Danny Glover fired by MCI because of his political stance.

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sandorski


What exactly is this document "supporting Castro" that he signed? In what context did he compare US soldiers to terrorists? Does anyone actually care what he said? Are these 2 charges just spins on rather innocuos statements?

Do a google for "danny glover" +cuba

The web is full of this stuff.

 

[MrChicken]

Rush did Pizza Hut ads?

That is a scandal, since he isn an Atkinite now....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I went looking for all those
nasty things he said and did - found them only from the Scar's press machine.
If they are there that blatently, not authored by Scar's people show me, I got tired of looking.

You must not have looked very hard. Try google. Hell, I typed in "danny glover" +cuba and got a ton of hits.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: MrChicken
Rush did Pizza Hut ads?

That is a scandal, since he isn an Atkinite now....

http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1995/1995ALQ.html

Ya he was over 320 at the time Now I hear is hovering around 200.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski
Well, in isolation this wouldn't be such a huge issue, but if you add in the Dixie Chicks, the Boss, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and others into the mix you begin to see something different. That being a campaign to silence opposition. At the least this is McCarthyism 2, at the worst Krystal Nacht non-violent style. It is a systemic labeling then ruining of those who dare speak opposition, a dangerous precedent.

OH BS. This is not government sponsered in any way. In this country there is the freedom of association. You do not have to associate with, like, buy the product of, or support the careers of those you do not agree with.

Tell me, if you found out your local gas station was a front for the KKK, would you continue doing business there? No? FASCIST! McCARTHYITE!

See how that works?

Who sponsors it is immaterial, if the end result is the same. Danny Glover's personal statements/beliefs(still no confirmation on what those are) is not anywhere near similar to "a front" for some some quasi criminal organization.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski
Well, in isolation this wouldn't be such a huge issue, but if you add in the Dixie Chicks, the Boss, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and others into the mix you begin to see something different. That being a campaign to silence opposition. At the least this is McCarthyism 2, at the worst Krystal Nacht non-violent style. It is a systemic labeling then ruining of those who dare speak opposition, a dangerous precedent.

OH BS. This is not government sponsered in any way. In this country there is the freedom of association. You do not have to associate with, like, buy the product of, or support the careers of those you do not agree with.

Tell me, if you found out your local gas station was a front for the KKK, would you continue doing business there? No? FASCIST! McCARTHYITE!

See how that works?

Who sponsors it is immaterial, if the end result is the same. Danny Glover's personal statements/beliefs(still no confirmation on what those are) is not anywhere near similar to "a front" for some some quasi criminal organization.

It is NOT immaterial - just because any idiot (in this case, Danny Glover) has the right to express his views does not mean any of us are compelled to pay attention. MCI is in the business of making money, not political statements, and when Mr. Glover spouts off the sort of BS which would offend huge numbers of the same people MCI hopes will give MCI money, they have every right to send that clown packing. Danny Glover still has every right to stand on the street corner and spout nonsense - his rights have in no way been infringed.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: classy
This is a tough one. While Glover sounded like a complete fool, I don't think you can go around and fire people for their personal beliefs, unless those beliefs could lead to physical harm or something.

Wrong. Glover was acting as a spokesperson for a company. They relied on his popularity to advertise their product. By voicing an opinion that polarized the public, he put MCI's image at stake. His beliefs and the way he voiced them could have caused (and probably did cause) MCI very real financial harm. If you're making my company lose business, you better believe I can fire you.

I think the the proper thing that should have been done was not to renew his contract or buy it out and part ways, but firing him was wrong and he'll probably win a court case. While he was again I believe wrong in what he said you can't fire him because of it.

Unless he had a contract with them that had a severance clause in it, they can fire him at any time.

