-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
Sathsquatch
Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...ass-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0
America no longer the most prosperous middle class anymore.
It is worth noting that this all based off of "post-tax" income, so Canadians have more government services AND have more money left over after they pay their taxes.
AnotherNils
Member
Oh man. That hurts even more.
empty vessel
Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...ass-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0
America no longer the most prosperous middle class anymore.
And let's not forget America's working poor, who are currently struggling for a long overdue wage increase: "The struggles of the poor in the United States are even starker than those of the middle class. A family at the 20th percentile of the income distribution in this country makes significantly less money than a similar family in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands. Thirty-five years ago, the reverse was true."
Yep. Americans desperately need to let that sink in.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama's approval is 46 app/48 disapp on gallup today
On the up, baby! 50 by election day plz
On the up, baby! 50 by election day plz
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Digusting
Signatories
Why are these people so concerned with legitimizing anti-gay bigotry?
Signatories
Why are these people so concerned with legitimizing anti-gay bigotry?
PhoenixDark
Banned
How does having a CEO with anti-gay views legitimize bigotry, or should no company hire upper management with bad personal views? I have seen no evidence that the CEO's stance would have a negative impact on Mozilla's popularity.
What a bizarre reading of the statement.
It is unambiguous that people opposing same-sex marriage are against "a triumph... for the American idea". The signers "support same-sex marriage" and express an "unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality". They say that "the gay rights struggle is about freedom and equality for all". They say: "We strongly believe that opposition to same-sex marriage is wrong."
They don't outright label SSM opponents "bigots", sure, but they walk right up to the line. Their position is that being an opponent of SSM, and engaging in mild political activism in support of that view, does not warrant a punishment so severe as the loss of a job. They argue for this as flowing from a concern for free speech as a value of a liberal society. Do you have reasons to think that they are doing this dishonestly in order to hide their sympathy for anti-gay people? Or is any concern with substantive free speech really just about a desire to legitimize wrong ideas?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I have a problem with the proposition that people shouldn't voice their concerns about peoples views. This letter pretty much says people and society shouldn't be able to stigmatize hateful views. Would the same be said about a letter that substituted racism for anti-gay views?
In fact, they are explicit that people should voice their concerns about other people's views. They argue for persuasion. They celebrate a culture of "robust debate". They contrast what was actually done to Eich with voicing concerns - people tried "to punish rather than to criticize..." Later they are explicit that "We should criticize opposing views, not punish or suppress them".
Clearly they're not against "stigmatizing" hateful views. I don't know where you're getting this.
I suspect they'd bite the bullet on racism, although they've left themselves an out in that Eich's anti-SSM advocacy occurred at a time when a majority of the population was on his side, and even now a substantial fraction is with him.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They support the legal right to same sex marriage. But don't support society promoting that view and saying to other who disagree are wrong. Its colorblind racism with the LGBT movement.
To the bolded I don't think he should lose his job, he quit because his job performance would have been crap because people wouldn't have used his product because of his views. Why is he entitled to protection that view and others must shut their voices? Again would this "mild political activism" hold if he donated to the KKK? The only distinction being is that anti-gay views are accepted.
For some of the people on that list? Yes.
I don't see how the 1st amendment and free speech are being threatened.
Where is this distinction drawn? If I remember correctly many were willing to forgive if he renounced his hateful views.
Black Mamba
Member
Love it when old white men decide important things that matter regarding race.
Again, this is obviously untrue. The statement takes great pains to make clear that this is not what it's saying. You're conflating "saying someone's wrong" with "saying someone should be fired". These are clearly distinct things.
This is sophistry. The statement is aimed at the people who wouldn't have used his product because of his views, and especially at the people who were encouraging other people not to use the product because of his views. It was aimed at that subset of supporters of SSM who seek "to punish rather than to criticize". It's true that there's no discussion of what people who didn't want to harm Eich but who feel such a bone-deep aversion to anti-gay bigotry that they simply couldn't bring themselves to use Firefox ought to have done, but I have yet to see anyone take that position. I don't see where anyone has said that Eich needs "protection", just that it was wrong of people to seek to oust him. Nor do I see any call for people to shut up that goes beyond the usual sort of criticism of wrong opinions, such as the opinion that Eich deserves to be punished. Certainly the signers do not seem to have gone nearly so far as the people they're criticizing - they're not calling for the firing of people who wanted Eich fired.
