• 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]

I'm also curious whether the same right-wingers outraged over Eich allegedly being "forced out" of his job for his beliefs were that upset when Van Jones got forced out of HIS job for HIS beliefs. I'm going to venture a guess and say no, because while being a homophobe just makes someone a good American whose opinion deserves credence, being an alleged Marxist should be grounds not just for termination, but execution.
 
Kobie said:
I'm also curious whether the same right-wingers outraged over Eich allegedly being "forced out" of his job for his beliefs were that upset when Van Jones got forced out of HIS job for HIS beliefs. I'm going to venture a guess and say no, because while being a homophobe just makes someone a good American whose opinion deserves credence, being an alleged Marxist should be grounds not just for termination, but execution.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence anyone was a homophobe. Jones held a political position and was criticized for his political views. Apples and oranges again.:peace
 
Kobie said:
I'm also curious whether the same right-wingers outraged over Eich allegedly being "forced out" of his job for his beliefs were that upset when Van Jones got forced out of HIS job for HIS beliefs.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Van Jones was a self-declared communist. He was in the pubic sector. I have no problems with liberals going after Larry Craig for his "wide stances." Politics ain't bean bag.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's no evidence anyone was a homophobe. Jones held a political position and was criticized for his political views. Apples and oranges again.:peace
Click to expand...

I agree theres no evidence he was a homophobe only evidence that he is a bigot
 
AGENT J said:
you mentioned intent and now you see how they are clearly different.

feelings marriage is the man woman is nothign like donating money to try and make that law. Theres no logic out there to call them the same.
Click to expand...
I did not make the analogy you responded to.

Edit: IOW, you're responding to something you think I said. But did not.


Edit 2: If I HAD made the analogy you think I made, it would be blatantly wrong and frankly idiotic.
 
Jack Hays said:
If he was a bigot then most Americans were bigots. His view was mainstream at the time.:peace
Click to expand...


weird, did i mention his "views" or can you qoute me mentioning that his "veiws" make him a bigot or qoute me saying his views are the "evidence" that makes him one?
another failed strawman lol

but your failed strawman aside, most americans are bigots in some way, im bigoted against child rapists :shrug: people give to much power to that word
 
AGENT J said:
you said it and i showed how its wrong
Click to expand...
I said no such thing.

I said that speaking about something (as in, protesting, giving speeches, etc.) was one form
I compared it to donating money to support others who were speaking, or the second form.

I stated that the intent behind both was the same, so I did not see the difference between the two, in terms of intent.

I did not in any way that I am aware of make any claim such as that which you are responding to.
 
AGENT J said:
weird, did i mention his "views" or can you qoute me mentioning that his "veiws" make him a bigot or qoute me saying his views are the "evidence" that makes him one?
another failed strawman lol

but your failed strawman aside, most americans are bigots in some way, im bigoted against child rapists :shrug: people give to much power to that word
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you're straining to make a point only you understand. If you call a man a bigot then you are of course discussing his views. His view of gay marriage was the mainstream view at the time of the donation in question. If you want to call that view bigoted that's your business but it seems like too convenient hindsight to me.:peace
 
The Mark said:
1.)I said no such thing.

2.)I said that speaking about something (as in, protesting, giving speeches, etc.) was one form
I compared it to donating money to support others who were speaking, or the second form.

I stated that the intent behind both was the same, so I did not see the difference between the two, in terms of intent.

3.)I did not in any way that I am aware of make any claim such as that which you are responding to.
Click to expand...

1.)so i invented your qoute and your own words?
2.) correct just like you said and just like i quoted and that assessment is factually wrong

3.) except you just did it again, not sure where your confusion is but I qouted you and you just said it AGAIN above?
 
Jack Hays said:
1.)Sorry, but you're straining to make a point only you understand.
2.) If you call a man a bigot then you are of course discussing his views.
3.)His view of gay marriage was the mainstream view at the time of the donation in question.
4.) If you want to call that view bigoted that's your business but it seems like too convenient hindsight to me.:peace
Click to expand...

1.) nope i pointed out that your failed made up strawman didnt work again . you tried to claim somethign i never said
2.) false, thats what YOU claimed i said and did not
3.) factually meaningless to my statement and the evidence he is a bigot
4.) never did one time hence why your lie failed lol

facts win and your post fails again lol

if you disagree simply provide the quotes i asked for, you will fail.

who wants to bet this request is dodged?
 
AGENT J said:
1.)so i invented your qoute and your own words?
2.) correct just like you said and just like i quoted and that assessment is factually wrong

3.) except you just did it again, not sure where your confusion is but I qouted you and you just said it AGAIN above?
Click to expand...
What are you failing to grasp here?

