• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mozilla’s CEO steps down amid gay marriage furor[W:577]

Our founding fathers ratified the founding documents which set down the process by which issues could be addressed and corrected.

so you think the more religous types will get fed up from that guitar string breaking and pass a federal marriage amendment of some type?

I am pretty sure they dont have the numbers any more, might have been possible in the late 80s though
 
but you're gay so I suppose selective tolerance is always the par for the course with you types.

Yeah, that's not bigoted.
 
You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.

They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?

"Required?"
 
They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?

"Required?"

Shouldn't you be studying the difference between free and criminal speech?
 
They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?

"Required?"

Please allow me the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Ecofarm. It's clear that you haven't met him yet. One thing you should know, when an idea pops into his mind, then that idea is as solid as reality, it serves as proof and of how righteous Mr. Ecofarm is. So if he says that CEOs are required to do X, then that's the way it is and you had better adjust yourself to reality, Missy.
 
Or if the board of directors expects a loss of discernible profits. Which they did expect.

Show me a loss, not an expectation.


And for some reason you don't feel as though you are infringing upon the rights of CNN's CEO by not watching.

And for some reason you don't realize how dumb that sounds.
 
Shouldn't you be studying the difference between free and criminal speech?

You mean where I proved you wrong and you ignored it so you didnt have to admit you were wrong? I'm happy to repost but it would be unfair to derail this thread the way you just did to avoid answering my question. (It's right here tho, for anyone interested: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/190095-do-support-racism-w-433-a-92.html)

Care to try answering it again?

ecofarm said:
You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.

Lursa said:
They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?

"Required?"
 
No, he was accountable for a set of opinions. He was accountable to his company.

It's all really silly, though. As I've said before I believe he could have diffused the situation easily. One political contribution years ago is not the end of the world, but he blew it up with an "eat me" approach when he was well aware that his beliefs ran contrary to the image the company was trying to project.

No, he was held accountable to a set of opinions that were recently established.

I am not aware of the "eat me" attitude he took. At least I didn't see that in the article. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Frankly, given the issue and the outrageous way people have acted towards those who joined the majority in passing Prop 8, I'd probably tell the PC police more than "eat me" in response.
 
Please allow me the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Ecofarm. It's clear that you haven't met him yet. One thing you should know, when an idea pops into his mind, then that idea is as solid as reality, it serves as proof and of how righteous Mr. Ecofarm is. So if he says that CEOs are required to do X, then that's the way it is and you had better adjust yourself to reality, Missy.

http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=businesslaw_articles
 
You mean where I proved you wrong and you ignored it

I mean where several people corrected you and you still remain clueless.
 
No, he was held accountable to a set of opinions that were recently established.

This is taking an unnecessarily pedantic approach.

I am not aware of the "eat me" attitude he took. At least I didn't see that in the article. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

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.

Frankly, given the issue and the outrageous way people have acted towards those who joined the majority in passing Prop 8, I'd probably tell the PC police more than "eat me" in response.

Yes, Eich clearly went for that option, and he is now no longer CEO.
 
Consider the source. He believes that if a politician contributes to the Nazi Party his constituency has no right to vote him out in the next election.

Care to link to my post where that comment exists, or admit you're lying?
 
Normally, I would presume someone is misconstruing another's words with such a claim.

In this case, it's pure fabrication on his part.
 
I mean where several people corrected you and you still remain clueless.

Nope....it's there in black and white (and you are lying...only 1 person agreed with you and that was before my examples)

I'll just humiliate you with it over there tho (I dont like dishonesty). Again, no need to distract people here....oh wait! Werent you going to answer my question regarding your claim in this thread? (It's right here tho, for anyone interested: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/190095-do-support-racism-w-433-a-92.html)

No? Here....


ecofarm said:
You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.

Lursa said:
They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?

"Required?
"
 
Last edited:
Diversity should be celebrated, unless you don't agree with me then I'm going to get you removed from your job. I find it ridiculous that open records laws, designed to prevent government corruption, are being used to harm private citizens not involved in corrupt activity. I have a hard time respecting groups who abuse anti-corruption laws for their own gain.

This type of abuse will do more to stifle political involvement than any voter ID law ever could.
 
So you deny it then?

There's nothing to deny, since no where does that comment exist in any of my posts.

Want to keep playing reaindeer games, or address comments that I actually posted?
 
It takes an idiot to believe that absolute terms mean anything but, absolute.

I kind of lean towards the thinking that if you say that every CEO has to do such and such, then that's what you mean, since it's just as easy to say "most" or "almost every". Otherwise, who the hell knows what the f**k you mean?
 
I kind of lean towards the thinking that if you say that every CEO has to do such and such, then that's what you mean, since it's just as easy to say "most" or "almost every". Otherwise, who the hell knows what the f**k you mean?

You have to say what you mean, to mean what you say. When some people get busted not meaning what they say, because they can't say what they mean, they get a little touchy.
 
There's nothing to deny, since no where does that comment exist in any of my posts.

Want to keep playing reaindeer games, or address comments that I actually posted?

Lest anyone accuse me of fabricating:

That's irrelevant. No one should lose their livelyhood for donating to a political campaign.

"No one?" Are you sure you don't want to think that one through a little bit longer?

Senator Ultra Liberal donates to the Nazi Party. Should he lose his job over this, yes or no?

Yes, no one.

Why didn't you answer my earlier question?

I did give you an answer.

If you did, it was vague as hell. So you agree that voters don't have a right to vote out a politician for holding beliefs that aren't representative of their own?

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. Otherwise, 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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom