Liberals Who Have Forgotten How to be Liberal

Liberal IntoleranceLet’s get something straight:  Liberals are the smart ones.  The tolerant ones.  The open-minded ones.  I know this because liberals are constantly telling me (and everyone else) how smart and tolerant and open-minded they are

Except when they’re not.

The other day Brendan Eich, the CEO of the tech company Mozilla, that created the web browser FIrefox, was forced out of his job and out of the whole company by an employee revolt.  His crime?  In 2008 he contributed $1,000 to a California ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which opposed same-sex marriage.

I have the feeling that if Mozilla had the power to send Eich to a re-education camp, the liberal ayatollahs at the company would have done just that.  Lacking that kind of power, forcing him to resign and give up the job he had held for just 11 days would have to suffice.

For the record, no one is suggesting that Brendan Eich treated gay employees differently than anyone else at Mozilla.  No one is suggesting he called them names or discriminated against them in any way at all.  In fact, in his 15 years at Mozilla there’s no evidence that he ever brought up his personal views about gay marriage.

None of that mattered.  Brendan Eich had offended sensibilities at Mozilla, a supposedly progressive company in Silicon Valley. He also offended management at the popular dating website OKCupid, which has both straight and gay clients.  OKCupid called on its customers to boycott Firefox — urging them to not use it when going online to OKCupid.

Being opposed to same-sex marriage in the liberal bubble apparently is proof enough of bigotry.  Simple as that.

Of course, that would make Barack Obama a homophobe, too, since in 2008 he also was against gay marriage.  Call me crazy but I’m betting that 99.9 percent of the lefties who work at Mozilla voted for Mr. Obama, despite his “hateful” views on gays.

After they forced Mr. Eich out of his job, Mozilla issued a statement:

“Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard,” it said, “and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.”

So the employees of Mozilla are “hurt and angry” – and this is because they hold different views from their boss?  Does everyone in the company have to hold liberal views on gay marriage?  How about national defense?  Taxes?  Abortion?  I thought liberals were the ones who worship at the altar of diversity.  Apparently diversity of opinion doesn’t count.  “Unacceptable” views at Mozilla must be punished.  On the important issues, like gay marriage, employees must march in lock step.  This is what liberal intolerance looks like.

But it isn’t only those “hateful” right-wingers who find this whole episode so appalling.  Even an icon in gay America — the intellectual father of gay marriage –said the whole episode turns his stomach.

In 1989 Andrew Sullivan, the smart, well-respected, openly gay journalist, wrote the first story advocating gay marriage.  If he’s unhappy, the liberals at Mozilla should listen.  In a blog post entitled “The Hounding of a Heretic,” Sullivan wrote:

“The guy who had the gall to to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists.

“Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me — as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.

“If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else — then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”

And Tammy Bruce, a conservative radio talk show host who is also openly gay, blasted what she called the “gay gestapo” for transforming Mozilla into a “bastion of intolerance and punishment.”

Reasonable people may disagree on gay marriage.  I happen to be for it.  And no, I do not believe that anyone who opposes gay marriage automatically is a bigot.  I do think opponents are on the wrong side of history.  But let them make their case.  That’s how it’s supposed to work in a free country like ours.

Liberals, of all people, ought to know that, because liberalism supposedly is about keeping an open mind, being tolerant of views you don’t agree with, and letting the other guy have his say without making him fear some kind of punishment – simply for expressing an opinion.  But too many liberals today don’t know any of that.  Too many have sold out their liberal values.  They’ve opted instead  for rigid left wing ideology. They are the liberals who have forgotten how to be liberal.

*****

Leave a comment and tell your friends to check out my web site … and sign up for FREE updates.

Bernie's Next Column.

Enter your email and find out first.

  • hannodb

    Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

  • scott autry

    “If this is the gay rights movement today — hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else.”

    Uh, where is the religious right doing this?

    They are certainly vocal about their beliefs, but where are they doing what this guy is complaining about? Are there Mozillas out there run by the religious right who are firing people based on their beliefs?

    “No one is suggesting he called them names or discriminated against them in any way at all. In fact, in his 15 years at Mozilla there’s no evidence that he ever brought up his personal views about gay marriage.”

    If he had expressed his views, would he then be fair game?

    I’m having trouble with the overall consistency here again. It’s OK if the guy has X feelings about Y issue, but, once he voices X, then a company can take action against him – ? I guess we could bring up the fact the courts have stated donating money to politicians is a “speech” act, and thus protected,

    I’m not sure I agree, but, technically speaking, the guy donating money is considered speech…

    So, how does this all work together? The Duck Dynasty guy says something offense to many in an interview, and he’s fair game for his employer (even if he was stating what he saw as his religious beliefs (which he can back up with Bible quotes)). The NBA guy says something in private many find offensive and it becomes public knowledge, and the NBA is wrong for going after him. The Mozilla guy expresses his religious beliefs through what the government defines as a speech act, and he is protected (from a non-government entity) along Free Speech lines…???…

    I’m not sure how all that works together…And we need to get them to work together…

    ““Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me — as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”

    This is why some of us wanted to defend the baker’s right to refuse service for a gay wedding (or even taking it further – as in – not servicing gays at all):

    Handing over to the courts (thus the government) the power to frequently decide what is and isn’t protected speech or protected religious views makes us nervous.

    Let the market place be the judge, not the courts or legislators… Let the consumers decide whether something the businesses say or believe or do are too objectionable.

    People could have boycotted Duck Dynasty in an effort to get the guy fired – or – if he had been fired. People could have picketed and boycotted the bakery who refused to service a gay wedding – or if it had banned servicing homosexuals altogether. The same goes for Mozilla.

    If Mozilla wants to fire someone for their beliefs or speech, maybe we should let them? Let the rest of the society decide whether it went too far or not???

    If we encourage the government to begin defining what is acceptable or unacceptable speech/thought, we might not like what the government is doing with that power in the future….

    • scott autry

      What I meant was : The same government that gave us advancements in civil rights for minorities was the same government who upheld laws and court decisions and actions in the market place that oppressed minorities.

      If Progressives are right, and society can only advance onward and upward, well, I guess we’re safe if the government keeps getting drug into disagreements over religion and speech and thought…

      I’m far from confident power will not corrupt at some time in the future. I still prefer a limited government because I don’t trust mankind enough. I have more faith in something as defuse as the consumer market and voting masses overall, but I don’t trust a powerful government run by a relatively small group of people and even smaller if you consider the power players who basically have the job for life…

  • scott autry

    “Let’s get something straight: Liberals are the smart ones. The tolerant ones. The open-minded ones.”

    You just hit the primary reason my desire for tolerance runs into trouble when I think about common liberalism. It is easier for me to give KKK members some room to think what they want to think (even if I detest it) than it is to endure liberals. At least the guys in the KKK know they are haters…

    It is the rank hypocrisy of too many liberals that drives me nuts. I could tolerate a Paul Wellstone back in the day, but I can’t help hating the likes of a Sean Penn… The amount of righteous indignation and prejudice on the Left is staggering when you consider how much their pride in themselves is based on how open-minded they believe they are…

  • buckrodgers

    The other day, I watched the Kelly Files reporting on a White Professor at Northwestern University, which is located in the white section of Evanston IL, A suburb of Chicago, which prides itself on diversity, as long as African Americans live south of main street, which is their own personal ghetto, without a wall, now miss Beluse who just happens to be a white liberal, who used her white skin, to get a job at a University that is located in the white section, of a liberal suburb, claims that white soldiers returning from the battlefield are somehow drawn to white supremacist groups, of course Miss Beleuse who is also white seems to think she is the spokesperson for minorities in America and that somehow allows her to live her personal life like a Louisiana Klansman., just because white liberals only wear white hoods, when their burning crosses on the lawns of African Americans who want to move into their neighborhood doesn’t consider themselves to be a racist, in fact their much worse then any white supremacist group in America,

  • buckrodgers

    CBS decides to hire Steven Colbert a white male, to replace David Letterman another white male because putting a women or African American in that time slot doesn’t make economic sense for the liberal network, so does that mean that every time the network sends a white journalist to label the rest of white America a bunch of bigots and sexist, inflame the masses,cause riots and put the lives of innocent people in jeopardy because it makes economic sense to the executives at CBS, even though their acting like a bunch of bigots and sexist when it comes to their hiring practices.

  • criterionstalker

    It’s called the Free Market. Deal.

    • sjangers

      It’s called being intolerant and hypocritical. You deal.

      • Frank

        No it’s really not. Being tolerant does not include excusing or ignoring those who are intolerant. See how that works? Everyone is free to say and do what they want, but they are not free from the repercussions of those actions.
        And Eich’s resignation had far more to do with half of the Mozilla board resigning in protest than anything said or done in public. It was an internal, corporate problem

        • sjangers

          The explanation that half the Mozilla board resigned over Eich’s appointment as CEO, and that it had nothing to do with his earlier support of Prop 8, doesn’t make a lot of sense; certainly not if these resignations are then used as justification for pushing him out. Why did the company even go ahead with the appointment if half the board was opposed? And after those opposed left, why would the remaining Eich supporters then decide they didn’t want him? It smells entirely too much like his political stance and then the increasing political pressure was the issue, whatever is being said after the fact to manage the fallout. I mean, the latest word from Mozilla is that two of the three board members who left had been planning to do so and their departure had nothing to do with the decision to hire Eich, so how does any of this now make sense? Who knows what’s true?

          I gotta tell ya, Frank, I don’t see being opposed to same-sex marriage as intolerant. And I don’t see how not tolerating someone you label as intolerant doesn’t make you intolerant. It might be another matter if Eich was actively persecuting LGBT people, but he wasn’t. He just once supported a ballot initiative that would have defined “marriage” as being between one man and one woman. While I understand the importance of the symbolism for some people, in practical terms it really doesn’t amount to much.

          I personally oppose same-sex marriage, but I support offering same-sex couples all the protections under the law that marriage provides. I’d like to have government recognize all couples who seek legal status as ‘civil unions’ and be done with it. Let religions keep and use marriage as they see fit. What’s the big deal? Does my position make me intolerant? Should I begin to fear for my job?

          So as long as Eich’s support of Prop 8 wasn’t just the surface of a deeper interest in undermining the rights of same-sex couples, I don’t see how his position is intolerant.. Using someone’s free speech to deprive them of employment, while not illegal, is both deeply intolerant, in my opinion, and is a very dangerous precedent. LGBT people have many protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation in our society. What if employers started firing people not because of their sexual orientation, but for public speech in support of “controversial” positions that might offend customers and co-workers, or for contributions to causes that might offend the overly sensitive? How many of us could be certain of a job tomorrow?

          While no right is absolute- not even under the law- we risk doing a lot more harm than good if we look the other way and fail to condemn the sort of very harmful intolerance that Eich suffered. If his personal views were truly reprehensible, then I could understand that they might cost him his job. But for something as trivial as support of legally defining marriage as the joining of one man and one woman, forcing him out of his job is a broad over-reach. If his contribution to this cause becomes the new standard for intolerance, I worry that we might all soon be dismayed to discover that opinions we thought were fairly reasonable can become deeply reprehensible in the eyes of others when they have a little power over us and they hold a grudge.

        • JSebastian

          If you want to be tolerant then you also have to tolerate those who are intolerant themselves. Otherwise you’re the same as they are.

  • buckrodgers

    Liberals seem to take pleasure in rewriting the second amendment so law abiding citizens cant by a gun, well how about putting limits on the first amendment and force reckless journalists to register as a comedian, put locks on their mouths or make them liable for their actions if an innocent person gets hurt, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, so why are irresponsible journalist allowed to do just that. in the Rodney King beating irresponsible journalists caused a riot, in the Travon Martin killings their inflammatory remarks caused a bunch of goons led by a Hollywood star to surround the home of an innocent couple because the wrong address was inadvertently giving out and let’s not forget the Duke LaCrosse rape case where a bunch of irresponsible journalists, playing judge,juror and executioner almost got innocent kids convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, most Americans have no problem with honest journalists do their job in a responsible manner, but why should irresponsible journalist who act like a bunch of Nazi thugs, have any protections at all.

  • loupgarous

    I feel a LOT better about going over from Firefox to Chrome. Google, at least, publicly commits to a poilcy summed up as “Don’t be evil.” Kicking the guy who runs Mozilla out of the company over a difference of opinion on Proposition 8 strikes me as comprehensively evil as it is possible to be without actual recourse to violence against Mr. Eich. I sincerely hope Mr. Eich defends himself in court against this highly illiberal attack on him simply for exercising his right to free political speech.

    I will never use another Mozilla product until they make Brendan Eich whole – repay him any money he lost in this act of economic rape – and publicly repent of this blatant act of intolerance. They do not deserve my participation in their software projects as a user or as a beta tester.

    • Frank

      I’m sure Mozilla is devastated by this news, however will they go on without you?

      • JSebastian

        Its okay. I’ve just deleted all the resumes I received from people who supported gay marriage – as noted from social media and donations to No on 8.

        Fair play.

  • Debdeb

    It makes sense that the liberals have forgotten to be liberal. I just read an article about the long, slow surrender of the American liberals. Apparently liberal has morphed into different meanings. In the last several decades, liberalism is mentioned as having moved so far to the right that it was really “neoliberalism”. With leftist thought defined as championing a radical idea of a new society and since tolerance and open-mindedness are not a function of radical change, it is improbable for the leftist-liberal to be open-minded or tolerant. Maybe it is just the outdated neoliberal-liberals you reminisce about being open minded and tolerant.

    • loupgarous

      Deb, I think that Bernard is reminiscing about Edmund Burke and his liberal movement in Great Britain. The Burkean liberal movement doesn’t correspond exactly to any party or movement in American politics, but libertarianism and non-social conservatism come close to Burke’s ideas and those of his followers.

  • ogieyoungnhip

    My disappointment and anger is toward the liberal Jews in particular who know that Jews have had many horrors perpetrated upon them for most of their history; but they still support with great sincerity and gobs of both emotional and financial support this President who will hardly allow any immigration from Israel; but who will allow any illegal immigrant from almost ANY country in the world into our country no matter how much danger or expense comes along with their illegal entry. We should be welcoming any people who have contributed as much as the Jews have with no discrimination as to whom they help. They should be ashamed and should try and remember even a little of the contributions of jJews in this world

    • loupgarous

      Liberal Jewry isn’t alone in its tolerance for open betrayal by this Administration. Literal millions of Americans still vocally support Barack Obama and flick out the “race card” like croupiers at a blackjack table in defense of a man who, judged on the same basis as European-Americans in politics, would have been impeached by Congress during his first term in office.

      The herd of Lenin’s “useful idiots” ready to rush to the barricades to defend this cynical crook isn’t just Jewish, it’s Catholic, and Protestant, and African-American and European-American.

  • firststater

    My belief is this issue would be less intensely inflammatory and more accurately labeled same gender marriage. As I hear and listen to folks so situated and their rationale, the definition of gender seems more aptly suited. And perhaps eliminating the description same sex would make the matter less abhorrent and distasteful to those with an opposing view

    • loupgarous

      the issue isn’t nomenclature, but a twisted and inconsistent definition of the word “tolerance” that excludes anyone who thinks for him or herself and is unwise enough to speak an independent mind in public.

      I hope that Brendan Eich does not choose to simply “love Big Brother.” His is a story right out of the pages of George Orwell’s 1984.

      • firststater

        They are both bona fide issues. My take on it is the tolerance issue stems from the root issue same sex marriage in this instance

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @EAGLE. Apparently you have noted all of the “many” other who disagree with you. Don’t be prejudice, you owe them a thank you note as well :) Liked JOHN DALY’S COMMENT/RESPONSE TO YOU/LEGAL EAGLE..”you guess? I thought you only dealt in facts.” along with mentioning your “self righteous lectures.” Daily actually defended you when saying “you obviously didn’t read the column.” You are messing with the bull when you try to outsmart JOHN DALY. AND WHEN YOU MESS WITH THE BULL YOU GET THE HORN!

  • Sheila Warner
    • loupgarous

      You didn’t get it, did you, Sheila? This story’s about the practice of intolerance by people who never tire of telling us how tolerant they are. When you tell people you’re for tolerance, you’re obliged to be tolerant to everyone.

      Thanks for the link, though, it reeks of a “straw-man” constructed because you and your buddies running that webside came up empty finding anyone in the real world who behaves as you and your friends would have us believe they do. The over-the-top summation in the article’s last sentence gives it away as a fabrication. Only a dyed-in-the-wool leftist partisan would think it was anything but a farce.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @BRIAN STOVER. My comment to you was meant with all do respect and meant to be in question form. No criticism meant. :)

  • kayakbob

    My person experience during many dinner parties, or any gathering where people talk politics, is the first person to lament the lack of “tolerance for other points of view” is most often the person everyone considers the most partisan, and verbally bitter person at the table.

    I attribute it to what psychologist call ‘projection’ – projecting the things people don’t like about themselves onto other people as a way to express outrage…at themselves.

  • John Lewis

    Bernie,
    What’s getting into you? You’re slowing converting to a libturd

    • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

      Didn’t read the column, huh?

  • legal eagle

    So Bernie makes a point by overgeneralizing about “liberals”?

    • Tim Ned

      This article “overgeneralized” liberals? It appears to me to be an op-ed on the mindset as to why Eich resigned. What’s your take? I’m sure this wasn’t any old-bitter-dumb white guy decision which is your typical answer.

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        In defense of legal eagle, he didn’t actually read the column.

      • legal eagle

        It’s my guess that there was something more going on with Eich and Mozilla’s Board of Directors…..Nevertheless, claiming that this is an example of “liberal” intolerance is, in my opinion, nonsensical….If a few gay activists are upset with Eich this hardly constitutes “liberal” group think..
        I do business with several attorneys who made contributions to the same campaign as Eich did….I could care less…

        • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

          >>It’s my guess

          Your guess? I thought you only dealt in facts, legal?

          • legal eagle

            Guess you couldn’t be bothered reading the question I was responding to….it called for an opinion….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Uh, legal. When everyone else on this website offers their opinion, you give them a long self righteous lecture about how you only care about facts.

            I’m sorry you missed the irony, but you always do.

          • legal eagle

            “John Daly smokes 40 cigarettes and drinks 10-12 cans of Diet Coke per day”
            Take it easy on the cigarettes…LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Hey, I’m just impressed you actually quoted the content you copied and pasted for once. You should really do that with all of your posts, if you want to start earning some integrity.

          • legal eagle

            One of my goals is too gain credibility with you….LMFAO

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I’d settle for you just gaining credibility with your manager at Hooters.

          • legal eagle

            Again with your Hooters fetish? You seem obsessed about doing a Hooter’s girl?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You’re not my type.

          • legal eagle

            Does your wife know about your obsession with hooters?…LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            I love how weak your replies get when you can’t find a relevant response to copy and paste from your talking point emails. lol.

        • Tim Ned

          Any reasonable person could care less and we probably finally agree on something. In reading Mozilla’s blog site it was due to this donation. I would state that this is clearly liberal intolerance and political correctness overboard.

          • legal eagle

            I don’t disagree….but, I doubt “liberal intolerance” had much to do with anything. Corporate CEO’s have PR people who issue nice press releases with “non- apologetic apologies” and the media moves on to the next story.

        • sjangers

          I dunno, Eagle. Something else may have been going on between Eich and the Mozilla board, but that doesn’t seem likely. Eich had already been with the organization for about fifteen years in very senior positions. I would think the board should have been quite familiar with him. Even the news about his contribution in support of Prop 8 came out about two years ago. The board still had enough confidence in him to offer the CEO position. But Eich was in the position for less than two weeks when his departure was arranged.

          It’s hard to imagine what might have happened in just a few days to change Eich’s relationship with the Mozilla Corporation’s board, except for the call by LGBT activists for a boycott of Firefox. That appears to be the change that led to his “resignation”. Whether this boycott would have had broad support in the liberal community is probably irrelevant, although news of it was receiving widespread and favorable coverage in the traditional liberal media. What is relevant is the environment that similar recent liberal activism has created that apparently led the Mozilla board to believe that keeping Eich on as CEO was too risky for the company. For that much, at least, liberals in general do have some responsibility for Mozilla’s reaction to this boycott threat.

          • legal eagle

            Here is the only fact I am aware of. Brendan Eich had been CEO for 10 DAYS…If the board forced him out for a campaign contribution then the board is a disgrace…If a large advertiser forced him out then welcome to the world of corporate intolerance….
            If you want to make Eich into a martyr go ahead and do it….
            Instead of wasting your time on a non-issue like this perhaps you should be more upset with the SCOTUS who recently refused to hear the case of the photographer(s) who refused to take pictures at a gay wedding because of their “religious” beliefs….The action by SCOTUS should make for some for some right wing outrage by your overseer of religious values Bill O’Reilly…

          • sjangers

            I’m not looking to make Eich a martyr. I’m just commenting on what appears to be an unsettling social trend. The boycott- and other forms of social ostracism- has long been held to be a dysfunctional conservative response to non-conformity. We’re starting to discover that it’s a dysfunctional establishment response, and that it really may not matter what values the social elites holding the power claim they represent. It’s an interesting topic for reflection and self-examination.

            I haven’t heard much about the Court’s refusal to hear that case beyond the bare fact of their refusal. I have no idea what grounds they cited for not taking it up. Is it worth discussing? Or are you just creating a distraction?

          • legal eagle

            I’m not sure what social trend you are referring to so I’m not sure how to comment…I also don’t understand what exactly is new about people losing their jobs or being excoriated for their political views….What is the trend you are referring to?

          • sjangers

            I didn’t ask if the Supreme Court decision was a diversion. I asked if you raised the issue in such a vague way in order to create a distraction. I guess I have my answer.

            “I also don’t understand what exactly is new about people losing their jobs or being excoriated for their political views”

            That’s exactly the trend I’m talking about, Eagle. After decades of lectures from liberals about the importance of people in America being able to express themselves freely in our society without fear of retribution, and decades of moral outrage whenever conservative watchdogs denounced people who took public positions outside the mainstream, or when conservative groups tried to organize boycotts against movies and television shows they thought advocated poor social values- I remember many leftist diatribes about the danger of attacks on free speech and First Amendment rights- we discover that liberals don’t feel as much outrage about these issues when conservatives are being targeted for boycotts and firings; especially when it’s their own kind behind those efforts.

