RSS

7,100,000.00

01 Apr

Obama-Neo   Enough said. Let’s see how the right explains why they want to deny health insurance to everyone.  Oh, I know. The numbers are false because “they” (whomever “they” are) cooked the books!  I hope they used a bit of garlic and vermouth.

Advertisements
 
48 Comments

Posted by on April 1, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

48 responses to “7,100,000.00

  1. mitchethekid

    April 1, 2014 at 5:15 pm

    r

    And this is the alternative.

     
    • mitchethekid

      April 1, 2014 at 5:21 pm

      g

      And this!!

       
    • rustybrown2012

      April 1, 2014 at 6:31 pm

      Looks like she just took a nut shot from someone who’s been eating pickled herring for a few days!

       
  2. 02casper

    April 1, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Mitche,
    When the right is complaining that law doesn’t cover enough people you know they have lost the argument. BTW, thanks for letting tired post. His entire argument ended up being that a source we linked to wasn’t valid. Yet he couldn’t come up with another source other than the White house. Good stuff.

     
  3. meursault1942

    April 2, 2014 at 7:36 am

    I’m happy so many people now have health coverage. That is a big step in the right direction.

    And yes, the right-wing freakout over this is all good fun. I do wonder how the GOP is going to try to make its “we want to take that coverage away from you–for FREEDOM!111!” campaign pitch, though.

     
  4. meursault1942

    April 3, 2014 at 7:47 am

    Jonathan Chait has an excellent article up about the ACA’s success despite the GOP’s nonstop predictions of–and best efforts to bring about–catastrophe:

    One immediate conclusion is that the Republican war to strangle Obamacare in the crib has come to pieces. The plan assumed, correctly, that the new law would be most vulnerable in its nascent stage. Republicans hoped that a combination of legislative attacks, on-the-ground activism, and coordinated messaging could deprive the new insurance exchanges of the customers they needed to form a critical mass, either as a political constituency or as an actuarially stable mix of customers. They failed.

    But much more interesting to me is Chait’s discussion of how the GOP’s failure to kill the ACA reveals a broader point, which has long been a hobby horse of mine: liberalism and conservatism are not symmetrical. They are not mere opposites of each other:

    Liberals believe in activist government entirely as a means to various ends. Pollution controls are useful only insofar as they result in cleaner air; national health insurance is valuable only to the extent that it helps people obtain medical care. More spending and more regulation are not ends in and of themselves. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in small government not only for practical reasons — this program will cost too much or fail to work — but for philosophical reasons as well.

    A new political science paper by Matt Grossman and David Hopkins bears out this way of thinking about American politics. The authors find a fundamental asymmetry between the Republican and Democratic coalitions. They examined survey results and other data among voters, activists, and elites, and found that Republicans express their beliefs about government as abstract ideology (big government is bad) while Democrats express their beliefs in the form of benefits for groups. The differences are enormous.

    The different ways of conceptualizing the debate over government spills over into every other way in which the parties operate. Democrats are more favorable toward moderation and political compromise; Republicans toward ideological purity and principle. It’s not coincidental that Republicans have instigated more high-stakes partisan escalation in Congress.

    This asymmetry is confounding, particularly to the more deranged conservatives–CSL provides a handy example here. Not only does she ardently believe, as Chait predicts, that abstraction is the absolute key to victory–never, ever talk about issues, and the path to victory is clear!–she cannot conceive of any other way of approaching things, so she is forced to assume that anybody who opposes her is simply the exact opposite of her. You aren’t a conservative, so you must be a RADICAL SOCIALIST! You don’t believe in the exact same limited government I do, so you must believe in UNLIMITED GOVERNEMNT. And so on.

    I’ve seen multiple people point out to her that her entire conception of politics is a false dichotomy (not to mention little more than a series of amazingly stupid lies), but in doing so, they were bumping up the limitations of her mind, which led to the customary freakout/lies/meltdown we all know and love. But she couldn’t get past the notion that because she believes “small government” (whatever that is) is an end unto itself, anybody who opposes her necessarily believes that “big government” (whatever that is) is an end unto itself.

     
    • mitchethekid

      April 3, 2014 at 9:49 am

      I love NY Magazine and CSL is FUBAR.

