Sometimes, the best solution for bad behavior is making it have consequences.
> promise before elections
By that logic, Bush and Rice met their promises. They didn't say they wouldn't invade anyone, they said they wouldn't do nation building.
I think NotOscarWilde is making a more general point about American politics here. There were many things Bush (and every other president in my lifetime) promised and failed to deliver on: lowering the debt, funding Pell grants, etc.
You do realize this opinion aims to punish somebody because people can't touch her using the judicial system, right?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_cam...
To me, your reasoning reads as "accountability solves nothing".
Boycotting Dropbox because of Ms. Rice empowers people to bring symbolic accountability on powerful individuals who have been shielded from being held properly accountable for their actions. So many examples of individuals threatened with decades in jail for really not much, while powerful elites are shielded against being held fully accountable for their roles in infinitely worst.
I actually think this part is besides the point. The problem for me is her leading role in an administration that performed extensive and expanding illegal surveillance of Americans. A cloud storage company welcoming her on to their board makes my hair stand on end.
You're presenting a false dichotomy.
If I am concerned with how my government handles privacy, shouldn't I take it up with the government? If I am concerned with how my goverment tortures and murders people, shouldn't I take it up with the goverment?
I understand people like Ms. Rice are hard to prosecute because most of the government data that would serve as evidence are kept secret for a long time, if not forever. Isn't that just another point which you should take up with the government? Bullying some private citizen because you can't sue him through legal means seems hardly fair.
Is this how people are co-opting the term "bullied" now? To describe criticism of prominent people in public life? C'mon. Condoleeza Rice served in two presidential administrations. She is not some ingenue who accidentally stumbled into the spotlight.
That said, I am immediately investigating getting rid of dropbox.
This happens when people get power and feel confident. Perfect ideological adherence is a basic condition, hurting and damaging valuable people the order of the day [2].
And what makes people attackable by these liberals ? Because Obama kills babies in their sleep using robots paid by taking 50% of your paycheck. That does not seem to damage him.
And, it doesn't really matter what the answer to that question is, I'll hate people even more if I ever do find out I think.
Enjoy it while it lasts, guys. Because it won't last.
[1] http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/04/08/okcupid-ceo-once... [2] http://www.bitstampede.com/2014/04/06/standing-strong-and-st...
The parties on both sides of the Rice/Dropbox debate have good arguments:
* Ms. Rice has been a very important representative of a US administration that caused a lot of people to die in Iraq and elsewhere;
* but she is not the only one in the government of that day, and many other (non-bullied) politicians are complicit as well;
* and the current president has not shown much anti-torture sympathies either, yet him being branded a Democrat makes him much less of a target.
I believe channeling energy to make Ms. Rice leave Dropbox solves nothing. Channeling the same outrage to make the elective system into a non-money-based race, to make the politicians accountable for what they promise before elections -- that may solve something.
As a non-American, stating an opinion is about all I can help you with. Good luck!