Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8

Bonestorm said:
Alternatively, it shows how current usage of the term is so divorced from it's actual meaning that the term now merely describes activites that the user of the terms disagrees with. Fascism requires the coercive power of the state. Absent the the use (or advocating for the use) of state power, there can be no fascism.

Private parties (Eich, Mozilla and Eich's many detractors) all exercising their rights to speech and association is a celebration of freedom. It ain't fascist.
Click to expand...

Nonsense... it is mob rule/group think... there is a difference. But it is nice to see where you lie... in the belief that people can be fired for thinking the wrong thing.











Just name one.
Click to expand...

Still cannot find one that agrees with you?
 
I love that you fancy yourself a libertarian (modeled after that great libertarian thinker, Newt Gingrich). It's awesome.
 
The liberal left can go ahead and keep patting themselves on the back, over this; but just wait until the tables are turned and they'll be crying the loudest, about how unfair it is.
 
Superfreak said:
So you think companies should have the right to fire anyone for their beliefs that are displayed outside of work, that have no impact on their work?

You think Libertarians believe in discrimination? LMAO... yeah, you need to stop listening to the fake libertarian String.
Click to expand...


I see you are still spreading the false claim that the CEO was fired.

Newsflash...he WASN'T.

But I understand it helps your narrative to have the low information Righties thinking he was.
 
maineman said:
again...someone who uses "fascist" as an epithet without understanding the rather complex definition of the term.

not surprising, really.
Click to expand...

Awww....the whiney dishonest racist Fascist woman hating dunce wants to continue his grammar rant to avoid the thread topic once again; how expected, how stupid.

But then, when it comes to epic stupidity, you have no peer shit-for-brains.
 
In 2008 the President and this guy had the exact same opinion on the topic. Should we make everybody who leads something resign for holding the same opinion in 2008?
 
Truth Detector said:
Awww....the whiney dishonest racist Fascist woman hating dunce wants to continue his grammar rant to avoid the thread topic once again; how expected, how stupid.

But then, when it comes to epic stupidity, you have no peer shit-for-brains.
Click to expand...

it's not an issue of "grammar", anymore than your not knowing the difference between an epithet and an epitaph is "grammar". It is you using a word - in this case, "fascism" - that you have no idea the definition of. You're stupid. Your grammar sucks too, but, basically, it's about you not having a clue about the words you attempt to use in your insult laden posts.

Fascism is nationalist... liberalism is not. Fascism is opposed to political and cultural liberalism.... obviously liberalism is not. Fascism is extremely conservative in its economy programs... liberalism is not. Fascism is corporatist...liberalism is not. Fascism is Imperialist... liberalism is not. Fascism is militaristic... liberalism is not.

IN a nutshell, you don't have a fucking clue what the word "fascism" actually means. You use it as an epithet... or, as you stupidly like to say, as an epitaph.

You're a fool... and the worst kind... you're a fool who actually tries to pawn yourself off as someone who knows his ass from a hole in the ground, which you obviously do not.
 
Damocles said:
In 2008 the President and this guy had the exact same opinion on the topic. Should we make everybody who leads something resign for holding the same opinion in 2008?
Click to expand...
Maybe they already have, which is why the labor participation rate is so low...
 
Damocles said:
In 2008 the President and this guy had the exact same opinion on the topic. Should we make everybody who leads something resign for holding the same opinion in 2008?
Click to expand...


Now Damo is parroting Newt Gingrich's lines, too:

GINGRICH: This is just the most open, blatant example of the new fascism, which says if you don't agree with us 100 percent we have the right to punish you. Unless you're like Hillary and like Barack Obama and you recant.

So, they both had the same view in 2008 as he did.
Click to expand...

LOL.



http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week...e-mccaskill/story?id=23192820&singlePage=true
 
maineman said:
it's not an issue of "grammar", anymore than your not knowing the difference between an epithet and an epitaph is "grammar". It is you using a word - in this case, "fascism" - that you have no idea the definition of. You're stupid. Your grammar sucks too, but, basically, it's about you not having a clue about the words you attempt to use in your insult laden posts.

Fascism is nationalist... liberalism is not. Fascism is opposed to political and cultural liberalism.... obviously liberalism is not. Fascism is extremely conservative in its economy programs... liberalism is not. Fascism is corporatist...liberalism is not. Fascism is Imperialist... liberalism is not. Fascism is militaristic... liberalism is not.

IN a nutshell, you don't have a fucking clue what the word "fascism" actually means. You use it as an epithet... or, as you stupidly like to say, as an epitaph.

You're a fool... and the worst kind... you're a fool who actually tries to pawn yourself off as someone who knows his ass from a hole in the ground, which you obviously do not.
Click to expand...

Dear dumbass; we're not talking about the traditional definition of Liberalism, but rather the Fascist version that Liberal dunces like you adore; the kind that forces people to resign for their personal views, encourages defacing places of business and attempts to destroy others livelihood for daring to disagree.

If you had a brain, which you certainly do not, you would recognize that brand of Fascism.

But alas, I am arguing with an ignorant dishonest slum dwelling expat stuck on stupid.

Carry on assclown.
 
oh... so we're talking about a word that you and right wing talk radio has made up? Got it.

Here's a clue: most people don't actually get to invent their own words and definitions and then expect others to do anything other than laugh at them.
 
maineman said:
oh... so we're talking about a word that you and right wing talk radio has made up? Got it.

Here's a clue: most people don't actually get to invent their own words and definitions and then expect others to do anything other than laugh at them.
Click to expand...

It's not about "inventing" a word you brain dead twit; Fascism is a real word shit-for-brains...and an accurate description of the acts of whiney Libtards who use those tactics to destroy their political opponents.

But of course this is way beyond the third grade comprehension level of a dishonest partisan hack, slum dwelling expat stuck on stupid.
 
Truth Detector said:
It's not about "inventing" a word you brain dead twit; Fascism is a real word shit-for-brains...and an accurate description of the acts of whiney Libtards who use those tactics to destroy their political opponents.

But of course this is way beyond the third grade comprehension level of a dishonest partisan hack, slum dwelling expat stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...

no. it's a real word whose definition you have conveniently changed.

Go invent you own fucking language, but please leave mine alone.
 
maineman said:
no. it's a real word whose definition you have conveniently changed.
Click to expand...

Wrong again shit-for-brans; I haven't changed anything. I have correctly applied it to leftist retards tactics in an effort to destroy free speech.

maineman said:
Go invent you own fucking language, but please leave mine alone.
Click to expand...

Dear retard; the English language does not belong to you. You are one dumb arrogant repugnant moron aren't you?
 
Bonestorm said:
Now Damo is parroting Newt Gingrich's lines, too:



LOL.



http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week...e-mccaskill/story?id=23192820&singlePage=true
Click to expand...

It's simply true, even if Newt points it out.

In fact then Senator and Candidate Obama repeatedly declared his belief that Marriage was between a man and a woman. The reality is that if we are going to go back in time and punish people for their political opinions then Obama's opinion being exactly the same as this guy's should net the same result.

While I disagree with the opinion, and did back then as well, I don't believe that punishing selected individuals for a mainstream (at the time) political opinion has anything to do with justice or can conceivably fit in with our insistence that speech is protected.

Then the company also coming out insisting that they urge their employees to discuss disparate opinions openly yet punishing this man for his is just bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top