       
    • rustybrown2012

      April 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm

      The recent Supreme Court ruling which green lights the ability of money to buy federal elections is a great example of the divide between liberals and conservatives, and why one party is so much more caustic to our country than the other. While conservatives go berserk over a moderate, reasonable attempt to address our health care crisis liberals despair our country being sold out to the highest bidder. I think even plenty of sane Republicans and moderates are troubled by this. But make no mistake, this democracy corrupting decision is squarely on the shoulders of conservatives and the GOP. Sad times.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        April 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm

        Btw, following up from my last post, are there any conservatives reading this that care to justify the Supreme Court ruling I was referring to? As I said, this was clearly a right wing, conservative, GOP decision all the way; do any conservatives care to defend it or shall we just agree that democracy has been neutered and what about Benghazi?

         
      • 02casper

        April 4, 2014 at 5:24 am

        Rusty,
        I’m sure conservatives are thrilled that the people that own them and their party now have a better chance of buying elections.

         
    • 02casper

      April 3, 2014 at 6:05 pm

      Loved the article and it is spot on. CSL is the perfect example of what it was saying.

       
  5. watsonthethird

    April 3, 2014 at 11:45 am

    This will brighten Mitch’s day:

    Oh, and be sure to tune in to Amazing America with Sarah Palin starting tonight! I know you will, Mitch!

     
    • mitchethekid

      April 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm

      I’d rather have my gums scraped than listen to her fingernails on a blackboard of a voice. And it’s a foregone conclusion that “blackboard” to $arah is some racist code.

       
  6. rustybrown2012

    April 3, 2014 at 11:15 pm

    In other news, who gives a shit, right? Who fuckin’ cares about torture? It’s not like anybody’s ever been put to death that didn’t have it comin’.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/03/tommy-lynn-sells-executed_n_5087523.html

     
  7. rustybrown2012

    April 5, 2014 at 11:59 am

    There’s a fresh batch of incoherence, outrage and hypocrisy streaming from the right over the firing of Brandon Eich at Mozilla. Andrew Sullivan is against it, as is Tired over at bfv, albeit in a much less eloquent way. The thing they don’t own up to is that this situation played out as a shining exercise in the free market, where consumers are free to speak and businesses are free to handle their own affairs, exactly what right wingers are always claiming they want. Seems like they like the free hand of the marketplace as long as rich, conservatives aren’t the ones getting slapped and gays aren’t doing the slapping.

    How many times have we witnessed conservatives go bananas over perceived assaults on their worldview resulting in boycotts–from a scarf worn by Rachel Rey to Girl scout cookies? This shit’s been going on for decades and now that the shoe is on the other foot conservatives embrace victimhood and whine like the little bitches they are.

    Indeed, the hypocrisy doubles down with conservatives now calling for a boycott of Mozilla!

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/conservatives-launch-boycott-mozilla-after-gays-pr/

    I’m sure Tired will be expressing his outrage over this new attempt at fascism shortly.

     
    • 02casper

      April 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm

      “I’m sure Tired will be expressing his outrage over this new attempt at fascism shortly.”

      And he did. I guess the new definition of fascism not supporting a bigot.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        April 5, 2014 at 12:35 pm

        No Casper, you’re missing my sarcasm. I’m saying Tired should express outrage over the subsequent conservative attempt to boycott Mozilla, not his outrage over the original boycott that led to Eich’s firing. I saw Tired’s post, I alluded to it, and it’s largely what my post is all about and. I thought that was clear.

         
      • 02casper

        April 5, 2014 at 5:41 pm

        Rusty,
        Sorry I missed the sarcasm the first time I read your post. Long day.
        Tired is always outraged, but only by things done by the Left. He thinks that it he links to an article it has to be the truth.

         
      • tiredoflibbs

        April 5, 2014 at 6:38 pm

        No, drones, the only “outrage” I am experiencing right now is that the fascist left is not demanding the resignation of the current pResident for having the same beliefs as Eich SIX YEARS AGO.

        But I would not expect consistency from you or anyone else from the left.

