so jh are you trying to say you really like the eagles better than the giants

Barry Jive wrote:but you do think it's bad that Planned Parenthood prioritizes pro-choice candidates

No, I think it makes all the sense in the world for Planned Parenthood to back pro-choice candidates. Not only is providing access to abortion one of Planned Parenthood's most important services, pro-choice members of Congress are more likely to back federal/state funding for Planned Parenthood. Organizations backing candidates who will help the organization is pretty standard, and Planned Parenthood would be dumb to do anything different.

But I think people here would be upset if someone was pressured out of his or her job for sending in a donation to Planned Parenthood (or NARAL or whatever).

I expect I would be, but more because of the moral stigma attached to supporting women's rights that might hypothetically necessitate forcing someone to resign for that. I'm glad our society is mad enough about homophobia that it's leading to economic disadvantages for people who publicly support it.

I do think there's a difference between an employee who is the public face of an organization and a regular employee. Public political affiliations and activities are significant as you move up the ranks. And, of course, in most corporations, top employees are strongly encouraged to contribute to the corporate PAC.

Didn't one of the Koch brothers just write an oped and tell their employees they should pass it along to their friends and family? It's like there's some kind of expectation or something.

TenuredVulture wrote:I do think there's a difference between an employee who is the public face of an organization and a regular employee. Public political affiliations and activities are significant as you move up the ranks. And, of course, in most corporations, top employees are strongly encouraged to contribute to the corporate PAC.

Right--when the Mozilla guy was CTO, nobody much cared if he hated on teh gays.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:but you do think it's bad that Planned Parenthood prioritizes pro-choice candidates

No, I think it makes all the sense in the world for Planned Parenthood to back pro-choice candidates. Not only is providing access to abortion one of Planned Parenthood's most important services, pro-choice members of Congress are more likely to back federal/state funding for Planned Parenthood. Organizations backing candidates who will help the organization is pretty standard, and Planned Parenthood would be dumb to do anything different.

But I think people here would be upset if someone was pressured out of his or her job for sending in a donation to Planned Parenthood (or NARAL or whatever).

Well, I doubt it,since the person pressured out would most likely be the face of a corporation or organization closely identified with "conservative" values. I think you'd see a more reasoned , impartial response, such as "nanny nanny boo-boo."

Barry Jive wrote:I expect I would be, but more because of the moral stigma attached to supporting women's rights that might hypothetically necessitate forcing someone to resign for that. I'm glad our society is mad enough about homophobia that it's leading to economic disadvantages for people who publicly support it.

Like Obama? He was publicly against gay marriage until Biden forced his hand. He did pretty well for a homophobe, and I'm guessing you voted for that bigot in 2008.

What's funny over the last 4 pages -- I'm glad I was busy this weekend -- is the certainty that opposition to gay marriage is more immoral than support for the destruction of fetuses. Yes, the right to file jointly on your federal tax return is a moral right, while the right to breathe air is still up for debate.


Regarding Koch, this is all you need to learn about the fanaticism regarding what they say:

Liberals protest $100 million donation to hospital because David Koch gave the money

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:I have an unhealthy obsession with government overstepping their bounds. That's what makes me the fun loving libertarian I am. I'm great at parties.

so you must think the incessant "investigations" by the likes of Issa should go immediately, because what a deplorable waste

but hey, he didn't make your list

oh, and Occupy was a gov't initiative? Thanx for clearing that up

I don't know what Issa is doing... I'm guessing that Issa is doing something dumb. And my list was about the liberal mindset of exacting revenge on your political enemies... not limited to government, obviously, as the Mozilla issue is illustrating.

Werthless wrote:I think Sullivan is mad at the means that his political allies are taking. There is a growing consensus among liberals that the ends justify the means, and it is perfectly acceptable to exact personal revenge on your political opponents.