Nowhere was he a spoke person for them. WTF are you talking about. He made commercials for them thats it. And most actors sign contracts to be used in commercials for a company. If thats the case you should never see anyone do commericals cause guranteed they have or will say something not everyone agrees with. As far as polarizing the country is a bunch of bs. This country was 50/50 in favor or against this war. 75% of the world was openly against it as well. So his comments were no more dumb or stupid than all the others. I do think he went to far with some things, but considering the circumstances I can understand it although I don't agree with it. You need to as always get your facts straight. Oops I forgot facts don't mean much to you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The main point that some aren't getting = is that someone is paying big bucks to put him on the air,
salaries, showtime, etc., and he's shilling to that right wing 10% - 20 % that identify with his
conservative views and positions - and good for them, they get what they deserve.

What breaks the balance line is when he calls for that very vocal minority - that same 10% -20% population to
lobby in force - by his political command, and demand the removal of another American Citizen by pressuring
the company that pays him with threats, by bringing up the Patriot issue, and turning a high dollar press
core loose on somone to deface thier image because their views did not agree with the message.

Breaks a balance? Ha!
10-20% can't have their voice heard? Better tell Jesse Jackass, and Al Sharptongue. How many things have they done by wielding their "minority" political machine?

The point is that anyone who gathers a "following" can an will gain "political" type power. Look at the ACLU, AARP, and others. Guess we'd better silence them too if you think that this guy on MSNBC shouldn't be able to express his views on HIS show.

I'm suprised by some of those who share my viewpoint in this thread - usually some of them don't agree with me But as they and others have said: It is/was well within MCI's rights to dispose of a spokesman that eagerly spouts things that could "tarnish" the companies image and potentially lose them customers/money.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: classy

Nowhere was he a spoke person for them. WTF are you talking about. He made commercials for them thats it. And most actors sign contracts to be used in commercials for a company. If thats the case you should never see anyone do commericals cause guranteed they have or will say something not everyone agrees with. As far as polarizing the country is a bunch of bs. This country was 50/50 in favor or against this war. 75% of the world was openly against it as well. So his comments were no more dumb or stupid than all the others. I do think he went to far with some things, but considering the circumstances I can understand it although I don't agree with it. You need to as always get your facts straight. Oops I forgot facts don't mean much to you.

WTF are you smoking? "Celebrity" actors in commercials aren't spokespersons? WTF?

Oh and this country wasn't split 50/50 - that was the election of 2000

CkG

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: classy

Nowhere was he a spoke person for them. WTF are you talking about. He made commercials for them thats it.

Wow. Just . . . wow.

 

[classy]

Woah lets get this clarified. When him or anyone else does a commercial he is a spokes person for them as far as the product is concerned. But he doesn't speak on behalf of that company concerning the companys stance on a certain issue. The issue here is whether or not his personal opinion justifies him to be fired. I don't know for sure but I lean toward the side I don't think so. I wouldn't let him make anymore commercials and I certainly would do the "pr" thing where I state that Mr. Glover's views is not a reflection of MCI's views. This happens all time. It is just maginified mainly because of who he is. Again I don't agree with anything he said, but I don't think you start firing people because they speak their mind, no matter how senseless it may be.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: tinomen
"extreme political views"??? (quoted from the article) little help here?
apparently, mr. conservative thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with
his political/social ideas should be labeled as having "extreme political
views".
i believe that some of these so-called news shows are being driven at
least partially by either the administration or american intelligence to try
to herd people into a way of thinking.....if not, they are attempts at
outright brainwashing...
"fair and balanced"? my ass.

First off, his views ARE extreme. That's a pretty much non-debatable fact. The vast majority of americans do not believe gulf war soldiers are terrorists, do not believe bush is racist, do not support fidel castro, do not believe the US is evil. When placed in the context of the range of views americans have...his views are certainly extreme.

Second, lay off the crack pipe.

Third, "fair and balanced" is the fox news motto, not MSNBC.

Fourth, any motto of said sort refers to the news coverage and does not / should not apply to opininated commentary shows.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Why don't liberals, and those opposed to Danny Glover's firing, break out thier pen and paper and let MCI know thier opinion.... you know
excercise your freedom of speach just like those who wrote MCI complaining about Glover did.

