- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Lest anyone accuse me of fabricating:
.
At this point you stopped replying to me altogether. As you can see, I gave you a gazillion opportunities to deny it or clarify yourself. If you choose to do so now, I will instantly take it back.
Lest anyone accuse me of fabricating:
At this point you stopped replying to me altogether. As you can see, I gave you a gazillion opportunities to deny it or clarify yourself. If you choose to do so now, I will instantly take it back.
What would happen if the CEO of some company (Whole Foods, or McDonalds, for example) decided to force out or fire every employee who donated money to support a proposition raising the minimum wage? They are legitimately protecting their business and the interests of their customers, right? Freedom of Association/Speech, correct?
And, at no point did I say that a politician's constituents do not have the right to vote him out of office.
I'm stopped for the night. I have 10 hours to play this game. Lie and fabricate all you want.
What would happen if the CEO of some company (Whole Foods, or McDonalds, for example) decided to force out or fire every employee who donated money to support a proposition raising the minimum wage? They are legitimately protecting their business and the interests of their customers, right? Freedom of Association/Speech, correct?
I see an answer, and I see someone trying to twist it around. Tsk, tsk.
What? This was for a contribution he made six years ago? When he stood shoulder to shoulder with the beliefs of Barack Obama?
:lol:
Please tell me why I shouldn't conclude that you don't think voters are allowed to vote out the Senator for his contribution to the Nazi Party.
Umm, because I didn't say that...perhaps?
You're going to tell whatever lie you feel like telling, so guess reality is irrelevant.
Yeah, I was wondering when someone would point out that this guy was hounded out of a job for expressing the same opinions that the President did back then. Can we expect you guys to be hounding the President out of his job now? Just to be consistent? Just this once be consistent with the beliefs you yourselves espouse?
Having said that I'm totally on board with this idea of having people lose their jobs because of their political opinions. There are far more conservatives running companies than the converse. I expect this would result in big improvements in our business culture and climate and far fewer expressions of liberal beliefs, not to mention far fewer donations to liberal and democratic candidates. Coupled with Citizens United and the more recent decision on donation limits I think we can put a stake right through the heart of the liberal Democratic faction. Happy days are here again!
They set the precedent. Now I say use it against them.
I'm kind of surprised that the LGBT community is resorting to these sorts of tactics. No matter how you slice it they are a tiny minority. They greatly depend on the sympathy of others. If they start acting like a bunch of Nazis they will lose that sympathy pretty quickly. As it stands I think you can expect gay activists to be beaten about the head and shoulders (figuratively speaking) over this on a regular basis during the public discourse about these issues.
This is taking an unnecessarily pedantic approach.
https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/
Whether or not you agree with the content of Eich's response, it was extremely combative. And whether or not you agree taking a combative approach was the right thing to do, you can at least agree that it ended with him losing his job. I believe a different approach would have been wiser.
Yes, Eich clearly went for that option, and he is now no longer CEO.
The difference is not inconsequential. The field was changed after the fact, and the herd was then instructed to make noise.
As to what he wrote via the link you provided, I couldn't agree more. It wasn't combative at all. I think he called out the thought police for the people they are, and warned of the precedent they were attempting to set.
People do lose their jobs for their political opinions all the time. That's why only idiots air their politics, and that's why we're anonymous. On my Facebook where I go under my real name, my opinions on political matters barely exist, and where I have alluded to them they're about as watered down as you can get.
People do lose their jobs for their political opinions all the time. That's why only idiots air their politics, and that's why we're anonymous. On my Facebook where I go under my real name, my opinions on political matters barely exist, and where I have alluded to them they're about as watered down as you can get.
And thus his departure was hilariously avoidable.
I assume you mean you couldn't disagree more. Would you say that he took an apologetic or a head-on approach to his detractors?
That's good to hear, because records of donations to political candidates and the like are made public, available through sites like opensecret.org. So it's a simple matter to root out people who donate no matter how quiet they might be at work about their politics. I'll bet a lot of managers don't even know about that. Perhaps they could be informed about which of their employees are suspect? After all, this is exactly what was done to Eich.
But saying that it happens isn't the same thing as saying you approve of people getting fired for their politics. Do you approve of that?
Say, "Cardinal, I believe no such thing. Of course I believe people are allowed to vote out a Senator for contributing to the Nazi Party!"
That's all you have to do. Do it, and all of this will go away like a bad dream.
Still cannot answer?
LOLOLOLOLOL
That being said, I'd say his offense was so minor he could have chosen a third way that wouldn't have compromised his job or his beliefs, but let's face it: that's just not the kind of guy Eich is.
I think you don't understand the terms of the battle. A third way cannot be undertaken unilaterally, it involves the opposing party also finding the third way acceptable.
What would happen if the CEO of some company (Whole Foods, or McDonalds, for example) decided to force out or fire every employee who donated money to support a proposition raising the minimum wage? They are legitimately protecting their business and the interests of their customers, right? Freedom of Association/Speech, correct?
And this is exactly what a few of us are saying here. I have a dream.. I have a dream that one day conservatives, and right-libertarians unite under a single banner and start to fight back with the same tactics the left uses on us. I have a dream that one day we wake up and realize that we far outnumber the vocal and well funded left, and we begin using that advantage to our own best interests. I have a dream that corporations, and businesses realize that their customer base is essentially made up of people that work for a living, pay taxes and contribute to society, and that of those we are the super majority. I have a dream that businesses aren't as stupid as Mozilla and as short sighted as them setting this [recedent, and I have a dream that one day the militant gay left will realize that these tactics, and their rhetoric will eventually catch up them, and they won't like the outcome.
It's just a dream, but I have it all the time.
Tim-
Oh, and let me throw this out there. I have Mozilla on one computer. The next time I use that computer, I will unistall Mozilla (FireFox). I don't like the way they are intolerant to people's beliefs, and I hope others that support people not being attacked in such a manner will do so also.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?