Wirehead Studios

My wife Miranda has a job interview with Greenpeace today. During the course of the interview she was asked what her "political affiliation" was to which she answered that she was registered as a democrat, identified herself as a socialist but had some middle of the road and conservative values.
 I guess this wasn't liberal enough for the interviewer because he got upset at her answers.He stated the Green peace preferred that its employees be registered green peace party members , not democrats. He then grilled her on her religious beliefs and asked her opinion on abortion issues. When Miranda informed the interviewer that what he was doing was illegal he got more upset and she was asked to leave.

 I personally took some pleasure in the fact that once again, secular liberals have proven themselves to be just another species of religious fanatic, and practice no tolerance what so ever. Naturally this wouldn't apply to all liberals but perhaps we should reevaluate what political activist groups we consider mainstream.
 

Doesn't apply to any liberals really - Greenpeace are sure as hell NOT liberal in any way, shape or form. While I'm reluctant to start the whole "dictionary definition vs social perception" debate again, suffice to say that true liberalism doesn't exist. I have no love for Greenpeace, despite my opinions on various environmental issues, mainly because a lot of what they stand for borders on fascism, and a lot of what they do borders on terrorism. But the fact that they are prepared to violate countless laws regarding recruitment processes defies belief. This is BNP territory.

Scal:  You're correct in that true Liberalism does not really exist.  For clarification, the term Liberalism used today in America more correctly refers to Progressivism.  To provide better context, for a look at the roots of Progressivism, see Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, etc.  For a look at it today, look at Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, Harry Reid, and pretty much anyone in control of the hard Left in US politics... George Soros, Michael Moore, etc.  Basically socialist and/or fascist politics, practices, and ideals.

Woodsman:  I'm not surprised that she was denied employment for not being radical enough.  I just hope she learns something important from the experience, that these people do not care about individuals, only their agenda and a given person's usefulness as a tool for that agenda.  That's one of the more damnable elements of Progressive movements is that individuals are worthless outside of their usefulness to the collective, be it the State, or whatever organizing body is at work.  I've noted to people before, usually in arguments, that the behavior of many secular or atheist individuals and organizations take on all the negative characteristics that they associate with religion, just without a god figure (the organization or the agenda fills this roll without being called as such).  The usual reaction I've received is either a full-on verbal attack, a quick subject change, or being personally insulted.  From what are supposed to be more "enlightened" individuals that's a rather juvenile response but I've found it to be a typical response from anyone who does not like to question their own behaviors, ideals, or beliefs.  Blindness is not strictly confined to religion, but then, one would have to have eyes to see it.

greenpeace... they are more like terrorists, here they laid large chuncks of concreate on the seabed so fishermans can't fish there anymore, but i suppose they saved the enviroment...i dont think the fishermens appreciate it thought :P

Putting concrete on the seabed?  I believe that's called pollution.  How do you save the environment by destroying it?  :surprise:

As I understand it, the idea is not to cover the seabed with concrete. The idea is to create obstacles that prevent succesful use of trailer nets (which are considered the most destructive kind of "indifferent" fishing). Concrete itself is inert and doesn't actively pollute. You don't even need many of those obstacles and they could be widely spaced, as long as they make trailer-use too risky or costly. As for "meddling with the seabed," I guess they take a "lesser of two evils" stance to that. If they're doing anything different, or actually destroying sealife, then I misunderstood--and then I don't get it.

I don't think you guys get the point i wasn't talking about the merit or methods of environmental groups i was talking about people being excluded from employment for personal beliefs. The asking of which is actually illegal in a job interview.

Woods:  The conversation just took a turn, as conversations do.  I understand, and I agree with what you say about the discrimination going on.