'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks

[Pogo]

I can't figure out if you are retarded or just plain ignorant. The median age men and women are when they get married has gone up 5years since Phil got married. It's sage advice because it's true, not because the average age hasn't gone up.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890?2010 | Infoplease.com

None of that has anything to do with my post. I didn't post about anyone's age. I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.

You didn't post about anyone's age? ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets. WOW just WOW

I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is not about age.

There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.

 

[RKMBrown]

None of that has anything to do with my post. I didn't post about anyone's age. I posted about how Phil Robertson appears to view women --- i.e. as pets.

You didn't post about anyone's age? ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets. WOW just WOW

I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is not about age.

There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.

Cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia? You are retarded.

 

[daws101]

you didn't post about anyone's age? Rofl so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your bs lie that you think phil sees women as pets. Wow just wow

i specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is not about age.

There was a second part to what i posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the english language, you probably can't handle it.

cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia? You are retarded.

this one missed it too.

 

[Pogo]

You didn't post about anyone's age? ROFL so you are a lying retard, who can't remember any of your previous posts regarding age, but you do remember your BS lie that you think Phil sees women as pets. WOW just WOW

I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is not about age.

There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.

Cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia? You are retarded.

I see I overestimated your fabled reading comprehension even with the one sentence. You still got the elements backward.

What a maroon.

 

[RKMBrown]

I specifically said at the outset that interpreting the comment as pedophilia is a missed opportunity -- which means it (the opportunity) is not about age.

There was a second part to what I posted at the time, but inasmuch as it would require a second complete sentence in the English language, you probably can't handle it.

Cause if it's about age it must be about pedophilia? You are retarded.

I see I overestimated your fabled reading comprehension even with the one sentence. You still got the elements backward.

What a maroon.

You don't even know what "means" means. What a dumb ass. Can you even explain the difference between missed opportunity and opportunity? Can you even fathom the concept of a non-recursive active voice sentence?

 

[American_Jihad]

Wells Fargo’s sponsorship empowered GLAAD to censor Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson. ​

...

Where does GLAAD get the power to singlehandedly remove the lead character from the most popular network program?

One major source is Wells Fargo's sponsorship of GLAAD.

Wells Fargo’s sponsorship was prominently posted on the GLAAD website during the time that this organization caused A&E to remove Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty.

Wells Fargo’s logo continues to boast support for this organization which continues to disagree with Duck Dynasty.

Wells Fargo, a bank that profits from all walks of life, empowered GLAAD to attack Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty for biblically based beliefs that are shared by millions of Americans.

...

Full Article

 

[Pogo]

Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is. He's under contract with A&E, which does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.

Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.

 

[Katzndogz]

As we have seen, A&E didn't dismiss Phil Robertson and GLAAD was left standing with it's collective dick in their collective hands.

 

[RKMBrown]

Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is. He's under contract with A&E, which does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.

Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.

Who said Phil works for GLADD? God you are dumb.

A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights. See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page

If Phil was black Barrack would have filed charges.

As shown, you haven't figured anything out yet.

 

[daws101]

As we have seen, A&E didn't dismiss Phil Robertson and GLAAD was left standing with it's collective dick in their collective hands.

false! glaad exposed him for what he is and that can't be undone....delusional much?

 

[Pogo]

Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is. He's under contract with A&E, which does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.

Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.

Who said Phil works for GLADD?

American_Jizzhat thinks he does. He posted this:

Where does GLAAD get the power to singlehandedly remove the lead character from the most popular network program?

Obviously if this GLAAD has the power to remove a TV character, then it must be Robertson's employer. That's why I point out that it is not.

Did I go through that too fast?

God you are dumb.

God may be dumb, I dunno. Frank Zappa thinks that might be the case:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTfOB_TBBew"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTfOB_TBBew[/ame]

A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights.

Receiving a lawsuit (being sued) isn't "power". It would be a liability. Don't skim too fast over those English lessons.

Irrelevant anyway, as nobody's civil rights were violated. The Producer exercised a clause in the contract to which both are signatory. That's a simple thing. Even you might grok it if you strain really really hard. But take a breath when you do; remember how Elvis died...

See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page

Again, completely irrelevant. Nobody was hired, fired or anything else based on religion. Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway. Not even close to relevant on any level. If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

I mean... DUH.

If Phil was black Barrack would have filed charges.

Who the fuck is "Barrack"? And what "charges" would he have filed? Against who? For what?

It's a fucking TV show.

As shown, you haven't figured anything out yet.

As shown in this and the other 1152 threads about this ridiculous non-issue, the rest of us figured this shit out a month ago. I understand remedial reading takes time...

 

[daws101]

Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is. He's under contract with A&E, which does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.

Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.

Who said Phil works for GLADD? God you are dumb.

