7
   

The Corporate Class fits another Speaker with a GAG (Hank Williams Jr)

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 08:56 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
If that's what he wants, then good for him.
On the other hand, if what he wants to do is license his song to the NFL
then maybe he should take a little care before he shoots off his mouth.

Can he weather this? Sure.

But it's hardly a case of "fitting anther speaker with a GAG!"
It IS, insofar as that show ITSELF was concerned.





David
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 09:09 am
While Williams clearly has an agenda, his comment was not what it has been portrayed and I'm surprised ESPN bothered to insert itself into the situation. Williams said Obama and Boehner are like Hilter and Netanyahu, meaning two people who are never going to see eye to eye. He didn't say Obama was Hilter. He didn't say Boehner was Netanyahu.

That said, this may parallel the AFLAC dissussion we had some time ago where the voice of the duck made insensitive remarks and was fired. Businesses care about appearences and have the right to protect their brand. If ESPN thought associating with Williams is a bad business move they have the right to take action. I disagree that anyone would associate Williams with ESPN, but I'm not running the business.

Some radio talking head was asking people this morning if they would boycott "stars" who engage in politics. I was amazed by the adamant responses on how Hollywood actors should just shut up and act or they were going to be boycotted. If this was Joe down the street, would you fire him because he put a sign in his yard?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 09:34 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
If this was Joe down the street, would you fire him because he put a sign in his yard?
There is also the matter of your having the right not to associate with people of your disliking.





David
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 11:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I didn't say people are not within their rights to do this, only that it seems absurd to reject people if they don't agree with you on every topic.
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 11:40 am
I wasn't dismayed so much by the Hitler reference as I was by Williams describing Obama and Boehner as enemies.

That's ignorant and unhelpful.

I disagree with almost everything the GOP stands for, but they are not my enemies.

Joe(They are fellow Americans)Nation
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 11:49 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
I didn't say people are not within their rights to do this,
No one attributed THAT to u.




engineer wrote:
only that it seems absurd to reject people if they don't agree with you on every topic.
Well, looking at the other end of the spectrum ( from . . . " every topic " ) if a Jew fired a nazi
or
if a refugee from communist slavery fired a commie, because he chose not to associate with such people
in my opinion, that 'd be morally OK. What is your opinion of that ??





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 11:52 am
@Joe Nation,
It can be hard to know where to draw the line, Joe.

Even the Rosenbergs were Americans.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 12:15 pm
I think that the Godfried and Williams firings indicate that we have slipped down the slippery slope....whe nthis trend got started back in the days when guys like Imus were getting fired for their opinions a big part of the arguement was that they are opinion makers and promoters as a part of their job duties, so if we find out that they have an unsavioury opinion we need to remove them to protect against them spreading unsavioury opinions . I don't agree but at least that arguement has some basis worth serious consideration. Now we want to remove anyone who is associated with the brand who vocies an unsavioury opinion, if they are an employee they are to be fired and if they are an associate or partner then they are to be shuned.

We also see the slippage of the cause for offense, Imus had to call a black Woman a nappy headed ho and all Williams had to do was mention Obama and Hitler in the same sentance. If we don't rebell against this bs before long we will get fired for putting the wrong canditates sign in the front yard. We might be there now....what would happen if you put a David Duke sign up in 2011.

What we see with Williams is citizen abuse...and I cannot help to notice that government shows no interest in being willing to protect our right to participate in what is alleged to be our democracy.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 12:24 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

I wasn't dismayed so much by the Hitler reference as I was by Williams describing Obama and Boehner as enemies.

That's ignorant and unhelpful.

I disagree with almost everything the GOP stands for, but they are not my enemies.

Joe(They are fellow Americans)Nation

Way to avoid the question that sits on the table.....should employers be allowed to fire people for their ignorant and unhelpful personal political opinions??
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 12:47 pm
sooooo.

if we start with the premise that HW the 3rd called Obama, Hitler, then we must agree that he called Boehner, Netenyahu

why isn't everyone upset that he compared the Speaker to a scumbag terrorist leader
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 01:06 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
why isn't everyone upset that he compared the Speaker to a scumbag terrorist leader


They can all go in the same pot. If they walk like ducks, duck soup.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 01:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
What we see with Williams is citizen abuse...and I cannot help to notice that government shows no interest [What interest shoud it SHOW??]
in being willing to protect our right to participate in what is alleged to be our democracy.
Is there a reason that if we dislike someone 's filosofy,
we STILL must associate with him, in or out of contractual relationships??

Shoud 1 party to the contract
NOT be able to end it and walk away?????

If so, by what right??





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 01:24 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
actually after hearing the audio, the FOX dudes threw him under the bus


You mean the FOX dudes from Fox and Friends?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 01:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Except for the 13,900,000 mentions that pop up when you Google George W. Bush and Hitler.


Now there is an easy and apt comparison to make.

Quote:
From Hitler to Bush

The editor of La República del Uruguay replies to the US ambassador, Martin Silverstein, ( Uruguay ) who had complained about the comparisons the newspaper had drawn between Hitler and Bush.

by Dr. Federico Fasano Mertens

March 30th, 2003 "La República del Uruguay" A few days ago I received a letter from Martin Silverstein, the US ambassador to Uruguay, accusing La República, a publication which I am honoured to edit, of "totally lacking any sense of journalistic integrity" by comparing George Bush, the president of his country, to Adolf Hitler, the chancellor of the Third Reich.

I have been unable to reply to him any sooner because the act of piracy which his country has committed, attacking a defenceless and close to disarmed country with the most formidable killing machine that the history of the world has ever known, has forced me to devote more than the usual amount of time to publishing special editions on the slaughter. I also found myself taken up by trying to convict US-trained uniformed torturers who had slandered me, a task which I have only recently been able to bring to completion.

Not long ago, when the ambassador visited me in my office, I remember saying to my colleagues that he was the most intelligent, perceptive and witty American ambassador I had ever met. "At last," I said, "a representative from the empire with whom you can exchange ideas, without being poisoned by the same tired, old clichés whenever you attend a meeting."

Unfortunately for the ambassador, however, his wisdom has not spared him the misfortune of having to represent the forty-third president of his nation, George Bush Jr.: a paranoid fanatic intoxicated by messianic passions and dimmer than a slug. A man drunk with power, as he was drunk with alcohol before—and legally condemned for it on 4 September 1976, for driving drunk at full speed. Admonished, too, by none other than the evangelist Billy Graham who told him, "Who are you, to think yourself God?". A militant for the Christian Right, the Texan, Southern Christian right that is. A racist in love with the death sentence, especially when it comes to African-Americans. All in all, the worst US president for over a century, the man who will unleash the greatest tragedies on his own people. The opposite of Homo Sapiens, the incarnation of Homo Demens.

And a misogynist, to boot, like any good racist. No one could forget the public humiliations he has put Laura Bush through. You can well imagine Laura Bush's embarrassment on hearing her husband's reply when asked by the press why she wasn't accompanying him on that day, "it's been raining and she's had to sweep the driveway to our Crawford ranch, we're expecting Jiang Zemin, the president of China, tomorrow".

His compatriot, the aged writer Kurt Vonnegut did not hesitate in calling him "the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'état leader imaginable".

But let's get to the heart of the matter. Let's leave the US ambassador with his sad misfortune of having to defend the most delirious resident the White House has ever known, and me with the honour of trying this man armed only with words.

The matter at hand is the comparison between Adolf Hitler and George Bush.

Read on at,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6481.htm
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 02:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
What we see with Williams is citizen abuse...and I cannot help to notice that government shows no interest [What interest shoud it SHOW??]
in being willing to protect our right to participate in what is alleged to be our democracy.
Is there a reason that if we dislike someone 's filosofy,
we STILL must associate with him, in or out of contractual relationships??

Shoud 1 party to the contract
NOT be able to end it and walk away?????

If so, by what right??





David

Because I believe in inclusive society I don't want employers/schools/homeowner association to be allowed to ask such question as "are you a REPUB?" or " do you support gay marrige" as my views on such matters have nothing to do with my ability to do the job/learning abiliy/neighborliness...... this is the standard, is the justification for protecting gender, sexual orientation , and racial rights, yes?? How are my democratic citizen rights less important and less worthy of protection that is my right to not get fired if I am a fag? I am not in favor of the nanny state but damn, if the state is going to try to be a nanny it needs to show some ability to prioritize what needs babysitting.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 03:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
What we see with Williams is citizen abuse...and I cannot help to notice that government shows no interest [What interest shoud it SHOW??]
in being willing to protect our right to participate in what is alleged to be our democracy.
Is there a reason that if we dislike someone 's filosofy,
we STILL must associate with him, in or out of contractual relationships??