            I can’t begin to tell you how tragic I find this sudden contempt of liberals for values they held dear for so long. The brilliant light liberalism promised would guide us all to a better and brighter future turned out to be no more than a flash in the pan. We’re devastated to discover that our liberal paladins have feet of clay- or feet of something that may resemble clay. So why not take a moment to shed a little tear with me for a liberal movement that lost its way, seduced by the prospect of using its new-found power to force the rest of society to conform to its ‘enlightened’ principles. Come on, Eagle. It’s worth a few tears; or at least a sincere sob or two.

          • legal eagle

            It appears that you believe that advocates for civil rights should be moderate in their advocacy and not annoy those in opposition…
            Change is a bitch…..You sound like O’Reilly discussing how great it was in the good old days…

          • sjangers

            I’m suggesting that their advocacy shouldn’t be hypocritical. It makes it hard for some of us, who might otherwise be sympathetic, to take their complaints seriously.

            And in case you didn’t notice at the time, it wasn’t so bad in the good old days. Some things weren’t acceptable. Some things needed to be better. We’ve made decent progress in those areas. Change is sometimes necessary. But change for the sake of change is often just destructive.

          • legal eagle

            Advocacy always has elements of hypocrisy….When I argue on behalf of a client I am sometimes arguing the mirror opposite of what I argued on behalf of a different client….It’s easy to point out hypocrisy among politicians and media….
            Change is the normal course of human history….Most change is constructive some is destructive….It’s comparative isn’t it?
            Some are still fighting the social change that occurred in the 1960’s. Those damn hippies…..LOL

          • sjangers

            That’s probably the biggest reason I decided that I wouldn’t go on to law school, Eagle. I don’t think I could stand up and make an argument well if I didn’t at least half believe it.

            I think that, on balance, the changes that take place within a society during the course of its life cycle are probably equally destructive and constructive. After all, if you break it down, the society reaches certain heights after starting from next to nothing, but will eventually decline into next to nothing. The constructive factors enable it to achieve. The destructive factors eventually catch up with it and lead to its failure. Trying to gain enough perspective from any time and place within the society on which changes will be constructive and which will be destructive is highly susceptible to one’s prejudices toward the status quo, as well as one’s capacity for successful prognostication.

            I don’t have much recollection of the Sixties- I was pretty young at that time- but I do believe that our society lost much of value during the intervening years. Today, most of us wouldn’t want to sacrifice some of the gains that we’ve since made in order to go back to that time, but I think that many who were around during the Sixties would have been reluctant to sacrifice what they had then, even knowing what was to be gained with the passage of time. As you suggest, much of it is a matter of perspective. We have to make the best decisions we can with the resources we have in the moment. And we won’t all agree about which decisions will work out for the best.

          • legal eagle

            The legal profession is one where you can make a difference…Perhaps that was not important to you. To some of us it is the reason we are in the legal business…

          • sjangers

            I spent more than twenty years working in human services, mental health, education and youth recreation; all fields where you can make a clear difference every day you go to work. Most of our frustrations in those fields are the direct result of interactions with management and lawyers. So while I didn’t go into fields where I could make myself rich, I have been able to make a difference and can look in the mirror every morning without any qualms about who I am and what I stand for.

          • legal eagle

            You seemed to have made a difference and that makes for a rewarding career. Frustrations are part of every job so I can relate to dealing with management and lawyers.

          • sjangers

            Making a difference is at least part of what I’m trying to do here, Eagle. I’m trying, in my own inadequate way, to get the reactionaries and the radicals to gain a little more understanding of each other, if not more appreciation for each other.

            Left and right waste a lot of energy in their destructive struggles to get the upper hand over political adversaries, in order to make it easier for them to bring the benefits of their personal enlightenment to the rest of society. And most on left and right don’t even seem too concerned about whether or not the rest of society really wants the benefits of they offer. It isn’t just moneyed interests that pursue selfish objectives or that distort the political process for their own gain.

            What I find particularly frustrating is the amount of energy we waste trying to create political advantage for our goals, rather than finding ways to compromise for mutual advantage with those who have different points of view, then using that available energy for constructive purposes. Can you imagine how much of their own brand of good that conservatives and liberals could accomplish if they focused exclusively on constructive ends rather than putting so much effort into undermining each other? With just a little time and a modest amount of flexibility, those political interests could find out what the people in the country really want, determine which objectives are feasible, and agree to divide responsibility for those objectives based on whose philosophies and institutions are best suited to address those goals.

            Instead of wasting enormous resources going after the big win, why not settle for a win-win and put all those resources into those social objectives you can control?The overall benefit to society would probably be far greater than it would be if one side or the other eventually manages to come out on top of the political battle.

          • legal eagle

            Simplistic arguments are easier to make than figuring out the “real” agendas of the political parties. In my opinion, the conflict in our political system is between “corporatists” and the “middle class”. The “right wing” believes that if it’s good for Corporate America then it’s good for the middle class, hence the never ending argument regarding government overreach. Corporatists have been selling this myth since 1932 to a portion of the electorate who has no idea who actually runs the country…..
            The SCOTUS under Roberts has lifted the curtain by consistently ruling that Corporate America has the same rights as individuals except in criminal matters….What a farce..

          • sjangers

            The scale and complexity of our society does make it difficult for most of us to achieve more than a tentative grasp of the competing interests; often even of our own self-interest. I don’t know how you put that genie back in the bottle, so we’ll probably just have to live with it. But it does make it easier for unscrupulous individuals and entities to sleaze their objectives through our system. An informed electorate helps, as does vigilance. But the bottom line is that there will always be waste associated with that process. It’s probably too much to hope that people will stop aspiring to becoming that rare player who ends up using the system to get much more out than they put into it.

            I think viewing competition in our society as essentially between two economic interests is probably an over-simplification, although corporate America and the middle class do represent powerful and fairly homogeneous interests. But accumulation of wealth, while important, isn’t the primary motivation for many of us, I believe. I see too many factors competing for diverse objectives to conclude that it’s a bi-polar system and all about the money.

            Treating corporations as individuals is probably as absurd as the other extreme of that ideological contest: forcing all individuals who choose to associate with corporations or business to give up their civil rights while engaged in business activity. Finding a common sense middle ground seems reasonable, but there’ll always be interests pulling at either end of the rope and trying to “win” the argument.

          • legal eagle

            “the other extreme of that ideological contest: forcing all individuals who choose to associate with corporations or business to give up their civil rights while engaged in business activity.”

            What are you referring to? Who is asked to give up their civil rights?

          • sjangers

            Businesses, and the people who run them, are often required to sacrifice some rights they would have as private citizens while engaged in their business activity. We often see it today when individual rights to religious freedoms, or freedom of speech, freedom to choose who we will and will not associate with, comes into conflict with civil rights laws. Sometimes this is reasonable. Sometimes, when taken to extremes, I think it becomes unreasonable.

          • legal eagle

            You’re avoiding the issue…Until the Roberts Court Corporations never had the same Constitutional rights as individual especially religious rights. Corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as individuals because they are not subject to criminal prosecution.
            Give me some examples of what you consider “unreasonable”??

          • sjangers

            I’m not avoiding the issue, Eagle. I’m saying, perhaps indirectly, that while I may agree with you that the Roberts court has gone too far in assigning many of the same rights individuals have to corporations, that there are reasonable concerns about how far we go in making the distinction between private and public entities. At least a few of your ideological compatriots appear to think that individuals cease to exist while they choose to engage in for-profit business activity. I think that the concept of “private” individual and “public” individual are too tightly intertwined to be separated by such facile distinctions. That’s the point I was making a couple of posts back, not that corporations should have Constitutional rights similar to the rights accorded to private individuals.

          • legal eagle

            Well then we have found common ground…I’m not sure who my ideological compatriots are but I was attempting to make the argument from a legal viewpoint not an ideological one…perhaps I should have been a bit more articulate..

          • sjangers

            “I’m not sure who my ideological compatriots are”

            Oh, you know. I was talking about you and the rest of the boys and girls at the DNC. : )

            You and I often squabble over points where I’m making a philosophical or theoretical argument and you’re making a legal argument. Perhaps we should have a code to facilitate communication.

            So now that we’ve found common ground, what the heck do we do about it?

          • legal eagle

            Have a glass of wine?….

          • sjangers

            You got me to agree with you and now you’re trying to get me drunk, Eagle? I think I’m going to have to be very careful with you.

          • legal eagle

            If a glass of wine gets you drunk you have a low resistance to alcohol……to solve that problem drink one glass on Monday, two on Tuesday etc. etc….LOL
            Practice makes perfect….

          • sjangers

            Okay. But I’m not going to agree with you about any political issues until I’m sure I’ve sobered up.

          • legal eagle

            Just stocked up on some wine at Costco…..You can buy your own…LOL

          • sjangers

            Costco? Costco…. why does that sound familiar? So did you buy a few bottles or just something in a box?

          • legal eagle

            You don’t know what Costco is? Where do you live, in the middle of nowhere?
            Costco is one of the largest wine retailers in America…

          • sjangers

            I know it’s frivolous, but I was just trying to get a little banter going. We had this conversation a couple of weeks ago. And I do live in the middle of nowhere; or at least eighty miles from the nearest Costco. I’ve never seen one of their stores.

            I had no idea they were such a large wine retailer. I gathered from our last conversation that you liked the store because it compensated its employees well. Now I know that you have another motive for shopping there.

          • legal eagle

            Been going to Costco for the past 30 years….have also done very well with their stock…

          • sjangers

            So you’ve been in on that deal pretty much from the beginning. Did you do it for the investment potential, the social justice angle, or are you just a big fan of large wine selections?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Really? You brag a lot about your supposed wealth for someone who is in it to “make a difference.”

          • legal eagle

            Whatever “wealth” I have was made from investments….I thought capitalism was part of the right wing ideology?

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            Investments? The topic was about the legal profession, and the reason you allegedly got into it.

            I actually don’t doubt that many people initially pursue that kind of career to “make a difference.” But like politics and the media, their profession eventually turns a lot of them into prostitutes (not talking about the sexual kind, of course). ;)

          • loupgarous

            “Change” includes a whole list of things Democrats came up with during their party’s history: Jim Crow, segregation of the races, the concept of “miscegenation” as a punishable offense… I remember when the Democratic Party ran Louisiana (where I grew up), they made a number of dramatic last-ditch stands to preserve segregation and all the racist legislation in the state code.

            Despite Lee Atwater’s statements about how the “Solid South” came to be the central Republican strategy, Republicans in Louisiana were associated with the consistent rule of law and cessation of all the state’s former racist activities.

            Corruption has reliably been tied to Democrat former governor Edwin Edwards, who even now is trying to overcome the “civil death” provisions which prevent him from running for a fifth term as Governor of Louisiana as a convicted felon. Corruption is the ultimate form of discrimination, for its only beneficiaries are a favored few. It’s also a pattern of behavior much more strongly associated with Democrats than Republicans.

          • JSebastian

            Wow someone that actually knows the true history of the Civil Rights era and the Dixiecrats (Democrats) that tried to keep blacks as second class citizens.

          • legal eagle

            The “liberal” movement has brought about every great social change since the beginning of the 20th century….You have lost the ability to look at the positives. Perhaps you should think about why you have decided to look at the world as a cynic and a pessimist…that’s not my viewpoint….

          • sjangers

            And conservatives have managed to keep the “liberal” movement from drowning us all in its excesses. The problem with liberalism is that its proponents are so caught up in their sense of mission, and their admiration for their own “goodness”, that they can easily lose perspective. It’s a pity those of us in the middle can’t find a way to get the extremes to work together instead of trying to destroy each other.

          • Sheila Warner

            The Court gave no explanation. It merely decided not to hear the case.

          • sjangers

            Thanks, Sheila. I heard that the Court wouldn’t hear the case but couldn’t recall why they refused it. Now I know why I couldn’t recall.

  • Harry_the_Horrible

    “Liberals” have NEVER been tolerant.
    While they lack sufficient power, they demand “tolerance” from others.
    Once they have power, they do not tolerate any conflicting views, voices, or beliefs.

  • Machetedontext

    Those Mozilla “liberals” are more and more like Muslim fanatics. I wonder if they’ve stoned anyone yet.

    • sjangers

      There’s no evidence that they have, although a number of reports suggest that many are stoned.

  • Florida Jim

    History teaches us that everything that starts with grand promises [hope and change] ends up with bullies and domination over those they now dislike which is anyone with a differing opinion. Small government, changed often seems to work the best. Calvin Coolidge came in after Wilson fouled up our country and in two years we were back on track with the “roaring twenties” he willingly left and another Progressive Hoover disguised as a Conservative helped bring the Depression which FDR never soled World War #2 saved he and America his policies were no better than Obama or any big government buffoon.

    If you doubt me read “New Deal or Raw Deal” by Burton Folsom Jr. followed by “Coolidge” By Amity Shlaes truthful books the Progressives run from

  • miniwizzard

    I say we boycott Mozilla for their hateful behavior. Let’s go Google Chrome!

  • buckrodgers

    It’s not hard to notice that the media and Hollywood for that matter are predominately white instituions, in fact a good number of older journalist seem to have forgotten that they used their Lilly white skin, to get their jobs bypassing more qualified African Americans who were being shut out of the industry because of discrimination, in fact liberals who went down to Selma Alabama to participate in the civil rights movement. were more concerned about staying out of Vietnam instead of helping minorities gain basic civil rights, it is also worth noting that it was white Democrats along with the Ku Klux Klan that were using Jim Crow laws and violence to maintain white superiority in the South, not Republicans now modern days liberals use race baiting, instead of lynchings, while they use the black vote to keep white Democrats in power, the fact is white Democrats depend on the black vote to win elections, if African Americans stay home on election day, they will lose, so why does it surprise anybody that white Democrats have remained silent, allowing President Obama to pretty much do anything he wants, look at Joe Manchin, this guy went around his state carrying a shot gun, then President Obama clicks his fingers and he suddenly becomes the poster child for the anti-gun movement, now lets take a good look at the media, then ask yourself why white liberals, always seem to find racism everywhere, except in their own industry and it’s not unusual to see a white liberal pretending to be the self appointed spokesperson for minorities,especially African Americans, I seem to remember a white executive from PBS. lecturing Juan Williams, who by the way is black, on what it’s like growing up black in America, now with a African American in the White House, liberals have come up with the war on women, that’s where white liberals like Bill Mahr call Republican women a bunch of boobs, or tell the world that Sarah Palin is a idiot, in fact we even had a late night comedian, promoting pedaphilia pedaphileia as a weapon to go after her children, so why should anybody be surprised when liberal news outlets put halos on the head of President Obama, or refer to him as the messiah, President Obama was a community activist from Chicago, where he watched white alderman seize power from the city first African American mayor with the slogan we got the votes, yesterdays liberals really cared about the middle class, but todays liberals only care about themselves, their part of the me me generation, they hid in college to avoid serving in Vietnam, they marched in the streets peacefully,then turned violent, the botox generating is getting older, they wasted their lives trying to change a world that dosen’t want to change.

  • April Carter

    Andrew Sullivan respected? The guy who claimed that Sarah Palin’s special needs son was actually delivered by her daughter? Andrew Sullivan, the guy who was so unevenly hostile to Romney that George Will had to snap and inform Sullivan that he was stating things that were “provably false.” Not enough? How about this ……..this guy claims to be a “conservative” but was completely in the bag for Obama….even before Obama evolving outlook on gay marriage. The guy is a huge phony ham and I can’t believe Bernie is giving this guy credibility. Sure, it is worth noting Sullivan’s disgust with this current issue…absolutely….just don’t give him too much credit.

    • Erica Mathis

      Way to miss the point .. zing! over your head…

      • April Carter

        I didn’t miss the point. Sure, Andrew Sullivan is pro-gay and he himself believes these activists are going too far. Wonderful ….point made. My point was he didn’t have to make him out to be this “respected” journalist when he is phony conservative and leftist hit man. So point was OVER your head!!!

  • TokyoTengu

    There is not not, nor has there ever been, any “tolerance” on the Left for any position that contradicts Leftist dogma. When they are out of power, they use words like tolerance, open-mindedness, etc., to advance their viewpoint and encroach on the positions of the opposition, but once they gain power, that comes to a screeching halt and the mob philosophy takes over. If you oppose their positions you must be silenced. If you continue to oppose, you must be destroyed.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @BRIAN STOVER. What ever happened to live and let live & respect and tolerance??????????? and you are just now asking the question? Sadly, long, long gone.

    • Brian Stover

      Hi Patty!
      I’ve been asking those questions for many years, just not on the internet. It is tragic that the values I mentioned are long, long gone as you stated.
      Let us hope that these values, as many other things that are old to us, become new and trendy.
      I will not hold my breath waiting for the day.

  • Chris Matthewson

    As our society evolves, not only do attitudes shift, but so do ideas about what attitudes are “tolerable.” Racial bigotry, unfortunately, was once “tolerable” in many parts of our nation. Now, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is becoming less and less tolerated. Bernie is no doubt correct that, at this point in our history, “reasonable people may disagree on gay marriage.” But he could have said the same thing a hundred years ago about Jim Crow laws.

    Along the political continuum, the further you go towards either extreme, the more likely you will encounter intolerance and outrage about opposing views. Despite the moral relativism implicit in the above, all right-thinking persons should be comforted by these words from a Theodore Parker sermon: “Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.”

  • DanB_Tiffin

    I really enjoyed the first paragraph. It reminded me so much of the short “essay” by a regular guy named Eric Beltt back in 2004. He had the “superior” liberals down cold! Here is just a part:

    QUOTE
    Why? Because superiority is relative. If everyone was just as good as you, you wouldn’t feel as good about yourself. So part of the core of the liberal psychology is a deep-seated need to see other people as inferior, intellectually, morally, culturally (think McDonalds and NASCAR), or any other way that feeds the liberal’s ego.

    The poor aren’t alone. Liberals think wealthy people, southerners, conservatives, devout religious people, minorities, “rednecks”, and many other groups of people are inferior to them in many different ways. Some they try to help and others they try to hurt (the “morally inferior” rich for example), all because other people’s “inferiority” makes them feel superior.
    UNQUOTE

  • herreu

    Bernie, good post but please do me a favour and not use the term “wrong side of history” because this phrase has been hijacked by Obama and his buddies to degrade anybody who does not agree with them.
    Thanks
    Leon H.

    • Phillip MacHarg

      I agree, I hate how Obama and the Left have routinely used that expression for highly debatable issues today, not long ago obvious ones such as the abolition of slavery.

  • Fatty Sow

    The gay rights issue is unique in that it is a one-sided argument. Yeah the right wing will trot out canards like “sanctity of marriage” and various Biblical quotations but they all boil down to one thing and that is “I HATE HOMOSEXUALS”. As Brendan Eich found out, when you are a hater people will hate you back.

  • Tim Driscoll

    These intolerant “liberals” are the intellectual descendants of the New Left liberals who began as the radical students of the ’60s (who were also intolerant of their fellow students who disagreed with them). The traditional liberals who preceded the New Left were liberal in every sense of the word — not least because they tolerated every kind of opinion.

    Unfortunately, these descendants if the ’60s New Leftists are now running our institutions. Disagree with them, and you might as well kiss your career goodbye.

    • legal eagle

      Who are these intolerant liberals? Don’t you think your overgeneralizing?

    • legal eagle

      talk about overgeneralization…. Every liberal was not a “radical” except to LBJ and Nixon…..and the majority of 1960’s radicals/students were intolerant of those who were in favor of LBJ”s and Nixon’s immoral war in Southeast Asia while using their daddy’s connections to avoid the draft…

  • SkyCitizen

    Bernie, you just keep delivering great opinion articles. Just another fuss from the perennially offended. Perhaps we should be grateful for Mozilla for tempering its wrath, after all Kim Jong Un got his knickers in a knot over his uncle’s opinion and look what happened to him.

    Mozilla has shot it’s own foot with this move. A lot more straight people use Mozilla than gays and behaviour like this only makes their market segment less diverse. This from a company that has no bragging rights in a development community that is non plussed by the functionality of its browser and the stone washed jeans wearing, stinky feet developers that coded it.

  • semmy

    Speaking of OKCupid, I’m an active user on there. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen written in a profile something along the lines of “I’m very tolerant and open-minded, so if you’re a Republican (Conservative, voted for Romney, voted for Bush, like Sarah Palin, etc.) don’t even THINK about writing to me! The funny thing is they don’t even see the hypocrisy in the statement. I’ve also NEVER seen a similar statement from a right-winger.

  • veeper

    It’s not just bitter hateful liberals anymore…..

    america has become a nation of low life people.

    americans are the worst that the human race has to offer…..

    In the last 5 years I have come to understand why the rest of the world hates the american people….

    there is no longer anything good about the american people……

    Capitalism gets the blame…..but, the real core problem in this country is a nasty hateful greedy selfish and inconsiderate spirit of the people…

  • cantonst

    What the hell is FireFox? Sarcasm…

    • legal eagle

      Your point is well taken.. Firefox is getting more publicity out of this nonsense than it would have received in 100 years…..and Eich can now make speeches to right wing groups claiming martyrdom…

      • Drew Page

        As I see it, Eich is the victim here. You have opined that there may be more here than meets the eye. Are you implying, or just hoping, that Mr. Eich is guilty of some legal violation or ethical breach justifying his termination?
        You say you do business with other attorneys that made contributions to the same organization that Mr. Eich did and that you couldn’t care less. I notice that you didn’t provide their names, or the names of their firms. Was that because those few “gay activists” you mention might be interested in ruining the lives and careers of those attorneys.

        • legal eagle

          CEO’s are terminated/asked to resign etc. because they’ve pissed off members of the Board of Directors. I’m not implying anything about Mr. Eich other than the fact that, from what I’ve read, he was a newly appointed CEO and perhaps some members of the Board were not thrilled with his appointment to the position…
          The reason I knew who contributed to Prop 8 was because the names were published in the newspaper, as required under California law…. If some chose to make a contribution to support bigotry that’s everyone’s right and it’s everyone’s right to protest against people who support bigotry….It’s called democracy…

  • PAPUSA

    Bernie,
    For the record, other than my personal Christian moral paradigm, I struggle with the gay marriage argument because it trivializes procreation, as though that aspect of the state’s involvement is irrelevant.

    The state will go into a home and take children from their parents for the most trivial reasons (and some legitimately serious ones, of course), so clearly the consequences of procreation (children) are perceived as a compelling state interest. But the notion of the state sanctioning the legal commitment of the marriage relationship on the basis of its unique capacity to create a human life is treated as meaningless.

    I understand the arguments gays make. I believe that they have genuine emotional bonds. I simply don’t understand why procreation is dismissed as a substantive issue. Perhaps it’s because gay relationships are incapable of the same ability to create life where there was none?

    How convenient for those who try to equate heterosexual and homosexual relationships. What other possible way could this be dealt with other than by dismissing the argument altogether. Heck, what’s the difference between an unlit match and a twig? Fire? Irrelevant, of course.

  • PAPUSA

    Goodbye Firefox, Hello anybody else… Mozilla’s statement was ludicrous and radically bigoted against people who hold traditional values. Liberty is the casualty, the inanity of political correctness the beneficiary. Sickeningly hypocritical. Firefox is dead to me.

  • John Colburn

    There is too much categorization of people as “liberal” or “conservative” instead of just “people”. I suspect those who opposed Proposition 8 were mindful of the oppression of a minority and that is why they contacted Mozilla. You seem to insinuate it was only the employees of the company, while my believe is that it was more widespread than that.

  • Mark W.

    Funny, in the Liberal Lexicon both “tolerance” and “compromise” have the exact same meaning…

  • Brian Stover

    Whatever happened to the concept of “Live and let live?”
    And while we’re at it, how about the precepts of Respect and Tolerance?

    • Harold Robertson

      Sadly, for many, it seems that tolerance means not disagreeing, and respect means submission. What ever happened to CIVILITY?

      • veeper

        obama killed and buried CIVILITY……

        • Harold Robertson

          Obama is killing America as a world leader — his goal is to turn us into a third-world country. No one will oppose him because he will play the race card.

          • mplo

            The United States became a third-world country long before Obama was even elected, which made it possible for Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States in the first place.

            I also might add that our gunboat diplomacy foreign policy is what caused us to lose the respect of most of the rest of the world, more than half a century ago, right around WWII

          • Harold Robertson

            Sadly, you have a point….

          • mplo

            Thanks, Harold.

        • mplo

          One doesn’t have to be a fan of Obama (and I’m not!), let alone the GOP, but incivility here in the United States started back in the late 1960’s, well before President Obama came into power.

      • mplo

        Civility, unfortunately, went out the window, in the wake of the 1960’s and early to mid 1970’s.

  • Tam

    Makes me recall one of my favourite William F Buckley Jr quotes:

    Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked
    and offended to discover that there are other views.

  • Paul Vasek

    Excellent article, Bernie. I quoted Andrew Sullivan’s opinion on this, also, and was told, by a liberal, that he is a conservative pundit and what he says doesn’t matter…too funny.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @DREW PAGE..Your comment regarding questions that should be asked the LIBERALS, was of great intellect and wisdom. Thanks for sharing.. Have no doubt the Eagle will be biting you in the butt any time with his wisdom and intellect :) :) :)

  • Ricardo

    As so often is the case, u have nailed it! It’s time to call out the race/gender baiters not just the race/gender haters.

  • http://att.net/ patty

    @SUNNYINAZ andYASHULDN’ASEDTHAT!! REFRESHING/ ABRACADABRA/
    MAGIC Such wisdom and spot on comments and I know many others agree with your comments about the EAGLE! I won’t hold my breath and hate to burst the bubbles and be the messenger of bad news “BUT THE EAGLE WILL STRIKE BACK”! The guy doesn’t know when to put a sock in it with his BS!

    • legal eagle

      Thank you Patty….Always good to hear that you continue to obsess about people who disagree with you…

      • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

        Says the top poster (by far) on this website who comes here to obsess over the people who disagree with him. lol.

        • legal eagle

          Once again, Daly cannot mind his business and continues to obsess about my comments to others….

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            As of today, you’ve posted 4470 comments on this website, legal. That’s double the number of the second most frequent poster.

            Think about that before you start accusing others of “obsessing” over what YOU write. lol.

          • legal eagle

            Stay obsessed…You’re one of the original members of my fan club….LOL

          • http://johndalybooks.com/ John Daly

            You’re ignoring the facts again, legal. At least you’re consistent.

  • D Parri

    Perhaps the next time Eich makes a contribution he will remember to contribute equally to both sides of an issue.

    That would have completely confounded those on either side who might have wanted to use it as a tool against him. :-(

    • Mark W.

      A logical idea, but you know that it wouldn’t make sense to those who don’t think logically… so they still would have found it offensive.

  • Tim Ned

    Target came under attack with protests and boycotts when they donated to a pro-business pac that made a donation to a MN Governor candidate that supported traditional marriage.

    Today you don’t even have to make a donation directly to be labeled.

  • Suzette

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

  • American1969

    This makes me think of the song, “Eye Of The Beholder” by Metallica.
    “You can do it your own way, if it’s done just how I say.”

    Does that sum up Regressive Leftists perfectly? They scream words like “tolerance” and “diversity”, but they behave like a bunch of Nazi Brownshirts.
    Hypocrite=Regressive Leftists.

  • joepotato

    The word “liberal” has been hijacked by progressives aka Nazis… That’s the short story IMHFO….

  • gold7406

    these folks are liberal provided you share their same liberal views.
    hypocrites,period.

  • http://batman-news.com 1940voter

    I think it’s time to start digging into the backgrounds of the liberal and ultra left gay -lesbian movement and unearth the dirt on them. They have been given a free pass and now that has to cease.The minute you investigate them they scream discrimination. BS it’s time for payback.Period

    • LAPhil

      Even Bill Maher commented on “Overtime”, the on-line continuation of his televised show, that there is a Gay Mafia and they can whack you.

      • Stimpy

        Ugh. You watched Bill Maher? Oops, maybe I am being intolerant … of a profession putz?

        • LAPhil

          Actually I saw a video of this, since it was on Overtime and not part of the regular show. I will admit to watching his show even knowing that I risk high blood pressure every time I do. I’m not sure what compels me to do this, but perhaps it’s the occasional voices of reason among the guests who attempt to set him straight about things.

  • Nicholas344

    With apologies to former President Eisenhower, we have to bring back the old slogan “I Like Eich.” In defense of liberty and decency: UNINSTALL FIREFOX.

    • LAPhil

      I like that. I also like Eich.

  • FED UP WITH LIBERALS

    I never liked Firefox anyway! So I can’t protest by discontinuing its use. But the reason I don’t use it is because there are several BETTER browsers available. Perhaps that because the designers at Mozilla are somewhat SHORTSIGHTED!

    • TraderBill

      Actually, discontinuing its use may have an effect: I have read that web sites have the capability to determine which browsers are being used to access their sites. I decided to switch from Firefox to a competitor. Whether or not the web sites can actually determine which browser I am using is not that important. I will not utilize the services of an organization that is as knee-jerk reactionary as the bunch at Mozilla.

      • Seattle Sam

        They know exactly which browser you are using. Firefox usage is just a bit below Internet Explorer, both of which are now less than Chrome. There’s not a chance in the world that Firefox could be significantly affected by a boycott. But feel free — until someday someone accuses you of being homophobic for NOT using it.
        I used to chuckle when I heard the term Homophobe (after all, who exactly is AFRAID of homosexuals?), but I may have to rethink that.

      • legal eagle

        As almost no one uses Firefox I’m sure that your actions will be extremely harmful to Mozilla…

    • http://batman-news.com 1940voter

      time for you to get new glasses amigo

  • sunnyinaz

    How refreshing to read comments without Legal Eagle making negative comments about everybody’s comments like this is his own personal blog…

    • Ya shudn’a sed that!

      uh, oh. you said the magic words… like “abracadabra” it’s bound to awaken the Eagle and unleash his “wisdom” all over the place! Everybody’s been thinkin’ what you’ve been thinkin’ … and enjoying the peace, quiet and harmony…

      • MontanaMade

        we know what “wisdom” eagles spread all over the place- it’s hard to clean off though… nasty stuff…

  • HauteJuju

    I hate the phrase “wrong side of history. ”
    It’s equivalent to “the scientific debate is over.”

    • LAPhil

      That’s been one of my pet peeves for a while now. The “wrong side of history” actually just means the side that’s losing popularity, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.

  • k962

    This equates to donating to and voting for Mitt Romney and losing your job over it!

  • Johnny Deadline

    Confusing times. Legal products like tobacco, junk food, and sodas are vilified and banned while same-sex behavior is actively promoted and encouraged – despite incontrovertible stats reflecting higher suicide rates and decreased life expectancy by proponents of the gay lifestyle.

    Two percent of the population is admittedly gay but the drive-by media treats traditional marriage supporters like we’re Bull Connor and George Wallace standing in front of the public school house. All the while we are bullied, pilloried and labeled as homophobic for daring to disagree with “open-minded” and “tolerant” gay lifestyle supporters and their misguided efforts to redefine traditional marriage.

    We are not homophobic, and I’ve personally had it with being labeled as such. I say we call those supporting the gay lifestyle for what they really are: they are heterophobic! They are scared of women and are jealous of those physical attributes God gave women.

    Join with me in announcing to gays everywhere, “Heterophobia is for sissies!”

    • lee metzger

      Totally right on the mark Johnny. I have lost all tolerance for gay militants who clearly have an anti-Christian bias as well as being heterophobic…excellent word. Of course, they want no dialogue on why the higher suicide rate, why the decreased life expectancy, because the facts would crush their arguments. However, just like the drug addict who refuses to admit they have a problem, so too the gay community refuses to acknowledge the abnormal disorder that is homosexuality, and it is next to impossible to reason with anyone who deliberately and intentionally lives a self-destructive life.

    • http://batman-news.com 1940voter

      Oh they will love you for that but oh so true.they are afraid of being marginalized as a minority without any purpose. They have literally shoved it down our gullets until it’s time to regurgitate the bile. For 1 or 2 % of the population the best thing they could do is slink into the night.Look at the hundreds of millions being spent to be accepted by gays. Kind of crazy isn’t it.

      • Johnny Deadline

        Ramming gay marriage down our throats through the judiciary after several states voted it down at the ballot box is similar to what was done with the ACA. When the smoke and mirrors clear its akin to demolishing a house and building a prefabricated one in order to put in a new light bulb. After we legalize gay marriage we’ll learn about all the unintended societal consequences. But instead of merely losing our insurance we’ll have lost something much more valuable.

        • http://batman-news.com 1940voter

          Where is the tipping point that pushes people over the edge to start the take back of our country? ——————————————–

          • Johnny Deadline

            Well, we know it’s not in the 2008 or 2012 voting bloc, don’t we? I’m hoping it’s at the corner of Constitution and Liberty Boulevard and we can catch the tipping point by taking the 2014 and 2016 Expressways. That is, If the drive-by media and special interest gang bangers don’t muck things up again. :)

    • sgthappyg

      Actually these people are Theophobic. Or they should be. They have a fear of God and what He teaches.

      • Johnny Deadline

        There’s consequences to free will and making bad choices for all of us, gay and straight, and no amount of political correctness and moral justification will change that. It’s not enough that gays can be content with societal acceptance of their aberrant sexual behavior as “an alternative lifestyle.” Now they want to redefine the institution of marriage that has been with us for thousands of years. Those like Bernie whom I have much respect for are opening up a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences for future generations.

  • Jarob54

    The liberal cause is simply because they know better than you. Don’t believe me ask one, they will tell you. Tolerance is something a liberal can’t tolerate at this point in time. Personal views and opinions must adhere to the stringent idiology of the the liberal cause. The Mozilla affair is par for the course, and of course Mr Eich personal opinions and views don’t count for much is his views run counter to the liberal cause. How this happened, when this happened, can be traced back to the Clinton administration and the promotion of political correctness. Being political correct at the expense of being free and exercising one’s free speech is now passe today. Next to fall, common sense. We have become a nation of minions and morons. Pitiful!

    • bigmoejr

      Hell, just have it signed into law by executive order by the head liberal, the guy who rules the White House.

  • Ted Crawford

    This is nothing new to the Democrat Party1 I began my political activity as a “Liberal Democrat”, working for the Campaign of Pat Schroeder (D) Colorado.After a few years of that even
    was forced to admit that the Democrat Party I was working for, wasn’t the Democrat Party my Father had told me about at the family dinner table! I watched as they systematically purged every Liberal from their ranks! I left them in 1973!
    I existed, happily,as an Independant, UNTILL Barack Obama, when, in desperation I signed up with the Republicans. Imagine my surprize when it became very, very clear to me in 2012, that the Republican Party is now following the example of the Democrat Party and is frantically purging all Conservative from their ranks!
    For many years, I’ve held the belief that the NWO advocates were simply overzealous, Cnspiracy Theorists! Given the current actions of those Republicans(?) such as John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Karl Rove, and the RNC, I’m forced to take a second and much harder look at their position!

    • Mark W.

      The main problem is that the elected politicians are most interested in gaining, then maintaining, influence; the unelected politicians (i.e., Karl Rove, David Axelrod, Jim Messina, etc) are most interested in keeping their favorites in power, and themselves in their positions of influence.
      NONE of them, it seems, are interested in doing what is best for the country.

  • Josh

    Those progressive liberals out there on the very tip of the wing are some of the worst people I have ever met in my life, in terms of character and hypocrisy. They’re totalitarian, they’re bigoted, and most I’ve met are spoiled-rotted mid to upper-class white people who fervently believe that they know best how everyone should speak, act, earn and learn.

    Now that that’s out of the way, it’s also important to separate out liberals from these modern progressive things joining the club. It’s no more fair to allow the radicals to paint the entire ideology as it is to call the entire Tea Party racist because of a few a-holes with their racist signs.

    I’ve said it dozens of times here, but it’s out-and-out ignored (conveniently, purposefully, for fact of the type of forum, I don’t know): These little dictators don’t just go after the right-wing Christian opinion. They go after everyone.

    Turning it into a strict us-vs.-them thing throws many of “us” onto the “them” side without any consideration beyond the fact that some of “us” aren’t ideologically symmetrical. Willing polarization.

    If folks really want to fight back against it, the enemy has to be clearly stated. I figured my hard right friends would understand this of all people, many of whom I’ve often heard state the same thing about clearly defined enemies as it concerns Islamic terror.

    At some point, I wonder if it’s a badge of honor to claim persecution for beliefs.

    • American1969

      Well said! I too have stated many times that conservatives and Christians are just the beginning. Regressive Leftists will go after anyone that doesn’t kowtow to their agenda—-even people who are supposedly on their side! Anyone who is no longer needed will be purged. It’s happened all throughout history.

      • Josh

        I will thank you for acknowledging that it’s not just “liberals” against conservatives and Christians. It’s the nutjobs, and they’re after everyone. But I will differ with you slightly on one small point. You said: “conservatives and Christians are just the beginning.” They started attacking people within their own ideology first; that’s how they took over and became the face of mainstream liberalism: Marxists, modern feminists, etc.

        They started emasculating the men, forcing students silent, taking over skeptic and science conferences, etc, all in order to grow this machine that is able to reach across the aisle and have its way.

        It was just a fringe of a fringe on the left before it started devouring the left to become that Little Shop of Horrors big-a$$ plant that can reach over and take a bite of thigh meat.

        But the when isn’t important. It’s the who. And we’re all in trouble. They’ll start cannibalizing once they’ve eaten everyone else. That type of mindset, where a person has to be in 100% agreement to be considered a person, cannot exist as an ideology. It can’t even exist as a cult. It’s a lone-wolf sociopath’s trait, and they’ll defeat themselves eventually by bickering and regulating themselves into obscurity.

        Here’s hoping the rest of us can knock them down a peg or two before then.

  • drew Pagee

    Bernie — You mention that an employee revolt at Mozilla led to Mr. Eich’s being forced out of his job and the company. Was it one employee that revolted, or were there more? Can anyone tell us how many employees revolted? Were they polled, or given questionnaires to fill out and return?
    One wonders if all employees at Mozilla are investigated to determine if any of them made contributions to groups or individuals that might be seen as contrary to the company’s doctrine of openness, fairness and tolerance. If not, that would seem unfair, singling out Mr. Eich that way. Do you suppose that Mozilla has a list of groups and individuals with whom they disagree? Do they tell prospective employees during the interview process, and that if it is found they have made contributions, or hold opinions similar, to such groups or individuals, that they will be summarily fired from their jobs? If not, it would seem that Mozilla could be engaging in unfair labor practices, violating employees’ First amendment rights and creating a hostile work environment.

  • Don

    Liberals are by far the worst bigots around!

    • Ted Crawford

      Republicans have their bigots as well. I would submit John “Wacko-Birds” McCain! Curiously enough they are bigotted about the same section of our Society, Coservatives!

    • Harold Robertson

      Bigots are the worst Liberals and Conservatives around.

  • Hammockbear

    Can anyone explain the reason that many liberals rant smiling each time they verbally converse with a conservative? Apparently manners are not required in the life a many liberals. Msnbc is often famous for this if you watch Rachael Maddow and the wannabe Rachael guy who is on before her. Now That is laughable.

    • Mark W.

      It’s really a smirk, rather than a smile. It is very condescending.

  • phillipcsmith

    I believe Mozilla owes Eich an apology and should welcome him back as the CEO. Diversity means tolerating others’ opinions even if not agreed with.

  • joh

    When I was growing up, I considered myself “liberal” because I tthought it was OK to speak your piece, even if your belief’s did not match everyone else’s. If I didn’t like like what someone said on TV or radio, I had the perfect form of censorship – I didn’t listen to that person. Today, it’s not enough to not listen, you have to silence that other person’s voice. How many times have people tried to have Rush Limbaugh removed from the air? I cannot stand Bill Maher, but I can cancel my HBO subscription and not have to listen to him, If you disagree with Barack Obama’s policies you are labeled a racist. Racist is a term that gets tossed around with abandon these days. Whatever became of the “judge a man by the content of his character.” mantra?

  • Wally C

    “Live the Sword, die by the Sword”.

  • toddyo1935

    So Mozilla is run by thugs now. Maybe they can get Rahm Emanuel to take Eich’s place.

  • Ted

    Congress makes its own rules. Anyone – everyone – can vote. No need to be intelligent, have an education or make a contribution. Solution: term limits, IQ and history tests for candidates and payment of taxes to enable voting rights. And an agency like the consumer marketing agency to stop politicians running for and in office to misinform. If Kellogg’s can’t be allowed to say “Wheaties is the breakfast of champions” why can Obama be allowed to say, “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”? And so on.

  • Larry blaspheming liberalism

    All it takes to be accused of “Hate” is to question the Holy and Sacred Religion of Political Correctness. Apparently, liberals use the terms “hate” and “bigotry” because “blasphemy” is too difficult for them. Welcome to the American version of the Inquisition.

  • Ted

    “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When one faction or person gains control, retaining that control becomes the only goal. While the Founders of this country succeeded in constructing apolitical system to block such a takeover, they were not able to see far in the future where a single faction cunningly named “Progressive” could over a century unite a variety of special interests through advances in communication. Radio and television allowed mass communication. Then gaining power over taxes and spending enabled the catering and buying of each of these disparate factions. Voila. Here we are.

    • Mark W.

      Yes, it shows that words have meaning, and who claims them first has an advantage. “Progressive” sure sounds great… who isn’t in favor of progress? “Liberal” and “tolerant” are great concepts, too… and it shows you can have them as labels without having to live up to their definitions. (And, Ted, we know that you meant “a political system,” not “apolitical.”)

      • American1969

        Instead of “Progressive”, the real word should be “Regressive”, because they want us to regress to a serf lifestyle, living in grass huts and caves, while they—-the Elite—live extravagantly.
        Think “Hunger Games” and “Elysium”—–which I find amusing that Hollywood idiots would talk about inequality and be in films like that without even a hint of irony.

  • brickman

    I agree with you on this one, Bernie. I await the day when people agree that people who are not presidents or CEOs of companies should also have rights.

  • moafu

    Correction: meant to write, that the Left “WANTS a peaceful and quiet lifestyle, etc”

  • lark2

    Why have we allowed Liberals to define us? The very USE of the label LIBERAL elevates them … who wouldn’t favor liberalism? Who would oppose “Affordale Care”? Does anyone know of anyone who would favor … Unaffordable Care? When one can be liberating … why in the world would anyone want to be CONSERVATIVE? Being CONSERVATIVE is a pejorative and we have allowed these mindless jerks to define us. The good thing is that all we have to do is give them some rope and they will hang themselves.

    • Mark W.

      We are seeing that words really have impact. Conservatives need to find better terms to define themselves in an honest way. “Compassionate Conservative” implies that other Conservatives are not. Didn’t work. And the term conservative is one the liberals let get away… after all, aren’t the extreme environmentalists actually wanting to conserve the earth? You’d think the people wanting to develop and use the land, water and air would be progressive?

      • lark2

        Absolutely. I agree completely with you. I just wonder how and why we have allowed these people to define us this way. I guess when you control the media … you control the narrative. It’s about time CONSERVATIVES come up will a name that defines us properly and started to disapprove of the attempt to label us in a negative manner. CONSERVATIVES seem to revel in describing themselves that way and the “people” out there … to whom we are directing our message, don’t “relate” to the “Conservative label” and I don’t blame them … I don’t relate to it either … I’d rather be known as “Liberal”!