I thought it was obvious that I was using "mild" as a procedural term, independent of the aim of the activism. Certainly that's how the statement is talking about such activity.
I don't see who's mentioned the 1st amendment. The statement makes the short case for how substantive free speech is being threatened. You might also want to read Mill on the marketplace of ideas, or just the Wikipedia article on freedom of speech.
I find it curious how on this issue liberals suddenly turn into libertarians, with a weird focus on only the government's ability to take away people's liberty.
Well, clearly the distinction should be somewhere short of requiring that people agree with you as a condition of not suffering harm. You're saying that the Spanish Inquisition was just really, really persuasive. Edit: I want to stress that here we're talking about the difference between persuasion and punishment, not the difference between permissible persuasion/punishment and impermissible persuasion/punishment. (some changes to the sentence before the edit)
Well you now have the balance of very low wages and welfare. The welfare can't go away. When you're the largest employer as Walmart is you can pay your workers on average a little less than 9 bucks an hour, and when they can't afford to buy the food at Walmart they use your tax money to do it instead. In 1955 GM was the largest employer and they were paying their employees on average 37 bucks an hour.
Got most of this from Robert Reich
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/index.html
Kay Hagan has a better chance of winning than Gary Peters.
Dems have a 51% chance at this point to keep the Senate.
Kay Hagan has a better chance of winning than Gary Peters.
Dems have a 51% chance at this point to keep the Senate.
RustyNails
Member
Bad news for Ray Nagan
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Many on the list do support that, and why can't I say someone should be fired? Should I not say someone should be fired for racist or repulsive views? Just that they're wrong? Should a KKK member who is a CEO and treats his black employees well but in his spare time hands out flyers saying all blacks should be ship backed to Africa be free from being called on to resign? And if you have a problem with this comparison why? Whats the difference? The only one I see is that anti-gay views have societal legitimacy though religious and traditional reasoning.
Is a boycott not speech? Why can't someone face consequences for their speech? How else do you get rid of things like racism, anti-gay bigotry, Misogyny, reckless views about animal rights, and other abhorrent views without policing them out of general public discourse. The issue is were still in the period where people are forgiven for their what will, in the future, be seen as horrifyingly nasty views about their fellow human beings. Many people aren't willing to wait for that future. And I can't blame the LGBT people who are sick and tired of being made fun of, who have been and still are beaten, shunned by their families, made fun of at school, denied protection because of an innate characteristic. (I think this explains why I'm much less active in these movements, because I don't face the negatives of these views, I'm straight)
The protection is the feeling that he should be protected from calls for consequences, the idea that we need to respect his viewpoint as valid and not call for action and social protests against it. Its not laws its the social protection that seeks to say homophobia is just a personal believe. The last line is just, well I'm not sure what the intent was. It reminds me of what i found most repulsive in the letter the comparison to Eich to LGBT americans who are fired for their homosexuality
Its not sophistry, this question is wrought with small technicalities which change the nature.
I'm a extreme defender of the 1st amendment. I was glad for the decision in the Westboro case. That's what the 1st amendment and free speech is designed to protect. I don't like the European concept of government banning types of hate speech (Fighting words are pretty much the only thing I think governments should have the right to regulate because that's less about the content than the action).
My question goes back to the original one I've been harping on does Homophobia deserve the same place at that marketplace as other ideas. Does racism? Does antisemitism? Does misogyny?
I find this weird his view and others that oppose gay marriage and gay rights is just being presented as a disagreement, like the difference between me and a anti miscegenation activist is just a polite disagreement. rather than one person who believes in equality and one who doesn't.
This isn't political disagreement like republican vs. democrats, its about fundamental human rights.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
So far the Upshot has killed the other two sites. Its amazing what a budget and an editor can do
Hobbestetrician
Member
So what is it about Michigan? Do Dems just not show up in non-presidential years? Obama won by nearly 17 and 10 points but Snyder gets elected and (maybe) re-elected in between? Stabenow wins in '12 by 20 points but Peters may just barely scrape by this year?
I know this happens all over but is Michigan worse in Dem turnout for midterms or something?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I don't think ignored that. I think that the boycott lead to that. I'm arguing on the mechanisms for how that translated to "his punishment" they didn't use his product because they didn't want to support a company that hired him.
