That is, if you ignore what happened to every other whistleblower in recent history before him - they got shitcanned, got their houses ransacked, got put on the naughty list and nothing happened. Snowden would have had to believe that doing the same thing again would have had a different outcome.
What would you do when the software is released on darknets, and spreads over sneakernet and other (maybe older versions of the same) P2P networks? Sue the people sharing them? Oh wait...
Reminds me of one of the most frustrating realizations of my life. When I was a kid, I was a big fan of Lego. I often asked for lego as gifts but rarely got any.
As an adult, I found out why. My mom asked me what a little boy in the family might want as a gift. I asked what he was into, and one of the things was Lego. Apparently he was a big fan too.
"Then you can't go wrong with more Lego," I said.
My mom replies "But he already has Lego."
*GIANT FUCKING FACEPALM*
Now it all made sense
Funny, I often see the exact opposite in conservatives - talk of the evils of the dark lord Soros while pretending the Koch brothers don't exist.
However there is a matter of scale...in terms of dollars in "contributions", they're not in the same league. Soros is a pissant weekend amateur compared to the Kochs.
Self-test result summary: DER TURKIN AR JERBS!!!
I'm not totally against X in a way that would make me seem like a total loon to any sane person, I just have certain important qualms with X which may seem reasonable on the surface but, if you pick at it, amount to something indistinguishable from total denial of the issue.
Not always but in this case it was. The judge was not impartial. He was a gay man who exploited his position to further the cause. It wasn't just his vision of what ought to be, it was a decision in which he had a personal stake. People get bent out of shape that Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto, it would be like if he still consulted for them while on the bench.
I guess we'll need asexual judges since by this logic, a straight man (or woman?) would be equally unfit to rule on the case.
So you seem to be upset that there was nothing in writing that said "while employed with us as the face of the company and highest-paid employee, being a horrible bigot and donating to bigoted causes will be considered a fireable offense due to the loss of business from public backlash." Well after this I'm sure all CEO's contracts will have such clauses, so the board members won't have to choose between stepping right onto the wrong end of a lawsuit or hurling themselves against the 38th floor windows. And he wasn't forced out of the position anyway. He could have stayed on and gone down with the ship.
I also find it hilarious that you compared this to a witch hunt or lynching. We're not so far past those that you wouldn't know the original meaning of those words. It's just hilarious how the most powerful group in any society always has a massive persecution complex.
"This guy's donations to a bigoted cause brought a boycott onto his company and he was pressured to leave the position for it!?!? THAT'S JUST LIKE BURNING HIM ALIVE FOR BEING UNPOPULAR OR BEING HANGED TO DEATH BY AN ANGRY MOB FOR HIS SKIN COLOR!!!"
So when judges rule in a way you don't like it's judicial activism?
Politicians don't have additional rights, they have different job conditions. For example if you were a bartender you could use adult language with customers and not get fired, while if you were a mascot at an amusement park you couldn't. I can't show up to work in a french maid outfit and keep my job while a stripper can. I could, however, star in porn videos in my free time and keep my job while a Disney pop idol couldn't. Are you getting the idea? In some jobs there are restrictions in what's allowed both on and off the job for PR reasons.
Fair enough, yes I think I should have used polygyny in place of polygamy for this discussion.
Homeopathy has a legitimate use in medicine, and some doctors are already using it on patients.
It's called the placebo effect
Barack Obama is a politician. They're free to hold offensive views and many are rewarded for it, it's part of the job.
And they weren't really the same position either. The most anti-gay-rights thing Obama ever did is to state that "Marriage should be between a man and a woman." About as close to the fence as you can get on the anti-gay-rights side. Later he denounced those views and has made many pro-gay-rights statements and actions.
Eich donated to a campaign to strip gays of an existing right to marry and has been completely unapologetic about it. Not the same position.
I was talking more about "traditional" polygamy rather than polyamory...polyamorous relationships tend to have a more balanced gender ratio than the usual one man/many women situation in polygamy.
Came here to say this, this is the flip side of the coin. Any company could be helplessly sunk by a sufficiently offensive CEO.
First GAY AGENDA and now LAVENDER MAFIA?
LOL I can't wait to see what you nutbags come up with next! XD
(BTW I also enjoyed the equals sign transforming into a swastika)
A Sony DS3 w/ thumb keyboard connected to an HTPC running Xubuntu.
OK well I need another remote for the TV itself, but if I was using a PC monitor and separate speakers I wouldn't!