Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I was trying to illustrate, perhaps not as eloquently as I could have, is that the person I was replying to was focusing just on the amount of profit, not the profit margin. Some people (whiners, IMO) demonize total profit if they feel the company is gouging/being greedy/whatever label for that floats your boat, when profit margin is a much more accurate reflection of 'gouging'. I think Apple and Exxon Mobil are good examples. Some people like to demonize Exxon Mobil directly re total profit, Apple gets criticized re issues with Foxconn, etc., but I don't remember hearing of Apple being demonized for their profits, even though their margins are much higher than Exxon Mobil and other oil companies. IMO, a prime reason for this is that Apple is 'in' with the politically correct crowd and Exxon Mobil, for example, is not.
I think you are off base making claims about "the politically correct crowd" ignoring Apple's appalling behavior toward it's offshore workers. I'm a democrat, so I guess to you that also automatically means I'm one of those awful "politically correct" people you are talking about..so be it, I don't much care what people call me. But I don't buy Apple products, I do everything I can to spend my money on products and services provided by ethically responsible companies. I don't make a lot of noise about it, but it's how I conduct my life. I try to give my business to companies who pay decent wages, are good stewards of the environment and respect their customers. I admire a businesses who can make good profits, but I also care about what they did or did not do to earn that profit
no. the duty of the senate is to set the rules they want to use (every time there is a nomination)
that ought to give you proper whiplash.
The DUTY of the Senate is to serve the American People, not to serve political parties. If they are changing the rules every time there is a nomination for partisan purposes, they aren't fulfilling their DUTIES.
The DUTY of the Senate is to serve the American People, not to serve political parties. If they are changing the rules every time there is a nomination for partisan purposes, they aren't fulfilling their DUTIES.
You're partially right. The Senate should hold hearings on any Obama nominee. Then it should heed the advice Schumer gave to his party in 2007 about future Republican nominees and apply it to Democratic nominees:
"Second, for the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."
Each Senator can determine whether the addition of a Sotomayor or Kagan type justice to replace Scalia causes a 'dangerously out of balance' ideological SC and vote accordingly.
Before you or anyone else says that Scalia wanted Kagan, the fact is he knew Obama would pick a liberal and preferred a smart friend rather than a not smart stranger.
You're partially right. The Senate should hold hearings on any Obama nominee. Then it should heed the advice Schumer gave to his party in 2007 about future Republican nominees and apply it to Democratic nominees:
"Second, for the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."
Each Senator can determine whether the addition of a Sotomayor or Kagan type justice to replace Scalia causes a 'dangerously out of balance' ideological SC and vote accordingly.
Before you or anyone else says that Scalia wanted Kagan, the fact is he knew Obama would pick a liberal and preferred a smart friend rather than a not smart stranger.
The DUTY of the Senate is to serve the American People, not to serve political parties. If they are changing the rules every time there is a nomination for partisan purposes, they aren't fulfilling their DUTIES.
How about if they just follow the precedent set by the following for filibustering SCOTUS nominees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama, Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer et al vote to filibuster Alito in 2006.
Before you or anyone else says that Scalia wanted Kagan, the fact is he knew Obama would pick a liberal and preferred a smart friend rather than a not smart stranger.
You're partially right. The Senate should hold hearings on any Obama nominee. Then it should heed the advice Schumer gave to his party in 2007 about future Republican nominees and apply it to Democratic nominees:
"Second, for the rest of this President’s term and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."
Each Senator can determine whether the addition of a Sotomayor or Kagan type justice to replace Scalia causes a 'dangerously out of balance' ideological SC and vote accordingly.
Before you or anyone else says that Scalia wanted Kagan, the fact is he knew Obama would pick a liberal and preferred a smart friend rather than a not smart stranger.
Selection criteria.
Brian Sandoval is a Republican. If Obama nominates him, what is the problem with that nominee?
I don't think 20% is very many. And somewhat more than half of those are on "ideological lines," varying by year.
We can agree to disagree.
IMO, 20% is not "a few".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He actually said Americans are stupid, and was reflecting the Democrat view.