I think your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't think the government have the right to ban any view no matter how abhorrent. Racism, Nazism, sexism, Homophobia are protected views under free speech, until they turn into fighting words.
The marketplace of ideas is a separate concept than the constitutional question of free speech. It has to do with societies self regulation not the governments.
That's not what is done in those other examples (racism, sexism, etc) the debates by and large have been had. The gay rights one is almost there. There is no reason for homophobia. The letter admits to that. But it seeks to establish a precedent for 'respect' to an idea that is no different to those others societal policed norms that if one breaks usually brings about consequences. Nobody decries oppression when the ideas of Anders Breivik are laughed out of the room (I'm not calling homophobes murders but using him because of his large manifesto in support of an abhorrent idea) and not engaged. We can't have perpetual "discussions" about racism , sexism, homophobia, never getting anywhere. Eventually society declares a winner.
Its not as if they're being beaten locked up, hurt, harmed because of their view. They've being asked to change it. This letter says they never should and we should respect them in perpetuity else we are stifling the marketplace of ideas.
No, as I described above. I believe in an absolute legal right to speech, less so on the social end.
The letter and I part ways when it compares the pro-equality message to a hateful message which seeks to dehumanize people no matter their professions of love to gay people
And I don't know how this can be said
Unless one has a really pedantic about the definition of respectful holding it only in the meaning of physical conduct. Because claiming another person doesn't deserve equal rights isn't respectful.
Edit: Matt Bevin has a awesome family btw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlhVhBi_io&feature=youtu.be
PhoenixDark
Banned
Polls aren't taking into account the fact that Detroit/Oakland County alone should win this for Peters.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'll add an addition.
I think there is an argument to be had that its been to fast to hold people to account for their views on gay marriage and LGBT people in general (I think were gonna find acceptance of homosexuality is a bit farther behind support of legal rights). As Oprah said, some people aren't gonna change their ideas while alive. It might not be fair to hold them responsible for that.
But people should be upfront about that. The argument is socially disliking and being uncomfortable around gays is acceptable socially so it shouldn't be punished. Because in 100 years people won't defend these people and ideas as "personal opinions"
I think there is an argument to be had that its been to fast to hold people to account for their views on gay marriage and LGBT people in general (I think were gonna find acceptance of homosexuality is a bit farther behind support of legal rights). As Oprah said, some people aren't gonna change their ideas while alive. It might not be fair to hold them responsible for that.
But people should be upfront about that. The argument is socially disliking and being uncomfortable around gays is acceptable socially so it shouldn't be punished. Because in 100 years people won't defend these people and ideas as "personal opinions"
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think both are accurate thought I think you should change it to change views rather than get fired.
I think you can see it as pressing Mozilla to disavow his views or as a punishment for him.
Both affect him but the intent is different.
Because acceptable views change, that's one thing the letter got right. And I don't think people should be punished if they're not harming others. If they are then it moves unto the relm of fighting words.
Its not the governments job to police ideas, that's society's.
I completely agree with APKmetsfan here. I don't know why we are getting into the business of coddling anti-gay behaviour and actions under the guise of "respect". Eich was free, is free and will forever be free to donate, march, rally and participate in whatever political actions he chooses. However, he is not free from the repercussions of society in responding to his actions. Mozilla's user base and developer base are all free to disassociate with him and the company he oversees as they see fit.
Moreover, this is not a "libertarian" reading of the 1st amendment. It's the exact same type of reading that is applied for whenever people express abhorrent views about women, racial minorities, and disabled persons.
Tim Cook could come out tomorrow and say the most abhorrent thing about women, but I highly doubt that anyone here will be giving him a pass for doing so. Nope, he would be asked to step down by Apple's board in the interest of retaining value for its shareholders and for upholding the public perception and values of the company. Yet people are willing to apply a different standard for speech pertaining to LGBT people. It's high time we change that.
Moreover, this is not a "libertarian" reading of the 1st amendment. It's the exact same type of reading that is applied for whenever people express abhorrent views about women, racial minorities, and disabled persons.
Tim Cook could come out tomorrow and say the most abhorrent thing about women, but I highly doubt that anyone here will be giving him a pass for doing so. Nope, he would be asked to step down by Apple's board in the interest of retaining value for its shareholders and for upholding the public perception and values of the company. Yet people are willing to apply a different standard for speech pertaining to LGBT people. It's high time we change that.
hydragonwarrior
Member
There is no media outlet that keeps the democrat base as enraptured, angry and daresay organized as the republicans do. They tap into emotions of fear or action so easily that they can get ppl to vote easily.
Dems dont have a Fox News or Rush to rally ppl to vote. The passion just isnt there unless its a presidential election.
Black Mamba
Member
I can't recall the last time you posted in this thread. I agree 100% with everything you said.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I would just like to juxtapose two recent issues real quick.
On the one hand, when the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon, some were outraged because contributions of money aren't speech.
On the other hand, Eich's financial contribution in support of Prop. 8 is equated with Tim Cook saying "the most abhorrent thing about women," with "the relm of fighting words," and holding "racist and repulsive views." Almost as if his contribution were a symbol of a thing as objectionable as those.
One of those arguments has to be false.
On the one hand, when the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon, some were outraged because contributions of money aren't speech.
On the other hand, Eich's financial contribution in support of Prop. 8 is equated with Tim Cook saying "the most abhorrent thing about women," with "the relm of fighting words," and holding "racist and repulsive views." Almost as if his contribution were a symbol of a thing as objectionable as those.
One of those arguments has to be false.
First post of 2014!
You are obviously making a statement with who you give your money to. The outrage was that an individual person shouldn't have more speech to influence the democratic process than someone else just because he is rich.
You say that like it's not important. There's a reason that there's a strong pro-SSM movement but not a strong don't-ship-black-people-to-Africa movement. Opinions on gay marriage are much more politically salient. It's not crazy to think that the interests of large political minorities should be more protected than the interests of small political minorities.
I'm not terribly interested in hashing out what exactly the limits of free speech ought to be. Many uncontroversially free countries ban "hate speech". The Wikipedia article I linked mentions some modern discussions of justifications for regulating "offensive" speech. There's room for reasonable disagreement here. Of course, if you want to go this route you have to have rules for defining what's "offensive" and what's "hate speech" that more than a bare majority have agreed to beforehand, or else you're going to be in great danger of banning even correct opinions that need to be aired. Freedom of speech only works if the people in power allow people without power to enjoy it. Their commitment to freedom of expression must overcome their dislike of what is being expressed.
The statement brings this up with its discussion of how gay people faced widespread employment discrimination not too long ago. You bolded the anecdote about Franklin Kameny. Of course we all agree it was wrong that he was fired, although note that the people actually doing the firing had what might well have been perfectly reasonable grounds for firing him - concerns about how having him as an employee would reflect upon his employer, etc. The core problem was that there were all these people who would plausibly have seen Kameny's homosexuality as reflecting poorly on his employer. The population at large could not be trusted not to let Kameny's homosexuality color their behavior, and this widespread intolerance created an environment where it just made sense to fire Kameny.
It's all well and good to look back at this and feel morally superior to the people of the time. We are morally superior. But we can learn from this too - we're not morally perfect, and we have every reason to think that, fifty years from now, people will be looking back at us and wondering how it was we could go along with such obvious bigotry against some groups (the nature of the thing is that it's really hard for us to see that, embedded as we are in our environment). So it's incumbent upon us to figure out how to go about avoiding contributing to this sort of wrong even when we can't recognize an instance of it as wrong. We also want to be sure that people who do see that it's wrong are able to come forward and make their case.
Hence liberalism (of the sort that everybody pays lip service to today). That's basically the whole idea - not being so sure of ourselves that we decide that we know what the best way to do things is and forcing that on everybody else. Freedom of speech is an important part of this. But why on earth would we think that this should be limited only to governmental suppression of unpopular speech? In the early 20th century, sure, I get how someone might think that. The core libertarian error (for the principled ones rather than the "fuck you got mine" variety) is that they didn't pay attention when Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement came up in their history classes. Private power can be just as oppressive as government power, and government power can even be used to address abuses of private power. What liberals (in the modern sense now) are typically concerned with is maximizing liberty, full stop, rather than minimizing impositions on liberty from just the one source.
