It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Playgirl' Editor Fired After Outing Self As Republican

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
If the roles would have been reversed this would have been frontpage news and leading every major media news cast. If a company fired someone for calling themselves a democrat and supporting John Kerry for example, there would have been hell to pay no matter what the business.



[edit on 23-3-2005 by Apoc]




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
More examples of leftwing fascism and hypocrisy. You are free to believe what you want as long as you agree with us. And btw I think comparing a republican working for Playgirl to a satan worshipper working for some kinda Christian organization is a bad analogy. Even so, the courts would protect the rights of the Satanists to keep their job. Liberal activists judges who don't follow the constitution I'm sure will not give this lady the same due. I say let more stories like this come out. The majority of the country is republican and conservative. Eventually there will be an even larger political revolution and all liberalism will be stomped out and rendered even less viable than it is now. We'll get judges in there that actually follow the constitution and the will of the people will reign as it should.


Do you realize how laughably outside reality and any context of mainstream thinking you are? The "will of the people" overwhelming supports the decision of the judge you call a Satan Worshiper.


I see you do and edited your comments out. Good call.


[edit on 23-3-2005 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
At least this confirms my suspicion that Horacid reads Playgirl.
Only for the articles, I'm sure.


I wish I had thought of that. Great smack!


RANT

How about a little less Lee Majors, and a little more Heather Thomas?

Thanks pal!

Peace



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
RANT

How about a little less Lee Majors, and a little more Heather Thomas?

Thanks pal!

Peace


You just blew my mind Dr. Love.
That is Thomas, not Locklear.


Actually, I had a Markie Post concept ready to roll, but that girl was just filthy hot in a bikini. Can't go there.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

You just blew my mind Dr. Love.
That is Thomas, not Locklear.


Actually, I had a Markie Post concept ready to roll, but that girl was just filthy hot in a bikini. Can't go there.


Yes, she was as I like to say, a serious fox!!

But we digress because this is a thread about Playgirl afterall.

Playgirl..........eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww!


Peace


[edit on 23-3-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
But we digress becuse this is a thread about Playgirl afterall.

Playgirl..........eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwww!


Peace


Right, sorry to digress from this serious political discussion of an epic tragedy.


Playgirl, that long standing wellhead of conservative ideolgy has been infested with the liberal homosexual agenda. If only we can get the word out about this manifestation of facist gay intolerance of the political opportunists out to get them, then America will finally realize what covert plot awaits them in the halls of FOXNEWS. First PlayGirl get's defreeped, next Hannity gets fired for being an extremist jackass. You think it won't happen? Just look at our beloved once Gay Republican Playgirl. Ohhhhh the hypocrisy. Can you hear the teeth gnashing? What horrors await concerned Republicans from this slippery slope of gay porn political correctness? Think of the children!!! The little gay children!!! They'll never know the joys of conservative opine while masturbating to pictures of uncut German man meat. The wailings of outraged family values social conservatives deafen mine virgin ears. Please, won't someone make gay porn Republican again? For Mom, apple pie and reach arounds. Please!!!

[edit on 23-3-2005 by RANT]


Odd

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
you're missing the point, Rant. The fact that conservatives may or may not tend to be less tolerant of pornography has nothing to do with this woman's job. Firing somebody because of their political ideology is NOT ALL RIGHT, no matter how you want to dress it up; that is discrimination, pure and simple, regardless of what form it takes.

Judging by the fact that she applied for, and got, the job means that she was capable of fulfilling her function, and willing to do so despite her party's stance on porno. She was a Republican the whole time, but was only fired once that fact became publicly known... so, if she had stated her political affiliation during her interview for the job, should she have been denied employment then and there?


[edit on 3/23/2005 by Odd]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
The fact that conservatives may or may not tend to be less tolerant of pornography has nothing to do with this woman's job.
[edit on 3/23/2005 by Odd]



But, we live in a brave, new conservative world now. It's somehow okay to discriminate, as long as that person is "unpatriotic" or homosexual, or even slightly blue. And I find it equally as ironic that the story was broke by Matt Drudge, probably the biggest self loather on the planet. The frothing, foaming at the mouth, Pavlov's dog reaction to unpopular political views is nothing new. Ward Churchill is a scum bag, his views are unpopular, and yet these same protestors were more than willing to persecute him for HIS political beliefs, however outlandish and inflammatory as they are.

