td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:a reupblican likes paul ryan. shocking development.

Don't make me find an appropriate Bill Cosby quote.

bill cosby blows

He's Democrat!

am i blowing yr mind?

Most people respect Bill Cosby because he doesn't toe the company line. I'm not surprised you don't like him, because he's always been outspoken about the importance of personal responsibility.

also because of all the rapes

that's legitimate

pacino wrote:a reupblican likes paul ryan. shocking development.

Really need Michael Steele to weigh in.

News flash: most people are complicated and it's futile and dumb to reduce them to caricature, much less one soundbite or action.

Last night I learned more about Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who helped steal the election for W. in 2000, than I ever expected to... briefly, she's from a very rich family and got into politics as a champion and patron of the arts, successfully opposing a proposed massive cut in funding support sometime in (I think) the '90s. She continued this statewide, and was known as such a good fundraiser that she was named Bush's state campaign chair. She neither knew nor cared much about the purges of voter rolls... basically she signed what the (partisan) lawyers put in front of her. When the whole thing blew up, she was out of her depth. After it ended, the Florida Rs kicked her to the curb.

I still think she was a force for something incredibly unfortunate and harmful in history, and clearly it's not cool to blindly sign stuff that wrongfully disenfranchises people. But this was a (quite liberal, I think) lawyer we're working with here in Florida who says Harris is a lovely person--goes to her (gay) son's art exhibitions, serves on boards in Sarasota, etc.

Charles Murray supports CTE. Bill Cosby speaks some truth about cultural norms. MLK fucked around on his wife. People are complicated (other than Bill Kristol, who's just a total fucking prick and force for harm).

CalvinBall wrote:report came out on ibragim, which was talked about a handful of pages back. TAL has a blog entry up about it:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/20 ... l-no-tales

tl;dr


basically, it is possible ibragim gave a false confession. he wrote out that the victims hands were bound/taped. according to people on the scene hands were not bound and it looked like two of the three struggled as opposed to being killed execution style.

Mozilla CEO forced to step down for 2008 donation
Another example of right-wing bullying of... wait, nevermind.

SEC plays by different rules

An agency that has the ability to bring the full force of the federal government against a citizen in a fraud case should play by the same fair rules that have governed federal prosecutors for decades. It should be required to turn over, without awaiting a request, any evidence that could exculpate the defendant. It should announce now that it will follow the mandates of the Brady rule in all pending and future cases.

It is curious that the SEC has not done so. The agency's internal rules effectively compel it to disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants in administrative proceedings where it has a huge "home court" advantage. But no such rule applies to its litigation, and the SEC for years has fought imposition of a Brady obligation.

The Brady rule would not simply mean that civil trials instituted by the federal government would be conducted on the basis of the whole truth. The best result would be that weak cases would not be brought in the first place. Not even the most stubborn or ambitious SEC lawyer would pursue a case when he knew, in advance, that evidence disproving his case must be turned over to the other side.

It's sad when a federal organization, representing the people, plays by its own rules, and forces citizens to waste money defending themselves in these situations. It's crap like this that undermines the respect that people should have for the government.

it was really too bad when people started bullying all those segregationalists back in the day

Barry Jive wrote:it was really too bad when people started bullying all those segregationalists back in the day

I don't recall Obama being vilified for his identical position in 2008. And Obama was being elected to a political position! Oh wait, his position has "evolved" on gay marriage. He's repented. No, the problem with Brendan Eich is that he's not a panderer who decides what to say based on the latest poll. This guy donated money back in 2008, but supports gay rights within his company, is eminently qualified for the position (he created the JavaScript language, and was on the founding team as chief architect of Mozilla), but is trashed because of his private political donation. Yes, it's not identical situations, as no analogies are, but this type of stuff is ridiculous.