Those offended by Glover have every right to make thier opinion known to MCI.
MCI has every right to fire a spokesperson they feel sheds negative light on thier company.
You have every right to write MCI and demand they rehire Glover.
You have every right to cancel your MCI accounts because of this.
Danny Glover has every right to keep saying what he wants to say.
MCI has every right to hire/fire their spokesmen for whatever reasons they choose.

PS: There are MANY folks who want to silence Rush Limbaugh through his sponsors.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/rushbusted.html
http://lu9.envy.nu/ - according to a blurb on this site the boycott against Rush Limbaugh's sponsors was the idea of the folks on DemocraticUnderground.com. I wonder thier feelings on the Glover/MCI issue?

BTW, before anyone accuses me of defending Limbaugh, I think he and his show are garbage.

I support the right of those who boycotted MCI due to Glover AND I support the right of those boycotting Limbaugh's sponsors.

 

[Lucky]

What breaks the balance line is when he calls for that very vocal minority - that same 10% -20% population to
lobby in force - by his political command, and demand the removal of another American Citizen by pressuring
the company that pays him with threats, by bringing up the Patriot issue, and turning a high dollar press
core loose on somone to deface thier image because their views did not agree with the message.

Yet the liberals are perfectly OK with Martha Burk and NOW threatening boycotts of companies who's CEO's are members of Augusta national. Perfectly OK with calling for their firing and defaming them on national TV.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: sandorski
Well, in isolation this wouldn't be such a huge issue, but if you add in the Dixie Chicks, the Boss, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and others into the mix you begin to see something different. That being a campaign to silence opposition. At the least this is McCarthyism 2, at the worst Krystal Nacht non-violent style. It is a systemic labeling then ruining of those who dare speak opposition, a dangerous precedent.

OH BS. This is not government sponsered in any way. In this country there is the freedom of association. You do not have to associate with, like, buy the product of, or support the careers of those you do not agree with.

Tell me, if you found out your local gas station was a front for the KKK, would you continue doing business there? No? FASCIST! McCARTHYITE!

See how that works?

Who sponsors it is immaterial, if the end result is the same. Danny Glover's personal statements/beliefs(still no confirmation on what those are) is not anywhere near similar to "a front" for some some quasi criminal organization.

It is NOT immaterial - just because any idiot (in this case, Danny Glover) has the right to express his views does not mean any of us are compelled to pay attention. MCI is in the business of making money, not political statements, and when Mr. Glover spouts off the sort of BS which would offend huge numbers of the same people MCI hopes will give MCI money, they have every right to send that clown packing. Danny Glover still has every right to stand on the street corner and spout nonsense - his rights have in no way been infringed.

It is[/] immaterial. No one has to listen to Danny Glover, that's not really the problem here. The problem is in campaigning to have him punished for what he says or has said.

As for MCI/Glover: Did he espouse his views on the MCI dime? Is he disseminating his personal views in MCI commercials?

Hell, how many of the idiots involved in this campaign actually knew what Glover said before they were recruited? These are not irate customers, these are hoodlums riled up by an ass who has an agenda against his precious icon(s).

 

[Lucky]

Hell, how many of the idiots involved in this campaign actually knew what Glover said before they were recruited?

Now THAT is immaterial. If john rocker had been a racist for years but I was not aware of it, does that mean that I am not entitled to be outrage, or have that outrage heard, just because I was told about it instead of finding out that on my own?

These are not irate customers, these are hoodlums riled up by an ass who has an agenda against his precious icon(s).

Obviously irate enough to spend the time neccesary to contact MCI. Unlike many who would endlessly bitch about scarborough but would be too goddammed lazy to tell MSNBC about it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Hell, how many of the idiots involved in this campaign actually knew what Glover said before they were recruited?

Now THAT is immaterial. If john rocker had been a racist for years but I was not aware of it, does that mean that I am not entitled to be outrage, or have that outrage heard, just because I was told about it instead of finding out that on my own?

These are not irate customers, these are hoodlums riled up by an ass who has an agenda against his precious icon(s).

Obviously irate enough to spend the time neccesary to contact MCI. Unlike many who would endlessly bitch about scarborough but would be too goddammed lazy to tell MSNBC about it.

I've been trying to find what Glover said, so far I've found a lot of jinoistic BS that doesn't actually quote him. Well except when he praised Cuban and Latino Cinema as refreshing and condemned Hollywood as uninspired. I've tried to find a transcript of the letter he signed, nada so far, just a lot of jingoist BS link there as well. My question is this: Does anyone know what Glover even said? What the letter he signed even said? Is everyone just taking the jingoistic BS as the truth?

 

[Lucky]

I've been trying to find what Glover said, so far I've found a lot of jinoistic BS that doesn't actually quote him. Well except when he praised Cuban and Latino Cinema as refreshing and condemned Hollywood as uninspired. I've tried to find a transcript of the letter he signed, nada so far, just a lot of jingoist BS link there as well. My question is this: Does anyone know what Glover even said? What the letter he signed even said? Is everyone just taking the jingoistic BS as the truth?

Why is is so hard for you to use google? "danny glover" cuba petition. Seriously, its REALLY not that hard.

The first link to come up


Many people know Danny Glover as the genial salesman on evening television pushing MCI long distance telephone services. It's less well known that Mr. Glover is a big fan of Fidel Castro. To prove it, he and Harry Belafonte and another 160 or so ''artists and intellectuals'' have just signed a declaration of support for the Cuban regime.

Published on May 1 in Cuba's government newspaper, Granma, the statement says: ''Today there is a tough campaign against a Latin American nation. The harassment of Cuba could serve as an excuse for an invasion.'' The document supported Fidel's May Day warning to the Cuban people against President Bush's ''Nazi'' aggression.

the wall street journal is lying when it says this was published? like that would not be able to be checked? Ok, how about the NYT? Take your pick, conservative or liberal, they both say the same thing.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: classy
This is a tough one. While Glover sounded like a complete fool, I don't think you can go around and fire people for their personal beliefs, unless those beliefs could lead to physical harm or something.

Wrong. Glover was acting as a spokesperson for a company. They relied on his popularity to advertise their product. By voicing an opinion that polarized the public, he put MCI's image at stake. His beliefs and the way he voiced them could have caused (and probably did cause) MCI very real financial harm. If you're making my company lose business, you better believe I can fire you.

I think the the proper thing that should have been done was not to renew his contract or buy it out and part ways, but firing him was wrong and he'll probably win a court case. While he was again I believe wrong in what he said you can't fire him because of it.

Unless he had a contract with them that had a severance clause in it, they can fire him at any time.

Nowhere was he a spoke person for them. WTF are you talking about. He made commercials for them thats it. And most actors sign contracts to be used in commercials for a company. If thats the case you should never see anyone do commericals cause guranteed they have or will say something not everyone agrees with. As far as polarizing the country is a bunch of bs. This country was 50/50 in favor or against this war. 75% of the world was openly against it as well. So his comments were no more dumb or stupid than all the others. I do think he went to far with some things, but considering the circumstances I can understand it although I don't agree with it. You need to as always get your facts straight. Oops I forgot facts don't mean much to you.

Yes, Glover was a spokesperson for MCI. No, this country was not 50/50 on the war. No, you don't understand english. Yes, you are a moron.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Well went back in and checked for more flack with the Danny Glover & Cuba spin,
found more of the Neo-Con Right Anti-Liberal and Pro Bush slanted journalism looking
to discredit people and policies that were outside the conservative mindset.
Still can't find any substance as to what really was said or written, just the same old
He-said type attacks without substance that questions their alliegance without
substance. What is called "Hate Radio - it may NOT be true, but it might be"

I still think it is wrong to launch character attacks for political gain and leverage.

Anyone take the time yet to investigate Joe Scarbourogh integrity?
Or is he above reproach & off limits because he's a Republican shill ?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Well, in isolation this wouldn't be such a huge issue, but if you add in the Dixie Chicks, the Boss, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, and others into the mix you begin to see something different. That being a campaign to silence opposition.

You're seeing the other side use the same tactics against you and you don't like it.

Tough sh*t.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: sandorskiThese are not irate customers, these are hoodlums riled up by an ass who has an agenda against his precious icon(s).

I was thinking the same thing during the Masters. Funny how that works, eh?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: classy
This is a tough one. While Glover sounded like a complete fool, I don't think you can go around and fire people for their personal beliefs, unless those beliefs could lead to physical harm or something.

Wrong. Glover was acting as a spokesperson for a company. They relied on his popularity to advertise their product. By voicing an opinion that polarized the public, he put MCI's image at stake. His beliefs and the way he voiced them could have caused (and probably did cause) MCI very real financial harm. If you're making my company lose business, you better believe I can fire you.

I think the the proper thing that should have been done was not to renew his contract or buy it out and part ways, but firing him was wrong and he'll probably win a court case. While he was again I believe wrong in what he said you can't fire him because of it.

Unless he had a contract with them that had a severance clause in it, they can fire him at any time.

Nowhere was he a spoke person for them. WTF are you talking about. He made commercials for them thats it. And most actors sign contracts to be used in commercials for a company. If thats the case you should never see anyone do commericals cause guranteed they have or will say something not everyone agrees with. As far as polarizing the country is a bunch of bs. This country was 50/50 in favor or against this war. 75% of the world was openly against it as well. So his comments were no more dumb or stupid than all the others. I do think he went to far with some things, but considering the circumstances I can understand it although I don't agree with it. You need to as always get your facts straight. Oops I forgot facts don't mean much to you.

Yes, Glover was a spokesperson for MCI. No, this country was not 50/50 on the war. No, you don't understand english. Yes, you are a moron.

I find you so funny. Since you can't post anything intelligent you resort to insults. LOL

Febuary 9, 2003 quote from Yahoo on Newsweek poll

Two-thirds in the CBS poll said U.N. inspectors should be given more time.

According to the Newsweek poll, support for an attack is at 85 percent if this country has the support of major allies and the United Nations; it's at 50 percent if this country acts only with the aid of one or two allies; and support falls to 37 percent if the United States acts alone.

This is just one many polls that came out just like that. Very mixed on whether or not we should have went war depending on the circumstances. Here's a quote from former President Carter

"Despite marshaling powerful armed forces in the Persian Gulf region and a virtual declaration of war in the State of the Union message, our government has not made a case for a pre-emptive military strike against Iraq," he said in a written statement released by the Carter Center in Atlanta.

A lot of people were against the war. Some wanted war but also wanted more evidence first. So to make this out that Glover in some way was polarizing the public is just assinine. The public was very polarized and now there is still concern for the lack of anything being found to justify our "original intentions" for war. Also I did clarify the spokes person thing as well. So in hindsight just as usual your just too f'in stupid to read or maybe you don't understand the english language. Your name is Millennium which menas a 1000 years. A more apporiate name for you should be "millisecond", oh little one of small knowledge. LOL Get a life you creep.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Medellon
BS, if people want to shoot their mouth off then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

The company hired Danny Glover to sell a product. If there is any negativity surrounding him at all it can have an effect on sales. So the company fired him. If Danny glover wants the paycheck, he should keep his trap shut.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: classy

Febuary 9, 2003 quote from Yahoo on Newsweek poll

Two-thirds in the CBS poll said U.N. inspectors should be given more time.

According to the Newsweek poll, support for an attack is at 85 percent if this country has the support of major allies and the United Nations; it's at 50 percent if this country acts only with the aid of one or two allies; and support falls to 37 percent if the United States acts alone.
This is just one many polls that came out just like that.

Buahaha - Febuary? Had to go digging that far back? How about some polls from the time we actually went to war That'll show you who actually supports it. Polls that are "If...would you" are rather lame since people like to say one thing but then when the Shiz hits the fan - they "change their mind"

CkG