Am I outraged by this woman's dismissal? Sure.
Do I think it's wrong? Yes again.

But, as defender of free speech, this woman is pretty low on my list of priorities. If, for no other reason, than her support of a party and a movement that deems itself so willing, and able, to strip others of their free speech rights. And do so with a righteous indignation.

Unlike Horacid, as a fan of pornography, especially female pornography, especially female on female pornography, I find her support of this administration hypocritical. Especially with an Attorney General whose primary concern is restricting pornography. Especially considering her magazine caters to the one audience most attacked and reviled by her political party.

So, while I certainly shed a tear for her, Conservatives created this world that we find outselves swimming in, they defined the rules that got her fired, and as the old saying goes, you can never go home again.


Odd

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
So, are you condoning Playgirl's actions in firing this woman?

Since things suck, it's all right for us to start discriminating how we please?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem... and while I'm not solving anything in particular, I don't guess, I'm still making an effort to get goons like you and Rant to stop caring about just one side of the spectrum.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Okay...

Is it ok to be a Republican and work for playboy? - Yes it is.

Is it ok to be a Republican and then tell everyone about it causing the magazine to lose sales? - No it is not.


Odd

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
so if I were the manager of a business, and I found out one of my employees was gay, it would be all right to fire him because one of my customers might be offended?



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
so if I were the manager of a business, and I found out one of my employees was gay, it would be all right to fire him because one of my customers might be offended?


No. That is discrimination. Equal employment opportunity laws prohibit firing someone because of lifestyle, as well as gender, race, etc, although there are some exceptions for religious organizations being allowed to hire only persons of a particular faith or for positions where certain characteristics are a requirments of the job (ie: a waitress at Hooters...)

Firing occurs when an employee engages in behavior detrimental to the firm. The fact that the behavior happens to be related to personal beliefs is besides the point.

Look at it this way--If the editor of the National Review, an ultra-conservative magazine, made the decision to write an editorial about how much he loves liberals and how great the Democratic party is and then issued a press release about it, he would be fired. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. It is a conservative magazine, with Republican readers and liberal diatribes have no place amongst its pages.

Just as conservative diatribes have no place amongst the penises in Playgirl. That was an extremely stupid call. Regardless of Ms. Zipp's beliefs, talking about conservatism in Playgirl is a TURN-OFF for it's liberal readers. So she was fired.

She can cry about discrimination, but her radical idea was a bad one and she paid the price--just as many executives had who have made such choice decisions as naming a car something that means "bowel-movement" in Japanese or thinking that meat-flavored toothpaste would be a big hit with low-carb dieters.

Why is this so difficult to understand?


Odd

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
right, then, the magazine couldn't have printed a retraction and asked the editor to keep her beliefs to herself?

if she is capable of doing the job, let her do it; she earned the position. I just don't see why your double standards are any better than the ones your sort goes on about so much.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
right, then, the magazine couldn't have printed a retraction and asked the editor to keep her beliefs to herself?

if she is capable of doing the job, let her do it; she earned the position. I just don't see why your double standards are any better than the ones your sort goes on about so much.



What double standard? Why do you assume that if she was a liberal Editor-in-Chief that made a similar public mistake at the helm of a conservative magazine that her job would automatically be spared? Do you really think that conservatives are any less concerned with revenues?

Any senior executive that mades a visible bad decision is in jeopardy of being fired. Her main responsibility is to make decisions that increase revenue--this one didn't.

And do you honestly believe that she would have published a retraction regarding her remarks and still be credible. "Yes I am a Republican, but I didn't mean to imply that all of you Democrats that pay $5 for this magazine are weak, unattractive, and borderline traitors. Really, you aren't. No REALLY, you aren't." Please.


Odd

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Strength, attractiveness, and patriotism didn't even come into it; I don't see why you're bringing them up, except maybe to cover up a weak thesis with sensational overstatements.

I do not believe that the magazine suffered significant financial loss due to the actions of the editor in question. I also do not believe that a Democrat in an analagous situation would have their job spared.

I do, however, believe that denying employment to a person based on their political affiliation is wrong, and that in any case it conflicts grievously with the spirit upon which this nation was founded.

But that doesn't matter any more, does it?