        I am not calling for a boycott (I would not expect you to accurately portray what I said anyway. At least, you drones are consistent in that. I don’t fall in lockstep with others (what other people do is their business). But do continue to regurgitate the same dumbed down talking points that was distributed to you on this issue.

        But the obvious point you missed is:
        “As we all know, “progressives” are people who live in the future, refusing to dwell on events of the past. Who cares what Barack Obama said about ObamaCare in 2009, or what Hillary Clinton said about Benghazi in 2012? The past is dead and gone.”

        The left is famous for this. Everything in the past is best to be left there according to them. Clinton’s affairs, Kerry’s cowardice, obama’s pot smoking, obama’s views on marriage between one man and one woman, etc. etc..

        What matter’s to them is the here and now. Nothing from the past is important unless they can use it against political foes or those who oppose their agenda.

         
      • tiredoflibbs

        April 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm

        Wow, casper is calling obama a bigot! That’s a first.
        No cappy, he was forced out for having a belief. That is what fascists do. I remember a certain teacher who was paranoid that someone was out to jeopardize his job for his beliefs. Hmmm….

        Anyway, by your definition obama is a bigot for having the same view six years ago.
        Oh, wait. What is the dumbed down talking point?
        Oh yeah, “He evolved” – Publicly expressing his view of marriage between a man and a women is in the past – it doesn’t matter. It served his purpose until a new niche came along.

        What a crock. Well whatever to convince yourself and Your fellow LIVs to justify obama’s stance.

         
      • 02casper

        April 5, 2014 at 7:34 pm

        “tiredoflibbs says:
        April 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm

        Wow, casper is calling obama a bigot! That’s a first.”

        Going straight for the lies tonight? I never called Obama a bigot.

        “No cappy, he was forced out for having a belief.”

        Prove that please.

        “That is what fascists do. I remember a certain teacher who was paranoid that someone was out to jeopardize his job for his beliefs. Hmmm….”

        Are you saying amazona is a fascist? Careful, she will come after you next.

        “Oh, wait. What is the dumbed down talking point?
        Oh yeah, “He evolved” – Publicly expressing his view of marriage between a man and a women is in the past – it doesn’t matter”

        What matters is that he has changed and you haven’t.

        “What a crock. Well whatever to convince yourself and Your fellow LIVs to justify obama’s stance.”

        How can someone who follows politics everyday be a LIV?

         
      • meursault1942

        April 5, 2014 at 7:47 pm

        “But do continue to regurgitate the same dumbed down talking points that was distributed to you on this issue.”

        Says the guy screaming that the “fascist left” (no such thing–conservatives love to use the word “fascist,” but I have never seen one use it correctly) “forced” Eich from his position. Way to recite the talking points! Good boy!

        Of course, Eich was not “forced” from his position by “the intolerant left” (another favorite talking point of the stupid–“the only real bigotry is intolerance of bigotry!”) at all. If you did anything besides reciting the talking points, you’d realize that Mozilla’s been having an ongoing leadership shakeup; people were upset about Eich being CEO well before any news about his donation in favor of Prop 8 came out. But that’s all above your head, it being factual and all.

        But let’s just pretend for a moment that you’re correct. You aren’t, of course, but just as a little exercise, let’s pretend that you are. Why are you so angry about it? After all, you wingnuts are shrieking that Hobby Lobby should get to impose its “morality” upon its employees from the top down. Yet now you’re upset that Mozilla is deciding to change its leadership? Why is Mozilla not allowed to do that according to its morality? If Eich’s freedom of speech is being trampled (it isn’t, not in the slightest…you wingnuts really need to learn what “freedom of speech” is), what about the Mozilla board’s freedom of speech? Why do you want to trample on it?

        Try to think for a change. I know, I’m asking a lot of you, who can only seem to spew out talking points, but give it a try. See how it goes, and then we’ll proceed from there.

         
      • tiredoflibbs

        April 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm

        “Going straight for the lies tonight? I never called Obama a bigot.”
        You called Eich a bigot. Obama held the same views….. connect the dots.

        “prove that please”
        Uh, what is the topic we have been talking about? Eich was ousted as CEO to a company that he co-founded for his BELIEFS. And you wonder why you are a LIV?

        “Are you saying amazona is a fascist? Careful, she will come after you next.”

        I didn’t say she was a fascist. Going straight for the lies tonight?

        I like the way you cherry pick my statements and leave out relevant material you can’t defend against. obama is the classic politician flip-flopping …. “evolving” … as necessary for political expediency. You just skipped over that whole important point.

        “obama changed and you haven’t”

        Haven’t changed from what? Are you calling me a bigot because I am expressing “outrage” at an individual for his treatment by modern day fascists? Anyone can have a belief. Why should Eich be punished for making a contribution to a legal proposition on the ballot? Bigotry is being redefined by the left just like “racist” has been. It is now racism if you disagree with the pResident. Just like it is “bigotry”, if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been for thousands of years. They are both just words conveniently defined by the left and changed to suit their needs.

        “How can someone who follows politics everyday be a LIV?”
        You are on a blog for the MIDLY aware. The way you deny things… “I never heard of….”, “I don’t recall….”, etc. etc. You know when you are pretending to be ignorant of events, or having selective memory, etc. You may “follow” politics, but your so called “knowledge” just demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

         
      • meursault1942

        April 5, 2014 at 9:49 pm

        “How can someone who follows politics everyday be a LIV?”

        Well, tired follows politics, and it’s hard to imagine somebody more ignorant than he is. It’s very hard to find a position of his that isn’t based on ignorance, if not outright lies.

         
  8. 02casper

    April 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm

    tiredoflibbs says:
    April 5, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    “No, drones, the only “outrage” I am experiencing right now is that the fascist left is not demanding the resignation of the current pResident for having the same beliefs as Eich SIX YEARS AGO.”

    The differ ence is that our President’s beliefs have evolved over the the last six years, and he has acted on them, something Eich hasn’t done.

    “I am not calling for a boycott (I would not expect you to accurately portray what I said anyway. At least, you drones are consistent in that. I don’t fall in lockstep with others (what other people do is their business). But do continue to regurgitate the same dumbed down talking points that was distributed to you on this issue.”

    You are correct, but you aren’t attaching those on the right that are demanding a boycott like you are those on the left. As for dumbed down talking points, that is your specialty.

     
    • tiredoflibbs

      April 5, 2014 at 7:29 pm

      “The differ ence is that our President’s beliefs have evolved over the the last six years,…”

      As “progressives” alway do for political expediency. Ever notice their beliefs change depending on what audience they are in front of?

      Why should I attack those on the right that are calling for a boycott? They have the right to call for it. Unlike the fascist left, I respect their right to believe what they want. It doesn’t make them right. This is their right of free speech. But to you on the left, the only free speech acceptable is what they believe anything else is VERBOTEN.

       
      • 02casper

        April 5, 2014 at 7:38 pm

        “tiredoflibbs says:
        April 5, 2014 at 7:29 pm

        “The differ ence is that our President’s beliefs have evolved over the the last six years,…”

        As “progressives” alway do for political expediency. Ever notice their beliefs change depending on what audience they are in front of?”

        Just because you aren’t capable evolving, doesn’t mean others aren’t.

        “Why should I attack those on the right that are calling for a boycott? They have the right to call for it.”

        I agree, yet you call progressives fascists for doing the same thing.

         
      • tiredoflibbs

        April 5, 2014 at 8:31 pm

        “I have never said a person was racist if they disagreed with Obama. I disagree with him on a number of issues.”

        I never said YOU did.

        “Bigotry is being redefined by the left just like “racist” has been. It is now racism if you disagree with the pResident. Just like it is “bigotry”, if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been for thousands of years. They are both just words conveniently defined by the left and changed to suit their needs.””

        Out of the my above statement, you make the accusation above. Again, this demonstrates your inability to comprehend the written word.

        “I also know that I know far more than you.”

        Which shows your little you understand the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

        Casper, I used it correctly. That fact that you miss it completely, proves my statement correct.

         
  9. 02casper

    April 5, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    “tiredoflibbs says:
    April 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    “Going straight for the lies tonight? I never called Obama a bigot.”
    You called Eich a bigot. Obama held the same views….. connect the dots.”

    Did Obama contribute to passing Prop.8?

