This has nothing to do with political beliefs or a conservative background.
You can be a conservative in all possible ways and still uphold moral principles. The last time I checked morality does not include lying, undermining human rights, waging foreign wars.
In the Brendan Eich case (and yes, I know that's not the same as Ms. Rice) his only objectionable actions were to contribute a small amount to a political campaign and to not publicly repudiate that donation. That case was 100% about political beliefs.
In the case of Condoleezza Rice, there are plenty of actions to object to including undermining human rights and helping to wage wars. By all means, prosecute Ms. Rice for violations of human rights and then ban her from the board as a convicted felon. I wouldn't even mind an outcry against her participation on Dropbox's board because of her stance on government surveillance of data storage companies. But to me, an outcry against her for war crimes smells of overdone politics.
That being said... I don't mind any person choosing to boycott a company for any reason they choose (including association with Ms. Rice). What I object to is a hue and cry that effectively blacklists her (and others) for their political beliefs.
Like I said below, this has nothing to do with her political beliefs. It has to do with actions she was directly involved in.
Describe what her political beliefs are and why people are objecting to them(and why they shouldn't object, as per your opinion), if you're so sure of your position. But you can't mention the words "war", "human rights", "surveillance". This leaves you with just the theoretical definition of her political beliefs.
It has everything to do with her political beliefs and conservative background. Just admit it. You can still disagree with her and boycott Dropbox. Just say that you disagree with her political beliefs. The things the article referenced are all political.
Nope. In my world, morals matter more than political affiliation. Conservative or not, neither of those is inherently bad. What matters is how it's executed.
Oh, and by the way,I have observed this trend in the US where people who are liberals automatically disagree with conservatives just because. Sorry, I do like me some critical thinking, you know? You have that, right? I explained my case loud and clear. War is bad, regardless of whether you're conservative or liberal.
But you said it had nothing to do with her political beliefs - Going to war against Iraq is a political statement as she and others believed that WMDs were there and posed a threat to the region and the World. It's a political belief. I'm not arguing your moral stance. What I see is wanting something both ways - being able to say you don't disagree with politics of the woman, then disagreeing with the politics of the woman. (BTW, I'm not incensed, I'm the type that could argue all day with someone and then go shoot the breeze with a cold one later)
Except she did know that there were no WMDs there, and so did the rest of the admin.
Even if the WMDs were there, that in no way posed a threat to the region or the World. If anything, that was just a charade. It's widely known the US had a close relationship with Saddam.
Expanding on her making a political statement, people would have every right to condemn her that political statement if it's a pure lie.
P.S. Political affiliation/beliefs, like I said, don't make you a bad person. Fucking shit up and holding a certain belief are not connected.
EDIT: Plus, following your logic, if you're a republican and you beat your wife, does that mean being a republican is bad?
You can be a conservative in all possible ways and still uphold moral principles. The last time I checked morality does not include lying, undermining human rights, waging foreign wars.