Leftwing politicians encouaging threats and violence.
-
A case that always bothered me but seemed to be okey dokey with the lefties on the board was when the CEO of Mozilla privately gave some money to support a traditional marriage org, opposed to gay marriage ...he did this on his own time with his own dime...and he did it privately. Then the left hacked into the traditional marriage groups finances and got their list of donors and doxxed this Mozzilla Ceo who was quickly forced to resign...Orwellian
Freedom of speech not freedom from consequence
Freedom of speech not freedom from consequence
The only way you could justify this is if he were secretly supporting something really bad and he wasn't. He was secretly supporting something millions of other Americans were supporting. He was not trying to create any controversy as he donated to the traditional marriage org. privately. It only came out publicly because someone illegally hacked into the finances of the traditional marriage groups finances and then took the private information of donors and made it public. This is so Orwellian I am surprised even lefties like you can support it even if you 100 percent disagree with the cause he was supporting .
-
The hacking and release of private records should be prosecuted. Pretty cut and dry there.
Beyond that? Public opinion. If public pressure isn't something their board wanted to deal with, then they wouldn't have asked the CEO to step down.
Orwellian would be things like ' thought crimes'. This isn't that.
-
The hacking and release of private records should be prosecuted. Pretty cut and dry there.
Beyond that? Public opinion. If public pressure isn't something their board wanted to deal with, then they wouldn't have asked the CEO to step down.
Orwellian would be things like ' thought crimes'. This isn't that.
The hacking and release of private records should be prosecuted. Pretty cut and dry there.
Beyond that? Public opinion. If public pressure isn't something their board wanted to deal with, then they wouldn't have asked the CEO to step down.
Orwellian would be things like ' thought crimes'. This isn't that.
Seems like almost a thought crime to me. I understand you don't want your CEO to be making waves or stirring controversy but what should have been considered is that he did his best to keep his personal views private and it was not his fault it became public. What if it came out he supported gay marriage and was donating to that cause. That would be acceptable...why? At the time the issue was pretty evenly split so I guess you have to have the right group think.
-
Freedom of speech not freedom from consequence
The only way you could justify this is if he were secretly supporting something really bad and he wasn't. He was secretly supporting something millions of other Americans were supporting. He was not trying to create any controversy as he donated to the traditional marriage org. privately. It only came out publicly because someone illegally hacked into the finances of the traditional marriage groups finances and then took the private information of donors and made it public. This is so Orwellian I am surprised even lefties like you can support it even if you 100 percent disagree with the cause he was supporting .
The only way you could justify this is if he were secretly supporting something really bad and he wasn't. He was secretly supporting something millions of other Americans were supporting. He was not trying to create any controversy as he donated to the traditional marriage org. privately. It only came out publicly because someone illegally hacked into the finances of the traditional marriage groups finances and then took the private information of donors and made it public. This is so Orwellian I am surprised even lefties like you can support it even if you 100 percent disagree with the cause he was supporting .
If someone did something illegal to access that info then they should be punished. It doesn't matter the ideology. I never said I supported it and I'm disappointed you're just throwing around terms like "lefty".
You may think there's nothing wrong with what he was supporting. That doesn't change what other people think. Private companies are allowed to protect themselves here if they fear loss in sales.
Again, you don't get freedom from consequence
-
The only way you could justify this is if he were secretly supporting something really bad and he wasn't. He was secretly supporting something millions of other Americans were supporting. He was not trying to create any controversy as he donated to the traditional marriage org. privately. It only came out publicly because someone illegally hacked into the finances of the traditional marriage groups finances and then took the private information of donors and made it public. This is so Orwellian I am surprised even lefties like you can support it even if you 100 percent disagree with the cause he was supporting .
If someone did something illegal to access that info then they should be punished. It doesn't matter the ideology. I never said I supported it and I'm disappointed you're just throwing around terms like "lefty".
You may think there's nothing wrong with what he was supporting. That doesn't change what other people think. Private companies are allowed to protect themselves here if they fear loss in sales.
Again, you don't get freedom from consequence
If someone did something illegal to access that info then they should be punished. It doesn't matter the ideology. I never said I supported it and I'm disappointed you're just throwing around terms like "lefty".
You may think there's nothing wrong with what he was supporting. That doesn't change what other people think. Private companies are allowed to protect themselves here if they fear loss in sales.
Again, you don't get freedom from consequence
And you aren't getting how much the nightmare Orwellian world is becoming more of a reality all the time...I din't see it in 1984...in 2019 it is here with a vengeance. And it looks like it is only going to get worse. That CEO should have never been forced to resign for his personal beliefs and that is what they were personal beliefs...only made public illegally. Personal beliefs that were not so outrageous as about half of the population at the time held the same beliefs.
-
The hacking and release of private records should be prosecuted. Pretty cut and dry there.
Beyond that? Public opinion. If public pressure isn't something their board wanted to deal with, then they wouldn't have asked the CEO to step down.
Orwellian would be things like ' thought crimes'. This isn't that.
Seems like almost a thought crime to me. I understand you don't want your CEO to be making waves or stirring controversy but what should have been considered is that he did his best to keep his personal views private and it was not his fault it became public. What if it came out he supported gay marriage and was donating to that cause. That would be acceptable...why? At the time the issue was pretty evenly split so I guess you have to have the right group think.