    “prove that please”
    “Uh, what is the topic we have been talking about? Eich was ousted as CEO to a company that he co-founded for his BELIEFS. And you wonder why you are a LIV?”

    “Are you saying amazona is a fascist? Careful, she will come after you next.”

    “I didn’t say she was a fascist. Going straight for the lies tonight?”

    No, but you implied it. Lying is your thing.

    “I like the way you cherry pick my statements and leave out relevant material you can’t defend against. obama is the classic politician flip-flopping …. “evolving” … as necessary for political expediency. You just skipped over that whole important point.”

    And you never cherry pick things?

    “obama changed and you haven’t”

    “Haven’t changed from what? Are you calling me a bigot because I am expressing “outrage” at an individual for his treatment by modern day fascists? Anyone can have a belief. Why should Eich be punished for making a contribution to a legal proposition on the ballot? Bigotry is being redefined by the left just like “racist” has been. It is now racism if you disagree with the pResident. Just like it is “bigotry”, if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been for thousands of years. They are both just words conveniently defined by the left and changed to suit their needs.”

    I have never said a person was racist if they disagreed with Obama. I disagree with him on a number of issues.

    “How can someone who follows politics everyday be a LIV?”
    “You are on a blog for the MIDLY aware.”

    As are you.

    The way you deny things… “I never heard of….”, “I don’t recall….”, etc. etc. You know when you are pretending to be ignorant of events, or having selective memory, etc.

    I admit I don’t know everything. I also know that I know far more than you.

    “You may “follow” politics, but your so called “knowledge” just demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger Effect.”

    Which shows you little you understand the Dunning-Kruger Effect. In fact, your prior statement proves you wrong.

     
  10. tiredoflibbs

    April 5, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    Let’s put it in perspective here casper.

    Eich was forced to resign for a $1000 contribution he made to support Proposition 8, a legal proposition on California’s ballot, put there through legal means.

    That’s it. He wasn’t trying to impose his views on anyone at Mozilla, nor did he make public statements to those beliefs, unlike the pResident.

    Someone dug up dirt on this man and forced him out of a job. This is not freedom, it’s fascism. The same sort we see constantly from the left and at the same time they protect their own for making the same statements or holding the same beliefs. If you are not of the party, you’re history.

     
    • 02casper

      April 5, 2014 at 8:34 pm

      “Eich was forced to resign for a $1000 contribution he made to support Proposition 8, a legal proposition on California’s ballot, put there through legal means.”

      No, he was forced to resign because a number of people didn’t want to use Firefox because of his beliefs. That’s not fascism, that’s capitalism. We all have the right support or not support companies that support our values. People were dumping Firefox because of him.

       
  11. 02casper

    April 5, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    Tired,
    Here is a definition of fascism since you obviously have no idea what it means.

    fascism |ˈfaSHˌizəm| (also Fascism)
    noun
    an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
    The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

     
    • tiredoflibbs

      April 6, 2014 at 3:19 am

      Casper breaks out the dictionary….

      The only description that can be applied in this case is that we are not Italy, Germany or Spain but the practice is still there.

      The key words there casper are “authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice”. Surely, not a solid practice not known to only one side of the political spectrum.

      We can go into the speeches by obama where he said “get in their faces”. We can go into the acts of intolerance by the left as this topic shows ONE example. And we have “practice”, where there are people who want to take this further – punish EVERYONE who supported Proposition 8.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html

      Gather lists of supporters? Punish them? The only thing missing is painting the Star of David on their front window.

      You claim it was “capitalism” that ousted Eich. Really? Did Mozilla lose sales on Firefox? Last I checked it was FREE software. So no, it wasn’t capitalism. According to you (and that dumbed down talking point), it would be legitimate to go after all those who opposed Proposition 8 by such companies who have a different belief. What if (I won’t use real names here), Hobby Hut or Chicken Patty went and “punished” those who support the Opposition to Prop 8, abortion, pornography, and any leftist cause that was not in “in their values” (as you put it)? Would the left support it? It is capitalism after all!! No, they would not and they would ACCURATELY label those acts as FASCISTIC.