It's not okay when an employer discriminates against a gay person. But it can't be wrong just because anti-gay bigotry is wrong. If that's so, then business-owners don't have moral reasons not to discriminate against gay people until they're convinced that being anti-gay is wrong, and the whole liberal idea is toothless - you don't have a society that doesn't discriminate until you have a society where the majority doesn't have any urge to discriminate (given that they're willing to legislate non-discrimination). We want to catch this kind of error before that - we want norms that would achieve non-discrimination before a majority is on board with non-discrimination as a first-order goal (that is, because they see gay people as fully equal and understand that "separate but equal" is wrong-headed, etc.). At least we want to hurry this along as much as possible. What we want, as quickly as possible, is for there to be a large group of people whose attitude towards a group is something like "Well, I don't like Xes. I'd be unhappy if my daughter married an X. I think they're generally worse people than people like me and that if they spread their views we'll all be worse off. But they ought to have the same rights as everyone else, and they should enjoy all of the same social, political, and economic opportunities as someone like me." I'm going on way too long, but there should be caveats here about spheres of interaction - it's more wrong to discriminate as interactions become less personal. It's hard to object if you discriminate as to who you date based on sex, or if you're only friends with people who share your religion, although the latter seems to me to indicate a character flaw. But we're talking about a pretty faceless interaction when we're talking about Eich.
You can define a boycott as speech, I guess, but you don't get to duck the philosophical argument about why people should feel no restraint in indulging the first-order urge to boycott by defining it as speech. Boycotts do direct economic harm - that's the point. That's quite a bit different from most other sorts of speech, which at worst offend (though again note that there are people who take psychological harm quite seriously and who think that that justifies even outright banning certain other kinds of speech based on their content).
People shouldn't face consequences for their speech, in general, because we value freedom of speech. That's the whole point of it, as I hope I explained above. It's still bizarre to me to hear a liberal insisting on this huge distinction between consequences from the government and consequences from private power post-1964, or maybe post-Marx.
And it seems rather ahistorical to talk like boycotts are an important tool for getting rid of things like racist or misogynistic speech. I'm having trouble coming up with any examples of influential boycotts in response to such speech. I can think of some useful boycotts of problematic actions, but that's obviously not what we're talking about. Overall, economic coercion seems to have done much, much more harm than good, given the the actual history of the US, and if we just agreed to never do it at all the side of justice would be at much less of a disadvantage going forward, I think.
I think that a lot of talk about Eich's donation as speech is just (forgivable) laziness - I found out pretty quickly in one of the Eich threads that very few people who agree with me on cases like McCutcheon and Citizens United were willing to grant that Eich's donations were speech. That he had acted in an anti-gay way was taken to be an important reason why going after him was okay.
That said, I do think that Eich's donation was basically speech. I don't think that money isn't speech, though. The problem with money in politics is that people aren't given equal opportunity to speak. A $1000 donation in one election is procedurally ordinary and within reach for a large number of passionate people. What, say, the Koch brothers are doing goes well beyond ordinary political engagement.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Lol jesus fucking christ no way.
Btw on my first spin Hagan and Pryor won. Bad news for PD
That was not in reference to you. You're one of the good ones*.
And no, I don't think it's entirely unfair.
Quick poll: how many of you guys stood up for Paula Dean, Don Imis and the Duck Dynasty guy when they made racially insensitive remarks about African-Americans? How many of you out there went into bat for these people and said that, in the interest of tolerance and respect, that they should keep their jobs and face no repercussions for their comments?
None of you, right? And with good reason. Saying stupid things about black people doesn't make people blink twice about whether or not the people who made the comments should face consequences for their actions. Hence "different standard of speech for [comments relating to] LGBT people". If we are serious about LGBT equality then we need to push the needle on the conversation and start holding people accountable for their actions, and not just tolerate intolerance for the sake of appearing tolerant.
*
and by good ones I mean white people
I'm still struggling with this. I detest the hardcore anti-gay proponents on the conservative side. But I do understand that we're going through a transitional stage of shifting thought across the country and people are changing their positions on the issue. I know as a teenager at the early part of the last decade I was immature and hadn't thought it through, so the normal gay bashing and name calling was part of my high school experience. As I grew up and became more mature this completely changed as it has for so many others over the past decade or two and am now and have been for many years pro gay rights.
The Mozilla guy, per my recollection did apologize and say that his position had evolved. Assuming he was being honest and not just doing damage control, I think it's a shame he got fired.