    • Drew Page

      I do agree that we have allowed liberals to define us. The liberals and Democrats call Republicans “the party of NO.” We could, and should, turn the tables on them by asking them if they will vote to:
      * reduce taxes on hardworking people and on businesses that provide jobs;
      * support the elimination of voter fraud by voting to require voter photo IDs;
      * enforce border security and prosecute illegal aliens that violate our immigration laws;
      * put an end to domestic spying by the NSA on American citizens in violation of the forth Amendment;
      * put an end to IRS targeting and harassment of groups and individuals
      belonging to a political party in opposition to the party in power.
      Then let’s see who is “the party of NO”.
      With respect to the connotations of the terms “liberal” and “conservative”, I guess it all depends on what you want to liberate people from. Do we want to ‘liberate’ people from having to work for a living, from paying their own bills, from acting in a lawful manner, or from being responsible for their words and actions and inactions? And do we want to ‘liberate’ all people from these things, or just some people? Do we want to ‘liberate’ people from self-sufficiency to government dependency?
      Should we avoid ‘conservative’ habits like saving for retirement, college costs for our kids, driving fuel efficient cars, insulating our homes and purchasing energy saving appliances to save on fuel and energy costs, eating and drinking less and losing weight, conserving our wetlands, forests and farmlands? Is being ‘conservative’ in these areas pejorative ?

      • lark2

        Drew, I agree with you totally … particularly the “questions” you ask about Liberals and Conservatives … the genius of the Liberal terminology is in the sound of the words – your “questions” notwithstanding. We are not actually present to ask your questions but … “Liberal”, sounds like something one ought to want to be and “Conservative”, sounds like something one ought to avoid. It seems Democrats are better wordsmiths. We must get better!

  • sawxfanva

    Mr. Goldberg: Love your stuff, love your appearances on O’Reilly, but I do have a question: By stating that those opposed to same-sex marriage are on “the wrong side of history,” aren’t you in essence saying that “history” itself is on the “wrong side of history”? For two millennia we’ve held that marriage is, and should be, between a man and a woman? Have we “evolved” so much in, say, the last 10 years that “history,” not to mention tradition, has been grossly misguided for 2,000 years?

    • floridahank

      Hey saw…. I agree that people who use “wrong side of history” are trying to use distortion to get their point of view across. Look back in ancient history, marriage, whether civil or religious, has always been between man and woman. Even the evil kings, queens, dictators, etc. always ended up- “marrying” someone of the opposite sex.
      The homosexual agenda is to use false statements, etc. to make the public more accepting of their lifestyle. Look at how they took on the “gay” name to cover up their homosexuality. They’re a smart bunch of people and know how to use, misuse psychology and statistics, etc.

    • toddyo1935

      Ah that pesky Natural Law about propagation of the species. Kind of important in the whole scheme of things…

    • ExSF

      I agree completely. It’s not a question of being “on the wrong side of history” so much as swimming against the tide, and the tide at the moment is clearly running in favor of same sex marriage. But one thing about tides, they always change.

    • Seattle Sam

      Recall that not all that long ago, liberals told us that capitalism was on the wrong side of history and would have to yield to superior central authority schemes like Communism and Fascism.

  • John Lewis

    All homosexuals should relocate to their own island, live in harmony, and attempt to reproduce. That should solve this tolerance problem in no time

    • JMax

      Your logic is flawed. You may not know that gay people procreate all of the time most often with surrogates. Since both male and female will be on your island, the population will likely thrive especially since their offspring will be the normal demographic of gay and straight.

      • toddyo1935

        Get ‘em a big island.

        • Adios

          Cuba would be nice.

      • American1969

        That just proves that homosexuality is unnatural because they need to go to the opposite sex to reproduce. Thought it was all natural? If homosexuality is natural, they’d be able to reproduce with each other.

        • JMax

          “unnatural”? Flying in a jumbo jet at 35,000 feet is unnatural, too. In vitro fertilization is also unnatural. Unnatural is not a compelling reason to ban same-sex marriage. Same sex couples just like heterosexual couples have children all the time without sexual intercourse.

          • John Lewis

            Maybe they can reproduce by mental telepathy.

      • John Lewis

        That would mean they are bi-sexual which means they have mental and identity issues which would lead to the destruction of the island at an accelerated pace. Maybe you could be the first to volunteer to this exclusive resort island

        • JMax

          “That would mean they are bi-sexual which means they have mental and identity issues”

          Nope. First off, they can reproduce through artificial means without sexual intercourse. Second, what is the source of your claim that bi-sexuality has anything to do with mental and identity issues?

  • moafu

    Thanks, Bernie. The Left is once again proving that they are not Liberal, and they are certainly not Progressive – the are Leftists. The Leftist Aristotlean view rejects universal principles in favor of doing “what feels good” … “what feels right for YOU”. The Left rejects the universal principle of freedom of speech with their actions, while giving lip service to that standard. They was a peaceful and quiet lifestyle – with everyone agreeing with them – or risk being labeled anti-social.

    Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice – equal justice for all – even those who donate $1,000 in a political campaign.

    • toddyo1935

      You hit it! Equal Justice vs. the pains and violation of subsidiarity (the opposite of entitlement) that is by definition Social Justice.

      • moafu

        Thank you, T.
        It’s Plato vs Aristotle all over again. Plato insisted that mankind needs universal principles of conduct by which all peoples could live in peace. Those standards are rooted in the Code of Hammurabi and the Ten Commandments in particular. Don’t murder, don’t steal, mutual respect of one’s fellowman and his possessions. Without the standards we have chaos.

        The Left rejects the standards that it does not “like” and then cries for justice. Given justice and equal opportunity, the Left would then remove the same fairness of conduct from opposing voices.

        Important that we all speak up…..even for the civil rights of gays, but without the oppression of those who disagree with the gays.
        best to you

  • savage24

    The fact is that liberals are not liberal. Calling them liberal is just another of the left’s attack on the dictionary. They are the exact opposite of the dictionary definition of the word, just like those that call themselves progressive when in fact they are regressive. Their battle cry is “My way or the highway.”

  • Sam

    There has been an angry mob mentality surrounding this issue for a while now. Some of these folks that are throwing rocks, are themselves recent converts to the whole idea of accepting same sex mirage. BTW, I have always thought that liberalism at it’s core is really self promotion disguised as caring.

  • Larry Venable

    He should have forced them to fire him, and then sued for unlawful behavior. Then again, we’re not hearing what size golden handshake he got…

  • Scott Krouse

    Wasn’t it William F Buckley who said something like: The left always welcomes the diversity of opinion until they realize there is diversity of opinion.

    • Drew Page

      It sure sounds like Buckley.

    • Seattle Sam

      What he said was:

      Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

  • mthammer

    That’s whats wrong in this country , once the gay & the Racist get their way they want more & more and want to let the taxpayers know they are not done running this country into the ground. While most Gays sat in the closet and lived their own lives everything was fine. However once a gay person gets out of the closet , because other radicals have lead the way , they are more Gay than they were when they were in the closet. That is a fact , we all knew in the family that the person was gay , when the gays got their outrageous Poor Little Me , they went on the rampage. Saying from day one , some in their 60’s . screaming to the most liberal reporter how they have been discriminated against since day one. Just like the Racist , how they were treated so badly years and years ago (50 yearsago) , is now they want their justice and want all white people who lived during that period to pay. Like all Blacks want to be know as African Americans , even though they were born here in this country , they get more free stuff from society and don’t you ever dare call them the N word , only they can call themselves that , how dare a White Man say that to them. Its my opinion if they want to known as African Americans go back to Africa and see how they would feel living there.

    • Skip in VA

      I agree with what you say 100%! I also believe there is a trend taking place in our beloved America that I find very disturbing. It used to be that in this country the majority, right or wrong, ruled. Now I see more and more where the minority rules. I mean ANY minority. Atheists, for instance, are a minority in this country yet if they raise enough fuss over any issue that they think reeks of Christianity, sooner or later some politician or newsman, will bring their “cause” before the public as if it were as important as Benghazi. Same is true for blacks, gays, etc. Small majorities get the press and sooner or later, their way.

      • American1969

        You are absolutely right on that. The rights of the majority get thrown over in favor of the minority, and if you say anything, you’re labeled a bigot.
        So much for tolerance and diversity.

    • American1969

      Spot on!

  • SuperLogic

    Watch what you say and do, the politically correct Gestapo police may come out to get you 20 years later!

    • Seattle Sam

      Oddly, that didn’t happen to Senator Byrd.

  • Ksp48

    I grew up in a Democrat, liberal household. Humphrey was not liberal enough, though somehow Kennedy was. The answer to speech you didn’t like was more speech. Nazis could march in Skokie (though why Jewish lawyers had to defend them was beyond me). Reasonable people of good will could differ (they were incorrect, but not necessarily evil and if you could not convince them then it was partially your own fault for being less persuasive. Today’s Dems and the left are the most illiberal, intolerant people in the country.

  • beniyyar

    Mozilla Firefox is one of the worst and I bet least used browsers so anything that might affect their bottom line is going to be tossed in the garbage as quickly as possible. I am not surprised that the liberal left gay contingent has acted like a lynch mob, after all, they are behaving like most of their left liberal brethren and using gangster tactics to destroy anyone who holds beliefs different from theirs.

  • Buzzeroo

    A rose definitely is always a rose but calling a stinkweed a rose doesn’t make it one nor does naming a regressive, bigoted small minded, close minded evil twerp a progressive make him or her anything but a regressive unfair, hypocritical, undemocratic, Un- American fool.

  • jimg

    LIBERALS are always the biggest hypocrites of all. Al least you know hwere a conservative is coming from. Their views are their views. They are not always trying to find the popular wagon to jump on, and hiding behind the mob…

  • Ksp48

    They hypocracy is nauseating, but not nearly as much as the intolerance.

  • Seattle Sam

    Wait until some future Senator asks this question: Are you now or have you ever been an opponent of same sex marriage? [apologies to those not old enough to remember Joe McCarthy].

    • SkyCitizen

      Oh, i remember. He’d put J. Edgar Hoover on your case. The original queen of mean who pursued leftists with a vengeance.

  • The Scarlet Pimpernel

    *I* am gay, and all for gay marriage (or marrying your goat, if you wish) yet I’m appalled by this.

    What these people don’t get is that in another era, they may be the ones silenced by the mob.

    • Drew Page

      I don’t believe for a minute that all gay people are in favor of what Mozilla did to Mr. Eich.. In any group that is pro or anti something, there are going to be fanatics and the whole group should not be judged by the words or actions of the fanatics in that group. Fanatics in any group are so intolerant of anyone holding an opposing view, their intolerance gives way to hateful speech and actions. All this does is prompt equal hate speech and action from the fanatics holding the opposing view.
      We see this here daily regardless of the issue, whether it’s taxes, unemployment, abortion, the poor, the wealthy, unionism, foreign affairs, social welfare and safety net programs, race or religion. We have a president who exploits those differences of opinion in a game of divide and conquer, not a leader who seeks to reconcile those differences.

  • Jenn

    stupid pathetic queers…

  • kelly

    I am going to boycott using Firefox because the employees in the company are against the First Amendment.

    • ksp48

      Unfortunately I use Safari so I really can’t boycott Firefox, but I would.

