What's new
By:

GD's next crap thread: Free speach or blatant attempt to discredit gays?

UGLI baby said:
A&E needs the Robertson's WAAAY more than the Robertson's need A&E. This isn't a situation where the people in the show were nobodies before the show started.

The Robertson's weren't main stream famous, but they were very rich and icons in the hunting industry before Duck Dynasty was ever a thing.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
Click to expand...

Very true. Since then they have branched out. They now have clothing and cookbooks for example. Even a cell phone app.
 
One Brow said:
I'm sure both you and GameFace are correct here. I've never seen the show.
Click to expand...

It is entertaining and i am sure you would find parts of it amusing.

I am personally am supportive of the way that they end every show. Around the dinner table as a family. Pat Robertson says a prayer and as they start eating a monologue from Willie plays with a uplifting message.
 
One Brow said:
Unless one of the posters here is an A&E executive, none of us really know the answer to what it means to them profit-wise.

Are you asking in a moral sense? Do you think A&E committed some sort of moral breach?
Click to expand...

The task of this thread was not go through charts and graphs and ask if it makes sense financially. Analysis is a professional task; not something you should have to do on a message board.

It was a simple question. Do you think that A&E should have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to someone who was asking him. One which you answered already, a resounding "Yes."

That's when you tried to say that GQ magazine was the same forum as Duck Dynasty, which it isn't. I probably should have told you that you were being dumb right there, but I didn't. And that's my bad.

GQ magazine is not even the same company as A&E. Phil's comments reflect back to Duck Dynasty(a TV series), yes. It's the largest reason for being interviewed. But it's not on A&E TV, now is it? A&E could more easily just put up a stern(or sterner) warning. Which was exactly what GameFace was talking about.

Morally.. sure. Think of it this way: to a degree, A&E is Phil's boss. Mind you, he's already rich.. so he doesn't really need the job in the first place. How would you like it if your boss suspended you for doing something he was paying you to do?
 
ElRoach0 said:
Morally.. sure. Think of it this way: to a degree, A&E is Phil's boss. Mind you, he's already rich.. so he doesn't really need the job in the first place. How would you like it if your boss suspended you for doing something he was paying you to do?
Click to expand...

I don't think A&E was paying the man to offer up opinions on gay men.

If I was trying to do my job, and I made a decision that caused my boss to think I would lose the company money, I wouldn't be surprised at being fired, and I wouldn't think the company made a moral error in so doing.

That the interview is not running on A&E TV has no effect on this calculus I can determine, and your claim that being a separate company means they are a separate forum is artificial. Robertson beig interviewed at GQ is there as a member of his show.
 
ElRoach0 said:
The task of this thread was not go through charts and graphs and ask if it makes sense financially. Analysis is a professional task; not something you should have to do on a message board.

It was a simple question. Do you think that A&E should have suspended this man for voicing his beliefs to someone who was asking him. One which you answered already, a resounding "Yes."

That's when you tried to say that GQ magazine was the same forum as Duck Dynasty, which it isn't. I probably should have told you that you were being dumb right there, but I didn't. And that's my bad.

GQ magazine is not even the same company as A&E. Phil's comments reflect back to Duck Dynasty(a TV series), yes. It's the largest reason for being interviewed. But it's not on A&E TV, now is it? A&E could more easily just put up a stern(or sterner) warning. Which was exactly what GameFace was talking about.

Morally.. sure. Think of it this way: to a degree, A&E is Phil's boss. Mind you, he's already rich.. so he doesn't really need the job in the first place. How would you like it if your boss suspended you for doing something he was paying you to do?
Click to expand...

I do not think they should have but I think they have the right to. It takes their business in a direction they do not want to go and as such they have the right to part ways.
 
One Brow said:
I don't think A&E was paying the man to offer up opinions on gay men.

If I was trying to do my job, and I made a decision that caused my boss to think I would lose the company money, I wouldn't be surprised at being fired, and I wouldn't think the company made a moral error in so doing.

That the interview is not running on A&E TV has no effect on this calculus I can determine, and your claim that being a separate company means they are a separate forum is artificial. Robertson beig interviewed at GQ is there as a member of his show.
Click to expand...

True but it was also on his own time with an entity other than A&E and he has every right to hold his own personal opinions. They do not own him.
 
The stupidest thing of all is that it's okay to put Honey Boo-Boo on TV and not this guy.

tumblr_mezttqujkX1rao0jp.gif
 
UGLI baby said:
A&E needs the Robertson's WAAAY more than the Robertson's need A&E. This isn't a situation where the people in the show were nobodies before the show started.

The Robertson's weren't main stream famous, but they were very rich and icons in the hunting industry before Duck Dynasty was ever a thing.

dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
Click to expand...


A&E was a successful cable network before the Robertsons and will be after the Robertsons. Sure, Duck Dynasty is their cash cow right now but if it were to go away, they would be replaced with another show that would cost A&E pennies on the dollar compared to what it cost them to pay the Robertson clan. Not to mention how much they could make if they sold the rights to another network. Neither party really "needs" the other at this point.
 
Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequences of speaking.
 
PearlWatson said:
Always remember the homosexual tyrants will sodomize you if you call sodomy a sin.
Click to expand...

And what if someone...you know not me, but someone, probably EJ Wells...is just fine with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top