over a rumor, tell me about all those times you saw Katie Cotton giving press conferences.
 
For all of you with your panties all wadded up your butts over a rumor, tell me about all those times you saw Katie Cotton giving press conferences.

It's Apple bringing in an Obama lackey as an obvious bid to gain influence that is so distasteful. Obama's scandal ridden administration shouldn't bring Apple down to its level of corruption.
 
It was clearly worded as an opinion so he doesn't have to provide a source.

And yet he gave me one.


See, that's what I thought you were going with. I kind of hoped you weren't, since using that as a source means that you don't know what the word majority means. For a majority of people to think he was the worst President since WWII, there'd have to be over 50%. It could be 51%, 50.1% or so forth, but it has to be above 50%.

I think you mean a plurality, but I can't quite be sure.
 
And yet he gave me one.



See, that's what I thought you were going with. I kind of hoped you weren't, since using that as a source means that you don't know what the word majority means. For a majority of people to think he was the worst President since WWII, there'd have to be over 50%. It could be 51%, 50.1% or so forth, but it has to be above 50%.

I think you mean a plurality, but I can't quite be sure.

I wasnt the author of the original comment but since they indicated WW2, it was assumed that's the source he meant. Majority was a bit of creative license but I knew what they meant. Still doesn't negate the fact the current executive branch is widely viewed as bad. And this one was supposed to redeem the past one and failed in almost every category in terms of openness, internationally, less freedoms in the press. But I digress... Reagan deemed the "best" at 35%, Obama "worst" at 33%. So he's ALMOST as disliked as Reagan is liked... seems pretty clear to me.
 
It's Apple bringing in an Obama lackey as an obvious bid to gain influence that is so distasteful. Obama's scandal ridden administration shouldn't bring Apple down to its level of corruption.


Dude, you better get your manufactured outrage going as Apple has already did this when they hired Lisa Jackson, former head of the EPA under Obama.
 
I wasnt the author of the original comment but since they indicated WW2, it was assumed that's the source he meant. Majority was a bit of creative license but I knew what they meant. Still doesn't negate the fact the current executive branch is widely viewed as bad. And this one was supposed to redeem the past one and failed in almost every category in terms of openness, internationally, less freedoms in the press. But I digress... Reagan deemed the "best" at 35%, Obama "worst" at 33%. So he's ALMOST as disliked as Reagan is liked... seems pretty clear to me.

Which is sad, because Reagan helped create Al-Qaeda and continued destroying the US economy. :\ Then again, most people prefer to ignore the part about Al-
Qaeda.
 
Which is sad, because Reagan helped create Al-Qaeda and continued destroying the US economy. :\ Then again, most people prefer to ignore the part about Al-
Qaeda.

The Mujahideen wasn't Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda split off from them as they weren't extreme enough. The Mujahideen helped us remove the Taliban from power. So much for history.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.