Let's see, we have:

SK790 wrote:abortion is WAY more of a moral gray area than gay marriage and the fact that you won't admit to it and your posts don't reflect that is absurd. there are plenty of obvious reasons why abortion is morally gray. there are no reasons why gay marriage is morally gray unless you're someone who lives your life based on a book written 2,000+ years ago. you're really contorting yourself into knots here trying to drum up sympathy for a guy who got fired because a good portion of the country doesn't support his bigotry.

bottom line is that a rich bigot got fired from his job because he's an intolerant bigot and all you and werthless can do is whine about how oppressed he is. it's a fucking shame that this guy will land on his feet and be just fine while millions of americans are denied a basic civil right because people like this guy keep spouting the same

No one cares about this guy. He'll be fine. I care about forcing people out because of political positions. This shouldn't be a liberal/conservative thing IMO, but I guess it is to some people.

Also, I'll bet you assume that I'm against gay marriage, too.

Edits: fixing all my nested quotes.

yes like Obama

you always have a different consideration of what being "for" a cause is than I do

Barry Jive wrote:yes like Obama

you always have a different consideration of what being "for" a cause is than I do

His position in 2008 was identical to the position of the organization that the Mozzilla guy was forced out for. Of course, Obama is more political, nuanced, and makes you believe you're on his side even when you disagree with him. That's why I posted the youtube video of his 2008 comments. He's not endorsing gay marriage, but in fact is "compassionately" endorsing the view that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Obama said he reconsidered it and changed his mind. This guy is sticking to his guns. If he came out and recanted it, then I suspect he would have kept his job. They are very different situations.

in 2008 he was the best option out there for civil rights of all kinds.

why does so much stuff get relitigated around here?

i guess if werthless is comfortable framing being pro-choice as "destruction of fetuses" and taking away the "right to breathe air" then i'm OK with calling conservatives women haters

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama said he reconsidered it and changed his mind. This guy is sticking to his guns. If he came out and recanted it, then I suspect he would have kept his job. They are very different situations.

http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-ga ... cause-q-a/

He refuses to recant or reaffirm his position! Burn him!1!

Mozilla wrote:We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

LOL, don't share your diverse views if they're traditional!

td11 wrote:i guess if werthless is comfortable framing being pro-choice as "destruction of fetuses" and taking away the "right to breathe air" then i'm OK with calling conservatives women haters

Destruction of fetuses is pretty clinical actually. Much more non-emotive than killing babies, right?

(Half of aborted babies are female... what do we do???)

traditional views used to mean no race-mixing. traditional is fluid. stop using it as a term if you want to defend your views because it will then be seen as backwards-thinking.

not as non-emotive as Hey Lady you gotta let this parasite grow inside you for 9 months whether you have the means to or not

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:i guess if werthless is comfortable framing being pro-choice as "destruction of fetuses" and taking away the "right to breathe air" then i'm OK with calling conservatives women haters

Destruction of fetuses is pretty clinical actually. Much more non-emotive than killing babies, right?

(Half of aborted babies are female... what do we do???)

100 % of abortion seekers are actual human females.... what do we do ??

pacino wrote:traditional views used to mean no race-mixing. traditional is fluid. stop using it as a term if you want to defend your views because it will then be seen as backwards-thinking.

That's the point. A company shouldn't say it embraces a diversity of viewpoints if certain viewpoints can get you fired. The company would be more accurate if it says that they embrace equality for all, and do not tolerate voices in opposition to this principle. It's doublespeak otherwise.

Werthless wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:yes like Obama

you always have a different consideration of what being "for" a cause is than I do

His position in 2008 was identical to the position of the organization that the Mozzilla guy was forced out for. Of course, Obama is more political, nuanced, and makes you believe you're on his side even when you disagree with him. That's why I posted the youtube video of his 2008 comments. He's not endorsing gay marriage, but in fact is "compassionately" endorsing the view that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Are saying "you" referring to me or to the general "you"? There are lots of Obama's policies I would change