“Back in May, tech leaders such as John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems Inc., and Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc., threw their support behind George W. Bush. John Kerry has industry backing of his own, including that of Apple Computer Inc.
Previous Post
Apple releases Apple Remote Desktop 2.1 Update253 Comments
Leave a Reply
Will incoming CEO John Ternus help realize Apple’s smart home potential?
Incoming Apple CEO John Ternus could kick off his tenure with an ambitious push into smart home hardware. All signs point to a robust lineup…
How John Ternus could finally fulfill Steve Jobs’ original vision for the iPad as a true primary computing device
Steve Jobs introduced the iPad in 2010 not as a bigger iPhone or a sidekick to the Mac, but as a revolutionary “third category” of device…
Apple’s long-awaited next-gen Apple TV 4K: A performance leap delayed by next-gen Siri, poised for 2026 launch
The current third-generation Apple TV 4K, released in late 2022 with the A15 Bionic chip, continues to deliver strong 4K streaming…
Apple’s iPhone is killing it in China, shipments surge 20% in first quarter
Apple’s iPhone shipments in China surged 20% year-over-year in the first quarter, delivering the strongest growth among major vendors…
Apple preps custom ‘micro-curved’ OLED display on Twentieth Anniversary iPhone, eyeing bezel-less quad-curved design
For the iPhone’s twentieth anniversary, Apple is turning to Samsung to develop a custom micro-curved OLED panel that promises to be both…
Bush is worse than hitler?
c’mon – think before you speak…. very very ignornat posting.
I think I’ll sit this one out.
Increased military spending is positively correlated with advances in technology.
I don’t see either side as being more for or against IT. Neither side will really promote IT causes any more than the other. The Republican ticket is more likely to give tax breaks to big corporations, which would benefit any large company.
No doubt that all technology companies, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, etc., will be hedging their bets and donating to both campaigns. No matter who wins, they all want a piece of the pie.
Snug fig,
“Listen, Bush thinks that there are more than one INTERNET!”
And Kerry described Parkinson’s Disease as a “type of muscle disorder”….while saying how knowledgeable about “science and its issues”…
I’d say that’s just as bad.
bush is better for technology because he has an ipod on his back to help him keep his lies straight
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
kerry is better for technology if u want an economy in which people actually have the money to make and buy new things
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
also a soldier is 50% more likely to support new technology if hes alive instead of dying for bush’s oil buddies.
Kareem: GWB speaks from the heart. He is a true visionary. He was handed Clinton’s recession, dot-com bubble burst, 9-11 attacks, corporate scandal, having to go to war, and the economy is doing great. Terrorists are getting wiped out in the middle east not the US. John Kerry wants to kiss France’s ass. The man is a very bad person. Let’s pray he doesn’t get elected. Our enemis want a weak leader in the US and Kerry is that man, very weak.
Are you nuts?
He was handed a surplus. The recession started well after he took office. The chief of the fed even made a statement that we had to be carefull of paying back the debt to fast! Now look where we are. The Clinton white house did an incredibly good job on terrorism (Millenium bomb attempt as well as others). Kerry is in fact far stronger on defense and anti-terrorism than Bush or Cheney EVER were (personally voted for initiatives totalling over 4 trillion for military spending). Do the research and stop listening to right-wing media outlets.
In fact if you actually listen to one thing Cheney says, go to factcheck.org (not .com) and you will see it contradicts practically everything he or the current administration has ever said.
Just the fact that you made that France comment shows how little actual political reading you actually do. Keep on towing that party line the home-boy.
IT is a rather surprising by product of the War on Ter ror: For the first time, a consensus seems to be emerging among Islamic authorities worldwide that Muslims in the West should participate in democratic politics.
Before taking credit for this, President Bush might note that these authorities tend to favor votes for his opponent. But Sen. John Kerry’s pleasure in that must be tempered by the awareness that those authorities favor him only because they are quite sure he will permit the undoing of Bush’s work in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The emerging consensus could become a turning point for Islamic theology. It drives a hole in the cardinal concept of “association and exoneration” (al-wala’a wa al-bara’a), which means that Muslims should steer clear of non-Muslims, and associate only with fellow believers.
The consensus also challenges the classical Islamic division of the world into two parts: the House of Faith (Dar al-Iman), meaning Muslim countries, and “The House of War” (Dar al-Harb Dar), meaning countries ruled by the “infidel.” The emerging view, it seems, would allow for a third category of countries to be recognized as the “House of Truce” (Dar al-Sulh), of which the United States would be one.
By declaring participation in Western elections “licit” (yajuz), Islamic theology is abandoning two traditional positions:
* Muslims, although allowed to spend time in non-Muslim lands for trade and/or missionary activity, should not settle in countries ruled by non-Muslims. Muslims owe no loyalty to a non-Muslim authority which is, by definition, an expression of “un-belief” (kufr). A Muslim is not allowed to pay taxes to an “infidel” government or fight in its army.
* Islam, while encouraging consultation and consensus, rejects lawmaking by mortals, and is opposed to any election in principle.
Both positions have been undermined by events. Almost 300 million Muslims, a quarter of the world total, now live in countries under “infidel” rule, including an estimated 6 million to 9 million in the United States.
The first fatwa (religious edict) allowing Muslims to vote in non-Islamic countries was issued at Aligarh, India, in 1947. Since then, Muslims, 16 percent of India’s population, have played am active part in all elections.
For American Muslims, taking part in elections was declared “licit” at the 1999 Islamic Summit in Detroit, Mich. A year later the European Islamic Council for Fatwa and Research issued a similar fatwa.
As the debate has heated up in recent months, more and more fatwas have been issued. Some theologians have gone so far as to declare that taking part in elections is not only “licit” but an “obligation” (wajib) for Muslims in non-Islamic lands.
The theologians who say taking part in elections is “licit” include the Egyptian Ali Jad al-Haq, the Lebanese Muhammad-Hussein Falallah, the Iraqi Abdul-Karim Zaydan and the Saudi Muhammad-Saleh al-Munjed.
Their argument is that, though Muslims owe no loyalty to non-Islamic states, they must be free to decide when their participation in elections serves the interests of Islam. “What matters is whether or not any action is good for Islam,” says al-Munjed. “No vote should be cast unless the voter is certain that it will benefit the faith and his Muslim brethren.”
Theologians insisting that voting is an “obligation” include Yussuf al-Qaradawi (an Egyptian based in Qatar), the Lebanese Faisal al-Mawlawi and the Iranian Makarem Shirazi. Their argument is that Muslims living in non-Muslims lands should regard themselves as missionaries whose task is to convert the citizenry to Islam and, in time, establish an Islamic state. Thus if taking part in elections is a means of achieving those goals, it is incumbent on Muslims to do so.
“Wherever they are, Muslims should work towards the day when humanity is united in the only true faith, which is Islam,” says Qaradawi. “If taking part in elections is one way of achieving that, it is an obligation.”
I just realized I didn’t answer the question here on the table:
Kerry. If anything he is for keeping jobs in the U.S. With the flight of IT jobs overseas I think that is one thing we need right now!
Some theologians claim that the Koran, which contains all possible and imaginable knowledge of the past, the present and the future, has anticipated and answered the question.
Salah al-Din Sultan, who has devoted a book to the subject, quotes verses from two of the Koran’s most famous Surahs, The Cow (al-Baqarah) and The Banquet (al-Ma’edah), to show that voting should be regarded as a form of “bearing witness” (shihadah) to what a believer regards as right. A similar view is expressed by the Iranian Ayatollah Muhammad Yazdi. He sees elections as a method of “commanding the Good and combating evil,” an Islamic duty.
Both recall a fatwa by Al-Izz bin-Abdul-Salam that makes it incumbent on Muslims to “snatch away every bit of power they can” from the “infidel.”
British Muslims have used that fatwa to inflict defeat on candidates from Tony Blair’s Labor Party in a number of recent local and by-elections. The idea is that, facing the possibility of losing the next general election as a result of Muslim votes for the opposition, Blair would be forced to abandon his alliance with the United States in the War on Terror.
One problem remains, however. It concerns the attitude of Muslims towards laws that contravene Islamic jurisprudence (shariah). Most theologians, whether they regard voting as merely “licit” or an “obligation,” agree on one thing: Muslim voters should not vote for legislation that contravenes the Shariah and, if such is passed, have a duty to disregard or, when necessary, actively oppose it. “The believers should do what is good for Islam,” says Shirazi. “There could be no ambiguity [about that].”
The debate has generated much excitement among American Muslims, who are reportedly registering to vote in record numbers. According to the latest polls by John Zogby, almost 60 percent of them intend to vote for Kerry.
Arab newspapers are full of editorials urging American Muslims to “throw Bush out of the White House” as a prelude to “kicking the United States out of Iraq and Afghanistan.”
“We may not be able to throw the American army out of Afghanistan and Iraq,” says Hassan Nasr-Allah, leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah (Party of God). “But we can throw George W. Bush out of the White House.”
Muslim support for Kerry is not inspired by any love for the senator but by the perception that he would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan , thus allowing the establishment of Islamic regimes in Baghdad and Kabul.
“Both Kerry and Bush represent corruption and tyranny,” says theologian Farid al-Nasar. “Neither is acceptable to true believers. The difference is that Bush is aggressive, and Kerry is not.”
Kerry is not for keeping jobs in the US any more than Clinton was. He’ll say anything and then do the exact opposite. You haven’t figured that out yet. You liberals are freaking nuts!
Following 9/11, President Bush advised the world that countries are either with us or against us in the War on Terror.
It’s now become obvious that not only were France, Germany, Russia and the United Nations not with us, they were actively working against us.
These countries were undermine our efforts to contain Iraq, while enriching themselves and assisting Saddam Hussein in violating U.N. sanctions.
These are the same countries to which John Kerry would have us entrust our security.
These are the same countries whose “global test” Kerry would have us pass before defending ourselves.
This is not the kind of judgement and leadership that will keep our nation safe and secure.
Kerry doesn’t seem to be able to tell our friends from our enemies.
The debate over the Iraq war was about oil � but not in the context that the delusional left assumed.
While John Kerry still thinks it was a smart move to disarm Saddam, he wants to bring back to the table the very “allies” who did everything possible to keep Saddam in power.
Had we not invaded, it’s possible that by now Saddam would have succeeded in having sanctions eased, and he would be developing WMDs.
While the those on the left concentrate on the U.S. casualty count, they fail to realize that the losses we suffer today are so we don’t face more in the future.
That is the logic behind any preemptive strike.
Peter,
Whether your comment was in defense or jest, people are welcomed to keep trying to defend Bush for his constant fumbling of the facts and that Dubya was referring to this Internet2 experiment you speak of, when he made his “internets” comment.
I guess this was one of the unknowns that was known that is still unknown but that is now known.
The informed can cut through the b.s.
But then again, only the Bush administration can spew the knowns from the unknowns as in the poetry of Rumsfeld.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/
A few months ago, Ted Kennedy loudly called the 30 odd nations assembled by the Bush administration to liberate Iraq the coalition of the bribed.
Now that the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal has exposed that it was the United Nations that was bribed � and aiding Saddam � Kennedy seems mighty quiet.
If Saddam felt it was necessary to purposely mislead U.N. inspectors, neighboring countries and, indeed, the world’s intelligence services into believing he possessed WMD, that says a lot.
He almost certainly would have reestablished his WMD programs eventually.
It was the right thing to do to take him out when we did.
Howard is better.
George W Bush pretends that he, as Commander in Chief, is completely unaccountable. His campaign slogan should be, “I didn’t fail; everyone around me did.”
Some leader.
I love reading the ludicrous comments of the left wing, mind numb crowd. John Kerry is applying for the job to be Commander-in-Chief or our armed forces, during a time of war. Mr. Kerry has alread shown his true colors after the Vietnam conflict, and I wouldn’t give this guy the job if he was the only one running. John Kerry betrayed Vietnam Vets, and disgraced the uniform that he wore. He met with the enemy while still wearing that Uniform which translates into an Oath of Office. What makes the left think that he will do any different this time?
It’s a shame we have so many people in this country who pay little attention to the record of a man who betrayed his comrades in arms and has little to show for a 20 year Senatorial career. On top of that, instead of selecting a qualified running mate, Mr. Kerry brought on the whiny lawyer from North Caroline who is still cutting his teeth on politics.
I’ll never vote for this ticket, and will never relinquish this country to the agenda of the LEFT. You can always count on Liberals to rescue on the people who don’t want responsibility. Well, people need to be responsible for themselves and the Federal Government isn’t the answer…..
For Snugfig…..
In reality, there IS more than ONE INTERNET…..
Maybe you should do research before shooting off your mouth!!
The idea that Saddam would have escaped UN sanctions is inane. Bush did one good thing in his presidency, that was to reinvigorate sanctions against Iraq.
And your portrayal of France, Russia, and China abetting Saddam is disingenuous. Many US companies were also getting the same vouchers from Saddam. Of course, we don’t know who they are (Halliburton) because of privacy concerns.
George Bush is a saint. Bless his soul. All my friends and everyone I know in Florida are voting for Mr. Bush. He is the right man to guide our country against these terrorists. John Kerry is an extreme liar and flip flopper and we can all name hundreds of his flip flops previous poster.
George Bush in 2004!
People who hold 30+ year old grudges should not be trusted for political advice. Don’t like the fact that Kerry protested the war? Get over it.