Slim-Fast trims Whoopi from ads

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: csf
Besides, as was stated, a good counter-example was Limbaugh getting kicked off ESPN for his percieved "racist" comments? Why was there no indignation there? Oh yeah, because it's only a chilling effect when people on your side lose.

Was there an organized liberal protest of ESPN?

Blame the liberals for not organizing.

blame them for not sinking down to the same despicable level? there is nothing to blame in that, i commended them.

 

[NightCrawler]

I don't give a crap besides I never really thought Whoopi was fat. Maybe they should get Michael Moore as the before and the new slimer Rush Limbaugh as the after slimfast diet.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
slimer Rush Limbaugh

Yup, sliming is his business.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: csf

Originally posted by: Todd33
Limbaugh , Savage, etc. say worse things on a daily basis and on public airwaves. Oh ya, they are pro-Bush and policed by the pro-Bush FCC.

But so do the leftists at Air America. You also forget that the Senate voted 99-1 and the House voted 391-22 to increase FCC indecency fines. That means it's a clearly bipartisan effort. Your point?

When? What else were they voting on?

 

[Red Dawn]

Well at least Whoopi doesn't have to feel guilty anymore schilling for a company whose product doesn't really work (it didn't seem to work for Whoopi) and whose main customers are sexually frustrated obese White Women with little or no will power what so ever when it comes to food. BTW, I hear they are going to replace her with Roseanne Barr!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: happyhelper
As usual, you exhibit your volitional blindness.

When is the last time a person lost their job because of a joke they told when they weren't doing their job? People tell crude jokes all the time, but normally the Fat Christian Zealots don't call up the company the joke teller works for and demand that he/she be fired or else they are going to boycott. The opposite of what you say is true - the only reason this happened is because of politics. Anyway, I am definitely not saying there is anything wrong with people using their "boycott power" but I am saying it is either extemely naive or deceptive of you to pretend it's not about politics when it's entirely about politics.

as usual you exhibit your blindness...I know a few and have heard of many who have lost their jobs for questionable comments made while off of the work site, one specific instance I remember were two colleagues were in a bar together with other people from work, one jokingly made a "mother" joke about the other and was fired the week later...

as cad and charrison said this is about the company not the republican regime, whoopi most likely mentioned that just to get some airtime....when it comes to celebs freedom of speech is a tricky thing as they have so much influence and airtime....look at the dixie chicks...sure they can say what they want but also the people have the right to boycott their records if they so please.

 

[Gravity]

Free speech always has consequences. We need to continue to fight for it to remain free. The consequences are more market related IMO.

It would be different if she were a factory worker and then got fired over something she said. She's not, she didn't.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: bozack
I know a few and have heard of many who have lost their jobs for questionable comments made while off of the work site, one specific instance I remember were two colleagues were in a bar together with other people from work, one jokingly made a "mother" joke about the other and was fired the week later....

OK, so you are sayin that Fat Christian Zealots that didn't even hear the joke and didn't even know the people involved got somebody fired because they found out someone made a "mother" joke? I don't believe you.

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: bozackas cad and charrison said this is about the company not the republican regime, whoopi most likely mentioned that just to get some airtime....when it comes to celebs freedom of speech is a tricky thing as they have so much influence and airtime....look at the dixie chicks...sure they can say what they want but also the people have the right to boycott their records if they so please.

So you are on the same page as those other retards and trying to say those Fat Christian Zealots didn't threaten to boycott Slim-Fast for political reasons? These same Fat Christian Zealots call all kinds of companies threatening to boycott every time a spokesperson for a company tells a dirty joke? It must happen so much they never even bother to mention it in the news, right assmunch?

 

[Red Dawn]

In all honesty Whoopi was much as a Spokesperson for Slimfast. You'd think that they would have someone who would be proof that the crap product worked.

 

[jackschmittusa]

happyhelper

So you are on the same page as those other retards and trying to say those Fat Christian Zealots didn't threaten to boycott Slim-Fast for political reasons? These same Fat Christian Zealots call all kinds of companies threatening to boycott every time a spokesperson for a company tells a dirty joke? It must happen so much they never even bother to mention it in the news, right assmunch?

I think you miss the whole point. It makes absolutely no difference why they threatened to boycott. As long as they can present the company with an acceptable reason (it wouldn't have worked if they had complained that she was black for example), the company is free to dump her.

She was free to say what she wanted. The people who complained were free to do so. The company obviously had a contract clause that made them free to fire her.

I reiterate, I think what these people did was stupid, but no freedoms were abridged. The only aspect of this whole thing worth considering is whether you agree with what these people did or not. This is much ado about nothing.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
happyhelper

So you are on the same page as those other retards and trying to say those Fat Christian Zealots didn't threaten to boycott Slim-Fast for political reasons? These same Fat Christian Zealots call all kinds of companies threatening to boycott every time a spokesperson for a company tells a dirty joke? It must happen so much they never even bother to mention it in the news, right assmunch?

I think you miss the whole point. It makes absolutely no difference why they threatened to boycott. As long as they can present the company with an acceptable reason (it wouldn't have worked if they had complained that she was black for example), the company is free to dump her.

