Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Monday April 06 2015, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the hypocrisy-knows-no-bounds dept.

David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:12PM (#167235)

    > There, your own words right back at you. Need I remind you that you haven't agreed with me yet? That must mean you're closed-minded!

    The difference is that he understands your argument and is saying there is more to it.
    He is agreeing with your analysis and adding to it.
    You, on the other hand insist that there is nothing to the topic beyond your own personal understanding.

  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday April 06 2015, @11:20PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday April 06 2015, @11:20PM (#167238)

    The difference is that he understands your argument and is saying there is more to it.

    I'm also saying there is more to it than he lets on.

    You, on the other hand insist that there is nothing to the topic beyond your own personal understanding.

    Maybe my personal understanding is, in fact, correct. Or maybe my original comment mocking the notion of "rational religion" applies to a grand majority of religions and I don't care about a few exceptions to the rule. Either way, I'm skeptical when I see mentions of gods and prayer, but I guess you could define those to mean literally anything (or that they should be defined in a certain way) as seems to be the case here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:15AM (#167303)

      > I'm also saying there is more to it than he lets on.

      Like what? I don't see you talking about anything more. In the venn diagram of this discussion your position is fully encompassed by his.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:38AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:38AM (#167306)

        He tries to put forth that religion as rational, but if you read the articles, it reads as new age nonsense. References to god, prayer, creation, true religion, synergies, and other such things. Probably all defined in a very 'creative' fashion. If their intent is to paint themselves as rational, they can do a better job than this.