That is completely stupid. First off, becuase from everything I've seen, the people who outed the Firefox guy didn't demand his firing, they didn't threaten a boycott, all they did was say here he is and he did this. The decision to fire him was completely internal to Firefor, reputedly because they thought it would be bad for business. That's their decision.
And further, this is a practice that conservatives have been employing for years. Don't put it off as some sort of liberal characteristic/ The Brits destroyed Alan Turing, one of the founding fathers of modern computerdom, threw him in jaoil, because he was gay. Oscar Wilde was thrown in jailo for being gay too.That's destoying someone's livelihoold. Joe McCarthy destoyed people's careers and their lives becuase of his fantasiers of what they thought. HCUA blakliste3d and destoyed people's careers, as did the media which blacklisted and barred whole rats of peole because of what they thought or what they thought they might have thought, rather tan any competence they had in their careers.
You guys have a whole panoply of insults and character defamations which are totally scurrilous that you use against liberals, particularly liberals running for office, which is certainly depriving them of their careers, but also including everyday liberals. Groups like "Focus on the Family" and the "American Family Council" or whatever it's called regularly try to boycott and drive off the air, programs and individuals which exemplify viewpoiints they dislike. that's depriving people of their livelihood too.
IT'S CONSERVATIVES TOO, OR MOSTLY, EARLIER, LOUDER, AND FAR MORE OFTEN,
And let's not forget the scurrilous campaign of lies, distortions, and misinformation from the conservative community, as bankrolled by the fossil fuel industries, which has led to attempts by the likes of Ken Cuccinelli, to get respected scientists like Michael Mann censured, stripped of funding, and fired because they dared to do research which proved anthropogenic climate change is reall.
Not to mention the Republican government of Tennessee threatening to withdraw $300 million in incentives to Volkswagen if VW employees voted to unionize--A VOTE WHICH VW MANAGEMENT WAS FOR, SINCE VW PLANTS IN GERMANY ARE UNIONIZED AND THE MANAGEMENT WORKS WITH THEM AND HAS FORGED A COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP WHERE THE WORKERS LOOK OUT FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMPANY AND THE COMPANY LOOKS OUT FOR THE WORKERS., AND EVERYBODY WORKS TO MAKE THE COMPANH MORE PRODUCTIVE. Not in Tennesse, where conservatives felt free to threaten woorkers' jobs, not for their competence but for what they might believe.
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:
Obama is using it. It is almost textbook.
Hmm... it seems you are using rule 1, 4, 11.
You should really be wary of rule 7 though, Pinkie.
@MontereyJack,
Just another example of the republicans who decry slow job growth, but are hell bent to destroy jobs.
Why intelligent people of their creed cannot see these contradictions is an amazing thing to watch in this country.
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:
Quote: lost contact with reality?
I am not the one denying Obama is a disaster. I am not the one defending outright lies. My reality consists of facts and actual deeds of this president.
And there are plenty of examples. Anyone who says he is not a failure is out of touch with reality.
Alinsky rules 5, 8 and 11.
Again, Pinkie, you really need to be wary of rule 7.
@parados,
cold wrote,
Quote:My reality consists of facts and actual deeds of this president.
Tell us the actual facts (and deeds) of ObamaCare that are lies?
@coldjoint,
You,
Quote:30+ changes to law.
Me, Laws should be changed to improve it. That happens to many legislation; even to our Constitution.
You,
Quote: 20% of the economy should be based on political timing?
Me, Politics is always "political timing." Where have you been all these years of your life? In Russia?
You,
Quote:And his inability to follow through on anything because what is not good for the Democratic party can be delayed.
Me, Did you know that the GOP said "no" to most legislation under Obama's tenure? How do you expect progress when one party continues their "NO POLICY" to anything that comes before congress. It's the worst history of congress in not passing legislation.
*Get your head out of your arse.
You,
Quote:And already see regulation ,when these laws roll out, in their eyes, as continued Democratic rule will give them the ability to suck the system dry.
You don't even know your own country's political and economic history.
Here's a link that shows how past presidents have performed economically.
Try, at least, to comprehend the graphs (picture worth a thousand words).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/02/1127055/-Which-party-is-best-for-the-economy-It-s-not-even-close
I'm beginning to believe you don't even understand how to interpret pictures. That would put you in the same class as many conservatives in the south who lacks education and economic success. Also, with the same group who still believes Obama is responsible for the Katrina debacle.
@coldjoint,
Here is the entire text of S.2219.
I find nothing in it that says Obama gets to decide the definition of hate speech.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2219/text
Quote: To require the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to update a report on the role of telecommunications,
including the Internet, in the commission of hate crimes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. REPORT.
Section 155 of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration Organization Act (enacted as section 135 of Public Law
102-538; 106 Stat. 3542) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 155. REPORT ON THE ROLE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN HATE CRIMES.
``(a) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014, the NTIA, with the
assistance of the Department of Justice, the Commission, and the United
States Commission on Civil Rights, shall submit a report to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate on
the role of telecommunications in hate crimes in accordance with
subsection (b).
``(b) Scope of Report.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall--
``(1) analyze information on the use of telecommunications,
including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable
television, public access television, commercial mobile
services, and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage
violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate, as described
in the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note);
``(2) include any recommendations, consistent with the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that
the NTIA determines are appropriate and necessary to address
the use of telecommunications described in paragraph (1); and
``(3) update the previous report submitted under this
section (as in effect before the date of enactment of the Hate
Crime Reporting Act of 2014).''.
Once again, Pinkie has lied to us.
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:
I said nothing about Obama, I said the Democratic Party, oh yeah, they are all puppets.
And there is certainly NOTHING in the law about the Democratic Party being able to determine what is hate speech. In fact there is nothing in the bill about defining hate speech. The bill is to determine the role of telecommunications in hate crimes. A hate crime is violence against someone.
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:
And another hate crime is denying the group that will not be discussed will be using violence if they are upset. Nothing is solved that way. The cowards way out, thinking you can outlast it. Selfish bastards.
Be polite and warn Freedom not to let the door hit his ass on the way out.
Wow. That's a leap to nowhere. The legislation is to examine hate crimes and telecommunications that may have lead to those crimes. And then you come up with somehow it mean they will be banning conversations about hate groups? You really are a loon, Pinkie.
@coldjoint,
The Pink Prevaricator wrote:
Take a good look at Europe. Those people are being **** on.
What does Europe have to do with S.2219? Can't defend your lie so you are changing the topic?