      In Eich’s case, it was not capitalism (again this is the “moral” justification used by the Ieft) t was pure intimidation on a man who made a contribution six years ago and hasn’t acted on his beliefs at any time.

      He was targeted because his name was on a donor list. Hmmmm, where have I heard inquisitions about donor lists lately? Oh yeah, the IRS scandals. Notice that tactic of gathering information on political opponents – who/what they support which can be later used against them. Hmmm. Oh, it must be a coincidence.

      In the Citizens United case, Justice Clarence Thomas argued against allowing the disclosure of the names of private donors. Thomas pointed out how gay rights supporters used disclosure laws to create maps showing homes and businesses of those who supported the referendum. Some of those supporters were then targeted for protests, with several having to close businesses.

      “The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights,” Justice Thomas wrote. Hmm… more coincidence with the IRS questioning of conservative groups.

      Wow casper, more examples of those key words: “authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice”.

      Again, you suffer from Dunning-Kruger Effect and either don’t know it or refuse to believe it. Either way, you lost.

       
  12. 02casper

    April 6, 2014 at 6:54 am

    “You claim it was “capitalism” that ousted Eich. Really? Did Mozilla lose sales on Firefox? Last I checked it was FREE software”

    Then how was Eich getting paid?

    “Mozilla is a free software community best known for producing the Firefox web browser. The Mozilla community uses, develops, spreads and supports Mozilla products, thereby promoting exclusively free software and open standards, with only minor exceptions. The community is supported institutionally by the Mozilla Foundation and its tax-paying subsidiary, the Mozilla Corporation.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla

    Mozilla makes money by people using it’s products through add revenue. If people aren’t using Firefox, Mozilla goes away.

     
    • tiredoflibbs

      April 6, 2014 at 7:29 am

      “If people aren’t using Firefox, Mozilla goes away.”

      Another example of theDunning-Kruger Effect. Firefox is not going anywhere. Plus, Firefox is not the only product developed by Mozilla. “Capitalism” had nothing to do with his forced resignation.

      I noticed you glossed over all the other points. Points that shows the left’s hypocrisy, inconsistency and double standards.

      I grow bored with your constant cherry picking and grasping at straws.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        April 6, 2014 at 10:43 am

        Tired,
        Capitalism and the free market had everything to do with Eich’s ouster. A company decided Eich had to go, not gay people. If Mozilla did not think Eich was a financial liability to the organization he would still be CEO.

        Are you against a company being able to make it’s own decisions? Are you against free speech and the right of consumers to voice their opinions in the marketplace? Do you think that right should be curtailed? And are you also against the countless bizarre boycotts declared by conservatives over the decades?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Boycotts

        Note: Mozilla announced its 2012 earnings this week, reporting record revenue of $311 million. Despite the hundreds of millions that Mozilla is now earning, it’s important to remember that the company really isn’t a commercial enterprise. The goal of Mozilla is not to make money; it’s to open the Web.

        http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/mozilla-revenue-tops-311-million-from-open-source-technology.html

         
    • meursault1942

      April 6, 2014 at 11:22 am

      “Mozilla makes money by people using it’s products through add revenue. If people aren’t using Firefox, Mozilla goes away.”

      Specifically, 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue comes from Google due to a search agreement.

      But again, this was a business decision. As much as know-nots like tired want to make this a case of “he was forced out solely due to his donation!” to fuel their paranoia and dementia and intense desire to somehow be victims (which is really sad), it simply isn’t the case (there’s that whole “try to find a conservative position that isn’t based on lies” thing popping up again).

      Mozilla is trying to expand into other markets–in particular, the mobile space with the long-in-development Firefox phone/Firefox mobile OS–and members of the Mozilla board wanted the new CEO to have experience in that area so as to better lead the company into that market. Half the board, including a former CEO, resigned in protest of Eich’s appointment because they “sought a CEO from outside Mozilla with experience in the mobile industry who could help expand the organization’s Firefox OS mobile-operating system and balance the skills of co-founders Eich and Baker.”

      Note that last bit–they wanted a CEO to work with Eich (who had been CTO before his appointment to CEO). Clearly, they had no problem with Eich personally; they just didn’t want him to be CEO. But conservatives like tired have their talking points, and they will never give them up. C’est la vie.

      Note: Official statement from the Chairwoman of Mozilla:

      https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/

       
  13. rustybrown2012

    April 6, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Who’s amending my posts?

     
    • mitchethekid

      April 6, 2014 at 2:36 pm

      Not me. Elaborate please.

       
  14. rustybrown2012

    April 6, 2014 at 11:39 am

    The goal of Mozilla is not to make money; it’s to open the Web.

    Right. And the goal of McDonalds is not to make money, it’s to kill cows.

     
    • watsonthethird

      April 6, 2014 at 3:03 pm

      Don’t know who modified your post, but actually, Mozilla is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. I would say that the above statement–“The goal of Mozilla is not to make money; it’s to open the Web”–is an accurate description of how they see themselves. It is definitely not run like your typical for-profit tech company. If you don’t know anything about Mozilla, even a cursory read of their web site will reveal that.

      Not that it matters; tired’s got his talking points and he’s sticking to them.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        April 6, 2014 at 3:27 pm

        ”The goal of Mozilla is not to make money; it’s to open the Web”–is an accurate description of how they see themselves.

        Gimme a break. That may be how they seem themselves, but in the real world any company that rakes in $311 million clams is pretty concerned with the bottom line, doncha think? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but Mozilla’s official classification as a company is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

         
      • watsonthethird

        April 6, 2014 at 4:08 pm

        Rusty, of course they are concerned. They don’t want to go out of business. They want to see their goals achieved. They want to “win,” if you want to put it that way.

        Nevertheless, they _are_ a non-profit foundation. They aren’t run like the other Silicon Valley for-profit businesses that I’m aware of. And to me, there’s no question that that had something to do with the firestorm that lead to Brendan Eich’s resignation.

        One thing that conservatives like tired fail to realize is that it’s not so much “liberals” who spoke out, but libertarians. There is a strong libertarian streak among many tech folks in Silicon Valley. To them, the issue of same sex marriage is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The leader of an organization such as Mozilla, was seen as _actively_ curtailing rights (“actively” because he donated $1000 to the Prop 8 cause).

        In addition, the culture of Mozilla is not a rigid top-down hierarchy. Whereas in a lot of companies, the culture would frown on, and enforce a prohibition against, the rank-and-file criticizing anyone in authority, it’s just the opposite at Mozilla.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        April 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm

        Watson,
        I agree with just about everything you say about Mozilla but it’s quite beside my original point. In contrast to Tired’s opinion, my original contention and exact words were that “capitalism and the free market had everything to do with Eich’s ouster. A company decided Eich had to go, not gay people. If Mozilla did not think Eich was a financial liability to the organization he would still be CEO.”, and I stand by that. Mozillas main motivation for forcing him out was a financial one. The particularities of Mozillas business model and their tax designation have nothing to do with my larger point that they too operate in the free market and are beholden to the same or similar market pressures as for profit companies are–particularly the pressure to not alienate their customers, employees, and shareholders and to stay competitive in their field and make money. The free market affects different companies (non-profits, charities, etc. included) in different ways based on innumerable factors but all are still beholden to the general principles. Now, is there something specific about what I’m saying that you disagree with or do you want to explain another factoid about Mozillas business model that is completely beside my point?

         
      • watsonthethird

        April 6, 2014 at 6:15 pm

        Rusty, I do agree with you that, as you say, “capitalism and the free market had everything to do with Eich’s ouster.” My original comment was merely a minor clarification in what I see as Mozilla’s mission. That and my subsequent comment was meant to add a little perspective to counter the knee jerk reaction of the likes of tired.

         
  15. rustybrown2012

    April 6, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    My posts are being deleted. Naturally, I believe Cluster is behind it, wouldn’t be the first time.

     
  16. tiredoflibbs

    April 6, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Rusty: “Who’s amending my posts?”

    We can’t have people amending your posts with facts that counter your talking points now can we?

     
    • rustybrown2012

      April 6, 2014 at 6:13 pm

      I don’t know Tired, I’m still waiting for someone to present facts that counter my arguments. But one fact we can all agree on is that deleting posts is a pussy move.

       
 
%d bloggers like this: