Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[Pogo]

Radio stations organizing to boycott the Dixie Chicks (for disagreeing with the war of all things) had their current record plummeting in one week.

Is that "slow groundswell" enough for your ass?

Did they lose their recording contract?

And speaking of contracts you still have not posted Robertson's contract with A&E. I'm waiting.

So am I, for what it's worth. Which ain't much.
Again, why would that contract be online? If somebody leaks it we'll all go look but it's just not realistic to expect to find some actor's current contract -- nor is it to need this specific one when we have the model. The difference would be a "wherefore" in the laguage. Its function is standard. We already know the function.

Again, we're not the ones who need the contract language. The signatories to the contract are.

Do we need to see your hospital contract to accept you were a nurse? Or to see your JD? I don't.

And by the way "recording contract" is apples and oranges. Have the Robertsons lost their duck business? OK then.

We saw this article before but here goes again...

>> "It's not as easy as just not returning to the show, since they all have binding agreements. It's the network's option, not theirs," an insider connected to the production told FOX411. "Plus the family makes far too much money selling merchandise because of the show. It would be a bad business decision to leave it."

According to Beverly Hills-based entertainment attorney Julian Chan, each show participant is generally under a separate deal when it comes to these types of contracts. So each family member could be subject to a breach of contract claim regardless of what happens to anyone else on the show, no matter what his or her role.

We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running. <<

As we've been saying -- SOP.

 

[Dragonlady]

The only people expressing hate in this thread are the homophobes who oppose the idea of gays living their own lives and marrying other gays. They're the ones insulting the more tolerant left wingers in this thread. Those of us on the left have actually defended Robertson's right to espouse his personal beliefs, provided he is prepared to live with the consequences of doing so.

As for those who think that Phil was set up by the left wing media and that GLAAD pounced on him, I have to wonder just who was the one who was set up. Despite the Robertson's self-effacing redneck tomfoolery, they are hardly stupid people. They've all been to college, including Phil. They've been smart enough to parlay a small, homebased duck call business into a huge family conglomerate, with numerous commerical ties-ins, sponsorships with gun companies, numerous lucrative spin-offs and merchandizing of every product imagineably. Do you honestly think this would have happened if the Robertsons were as stupid as they pretend to me on TV.

GQ has a high level of gay readership, so I think it's entirely possible that Phil Robertson was being deliberately provocative with his comments to garner as big a public reaction as possible. I hope it backfires bigtime on him. I know I'll never watch the show again. And yes, I've read the article. Robertson clearly was out to provoke people. My biggest hope is that it blows up in his face.

 

[JoeB131]

Someone firing a 14 year employee because they showed up with another female at a holiday party doesn't reconcile with reality.

Oh, come on. Long term employees get fired for bullshit all the time.

Welcome to the wonderful world of At Will employment.

In this particular case, a few additional points.

This lady was a "Lipstick Lesbian". Which means she really didn't stand out. Her girlfriend was kind of butch (first time I saw her I thought she was a guy) and just so nobody missed the point, she came dressed in a man's suit, necktie and everything.

Problem was, one of her co-workers was a bible thumping type. She was also a black woman who constantly complained about how white folks were keeping her down and didn't see a tiny bit of irony in her own conduct. And she complained about it.

Now, the official reason was they were "reorganizing the department", but everyone knew that was bullshit.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You give too many tangential details,

Its a "tell" you are lying.
.

 

[JoeB131]

yet most of them would support firing me for being gay...not something I said or did, but just for being gay.

If you don't say or do anything no one knows you're gay.

Your disclosure at inappropriate venues causes your grief.

So essentially, your bigotry is okay if she talks about who she is?

Seriously?

I'm wondering, what do you consider an inappriate venue?

 

[JoeB131]

You give too many tangential details,

Its a "tell" you are lying.
.

Right. Exactly which detail was "tangential", dickhead?

Wow, you gave a DETAILED narrative, that you've told consistantly... that must be proof of a lie. (not the first time I've related these events, BTW.)

Actually, you're really getting kind of pathetic...

 

[OKTexas]

Did they lose their recording contract?

And speaking of contracts you still have not posted Robertson's contract with A&E. I'm waiting.

So am I, for what it's worth. Which ain't much.
Again, why would that contract be online? If somebody leaks it we'll all go look but it's just not realistic to expect to find some actor's current contract -- nor is it to need this specific one when we have the model. The difference would be a "wherefore" in the laguage. Its function is standard. We already know the function.

Again, we're not the ones who need the contract language. The signatories to the contract are.

Do we need to see your hospital contract to accept you were a nurse? Or to see your JD? I don't.

And by the way "recording contract" is apples and oranges. Have the Robertsons lost their duck business? OK then.

We saw this article before but here goes again...

>> "It's not as easy as just not returning to the show, since they all have binding agreements. It's the network's option, not theirs," an insider connected to the production told FOX411. "Plus the family makes far too much money selling merchandise because of the show. It would be a bad business decision to leave it."

According to Beverly Hills-based entertainment attorney Julian Chan, each show participant is generally under a separate deal when it comes to these types of contracts. So each family member could be subject to a breach of contract claim regardless of what happens to anyone else on the show, no matter what his or her role.

We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running. <<

As we've been saying -- SOP.

Morality clause, explain what immoral conduct was involved. Since when is stating a short list of what you consider to be sin and recalling early life memories an immoral act?

 

[Pogo]

So am I, for what it's worth. Which ain't much.
Again, why would that contract be online? If somebody leaks it we'll all go look but it's just not realistic to expect to find some actor's current contract -- nor is it to need this specific one when we have the model. The difference would be a "wherefore" in the laguage. Its function is standard. We already know the function.

Again, we're not the ones who need the contract language. The signatories to the contract are.

Do we need to see your hospital contract to accept you were a nurse? Or to see your JD? I don't.

And by the way "recording contract" is apples and oranges. Have the Robertsons lost their duck business? OK then.

We saw this article before but here goes again...

>> "It's not as easy as just not returning to the show, since they all have binding agreements. It's the network's option, not theirs," an insider connected to the production told FOX411. "Plus the family makes far too much money selling merchandise because of the show. It would be a bad business decision to leave it."

According to Beverly Hills-based entertainment attorney Julian Chan, each show participant is generally under a separate deal when it comes to these types of contracts. So each family member could be subject to a breach of contract claim regardless of what happens to anyone else on the show, no matter what his or her role.

We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running. <<

As we've been saying -- SOP.

Morality clause, explain what immoral conduct was involved. Since when is stating a short list of what you consider to be sin and recalling early life memories an immoral act?

So your plan is to just go every time this is explained, pretend you didn't understand and then ask the stupid question all over again.

Yeah run with that.

And break a sweat -- go search "morality clause" on this or any of the other 422 threads we're drowning in. Or go to something called "Google".

Lazy asswipes... SMH

 

[OKTexas]

The only people expressing hate in this thread are the homophobes who oppose the idea of gays living their own lives and marrying other gays. They're the ones insulting the more tolerant left wingers in this thread. Those of us on the left have actually defended Robertson's right to espouse his personal beliefs, provided he is prepared to live with the consequences of doing so.

As for those who think that Phil was set up by the left wing media and that GLAAD pounced on him, I have to wonder just who was the one who was set up. Despite the Robertson's self-effacing redneck tomfoolery, they are hardly stupid people. They've all been to college, including Phil. They've been smart enough to parlay a small, homebased duck call business into a huge family conglomerate, with numerous commerical ties-ins, sponsorships with gun companies, numerous lucrative spin-offs and merchandizing of every product imagineably. Do you honestly think this would have happened if the Robertsons were as stupid as they pretend to me on TV.

GQ has a high level of gay readership, so I think it's entirely possible that Phil Robertson was being deliberately provocative with his comments to garner as big a public reaction as possible. I hope it backfires bigtime on him. I know I'll never watch the show again. And yes, I've read the article. Robertson clearly was out to provoke people. My biggest hope is that it blows up in his face.

So you agree with the thought police and totalitarian policies, consequences for personal opinion, how fucking Stalinist of you.

 

[OKTexas]

We saw this article before but here goes again...

>> "It's not as easy as just not returning to the show, since they all have binding agreements. It's the network's option, not theirs," an insider connected to the production told FOX411. "Plus the family makes far too much money selling merchandise because of the show. It would be a bad business decision to leave it."

According to Beverly Hills-based entertainment attorney Julian Chan, each show participant is generally under a separate deal when it comes to these types of contracts. So each family member could be subject to a breach of contract claim regardless of what happens to anyone else on the show, no matter what his or her role.

We're also told that the contracts have morality clauses that give the network the right to get rid of cast members -- but the others still have to keep the show running. <<

As we've been saying -- SOP.

Morality clause, explain what immoral conduct was involved. Since when is stating a short list of what you consider to be sin and recalling early life memories an immoral act?

So your plan is to just go every time this is explained, pretend you didn't understand and then ask the stupid question all over again.

Yeah run with that.

And break a sweat -- go search "morality clause" on this or any of the other 422 threads we're drowning in. Or go to something called "Google".

Lazy asswipes... SMH

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

 

[Pogo]

Morality clause, explain what immoral conduct was involved. Since when is stating a short list of what you consider to be sin and recalling early life memories an immoral act?

So your plan is to just go every time this is explained, pretend you didn't understand and then ask the stupid question all over again.

Yeah run with that.

And break a sweat -- go search "morality clause" on this or any of the other 422 threads we're drowning in. Or go to something called "Google".

Lazy asswipes... SMH

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

Nobody said "immoral act" stupid. Learn to read.

Morality clause

Morals Clause - Wiki

Again, get your lazy ass off the rhetorical couch, open up your eyes and read, and stop posting like a fucking idiot.

 

[Mac1958]

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

OKT, as I said in the original post of this thread, "By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance."

.

 

[OKTexas]

So your plan is to just go every time this is explained, pretend you didn't understand and then ask the stupid question all over again.

Yeah run with that.

And break a sweat -- go search "morality clause" on this or any of the other 422 threads we're drowning in. Or go to something called "Google".

Lazy asswipes... SMH

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

Nobody said "immoral act" stupid. Learn to read.

Morality clause

Morals Clause - Wiki

Again, get your lazy ass off the rhetorical couch, open up your eyes and read, and stop posting like a fucking idiot.

So you're speculating about a so called morals clause, no statesment from A&E about envoking such a clause and for exactly what reason, just speculation. Meaning you got absoulutely nothing but your own opinion. BTW you can only punish someone for their actions, to invoke a morals clause there has to be an immoral act as defined in the contract.

 

[Pogo]

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

OKT, as I said in the original post of this thread, "By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance."

-- and as I told you, from my first post here, "them" are not the ones framing it that way. OKT's pig-ignorance feigning stupidity about a legal term is a perfect example. Here he's actually purported to ascribe beliefs to me that I haven't even ventured into. Yet you're so ignorantly biased yourself you can't see it.

Guess that's why you came up with no answer to any of my criticism therein. Which makes you as ignorant as this idiot.

And as I told you in a subsequent post, the fact that this speech and/or religion angle is used by all these threads as a pretext for this outrage puppet show, is the only reason people like me are in these threads at all. I mean it's a fucking television show --- who the fuck CARES?

 

[Mac1958]

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

OKT, as I said in the original post of this thread, "By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance."

-- and as I told you, from my first post here, "them" are not the ones framing it that way. OKT's pig-ignorance feigning stupidity about a legal term is a perfect example. Here he's actually purported to ascribe beliefs to me that I haven't even ventured into. Yet you're so ignorantly biased yourself you can't see it.

Guess that's why you came up with no answer to any of my criticism therein.

And as I told you in a subsequent post, the fact that this speech and/or religion angle is used by all these threads as a pretext for this outrage puppet show, is the only reason people like me are in these threads at all. I mean it's a fucking television show --- who the fuck CARES?

Calm down.

Have a cookie.

.

 

[Pogo]

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

Nobody said "immoral act" stupid. Learn to read.

Morality clause

Morals Clause - Wiki

Again, get your lazy ass off the rhetorical couch, open up your eyes and read, and stop posting like a fucking idiot.

So you're speculating about a so called morals clause, no statesment from A&E about envoking such a clause and for exactly what reason, just speculation. Meaning you got absoulutely nothing but your own opinion. BTW you can only punish someone for their actions, to invoke a morals clause there has to be an immoral act as defined in the contract.

So two posts ago you were claiming ignorance of what a morality clause is, and now five minutes later you're dispensing legal advice on it.

Dishonest hack.

 

[Pogo]

OKT, as I said in the original post of this thread, "By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance."

-- and as I told you, from my first post here, "them" are not the ones framing it that way. OKT's pig-ignorance feigning stupidity about a legal term is a perfect example. Here he's actually purported to ascribe beliefs to me that I haven't even ventured into. Yet you're so ignorantly biased yourself you can't see it.

Guess that's why you came up with no answer to any of my criticism therein.

And as I told you in a subsequent post, the fact that this speech and/or religion angle is used by all these threads as a pretext for this outrage puppet show, is the only reason people like me are in these threads at all. I mean it's a fucking television show --- who the fuck CARES?

Calm down.

Have a cookie.

Hilarious. You're just as much a hack as he is. Post a crock in your OP and when challenged, your response is to hand out cookies -- when forced to respond at all.

Hilarious waste of time. Coward.

 

[Iceman]

LOL, I like how Pogo is getting all bent out of shape over some morality clause(which may or may not exist)...

 

[Mac1958]

-- and as I told you, from my first post here, "them" are not the ones framing it that way. OKT's pig-ignorance feigning stupidity about a legal term is a perfect example. Here he's actually purported to ascribe beliefs to me that I haven't even ventured into. Yet you're so ignorantly biased yourself you can't see it.

Guess that's why you came up with no answer to any of my criticism therein.

And as I told you in a subsequent post, the fact that this speech and/or religion angle is used by all these threads as a pretext for this outrage puppet show, is the only reason people like me are in these threads at all. I mean it's a fucking television show --- who the fuck CARES?

Calm down.

Have a cookie.

Hilarious. You're just as much a hack as he is. Post a crock in your OP and when challenged, your response is to hand out cookies -- when forced to respond at all.

Hilarious waste of time. Coward.

Aw, don't be angry. I've already determined that trying to communicate with you is a "waste of time", since you invariably deteriorate into personal insults and name-calling. I'm just not interested in that.

And, since I wasn't addressing you, I have no obligation to play your games.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying you can't explain how simply giving a personal opinion on what constitutes sin is an immoral act. Did he call for any action to be taken against the faghadist, or adulterers, or others on his list, NO. So you believe in punishing an opinion you don't agree with and mislabeling it an immoral act because you got nothing else. How pathetic.

OKT, as I said in the original post of this thread, "By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance."

.

They can throw out diversions all they want, is simply boils down to one man giving a personal opinion on what he considers sin and recalling circumstances in his early life. The left is only making themselves look foolish by saying Phil didn't understand his own life, who the fuck are they, were they there in the fields with him? These are nothing but freaks who think if they are unhappy no one else could possibly be happy. Screw-em.