Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Laurene Powell Jobs Gains Majority Stake in 'The Atlantic' Magazine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is the most baseless thing I’ve read all week!
Ummm, she had no problem with Steve getting paid $1/year, as they lived off of dividends from Disney stock-
He died w/ a net worth of $10 billion, after roughly 40 years as a tech pioneer; whereas (relative) newcomer, Zuckerberg... in a MUCH more isolated industry, has a net of $70 billion & rising.
If we can say one thing of the Jobs, it’s that: as incredibly wealthy families go- they seem to be NOT money grubbing or excessively prone to being ostentatious.
The silly name calling & verbal attack/groundless accusation seemed inappropriate to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve is a visionary who changed our lives for the greater good. zuckerbug is a parasite who got lucky with a social media webpage. The sooner Facebook dies the happier people will become.
Mrs Jobs seems very level headed from what I’ve read. It would be very hard for any of us to deal personally with Steve’s legacy. I mean, think of his kids who everyday around them see how their iconic dad changed the world.
They look like such a close couple, and Steve cleans up nicely without that black turtleneck.
No, he's right. Sadly, our education system is lacking in so many ways. Most people are confused and don't understand the very important difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.
[doublepost=1501354281][/doublepost]
Point made, but the larger issue to be candid about is that the only reason people would care is that she is Steve Job's widow. No disrespect to her, but her wealth and notoriety stems exclusively from that relationship.
Interesting interview with Kamala Harris and Laurene Jobs for anyone interested in her background. Especially interesting is the bit about Laurene buying a stake in the NYT.
No, he isn't.
The US is a constitutional (it has a constitution) republic (it has no monarchs) and a representative (its parliament makes law, not the people directly) democracy (it has elections).
I am not sure what country you are confusing us with, but we don't have a parliament, etc. And, you seem to be confused about what I said as you are agreeing with me that the good old USA is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic.
So, you're saying Congress doesn't fit "representing the electorate, making laws, and overseeing the government via hearings and inquiries."
It's both. The two concepts don't contradict each other in any way.
Last edited by a moderator:
The two concepts actually are completely contradictory. You're conflating a general use of the term "democratic" meaning free elections by the people, which occurs in either a republic or democratic form of government, versus a "democratic" form of government. When we broke free from your British ancestors, we specifically rejected a democratic form of government and instead chose a constitutional republic. They are opposite forms of government and we chose the latter to protect the minority. Much in the same way our forefathers wisely chose to have a Senate with equal representation from every state, regardless of population to protect the less populous states. Here's a well-written article that explains why, as the author describes it, they are antithetical to each other. Enjoy.
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html