  • jazzdrums

    someone mentioned obama and the word “worked” in the same sentence…not possible

  • Seattle Sam

    Imagine for a moment the uproar if the Walton family managed to get Wal-Mart’s president fired for contributing to a gay marriage initiative.

    • brickman

      Imagine a WalMart president doing that. They know better.

  • sjangers

    Liberals are no more intelligent than any other people. In my experience, they can even be less tolerant and open-minded; particularly in groups, when the worst instincts of each reinforce the worst behavior in all. In short, liberals are people just like everyone else, whatever they might prefer to think. They just lack a clear perspective on human nature and tend to be less self-aware than other people.

  • Kathie Ampela

    Bully tactics will backfire and hurt the cause. Gays will not be helped by tactics like this. They will win no hearts and minds by this. This guy might even be able to sue Mozilla, not sure. A lot of this are advocacy groups, not ordinary gay people, wanting to hold onto power. It reminds me of a scene from The Untouchables, the Kevin Costner and Sean Connery movie from the 80’s. At the end Elliot Ness is told that prohibition has been repealed. When asked, what will he do now? He said, “I guess I’ll go have a drink.” When you win the war some people don’t know how to move on to something else. The power base is more important than making it right.

  • M Decci

    Many of the free speech suppression in the last 5 years I’ve been very disgusted and comptentous about; imus, Paula dean, the dynasty guy, heck, even for liberals like Baldwin , Colbert, and others… But at least all those are public people, pundits, etc…not that this justified their firing either.
    But this particular case of the Mozilla CEO has been particularly disturbing, I can’t get my mind of it.

    Forget about the proposition, what it was about, and how long is been. The idea that a private civilian, can be both personally and professionally demonized, destroyed, tamed and silenced because he exercised his RIGHT TO FREELY VOTE on a particular election and support financially or otherwise a cause and that it can be used years later against him is not only scary…it’s terrifying!

    Some people are either defending him (…but the election wasn’t about gay marriage but about a definition of marriage) or condemning him (well…he can be against gays, but is because he gave money) … You know what? NONE of the above is argument. The ONLY REAL ARGUMENT Is this: The United States is a free nation with FREE suffrage where people are FREE to vote for whomever or whatever they so choose and shouldn’t be prosecuted for it. There are no reasons, NONE! why a private civilian should have to explain himself for voting one way or the other.

    First was the media going after anyone who would dare disagree with the liberal dogma, then the government using a federal agency, the IRS, to intimidate and neuter people of the opposition, and now even the private sector firing people over their personal beliefs and voting patterns. This is intolerable!

  • Tim Ned

    Beware employees. Your personal donations could cost you your jobs.

  • Mary Cabe

    The formerly downtrodden are now power trippin on successfully slamming their supposedly previous oppressors. Hoe they feel the full effect of #deleteMozilla but will cry foul on having their own tactics used on them. Kudos to Sullivan for being a voice of reason.

  • Harold Robertson

    If the $1,000 he gave was Mozilla money they would have a legitimate issue, but when a person gives his own personal money they should back off. It is his right.

    • Anastasia

      Some people obviously were not schooled in American History. The constitution of the United States guarantees its citizens the rights of free speech and association. Mr. Eich was exercising his rights, as a private citizen, not as a representative of his or any other company or organization, eight years ago, as provided by said constitution. When has it become acceptable to inflict punitive damages against those who believe differently than ourselves?

      • Harold Robertson

        Locally (here in Fascist California) I discovered in about 1985 that being a “Constitutionalist” was considered BAD. I was shocked and dismayed to say the least.

  • Common Sense

    Being tolerant doesn’t require you to be tolerant of intolerance. The employees are entitled to their opinions & to have their voices heard on who their leader is more so than the general public. If they don’t want to be lead by someone who, let’s be realistic; is given the power to significantly alter their workplace with his personal policies then it’s understandable why they’d be concerned.

    • JMax

      I’m a liberal, as anybody on your blog who is about to beat me up will tell you, but I agree with Sullivan whose blog I read regularly. But I also detest what the CEO did in donating to Prop 8. I don’t have a problem with being against gay marriage, but I have a big problem with using one’s religious beliefs and money to legislate against it.

      If I worked for Mozilla, I wouldn’t have liked what Eich had done, but I wouldn’t have been a part of drumming him out of the company.

      • SuperLogic

        You don’t have to like it, and Eich and anyone else also has the right to disagree with you.

        Also, there is a difference between something being “legal”, and something being “illegal”. ie It may not be legal to get married, but no one is saying anyone would get arrested or thrown into jail because they attempted to get married.

        • JMax

          “You don’t have to like it, and Eich and anyone else also has the right to disagree with you.”

          I think that was the gist of my post.

          Let me rephrase it for you: I don’t think Obama ever actively worked to block legalization of same-sex marriage. Does that work for you?

          • SuperLogic

            So only people have a right to work to change the law, and nobody has the right to oppose changing the law? Still, it’s semantics, Obama clearly stated he was in favor of retaining the legal definition of traditional marriage, and his opinion carries a lot more weight as President, than a $1000 donation by Mozillas CEO.

          • JMax

            Laws shouldn’t be based on anyone’s religious beliefs. Marriage equality opponents have never given a compelling reason to ban gay marriage. The only reasons given are derived from religion.

            Obama was in favor of marital rights and privileges in the form of civil unions.

          • Jeff Webb

            In terms of marriage, homosexuals have always had the exact same rights as everybody else. They could get married, just not to anybody they wanted. Heterosexuals also couldn’t marry the same gender, after all.
            Since there is no such thing as the right to marry whomever you want, I thought the idea of civil unions was win-win. Gay people get marital rights and privileges, while marriage’s definition remains the same.

            I don’t get why gays lobbied for the same benefits as marriage, only to refuse them because of the term “civil unions.” Why have the word “marriage” apply too?

          • JMax

            “They could get married, just not to anybody they wanted. Heterosexuals also couldn’t marry the same gender, after all.”

            This is a worn out and frivolous “argument”. Have you ever seen this argument in court? In any of the decisions handed down so far by any appeals court? If so, please cite.

            Marriage itself is a “civil union”. Everyone who gets married has to get a license. Nobody has to have a religious ceremony to be legally married.

            Whether marriage is a right or not, barring groups or individuals from marrying whom they love requires a compelling public interest to do so. Nobody has ever produced such a compelling interest much less successfully argued it in court.

            By granting same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of legal marriage without calling it marriage you give churches “ownership” of the word “marriage” and you place the stigma of second class citizenship on same-sex couples. “You can have everything straight couples have, but you can’t call it marriage.”

          • Jeff Webb

            >>This is a worn out and frivolous “argument”. Have you ever seen this
            argument in court? In any of the decisions handed down so far by any
            appeals court? If so, please cite.<>Whether marriage is a right or not, barring groups or individuals from marrying whom they love requires a compelling public interest to do so.<>Nobody has ever produced such a compelling interest much less successfully argued it in court.<>By granting same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of legal marriage without calling it marriage you give churches “ownership” of the word “marriage” and you place the stigma of second class citizenship on same-sex couples. “You can have everything straight couples have, but you can’t call it marriage.”<<

            Why were you defending Obama's prior position if it placed the stigma on same-sex couples?

            My position does not do that, and it is not based on religion.

          • JMax

            “In the bigger picture, how could one argue it’s in the public interest to bar groups or same-sex siblings from marrying?”

            They’ve been argued. That’s why they are illegal.

            Assuming that the birth rate is essentially 1:1 male and female, in a short time married males with multiple spouses will leave the unmarried males with fewer and fewer females to marry and mate with. That breads a lot of jealousy and hatred among the second class unmarried males and between those males and the married ones.

            Laws against incest are based primarily upon concerns with inbreeding.

            Those are the arguments. As to whether they would hold up today if challenged in court, that is another matter.

            Regarding my contention that nobody has made a case that banning gay marriage has a compelling public interest, you said, “it hasn’t happened YET.”

            Don’t you think it’s about time?

            “People who argued for redefining marriage for homosexuals used to scoff at the prediction that multiples would even try to argue for the right
            to marry.”

            Nobody is redefining marriage. I’ve never heard of anybody scoffing at the idea that people would at some point make an argument for polygamous marriage. Regardless, who exactly is leading this movement?

            “though religious people see it as so much more”

            Most people see it as so much more. You don’t have to be religious to do so. Further, not being able to call one’s lifelong commitment of love and life-sharing marriage when everyone else can, creates second class citizenship.

            “Why were you defending Obama’s prior position if it placed the stigma on same-sex couples?”

            Where did I defend that position?

          • Jeff Webb

            >>That breads a lot of jealousy and hatred among the second class unmarried males and between those males and the married ones.<>Laws against incest are based primarily upon concerns with inbreeding.<>Regarding my contention that nobody has made a case that banning gay marriage has a compelling public interest, you said, “it hasn’t happened YET.”<>Most people see it as so much more. You don’t have to be religious to do so. Further, not being able to call one’s lifelong commitment of love and
            life-sharing marriage when everyone else can, creates second class citizenship.<<

            Why? If heterosexual people's arrangements weren't officially titled "civil unions," why isn't that a slight?

            What was the purpose of telling SuperLogic Obama favored civil unions?

      • Janice

        You say you don’t have a problem being against gay marriage, but have a big problem with using one’s religious beliefs and money to legislate against it. But it’s okay for the people who support gay marriage to use their beliefs and money to legislate for it?

        Isn’t that the very definition of hypocritical?

        • JMax

          No.

          Their is a difference between trying to deny people rights based on one’s religion and trying to gain rights based on equal access and due process of the law. Same-sex marriage opponents have never shown a compelling reason for banning same sex marriage except for their religious beliefs.

      • Tim Ned

        Yes, Obama has taken the same stance as Dick Cheney. That it should be decided by the states.

    • Jim Pell

      Very neat, circular reasoning.

    • brickman

      Exactly what conservatives say when they fire gay people for being gay.

      • Jeff Webb

        >>Exactly what conservatives say when they fire gay people for being gay.<<

        Translation: it's what liberals imagine conservatives would say if this claim were true.

        • brickman

          Awaiting your next column.

          • Jeff Webb

            One just got posted this morning, so you’ll be a-waiting about 3 weeks for the next one, give or take.

      • Anastasia

        So two wrongs make it right?

        • brickman

          No. You may have missed my agreement with Mr. Goldberg about this situation in another comment. I think that this firing is reprehensible. I just notice that people who think that businesses should be able to do anything that they want are willing to make an exception here because liberals did the objectionable action

    • Jeff Webb

      >>Being tolerant doesn’t require you to be tolerant of intolerance.<>If they don’t want to be lead by someone who, let’s be realistic; is
      given the power to significantly alter their workplace with his personal
      policies then it’s understandable why they’d be concerned.<<

      Let's truly be realistic: if Mr. Eich had poor leadership skills, he wouldn't have been promoted in the first place. Mozilla's finding out about his donation didn't suddenly make his prior job performance substandard.

  • Don D

    Terrific piece… I suspect it captures the sentiment of many, many fair minded people who are interested in liberty and the free exchange of diverse ideas. “Diversity” can’t mean “people of different ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation who think exactly like us”. This is scary stuff. I always respected Andrew Sullivan, but never more than now.