Shoud 1 party to the contract
NOT be able to end it and walk away?????

If so, by what right??





David
hawkeye10 wrote:
Because I believe in inclusive society I don't want employers/schools/homeowner association to be allowed to ask such question as "are you a REPUB?" or " do you support gay marrige" as my views on such matters have nothing to do with my ability to do the job/learning abiliy/neighborliness...... this is the standard, is the justification for protecting gender, sexual orientation , and racial rights, yes??
Some of that has been applied.
It sodomizes the First Amendment.

hawkeye10 wrote:
How are my democratic citizen rights less important and less worthy of protection that is my right to not get fired if I am a fag?
It is purely ARBITRARY
resulting from the enactments of statutes; twisted, liberal statutes.


hawkeye10 wrote:
I am not in favor of the nanny state but damn, if the state is going to try to be a nanny it needs to show some ability to prioritize
what needs babysitting.
R u sure that such a ranking
will agree with your priorities??





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 04:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
R u sure that such a ranking
will agree with your priorities??
If the American government does not place at the top of the heap the priority to maintain a healthy fully functioning democracy then we have bigger problems than I thought. Protecting the citizens right to participate in his democracy MUST BE the number one priority after protecting us from invasion.

Those of us who pay attention know damn well that our democracy is weak largely because the government has not been doing its job to make sure than democracy is protected, but up to now the agents and leaders of the government have at least claimed that the rights of the citizens are sacrosanct. My point is that it is time to stop turning a blind eye to the government object refusal to do its primary duties, and when Obama takes outrageous positions against the American citizens at this point we absolutely must call him on his abuse.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 05:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the government object refusal to do its primary duties



the governments abject refusal to do its primary duties

If I was not clear: the process must work for the process to be able to produce the desired result. Maintaining the functionality of the democratic process and the legitimacy of the government MUST BE a higher priority than anything else the government does except protecting us from invasion. We have become " the ends justify the means" people, we are always looking for a short cut to the results that we want, to the point that we neglect to protect the democratic process. At the end of the day this is what the take back America people are upset about, both in the Tea Party and in the occupy WallStreet camps, that our Democacy no longer works. The leaders fiddle as Rome burns, our leaders are lost and they have lost us.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 05:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
R u sure that such a ranking
will agree with your priorities??
If the American government does not place at the top of the heap the priority to maintain a healthy fully functioning democracy then we have bigger problems than I thought. Protecting the citizens right to participate in his democracy MUST BE the number one priority after protecting us from invasion.

Those of us who pay attention know damn well that our democracy is weak largely because the government has not been doing its job to make sure than democracy is protected, but up to now the agents and leaders of the government have at least claimed that the rights of the citizens are sacrosanct.
Like the citizen's right to bear arms in the streets of America??????
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2011 06:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Like the citizen's right to bear arms in the streets of America


I hate hate hate that we have so many guns and so few restrictions on their use, but the Constitution is sacrosanct. Until and unless my side can get passed a Constitutional amendment to restrict guns then Americans are free to own and use guns. An even better example of where unconstitutional short cuts get us is our bankrupt policy on tobacco, where we are attempting to functionally outlaw tobacco use over many years putting to use the frog in the hot water trick without actually outlawing tobacco because the government wants to do what it wants to do even though it could never get what it wants to do past the people if it had to do it above board and honestly.

This folks is how a government squanders its legitimacy. Forming a partnership with the Feminists on sex law and letting them drive their agenda to oppress men though sex law with very little government objection is another egregious example of federal government misbehavior.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Take it All - Discussion by McGentrix
Cancelled - Discussion by Brandon9000
John Stewart meets Bill O'Reilly - Discussion by Thomas
BEFORE WE HAD T.V. - Discussion by edgarblythe
What TV shows do you watch? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Orange is the New Black - Discussion by tsarstepan
Odd Premier: Under the Dome - Discussion by edgarblythe
Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"? - Discussion by firefly
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.57 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:48:07