Seems like almost a thought crime to me. I understand you don't want your CEO to be making waves or stirring controversy but what should have been considered is that he did his best to keep his personal views private and it was not his fault it became public. What if it came out he supported gay marriage and was donating to that cause. That would be acceptable...why? At the time the issue was pretty evenly split so I guess you have to have the right group think.
If the issue was so evenly split, then i doubt the result would have been so unfavorable for him.
Had he donated money to a rather....disagreeable type cause, maybe even had a choice word or two about minorities, but done so in private - would you still be so steadfast in defending the mans circumstances?
-
Seems like almost a thought crime to me. I understand you don't want your CEO to be making waves or stirring controversy but what should have been considered is that he did his best to keep his personal views private and it was not his fault it became public. What if it came out he supported gay marriage and was donating to that cause. That would be acceptable...why? At the time the issue was pretty evenly split so I guess you have to have the right group think.
If the issue was so evenly split, then i doubt the result would have been so unfavorable for him.
Had he donated money to a rather....disagreeable type cause, maybe even had a choice word or two about minorities, but done so in private - would you still be so steadfast in defending the mans circumstances?
If the issue was so evenly split, then i doubt the result would have been so unfavorable for him.
Had he donated money to a rather....disagreeable type cause, maybe even had a choice word or two about minorities, but done so in private - would you still be so steadfast in defending the mans circumstances?
Not really Tiam...lets say the population is evenly split between liberals and conservatives that doesn't mean you have that same breakdown in a company..for example Google employees which are heavily skewed to the left to the point that someone just having conservative views can find himself out of a job.
And I would not support the CEO if he had been privately supporting something we would all recognize as being bad..if it came out that secretly he had made racial slurs then he would have to live with the consequences. Now he has brought reproach to the company he works for.
-
If the issue was so evenly split, then i doubt the result would have been so unfavorable for him.
Had he donated money to a rather....disagreeable type cause, maybe even had a choice word or two about minorities, but done so in private - would you still be so steadfast in defending the mans circumstances?
Not really Tiam...lets say the population is evenly split between liberals and conservatives that doesn't mean you have that same breakdown in a company..for example Google employees which are heavily skewed to the left to the point that someone just having conservative views can find himself out of a job.
And I would not support the CEO if he had been privately supporting something we would all recognize as being bad..if it came out that secretly he had made racial slurs then he would have to live with the consequences. Now he has brought reproach to the company he works for.
Not really Tiam...lets say the population is evenly split between liberals and conservatives that doesn't mean you have that same breakdown in a company..for example Google employees which are heavily skewed to the left to the point that someone just having conservative views can find himself out of a job.
And I would not support the CEO if he had been privately supporting something we would all recognize as being bad..if it came out that secretly he had made racial slurs then he would have to live with the consequences. Now he has brought reproach to the company he works for.
It doesn't matter what the company breakdown is. It matters what the breakdown is for that company's consumers.
You need to realize your views are outdated. What you feel is "alright" is behind the times. Would you feel the same way if a CEO was forced to resign if it came out he donated to a group that is against interracial marriage? Being anti gay marriage is essentially in the same boat now.
-
Not really Tiam...lets say the population is evenly split between liberals and conservatives that doesn't mean you have that same breakdown in a company..for example Google employees which are heavily skewed to the left to the point that someone just having conservative views can find himself out of a job.
And I would not support the CEO if he had been privately supporting something we would all recognize as being bad..if it came out that secretly he had made racial slurs then he would have to live with the consequences. Now he has brought reproach to the company he works for.
It doesn't matter what the company breakdown is. It matters what the breakdown is for that company's consumers.
You need to realize your views are outdated. What you feel is "alright" is behind the times. Would you feel the same way if a CEO was forced to resign if it came out he donated to a group that is against interracial marriage? Being anti gay marriage is essentially in the same boat now.
It doesn't matter what the company breakdown is. It matters what the breakdown is for that company's consumers.
You need to realize your views are outdated. What you feel is "alright" is behind the times. Would you feel the same way if a CEO was forced to resign if it came out he donated to a group that is against interracial marriage? Being anti gay marriage is essentially in the same boat now.
Wasn't the CEO on the winning side of traditional marriage at the time? He was because the ballot initiative was passed by the voters so even that argument doesn't fly...He was taking the majority view at the time. He should have never been forced to resign.
-
It doesn't matter what the company breakdown is. It matters what the breakdown is for that company's consumers.
You need to realize your views are outdated. What you feel is "alright" is behind the times. Would you feel the same way if a CEO was forced to resign if it came out he donated to a group that is against interracial marriage? Being anti gay marriage is essentially in the same boat now.
Wasn't the CEO on the winning side of traditional marriage at the time? He was because the ballot initiative was passed by the voters so even that argument doesn't fly...He was taking the majority view at the time. He should have never been forced to resign.
Wasn't the CEO on the winning side of traditional marriage at the time? He was because the ballot initiative was passed by the voters so even that argument doesn't fly...He was taking the majority view at the time. He should have never been forced to resign.
I have no idea what the voting was at the time.
I do know that the cross section on Firefox users and ballot initiative voters are probably not one in the same.
-
Dayton shooter Connor Betts may be antifa’s first mass killer
https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-may-be-antifas-first-mass-killer/
-
If this killer had made it inside this club who knows how many other people he would have killed..salute to police who took him out before he gained entrance. (shooter gets taken out at 25 sec into video as he was chasing people into the club)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login