That being said, the outrage on the right is preposterous. Countless people have lost their jobs, been denied opportunities, and have even been harassed during criminal investigations for being LGBT for as far back as anyone can remember in this country. Being LGBT was synonymous with with being a sexual deviant and child molestation/abduction cases made many LGBT members instant suspects.
The right faux outrage is the same as the defense of that Bundy character. If Cliven Bundy was a poor black person who hadn't obeyed the law for 20 years they would be all over him.
The right wing outrage is always about if someone looks like them, thinks like them, votes like them, they'll defend him and seek special protections. And if not, they won't.
Sarah Palin was criticized (for all of a week, maybe?) for using her children, especially the mentally handicapped one, as props on the campaign trail. Then even guys like Keith Olberman realized that kind of thing should be off the table and everybody moved on (even though the use of her kids for political points very obviously continued). So of course the Right can't even wait until the kid is born to start attacking the Clintons via their daughter who has the audacity to get married and start a family, because now it's their turn. The article comes across as bitter and petty and desperately trying anything it can to try and tarnish the Clintons, even if it means via the proxy of their unborn grandchild.
So much for protecting the unborn, eh? Guess it doesn't count if you can score political points for jabbing a fetus just because half of it's DNA comes from people you have political scruples with.
It's the NYPost, frankly I'm shocked it's not worse.
I went to bat for Duck Dynasty guy: http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94191925&postcount=847
Or at least I expressed similar concerns. Eich wasn't using his position as Mozilla CEO to gain a platform for his views, which is a pretty important difference to me and is a distinction that I brought up in that post. I was fine with the Chik-Fil-A boycott too because the company was actually involved, although I think the boycott was expressive rather than effective.
Hobbestetrician
Member
So let's say you are right here, who are these people that are going to vote for Peters but then turn around and vote for Snyder?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Again, where is the evidence Eich said anything that threatened Mozilla's bottom line (if they even have a bottom line) or user base? And with Cook...I doubt people would stop buying overpriced Apple products quarterly regardless of what he said, but I could understand the decision to severe ties.
Same reason I defended the Duck Dynasty guy, and Imus to a lesser degree.
Am I reading this Affirmative Action ruling too broadly or did this POS SCOTUS actually just basically say that so long as something is voted on by referendum, the "dynamic" of the first amendment allows the voters to do this kind of thing - majority rules, minority protections be damned.
If so, it seems like a group of the judges are prepping their rationale for finding gay marriage bans that are enacted by referendum constitutional.
I put nothing past this ridiculous court at this point.
If so, it seems like a group of the judges are prepping their rationale for finding gay marriage bans that are enacted by referendum constitutional.
I put nothing past this ridiculous court at this point.
I don't think you've thought this through entirely. It seems like you're essentially advocating for no consequences discourse. That's a problem if you have a hateful person in any position of power.
NihonTiger90
Member
Yes. Because Snyder is going to pass himself off as a "moderate enough" fellow.
Why would financial quantitative data exist in the public domain, and why would Mozilla release it? If it exists at all, I assume it would be in the hands of Mozilla's board and was used in their decision to ask Eich to step down.
I presume the decision to ask him to step down was based on the damage to the Mozilla brand the threats of boycotts from the user base and crowd-sourced developer base.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Granholm is Bush status here still, it's a weight on democrat governor candidates just as Bush is a weight on republican presidential candidates. Peters is relatively popular but more importantly his opponent will be undone on Medicaid. I think Snyder and Peters will win.
I'll give Snyder props for fighting for the expansion, and so far the program has worked well, especially for children.
speculawyer
Member
At one point is was considered out-of-bounds to talk about politician's children. But now even unborn children are fair game?
(But I have to commend the press, they've been pretty good about keeping Obama's kids out of the news.)
Do conservative attempts at humour ever not come off as mean spirited?
Very rarely.
speculawyer
Member
I can see some problems with the Eich issue.
But the outrage on the right .. . I don't have sympathy for their outrage. They are the ones always saying that the free market sorts these things out. Well, here is an instance where the free market went against an anti-gay person . . . and they hated it.
Sorry, you can't say the market will fix all sorts of problems and then get outraged when it does.
But the outrage on the right .. . I don't have sympathy for their outrage. They are the ones always saying that the free market sorts these things out. Well, here is an instance where the free market went against an anti-gay person . . . and they hated it.
Sorry, you can't say the market will fix all sorts of problems and then get outraged when it does.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked