So let’s see:
NY Times
WSJ
Yahoo
NY Times
Bloomberg
USA Today
These are the sources for your positives? Some of the most liberal outlets (with the possible... and I stress possible... exception of the WSJ) in the media, with a proven track record of getting things (purposely) wrong?
Would you use any of those sources to argue a political point? Oh, wait, you don’t argue political points. I have to go pages and pages into your posting history in order to get to anything that isn’t Apple related or general interest (i.e. not political).
So my guess here is that you are a paid (or unpaid) Apple social marketer. I’ve seen this on several other forums, too. General non-controversial posts that fit with the general theme of the website, followed by tons of Apple-specific marketing and defense. It’s a standard nowadays (approaching the Rush “seminar callers” level).
So let’s broaden this conversation a bit, shall we? Just to see what it is that attracts you to FR...
Should gay marriage be recognized by the federal government? Should it be forced on the states by judicial order? Is gay marriage morally wrong? Is gay sex morally wrong?
Who is your preferred candidate for 2016? Why? What attracts you to them and their platform?
Is abortion murder? Should it be legal?
Should tax dollars be used to subsidize corporations and their products? How much influence should companies have on the making of laws and regulations?
What federal agency would you most like to see abolished?
Based on your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, what should guns laws and regulations be like at both the federal and state level?
Let’s make sure we’re talking to an actual fellow conservative here with a (obsessive) hobby, and not some marketing bot whose nighttime job is defending Apple on a myriad of websites...
Another question we can as is, given that homosexuality is a mental disorder, should Tim Cook see a psychiatrist?
My positives? These were selected by the author of the article. . . but in any case they come from where they come; that is the nature of reviews in the main stream media. What does the political leaning of a publication have to do with a technology review??? Would you prefer the reviews came from
AppleInsider
MacDailyNews
MacSurfer Headline News
9 to 5 Mac
Mac Rumors
MacNewsNetwork
MacWorld
Cult of Mac
or any of the sites that have been giving rave reviews about the iPhone 6 and 6plus that cover mobile technology in general? If the source reviews had been such, then the criticism would have been that they were Apple fan echo chambers. It is just that these sources where the reviews appeared ARE the main stream media where most reviews are printed and many of them are reprinting reviews FROM tech source reviewers.
There were actually over 24 reviews of the Apple Watch, all of the essentially positive, and four that aggregated the minor quibbles that all even glowing reviews have and made reviews that resulted in complete negative slams on the Apple watch based solely on those quibbled out-takes.
Yes, Charles, there are non-review opinion editorial articles on the Apple Watch where the authors question the need or even the philosophy behind wearable technology, but they are not reviews. These writers have never touched or used the product or sometimes, from reading what they write, have a limited grasp of what the watch could do.
The only ones inserting politics into technology into this issue are the Anti-Apple people. They seem to think that the choice of a computer or phone defines people's political orientation. . . and some on here are convinced it defines their sexual orientation, and let the users of Macs in very explicit rude terms what they believe they are for merely being users of Apple products. Nothing could be more silly or insane, depending on the sanity level of the accuser.
I have told people like you hundreds of times why I post on Apple threads. I have been asked by now over 700 of your fellow Freepers to keep them appraised of things affecting their Apple computers, iPhones, iPads, and other Apple devices. I am not an employee of Apple or an unpaid marketer for them. I post both positive and negative articles that will be of interest to the 700 members of the list. Each and every one of those 700 plus has asked me to do this by asking to be added to the ping list. This is an INTEREST GROUP on FreeRepublic, and it has Jim and John Parkinson's OK. Jim has even banned particularly bad behaving Anti-Apple haters for attempting to start Flame Wars, which are against FreeRepublic policy. The most recent was only a few months ago.
I accepted that obligation to those Freepers and I take it seriously. I keep my promises just as I do for the Shroud of Turin Ping List, which is not as active because there are fewer article published, and the Electric Universe Ping List, both of which I maintain the ping lists for which are smaller than the Apple/Mac Ping list. Part of the task I took on was to provide accurate and true information for all of those lists. . . and, in my mind, to counter the falsehood posted by the lies posted by the disrupters.
Right now, JR is not happy with Tim Cook's very public stance on homosexual rights (he personally posted a thread on the subject relating to the Indiana freedom of Religion Act), nor am i. I think it is a management mistake to be so vocal about a "personal" agenda that is so out of the main stream it will alienate potential customers. Steve Jobs, despite being Liberal was once asked why Apple itself never participated in Democrat politics or made donations to Democrat candidates or causes told the Democrat activist that about half of Apple customers were Republicans and he was not about to piss off half of Apple's customers by getting Apple involved in politics or Liberal issues. Tim Cook did not learn that lesson from Steve, or did, but allows his reprehensible homosexuality to trump his good sense.
However, the sexual orientation of a single employee, or his bad behavior should not be the single decision point on selecting technology or any product, especially when ultimately, ALL of the competition are participating in the underlying behaviors. The primary issue under discussion is the petition against Indiana's passage of the Religious Rights Act and the pending act in other states that are essentially identical to the Federal law and the laws of 19 other states that are already on the books. Apple merely joined Microsoft, Google (Android), Intel, Facebook, Yelp, Hewlett Packard, IBM, NASCAR, the NBA, Walmart, Macy's, and over sixty additional CEOs and organizations and businesses. Apple was singled out by the NEWS MEDIA as the poster boy of all those businesses because Apple generates views and Internet advertising clicks, any time its name appears in a headline. . . and add that the CEO himself is Gay. This was a construct of the Gay Mafia and the Main Stream News Media. They would not have gotten anywhere near the "legs" on their articles with any other company name on the headlines.
You are one of those who seem to believe that owning Apple product precludes being a conservative. That is patently absurd. The majority of my friends are conservative and they are all Mac and iPhone users. The few Liberals I know are PC users. . . but a few are also Mac users. It's a mix.
I had decided I was going to ignore your impertinent questions as they are, literally, none of your business. But I will answer them.
Marriage: No marriage should be recognized by the Federal Government. It is a relationship established by God. Why should the government have anything to do with it approving or not approving it? Even in taxation, the IRS has made the tax code more complex than it needs to be by involving Marriage into the equations of figuring out our taxes, Simplify everything by establishing that there is a personal exemption that applies to everyone equally in a household. If that household is supported by a taxpayer, then the exemption applies to that income that supports that person. Do the same thing for every marriage based and child based law. Done. Over.
Judicial Orders: The unelected, appointed tyrants in black robes have far overstepped the limited power the Constitution grants them. Every judge below the Supreme court is a creature if Congress, working in the EXECUTIVE branch, working for the Justice Department, also a creature of the Congressional branch. These all can be contained by ACT of Congress. Congress should reign them in. Their orders have no teeth except those we give them.
Is Gay Marriage or sex morally wrong? Those are questions for Religion to decide, not government. My belief is that Gay Marriage and Gay sex are not beneficial to the advancement of society. They do not produce children. They are the ultimate selfishness. By my thinking and belief that makes them immoral from a natural perspective. God's law did not support things that were bad for us. . . and the Gay lifestyle is demonstrably bad for it's practitioners in that it leads to HIV infections, AIDS, etc., that makes it healthily impractical for long term survivability of the organism, and the religions of the world condemn it as immoral. MY belief is that it is immoral. I do not practice it and would not want a to be approached to have homosexual sex. That being said, I don't care what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I do care when they do it in the streets, marching and dancing naked in front of everyone, with in-your-face arrogance, acting in uncivilized manners intended to offend people in advancement of their agenda. But I would object to HETEROSEXUAL people doing it in the streets, marching and dancing naked in front of everyone, with-in-your-face arrogance, acting in uncivilized manners intended to offend people in advancement of THEIR agenda. I am not a prude and I do not object to women wearing bikinis, etc., but the venue and purpose for doing so is the defining criteria.
Candidates: I like Walker because I prefer a governor who has actually done executive work to occupy the Oval Office. Walker has walked the walk (pun intended) and has major successes against the worst the Democrat and Union machines could throw at him. I knew Ronald Reagan personally (I had a standing invitation to drop in and go for a Swim at the Governor's Mansion when he lived on 45th Street in Sacramento). While I like Senator Cruz, I am concerned that people who come from the legislature are too used to compromise in the give and take of crafting a bill. Cruz has a Natural Born Citizen ship problem that I worry about. We have been slamming Obama on his qualifications for not meeting the letter and the spirit of being a Natural Born Citizen and I do not think he ever has met the legal qualifications. I also do not think that Senator Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz meets the strict legal requirement. My study of the qualification is that BOTH parents must be US Citizens at the time of birth and the birth must be on US Soil or a the parents on a mission for the US Government for Natural Born citizenship to be legally conferred to the child. Cruz's father was born in Cuba and only became a US citizen in 2005. . . and Cruz himself was born in Canada while his parents were there working in private business. I just don't see that meeting the strict standard. It's better than the bone fides that I think Barrack Obama has, but it still falls short of the legal letter of the law. Too bad.
ABortion: It is murder. The only abortions that should be permitted are those which saves the life of the mother, or is the product of rape or incest. Abortion as an alternative to birth control is an abomination.
Tax dollars and corporate subsidies, voice in laws, etc. Corporations are assemblies of people. "Congress shall make no law... abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, Congress also cannot make laws that are beneficial to any particular group or person. The laws are supposed to be for general welfare. Under those principles, the only way Congress can benefit any individual company or corporation is to contract with them to buy goods and services by bidding open to all who wish to offer those goods and services. No tax payer funds or bills of attainder for any individual or "assembly of persons." Enough said.
Which Federal Agency should be abolished? Any that cannot be linked to any specific article or amendment of our Constitution. Start with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive, and then move to the EPA and the Department of Education and keep going.
Re: the Second Amendment: Easy. The Second Amendment is all we need. All else are irrelevant and unconstitutional infringements. I managed the Old Sacramento Armory and Simms Gun Department back in the early 1970s and I am a concealed weapons carrier.
I am an educated as an Economist and Business Administration, ex-CEO, published author, ex-publsher, editor, founder of a large local charity (which I ran for 26 years), life-long Republican (although that may change if the Republican party doesn't get it's act together), small business owner in the IT field, now semi-retired, working on two novels, and a grandfather.
I would post on more conservative threads if I were not having to handle so many attacks and idiocy from the Apple-Hate Brigade with their constant twaddle and insults being slung by their campaign of FUD and innuendo they have been waging for years.
I have been quite active on FreeRepublic for years. . . and was involved in the outing of Dan Rather (One of my FR satire graphics was reprinted with permission in the book on the Dan Rather CBS fiasco,), the TWA-800 investigation (Look for Swordmaker's timeline and the analysis threads where I did the math on the CIA and NTSB cartoons showing they were impossible given the momentum of the 747-200 and where the Rude found the wreckage), the graphic examination of the Obama birth certificates, etc.
Not what you expected is it?
Happy now?