A&E also has the power to receive a civil lawsuit, as well as state and federal criminal charges, against them for violating Phil's civil rights. See discrimination based on religion in employment, at this web site: Civil Rights Division Combating Relgious Discrimination and Protecting Religious Freedom in employment page

If Phil was black Barrack would have filed charges.

As shown, you haven't figured anything out yet.

wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract

A morals clause is a provision within instruments of the contract which curtail, or restrain, or proscribe certain behavior of individuals or party(s) to the contract. A moral clause within contracts used as a means of holding the individual or Party(s) to a certain behavioral standard so as not to bring disrepute, contempt or scandal to other individual or party to the contract and their interests. It attempts to preserve a public and private image of such a party to the contract. In essence one party to the contract is purchasing the other party's good name or reputation. These clauses are most seen in contracts between actors and actresses and their studios, athletes and their organization or proprietors of a product that the athlete(s) may endorse or as a part of a marital settlement. Commonly proscribed activity include the use or abuse of alcohol, the use of illegal drugs or narcotics or illegal or illicit sexual activity.[1]
The impetus for a morals clause in contracts for 'talent,' i.e., artistic performers appears to have been a reaction to the Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle case in 1921. Subsequent to media outcry, Universal Studios decided to add a morals clause to contracts. The text of the 1921 Universal Studios clause read as follows: "The actor (actress) agrees to conduct himself (herself) with due regard to public conventions and morals and agrees that he (she) will not do or commit anything tending to degrade him (her) in society or bring him (her) into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the community or outrage public morals or decency, or tending to the prejudice of the Universal Film Manufacturing Company or the motion picture industry. In the event that the actor (actress) violates any term or provision of this paragraph, then the Universal Film Manufacturing Company has the right to cancel and annul this contract by giving five (5) days’ notice to the actor (actress) of its intention to do so."[2]
The first morals clause for a professional athlete may be a November 11, 1922 contract addendum for Babe Ruth. The clause stated: "It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the regulation above set forth, numbered '2' shall be construed to mean among other things, that the player shall at all times during the term of this contract and throughout the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, and the years 1925 and 1926 if this contract is renewed for such years, refrain and abstain entirely from the use of intoxicating liquors and that he shall not during the training and playing season in each year stay up later than 1 o'clock A.M. on any day without the permission and consent of the Club's manager, and it is understood and agreed that if at any time during the period of this contract, whether in the playing season or not, the player shall indulge in intoxicating liquors or be guilty of any action or misbehavior which may render him unfit to perform the services to be performed by him hereunder, the Club may cancel and terminate this contract and retain as the property of the Club, any sums of money withheld from the player's salary as above provided."[3]
Apparently, Colonel Jake Ruppert (owner of the Yankees) had also hoped to curtail the Babe's notorious womanizing. Ruth is quoted as replying "I'll promise to go easier on drinking and to get to bed earlier, but not for you, fifty thousand dollars, or two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars will I give up women. They're too much fun."[4]
Morals clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

talk out your ass much..

 

[RKMBrown]

Phil Robertson doesn't work for GLAAD, Jizzhat, whatever that is. He's under contract with A&E, which does have the power to do what it wants according to a standard morality clause.

Not sure what time zone you're in but most of us figured this shit out a month ago.

Who said Phil works for GLADD?

American_Jizzhat thinks he does. He posted this:


Obviously if this GLAAD has the power to remove a TV character, then it must be Robertson's employer. That's why I point out that it is not.

Did I go through that too fast?


Receiving a lawsuit (being sued) isn't "power". It would be a liability. Don't skim too fast over those English lessons.

Irrelevant anyway, as nobody's civil rights were violated. The Producer exercised a clause in the contract to which both are signatory. That's a simple thing. Even you might grok it if you strain really really hard. But take a breath when you do; remember how Elvis died...

Again, completely irrelevant. Nobody was hired, fired or anything else based on religion. Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway. Not even close to relevant on any level. If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

I mean... DUH.

Who the fuck is "Barrack"? And what "charges" would he have filed? Against who? For what?

What an ignorant shit head you are.

Power to receive... (power: the ability to do something, for example perform the act of receiving a lawsuit.) Exercising the power to receive a lawsuit carries a risk of liability. What a dumb ass you are, I bet you get shit on your hands when you wipe your ass cause the TP doesn't come with instructions with pictures.

>> American_Jizzhat thinks he does.

So now you read minds too? He said nothing of the kind you ignoramus. His point was clearly to the evident leverage GLADD used to get Phil suspended. You do understand the concept of leverage, don't you?

>> nobody's civil rights were violated

OMFG [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], you are a lying POS water carrier for anti-christian lobbies.

>> Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway...

Link?

>> If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

So you read Phil Robertson's mind too? WOW must be fun being able to read everyone's mind.

>> Who the fuck is "Barrack"?

Your president dumb ass, Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[RKMBrown]

wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract

Did not obstruct? Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL

A&E was involved in setting up the Interview. Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock? ROFL

 

[Pogo]

Who said Phil works for GLADD?

American_Jizzhat thinks he does. He posted this:


Obviously if this GLAAD has the power to remove a TV character, then it must be Robertson's employer. That's why I point out that it is not.

Did I go through that too fast?


Receiving a lawsuit (being sued) isn't "power". It would be a liability. Don't skim too fast over those English lessons.

Irrelevant anyway, as nobody's civil rights were violated. The Producer exercised a clause in the contract to which both are signatory. That's a simple thing. Even you might grok it if you strain really really hard. But take a breath when you do; remember how Elvis died...

Again, completely irrelevant. Nobody was hired, fired or anything else based on religion. Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway. Not even close to relevant on any level. If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

I mean... DUH.

Who the fuck is "Barrack"? And what "charges" would he have filed? Against who? For what?

What an ignorant shit head you are.

Power to receive... (power: the ability to do something, for example perform the act of receiving a lawsuit.) Exercising the power to receive a lawsuit carries a risk of liability. What a dumb ass you are, I bet you get shit on your hands when you wipe your ass cause the TP doesn't come with instructions with pictures.

"Receiving" a lawsuit (again, on Earth we call it "being sued") is a passive occurrence. Doesn't require doing anything. The suing party makes it happen. You don't need "power" to do nothing.

Maybe when your remedial reading gets to the letter P this will make more sense...
probably not.

>> American_Jizzhat thinks he does.

So now you read minds too? He said nothing of the kind you ignoramus.

It's a verbatim quote. Thanks for playin'.

His point was clearly to the evident leverage GLADD used to get Phil suspended.

So now you read minds too? How the fuck do you know what somebody else's point was? Jizzhat is notorious for not having a point, but if he meant to say what your Karnackian mind reading abilities say, then he should have just said that. He didn't.

> nobody's civil rights were violated

OMFG [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], you are a lying POS water carrier for anti-christian lobbies.

That isn't even a point. What you got? Where were anybody's civil rights violated?

Where?

>> Nor is Phil Robertson a statutory employee anyway...

Link?

He's an actor for a specific TV show. That means he's an independent contractor. A&E doesn't hire Phil Robertson to run sound for "Pawn Stars". That would be an employee.

>> If it was, Robertson would have taken the action rather than accepting A&E's conditions.

So you read Phil Robertson's mind too? WOW must be fun being able to read everyone's mind.

Once again, inability to refute sadly noted.

>> Who the fuck is "Barrack"?

Your president dumb ass, Barack Hussein Obama.

You can't spell your own president's name, and that makes me a dumbass...
Again, complete failure to address your own point noted. How does a President "file charges"? What would they be for? Against who?


Here, I'm sure you'll need some of this to explore your answers if you intend to pull them from the same place you got these...

 

[daws101]

wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract

Did not obstruct? Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL

A&E was involved in setting up the Interview. Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock? ROFL

much ado about a nontroversy

 

[RKMBrown]

It's a verbatim quote. Thanks for playin'.

Liar. You changed every element of his statement to mean what you wanted it to mean.

Where were anybody's civil rights violated?

How many times do you have to ask and be given the same answer before it gets into your thick skull?

He's an actor for a specific TV show. That means he's an independent contractor.

Link?

So you read Phil Robertson's mind too? WOW must be fun being able to read everyone's mind.

Who's more apt to know what Phil meant, me, the christian who is defending him, or you the asshole bigot that hates Phil because he's a christian?

You can't spell your own president's name, and that makes me a dumbass...

I'm just so impressed by your infallible spelling skills. Where do I send you your medal?

Again, complete failure to address your own point noted. How does a President "file charges"? What would they be for? Against who?

Dumb ass I already cited this information.

 

[RKMBrown]

wrong! he could only file charges if A&E HAD obstructed him in the work place..they did not.
he did the interview own his own time with GQ magazine.and that violates the morality clause in his contract

Did not obstruct? Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL

A&E was involved in setting up the Interview. Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock? ROFL

much ado about a nontroversy

Agreed.

 

[daws101]

Did not obstruct? Yeah cause barring Phil from his home and business during tapping of the show about his company, is no obstruction whatsoever... ROFL

A&E was involved in setting up the Interview. Own time? You think everyone punches a time clock? ROFL

much ado about a nontroversy

Agreed.

so you agree that you and all the other suckers have been had!?

 

[RKMBrown]

much ado about a nontroversy

Agreed.

so you agree that you and all the other suckers have been had!?

IMO the nontroversy was the attack on Phil by the Gay lobby, that caused A&E to temporarily suspend him.

As to your statement about suckers, I assure you that while I'm not bothered by gay folks, I have no intention of participating in the sucking of ___ that they seem to enjoy.