It really really sucks when The Market produces an outcome one doesn't like
8)

totally agree with you on that, but Mozilla has the right to can the face of its company if his garbage politics stand to cost them business

dajafi wrote:It really really sucks when The Market produces an outcome one doesn't like
8)

It's not illegal, it's not unfair, it's just bullying. This is what the liberal left does, while decrying the actions of the conservative right.

I'm conflicted on GW's painting, on one hand I perceive it to be a McNamara-esque reflection on his guilt at being such a failure and agent for evil, and I do like looking at the paintings, on the other hand I think it's a really undistinguished and ignominious next step for someone who held the highest office in our country and should be working towards being an elder statesmen like Carter, Senior & Bubba have been.

Barry Jive wrote:totally agree with you on that, but Mozilla has the right to can the face of its company if his garbage politics stand to cost them business

It's a non-profit that he helped found. But of course they have the right, even if they're not answering to anybody but themselves. He stepped down so that the company wouldn't be affected by the negative press. (I don't know if he was actually pushed out by the board or not).

I'm very sorry that a bigot lost his job.

You're usually better than to engage in that type of labeling, or gross and inaccurate overgeneralization. (Take a minute and think about all the eminently qualified political appointees whom the hard right has bullied out of office before they were even installed.) But I get that you're upset.

Reading the NYT article, it seems clear to me that keeping this guy would have hurt their business. And personally I agree with you that companies are totally free to hire whomever they deem will best advance their goals. But this guy clearly wasn't going to help given his past choices, and I suspect that if the rhetorical point was on the other side/didn't fit your preferred narrative about liberal bullying, you'd be saying exactly what I'm saying: the market decides.

When a CEO is pushed out for his political donations to a liberal cause, one that is in agreement with the majority of Americans, you let me know. I'll tell you what I think about it.

dajafi wrote:You're usually better than to engage in that type of labeling, or gross and inaccurate overgeneralization. (Take a minute and think about all the eminently qualified political appointees whom the hard right has bullied out of office before they were even installed.) But I get that you're upset.

This is a nice segue to the SEC piece I posted, which combined nicely with the IRS scandal over the last few years. Here we have an example of a government organization operating in an allegedly non-partisan role, that views itself as being outside the law. The IRS individuals felt justified in using their powers asymmetrically, to affect political change, and the SEC feels justified in assigning its own rules for its own advantage. It's a farce. I can understand why conservatives would be more critical of appointees to these "non-partisan" positions.

For actual political posts, I don't even understand why cabinet members need to be approved by the Senate. It's dumb. If Obama were so inclined, he should be able to appoint Mumia Abu Jamal to his cabinet.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:It really really sucks when The Market produces an outcome one doesn't like
8)

It's not illegal, it's not unfair, it's just bullying. This is what the liberal left does, while decrying the actions of the conservative right.

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:It really really sucks when The Market produces an outcome one doesn't like
8)

It's not illegal, it's not unfair, it's just bullying. This is what the liberal left does, while decrying the actions of the conservative right.

do you honestly believe that mozilla mgmt is 100% behind Eich, all executive hands steadfastly opposed to shitcanning him?

It's only a guess, but this has the pawprints of organizational c-suite political hardball, in which SEC is being employed as a bad guy, rather than "leading". SEC's involvement is great cover for whomever inside Mozilla wanted to knife Eich anyway, because it brings out the "evil gummint's a bad bully!!" handwringers like - well, like yourself

This is the "real" free market at work. Now get down & continue kissing its feet

This is a business post:

Dajafi,
I had read this article two days ago. It's been my only exposure to the issue http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/02/the-p ... interview/

and I came away thinking that this guy was pretty "Alright". Certainly not as Neanderthal as many anti-guy people and maybe even his policies had evolved a bit (but there was no confirmation of such).

Anyway, my question is this: everyone on the pro-gay-rights side says we're not telling people how to think. But it seems like with this example, on an issue that around 40%-45% of Americans are still opposed to, there is no room for debate. You simply can not be on that side of the aisle. And that seems weird to me.

Is the difference that he's allowed to think it, but taking the step of donating money makes it a problem?