In both presented scenarios, the intent (to support a political position) is the same.
 
The Mark said:
What are you failing to grasp here?

In both presented scenarios, the intent (to support a political position) is the same.
Click to expand...

factually wrong

one is simply a feeling which will not deny others rights
the other is a donation in order to accomplish denying others rights

factually different


you do understand there are lots of people that feel marriage is man/woman but would never donate money or vote to make that law because that is a completely different thing.

They feel thier view is personal and nothing else
 
AGENT J said:
factually wrong

one is simply a feeling which will not deny others rights
the other is a donation in order to accomplish denying others rights

factually different


you do understand there are lots of people that feel marriage is man/woman but would never donate money or vote to make that law because that is a completely different thing.

They feel thier view is personal and nothing else
Click to expand...
Please read my post again, then, because you're obviously not responding to what I'm typing.
 
The Mark said:
Please read my post again, then, because you're obviously not responding to what I'm typing.
Click to expand...

read it fine, your assessment is factually wrong, they are factually different.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) nope i pointed out that your failed made up strawman didnt work again . you tried to claim somethign i never said
2.) false, thats what YOU claimed i said and did not
3.) factually meaningless to my statement and the evidence he is a bigot
4.) never did one time hence why your lie failed lol

facts win and your post fails again lol

if you disagree simply provide the quotes i asked for, you will fail.

who wants to bet this request is dodged?
Click to expand...

Here is your #1554: "I agree theres no evidence he was a homophobe only evidence that he is a bigot.":peace
 
Jack Hays said:
Here is your #1554: "I agree theres no evidence he was a homophobe only evidence that he is a bigot.":peace
Click to expand...

thank you for posting this, let me BOLD the important parts for you

weird i see no mention of what the evidence was?

like i said you made it up and assumed you knew what i was talking about and you were factually wrong, thanks for proving it

facts win again :)
 
AGENT J said:
read it fine, your assessment is factually wrong, they are factually different.
Click to expand...
Somehow what I am typing is apparently not successfully communicating my position to you.

I never compared feelings and donation. Or at least, I never compared JUST feelings with donations.

I compared ACTIONS of one sort to ACTIONS of another sort - speaking out yourself was compared with donating to someone else speaking.

Yet somehow you insist on claiming that I compared feelings and donations. If I did, it was completely unintentional.
 
AGENT J said:
thank you for posting this, let me BOLD the important parts for you

weird i see no mention of what the evidence was?

like i said you made it up and assumed you knew what i was talking about and you were factually wrong, thanks for proving it

facts win again :)
Click to expand...

I don't have time for your level of dishonesty. I'm afraid the Ignore List is your new home.:peace
 
The Mark said:
Somehow what I am typing is apparently not successfully communicating my position to you.

I never compared feelings and donation. Or at least, I never compared JUST feelings with donations.

I compared ACTIONS of one sort to ACTIONS of another sort - speaking out yourself was compared with donating to someone else speaking.

Yet somehow you insist on claiming that I compared feelings and donations. If I did, it was completely unintentional.
Click to expand...

but you did, speaking, is just a feeling :shrug:

again i know lots of people that (Ill use the word you feel more comfortable with) SPEAK, SAY, PREACH, TEACH thier own that marriage is man/woman but they would NEVER DONATE or VOTE to make that the law and deny others rights

sorry they are factually different
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't have time for your level of dishonesty. I'm afraid the Ignore List is your new home.:peace
Click to expand...

translation: facts proved you wrong and now you are deflecting. You posted a lie and got caught and your posts loses again.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I'm not the liar in this exchange.
Click to expand...


yes you factually posted a lie
then simply qoute me saying the lie you made up? why cant you do that?

want more proof? for days i have stated what i view to be a bigot, many of your posts are on those pages, even today your posts is two posts before me explaining it AGAIN
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...arriage-furor-w-577-a-154.html#post1063127914

and you are still trying to sell your posted lie and it isnt working

iB]if you disagree simply prove otherwise[/B] lol
Ill be waiting for that woute

like i said, fact is i never stated what you claimed, you made it up and posted a lie about it, you got caught and are now running away.:peace
 
AGENT J said:
but you did, speaking, is just a feeling :shrug:

again i know lots of people that (Ill use the word you feel more comfortable with) SPEAK, SAY, PREACH, TEACH thier own that marriage is man/woman but they would NEVER DONATE or VOTE to make that the law and deny others rights

sorry they are factually different
Click to expand...
I am apparently using a different definition of "speech".

In this case I meant actually campaigning against something, not simply speaking their mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom