MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Mac republican right here. But I don't mind that my hero Steve is a democrat. Differences are a good thing.

Wow, I did not know that you could be a smart Mac user, and a dumb Republican... That is really confusing!

Exactly how does steve know more apple users are democrats???? (Republican here.)

The most public Mac user in the U.S. is the Rush Limbaugh - conservative Republican to the max.

Anybody ever seen a photo of Democrat and Apple board member Al gore ever use a Mac or any Apple computer????

Go Steve!

Conservative Mac user here. Vote Republican. I do so because my taxes are too high, I believe in personal responsibility, the sanctity of life, and the preservation of traditional values. I choose a mac because it is the best choice for me. I choose to cast my vote for Bush/Cheney in Nov. because it is the best choice for me - although I wish Bush would be less liberal when it comes to federal spending.

Republican Mac user here. Glad to finally hear a well-known figure say he's going to avoid talking politics. I wish more of them would follow his lead. Proves Steve is smart after all.

paul, you're just an elitist ass hole.

republican here, not sure who i am voting for. mac user for 16 years.

what a jerk.

he just said, "like, maybe....i dunno....its a personal thing" so...he's just guessing, folks. if the country is as evenly split as it seems, it seems reasonable for someone's guess to fall to one side or the other based on their own anecdotal evidence.

Smart Steve Jobs. Politics have burnt more than one. Good to hear he is staying away.


Nader 4TW: LOL ;P

James
Your taxes are too high because your president needs your cash for his war. What do you expect? Who do you think should be paying for it? The public school system?
I'm baffled by your common sense in being a Mac user considering the reasons you will vote for Bush... Weird...

Gren -

Well, we knew this would devolve into the same thing it always does--so . . .

"because your president needs your cash for his war"

Well, it's my war too. Oh yeah, and it's Kerry's war too since he voted for it. AND he just recently went on record and said he would vote for it again even if he had known for a fact there were no WMDs.

just so you guys know, Paul's comments don't reprsent all Democrats perspective on things. I may disagree with my conservative bretheren, but I still have a healthy respect for their ability to come to their own conclusions, speak their mind, and fight for what they believe in.

i also would like to say that pretty much everyone who is not a murderous psychopath, also believes in the 'sanctity of life.' No political party has a stranglehold on that. I assume James was talking about abortion rights. So I guess he can further clarify that he believes that life begins the moment a sperm hits an egg. I disagree, but I feel that is where our debate should be at. It seems that the misnomer Prolife has unfairly steered the whole debate of the choice to abort a pregnancy.

Shempzilla, why should well known people avoid politics? If you believe in something, you should make your voice heard. In fact, I think it 's good that celebrities voice their opinions because they can actually catch the ear of the media.

It's kind of sad that Repubs are saying that actors should stay out of politics these days when their favorite past president was an actor.

Auctoris, Please don't misrepresent the facts.

The congress voted to give the AUTHORITY to the president to decide to go to war. The CHOICE was always in his hands. And assuming that we found mass stockpiles of weapons in the inspection process and Iraq kicked out the inspectors, I myself would have backed this war.

A vote for to give authority to declare war, is NOT a vote for war.

And Kerry is right to stand by his decision. After all, giving the authority is what helped get Saddam to let in inspectors again with unparalleled access. That's a good thing. Declaring war with no evidence at all of weapons or impending threat, that's a bad thing.

Since we only had a huge talk in this forum just last week, can we avoid that this time? Let's talk about what wasn't mentioned in the above article - and we can blame MDN for this:

"Mossberg questions Jobs about Mac OS X's lack of viruses, the tech economy, politics, Apple's corporate sales, Pixar and more."

Yet MDN decided to mention only the political part of the discussion. Much more apropos to this site & this forum would be Jobs' take on lack of viruses. Next would be Apple's corporate sales. Next would be the tech economy, followed by Pixar. Finally, one person's take on politics.

C'mon MDN, you guys have really gone downhill. How about a little more Mac and a little less politics?!?!?!

Gren,

Our taxes are too high due to tax increases in previous administrations. Our deficit is growing because of an economic downturn while the current administration has decreased taxes and spent money on fighting wars and rebuilding nations. Judging if that is wise will take a broader view than is currently available.

I'm another Republican Mac user. Personally I think Jobs should stay as far away from politics (from either party) as possible to avoid alienating any potential customers. However it's a bit late for that now seeing as how he's "advising" the Kerry campaign, has Al Gore on the board, etc. Personally I don't care which way Jobs goes and he's certainly never going to influence the way I vote at the polls, but I still think it's quite foolish for him to associate his company with one particular political party. It can cause nothing but trouble either way.

The Point of it all is that democrats are idiots

"Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril." --John F. Kennedy

Libertarian conservative Mac user here, I don't care if Steve is a Democrat or not as long as Apple keeps putting out good products.

Paul wrote:

Wow, I did not know that you could be a smart Mac user, and a dumb Republican... That is really confusing!

********************

This is just the kind of comment that passes for clever, in the liberal mind.

Sincerely,

Jack Ass

Auctoris,

I see that you can not support your assertion that 'Kerry voted for the war', so you have posted a nice quote by JFK.

... so I will comment on that. Of course what JFK was referring to was the threat of nuclear weapons at our doorstep in Cuba. A fact that is not refuted. Iraq on the other hand did not have stockpiles of chemical weapons, nor a re-constituted nuclear program (one that was dismantled 12 years ago) and there was NO standing unrefutable evidence in support of these things. therefore, the use of JFK's quote in support of your position on the war in Iraq isn't logically connected.

I think it should be obvious why Steve would support Kerry. Bush is major bad news for America and the World.

Reasons why we need to get rid of Bush.

Record Budget deficit spending
net loss of Jobs during his Tenure
His record on the Environment is horrible.
He totally dropped the Ball pre-9/11
Ignores the Geneva Conventions
Continues to support the Patriot Act
Guantanamo Bay
Disempowered the UN
Alienated world opinion against the US
Fostered atmosphere in which US Troops tortured prisoners
Smear Campaign tactics
Didn't finish the job in Afghanistan
flip flopped on importance of catching Osama
Rushed us into a sidetrack war from the War on Terrorism
Iraq war was based on faulty intelligence - No WMDs
Established a Preemptive Strikes are OK precedence
Unduly influenced by the far right religious faction
Has divided rather than united America
Sounds like a moron when he talks

Black Democrat Mac User here. Politics are great to discuss because you get to hear how disillusional the other side is.

Want to see how your tax dollars are spent, take a look at this short movie: http://www.ftaaimc.org/miamimodel

jack ass, I'm saddened to see that my appeal to you to not equate Pauls comments with the minset of the 'liberal mind' did not win you over.

jack a,

Thanks for the list. Ninety percent of them are the reason I _will_ vote for Bush.

Auctoris,
All I'm saying is that the war cost an amazing amount of cash. I'm not disputing the fact that Kerry voted for it. I love the fact that you Reps are supporting the war and want somebody else to pay for it! That's amazing!

David,
Stop watching Fox"News". You've obviously been brainwashed.

Autctoris, what is the 10 percent you are against?

Gren the delusional writes:

Your taxes are too high because your president needs your cash for his war. What do you expect? Who do you think should be paying for it? The public school system?
I'm baffled by your common sense in being a Mac user considering the reasons you will vote for Bush... Weird...

********************

Gren, I hate to add to your bafflement, but taxes are LOWER under President Bush - NOT HIGHER. They became higher under (drum roll please)......Bill Clinton, and lower under George Bush.

The notion that taxes were just fine, that the rates were right were they ought to be before Bush came into office, and now, suddenly, despite Bush having cut taxes ACROSS THE BOARD, they are too high - my goodness you liberals will tell yourselves just about anything in order to sleep well at night.

Have a baffling day hotshot.

Sincerely,

Jack Ass

Gren,

Since almost 40% of my income is taken in taxes, then _I_ am paying for it. And I don't mind that this is where it is being spent.

Interesting how politics cause more discussion than anything. . But I bet everyone already knew that. I didn't know you could be a smart mac user and a dumb democrat at the same time.

Dumb Ass
Right... Taxes are lower. Where do you think the money comes from? I'll let you guess smart ass.

No answer Auctoris? Wonder why not,,,,,,,

Auctoris- if 40% of your income is being taken by taxes you need a financial manager/tax advisor/accountant to help you out!
Sheesh - invest, buy a house, get married, take your deductions. Read a book on saving on taxes and investing.

One more Conservative Mac user. And a college student at that.

W '04!

but Cheney does need to go, McCain would be a better Vice P

We could use someone like Jobs to be an economic advisor to both parties.

With the IRS reporting that personal income has actually declined for 2 years straight(the first time this has ever happened), we need someone who has proven he can turn things around.

Auctoris,
Good to hear you're happy with that. I personaly would rather have the money spent in education. I guess education is not your forte.

let's be a little more clear here, because this forum does not allow for precision:

1. who is "we" when you say your taxes are too high? and what is the percentage of your tax compared to your income. I.e. - does it make sense to cut taxes only for the rich? what about all those people, myself included, who got the tax rebate ONLY because I made MORE than the minimum, NOT less. is being rich and wanting to be richer a legitimate reason to vote for Bush, or does it make sense to you that general peace, prosperity, and respect from the world actually makes everyone richer - albeit not necessarily in tangible, monetary ways. Remember the Clinton days. Our taxes were high, but we ALL made more money. Sure, 9/11 did not happen, but prosperity can return - but not by concentrating the wealth ever more. Don't we know that by now?

2. unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not actually been a shining star in personal responsibility. He did not go to Vietnam, Cheney had 5 deferments, Ashcroft had 7, Bush was bailed out by his dad repeatedly. Publicly, he tries to project that image because of the party, of course, but you are still talking about a spoiled brat who has gotten away with everyone in his life. I don't think the issue is whether or not you, fellow Mac users, believe in personal responsibility. Rather, it's whether Bush is actually not the last person in the world to espouse that virtue. Who opposed the 9/11 hearings? Who actually called Dick Clarke's apology a self-serving publicity stunt? Who said he made no mistakes ever? Doesn't it bother you that we might have four more years of this? Really, why resist the 9/11 commission? Why not take responsibility LIKE REAGAN actually did? Kerry, on the other hand, stood up against a war that he ended up not believing in. If a soldier in Iraq right now denounced the war, or even the prisoner tortures, is he/she a flip-flopper, non-patriot, weak, etc.? Or did it take courage to break ranks and speak out? Terrorism cannot be fought by punishing whistleblowers.

3. Go after Terrorists! Great! Um, if anyone here actually read Dick Clark's book, you will realize that the Bush admin. wasted months before going into Afghanistan, and most likely lost bin Laden in the process. Then, they started the war with Iraq. The question is STILL NOT whether Iraq had WMD per say. (We know they did BEFORE, back in 1993. Why punish him now? Bush Sr. already concluded, back then, that invading Iraq was ill-advised and ultimately counter-productive. And essentially a deal was made where Saddam could do whatever he wanted as long as he did not bother the US, halt oil, or made nukes. His own private kingdom.) It is rather whether fighting Iraq actually helped or hurt the war on Terror. We know that it has hurt - many times over. Terrorists have been recruiting ever more, they were stationed in Syria, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, and still Afghanistan, and what do we have to show for Iraq? International enmity - AFTER 9/11, AFTER Iranian women held candlelit vigil, AFTER the whole world took our side.

All I can say is: nothing wrong with being Republican, or standing up for those virtues you extolled. The question is, are you voting the party blindly, or do you see that Bush actually is the worst person to sustain all those things you believe in. Peace, security, prosperity, moral rectitude - tell the veneer from the real thing. Be smarter - like your Mac usage. Don't buy into the Microsoft-like dissimulation and believe that Linux is 10x more costly thant Microsoft, or that viruses are a regular part of life.

Ask for accountability.
Ask why Iraq.
Ask why Afghanistan so late, and now nothing.
Ask why reduce troops in S. Korea which is what N. Korea has wanted for decades - but without getting concession from them.
Ask why 1000 dead, 5000 disfigured US soldiers.
Ask what bin Laden would have liked Bush to do, and compare.
Ask why democracy in Iraq, but sultanate in Saudi Arabia.
Ask why people are jailed for YEARS without lawyer, family, etc. just LOST. (future terrorists, anyone?)

It's not about the party this year. It's about the future of the whole world.

For me, it was enough that Kerry stood up and protested the war, admitted the good and the bad of war, despite all the possible repurcussions. All you veterans, just because others committed atrocities doesn't mean you did. BUT, doesn't mean we can hide it either. Don't blame the messenger, blame the unnecessary war that forced the situation to happen. No one is blaming the whole US Army for the prisoner abuses, but shouldn't those accountable be held responsible? Shouldn't Rumsfeld be fired? War is always hell, but it's not always necessary in the first place. In the case of 9/11, maybe not war, but smaller targeted operations were needed. Instead, we waged all out war, and still no bin Laden, but ever larger Al Queda.

It's amazing how you are liberal when you are under your parent's care and while they are paying your bills.

You are still liberal after you leave home but you have various government agencies helping pay your way with free tuition or some sort of social assistance.

You are kind of ambivalent when you are starting to pay your own way but are living from paycheck to paycheck.

But when you become relatively successful and start making some serious cash and watch while great chunks of that cash are taken in taxes and pissed away on some projects that you do not approve of you become conservative in one hell of a hurry.

Interesting how Rush and many other Republicans keep referring to the torture at Abu Graib as being "Animal House" like or merely fraternity hazing. Hmmmmmmmmmm...I don't remember the rape of 10 y/o boys being part of my initiation. I guess Republican Fraternities are just a little different. Maybe that’s what Bush meant by "Leave No Child's Behind"...unmolested, unfucked, unpenetrated? You decide.

whoa there Gren. Now you're misrepresenting the facts.

Kerry did not vote for the war.

the vote was to give authority to the president to go to war.

NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL!!!!!

WHY?????? Because of the understanding that whoever is in the position, will use the authority wisely and justly. It's an important thing to do as a nation because it allows for quick response. Take the decision out of hundreds congressional members and put it into one persons hands. Ineed, it is step towards having war on your hands, but it is not VOTING TO GO TO WAR.

Remember, the UN got back into Iraq because of the threat of an invasion. That's a good use of power and authority. Why even bother with inspections in the first place if they don't find anything and we go to war regardless.

BTW, way to go Steve!

gRen - Since I have three post graduate degrees, I would say education has been somewhat important to me. But in general I take a more Thomas Jefferson approach to the federal government--they are there primarily for a military purpose.

Geez, You all sound like you're on the Rag. That time of the month?

Two things are sure to ruin a party:
The talk of Politics or Religion
If Jobs is smart enough to stay away from them we should be able also. BTW Gates is a republican.. Just kidding - I don't know and don't care.
Back to technology

Still no answer from Auctoris. You said you thought 90% of the reasons I gave to get rid of Bush were actually reasons to vote for him. Scared to try and actually state which of the list compromise this "90%" you spouted off about?????

It always seems that most of the pro-Bush crowd can never come up with more than sound bites to support him. I guess that is because they are basing their decision on sound bites.

Jack A -

Of your list, there are only two that I would remotely say could be correct:

Flip flopped on importance of catching Osama
Smear Campaign tactics.

And if they are correct, then looks like we won't be voting for Kerry or any other politician either.

Of the rest of your list, _if_ these are correct (and I know some of them are), I have no problem with any of them:

Established a Preemptive Strikes are OK precedence
His record on the Environment is horrible.
Ignores the Geneva Conventions
Continues to support the Patriot Act
Guantanamo Bay
Disempowered the UN
Alienated world opinion against the US

Your remaining list items are either opion, lack support , or completely incorrect.

The End

Billy boy embarrassed himself by writing:

...Iraq on the other hand did not have stockpiles of chemical weapons, nor a re-constituted nuclear program (one that was dismantled 12 years ago) and there was NO standing unrefutable evidence in support of these things...

********************

Billy boy, it's kind of funny that you're using information that you could only know conclusively but for the fact that we DID go into Iraq. What would Hypocrates say? Before the war, practically everyone, including opponents of the war, thought that he DID have WMD's. Furthermore, one has to wonder, what WAS he hiding from the U.N. inspectors. So you're not going to fool anyone with your after-the-fact Johnny-come-lately "I told you so" routine.

And what's this about there being "NO standing unrefutable evidence" as to WMD's? Okay, first of all, I think you meant "irrefutable" - since "unrefutable" is not a word. (If Bush had something like that you'd be having a field day with it.) Secondly, in that Hussein was not letting the U.N. inspectors inspect, there were essentially two ways to get "unrefutable" evidence. To have U.S. soldiers on the ground, finding it. Or, to have Washington D.C. dissolve into a mushroom cloud. Not an easy choice, is it? Especially after 9/11, is it? Unless of course you're a Monday morning quarterback.

A question for you: If a cop sees some guy, a guy which he knows to be a homicidal maniac, wielding what appears to be a gun in the direction of innocents, and he shoots the guy - and it turns out later that it was just a toy gun - did the cop do the right thing? Or, what if the cop didn't shoot, because he was "nuanced" like John Kerry, so he only bluffed, and the gun turned out to be real, and the guy DID end up killing the innocents? Again, did the cop do the right thing? I mean, so some innocent people died, but without inspecting the gun first to determine if it were real or not, he couldn't say for sure whether the guy was a real threat. But in your world, determining whether or not the cop was right or wrong in either situation, you need one more important piece of information: his party affiliation.

Feel free to make a further ass of yourself by submitting an asinine response which still does not get you out of the bind I just put you in.

Sincerely,

Jack Ass