[edit on 3/24/2005 by Odd]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
PLAYGIRL editor-in-chief Michele Zipp has been stripped of her duties after she revealed how she voted Republican in the 2004 election.

Zipp, in an e-mail, claims she was fired after an onslaught of liberal backlash.

www.drudgereport.com...

here is a very fine example of the "consiracy" of the liberal left to squash any positive examples of powerful women without the need for organizations like NOW. A majority of Playgirls readership is the gay community. I would imagine the outrage was rather loud when she was "outed" as a reviled "republican".


Errr... when you say "gay" do you mean lesbian gay? Or gay gay?
Cuz I remember in school seeing lots of girls buying, reading, and looking at "Playgirl" magazine.

--------------------------------------------
on to the main subject:

That former editor of Playgirl is NOT, NOT, an example of a "strong woman". OMG!!!

How the h--- is being an editor of a porno magazine showing your a strong woman? I guess the male editors of Penthouse are examples of strong men?!?

All she's an example of is... a woman who has a job. That's it.
And guess what? There's a reason why when ya go vote, CURTAINS ARE DRAWN CLOSED! Because who your voting for, your political views, are your buisness, not anyone elses!!!
She choose to make her private buisness public for no reason! She is a dummy! Maybe she'll learn from the experience.

As the French say... "There's certain things you never talk to other people about. Politics is one of them."

And Playgirl is not known first and foremost for its articles. Its known first and foremost for... something ... else! Which doesnt take a wordsmith to put together. Which doesnt need an editor in cheif to go to college, get a degree, in order to do! LOL!

[edit on 24-3-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
so if I were the manager of a business, and I found out one of my employees was gay, it would be all right to fire him because one of my customers might be offended?


You need to go further in your illustration.....
What if that Gay employee every day announced to all customers he was gay, gay, gay, gay, and... gay!

There's a REASON why your private life, is called "private life". It's kept private. its NOONEs buisness!



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Ok, this is like a gay black jew KKK Grand Wizard, just not gonna happen. And she wasn't fired for being a republican, she was fired for being in the party that wants the people who buy PlayGirl rounded up and sent to gas chambers. People may not buy a product produced by someone who thinks they don't have the right to exist, therefor hurting sales of the company, therefor causing profit loss, and therefor a reason, a LEGAL reason, to fire her.

Let make a clearer picture for you. I am the editor of Jews Of America. I then come out and say "Hey, I belong to the republican/KKK/Neo-NAZI party, anyways, I'm gonna go back and edit some more." Guess what? They would fire me. Why? Because I am part of the group that want's the people who buy JOA dead. Or I am the Editor of NRA Weekly, then come out and say "Guns are bad, guns use evil mind powers to make people commit crimes! Ban all guns!" Guess what? Gonna get fired.....

[edit on 24-3-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Do you realize how laughably outside reality and any context of mainstream thinking you are?
The "will of the people" overwhelming supports the decision of the judge you call a Satan Worshiper.

I see you do and edited your comments out. Good call.

[edit on 23-3-2005 by RANT]


Rant, I woul 'suggest" that it is you who are outside the "mainstream". 63,000,000 votes indicate a new 'mainstream".

Hey, stonedbrim boy, I do not read playgirl, playboy or any other such filth. My "choice". I can read "headlines" and post the info accordingly.

Apoc, your analysis is right on.


The "mainstream" media has an agenda, its all left turns, thats why the alway seem to go round and round in circles and never get anywhere unless a judge tells them its OK.............



posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Originally posted by RANT
Do you realize how laughably outside reality and any context of mainstream thinking you are?
The "will of the people" overwhelming supports the decision of the judge you call a Satan Worshiper.

I see you do and edited your comments out. Good call.

[edit on 23-3-2005 by RANT]


Rant, I woul 'suggest" that it is you who are outside the "mainstream". 63,000,000 votes indicate a new 'mainstream".


You may suggest any deluded fringe assertion you like, but you'd be wrong. The cynical wedging of special interest fringe groups under one umbrella does not constitute a majority opinion on any issue, though it may account for a majority party.

If you aren't aware of the broad and overwhelming displeasure of America with Apoc's assertion that the Florida judges needed Federal intervention, then I suggest broadening your horizons.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by RANT]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join