She was free to say what she wanted. The people who complained were free to do so. The company obviously had a contract clause that made them free to fire her.

I reiterate, I think what these people did was stupid, but no freedoms were abridged. The only aspect of this whole thing worth considering is whether you agree with what these people did or not. This is much ado about nothing.

True, especially when you are selling Snakeoil you have to keep all the customers you possibly can!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: happyhelper
OK, so you are sayin that Fat Christian Zealots that didn't even hear the joke and didn't even know the people involved got somebody fired because they found out someone made a "mother" joke? I don't believe you.

So you are on the same page as those other retards and trying to say those Fat Christian Zealots didn't threaten to boycott Slim-Fast for political reasons? These same Fat Christian Zealots call all kinds of companies threatening to boycott every time a spokesperson for a company tells a dirty joke? It must happen so much they never even bother to mention it in the news, right assmunch?

Talk about animosity, I have never seen as many hateful liberals as I have here and on craigslist...kinda scary....however with that said I wonder how you know for certain it was "fat christian zealots" who were doing the complaining? what if they were jewish? or hindu?....if you got a nice crystal ball I would like to know where so I can get one as well....

I don't care what the reasoning was behind their boycott, point is they decided they were not happy with what she said and it is their right to boycott anything they please, that is how the system works. Are you saying it would be better that people not be allowed to boycott anything? get a clue. Jack's response to this is near perfect...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: happyhelper
I see what you are saying but I think you are missing a pertinent point. It's a free country. It wasn't the government that "silenced" Whoopi, but a group of people who worked together and notified the company that they were boycotting and the reason they were boycotting. I disagree with their reason, I think it was a stupid reason, and I disagree with the company, because I think their loss of sales probably wouldn't hurt them as much as whatever they have to pay Whoopi for breaching their contract with her. However, I think people do have the right to boycott, which is as equally valid a form of "free speech" as any other.

You're right, it wasn't the government, but instead political groups and supporters of the current administration. Only a mere step away.

I think Democrats ought to do the same thing... write your local network affiliates and tell them you are boycotting their channel until they stop airing the deceptive anti-Kerry campaign ads, and that if they continue to air those ads right up til the election, you will boycott them permanently. What else can we Kerry supporters boycott that might help Kerry win the election? Also, write to slim-fast telling them if you ever get fat, you will never buy their product because of the way they have treated Whoopi Goldberg.

That was actually a question I wanted to pose earlier: When have democrats done something on this order?

There are democrats that have activiely tried to boycott Rush's advertisers(with little success) in order to get him off the air. It is the same concept. As mach4 pointed out, Rush got fired for making a stupid comment as well.


When 1/2 your customers are republican, you dont hang a sign in the window that says "republicans are idiots" and still expect their business.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison


When 1/2 your customers are republican, you dont hang a sign in the window that says "republicans are idiots" and still expect their business.

Having a fouled mouthed black female Comedian schilling for a product mostly consumed by obese middle aged white women was a very good idea to begin with.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Some of you just don't understand the business model in an advertisement age. You want a figure who will stand their for image purposes alone and you want them to keep their damn mouth shut when it comes to 'hot issues' with major dividing lines.

Apparently this spokesperson couldn't do that so she'll be spokespersoning no more! It has nothing to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with neocons or political groups. For all we know there were grandmothers calling in saying that now when they think of Weight Watchers points they think of Whoopi pointing at her 'President'. I'm not 100% sure that's necessarily a political statement or just plain sick.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: happyhelper
I see what you are saying but I think you are missing a pertinent point. It's a free country. It wasn't the government that "silenced" Whoopi, but a group of people who worked together and notified the company that they were boycotting and the reason they were boycotting. I disagree with their reason, I think it was a stupid reason, and I disagree with the company, because I think their loss of sales probably wouldn't hurt them as much as whatever they have to pay Whoopi for breaching their contract with her. However, I think people do have the right to boycott, which is as equally valid a form of "free speech" as any other.

You're right, it wasn't the government, but instead political groups and supporters of the current administration. Only a mere step away.

I think Democrats ought to do the same thing... write your local network affiliates and tell them you are boycotting their channel until they stop airing the deceptive anti-Kerry campaign ads, and that if they continue to air those ads right up til the election, you will boycott them permanently. What else can we Kerry supporters boycott that might help Kerry win the election? Also, write to slim-fast telling them if you ever get fat, you will never buy their product because of the way they have treated Whoopi Goldberg.

That was actually a question I wanted to pose earlier: When have democrats done something on this order?

The conservatives have an advantage. The liberals' sense of tolerance and fair play hurts them here. The libs believe in free speech and personal rights so they do not try to control what others say. They lack the self-righteous hostility towards anyone with different beliefs.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: happyhelper
I see what you are saying but I think you are missing a pertinent point. It's a free country. It wasn't the government that "silenced" Whoopi, but a group of people who worked together and notified the company that they were boycotting and the reason they were boycotting. I disagree with their reason, I think it was a stupid reason, and I disagree with the company, because I think their loss of sales probably wouldn't hurt them as much as whatever they have to pay Whoopi for breaching their contract with her. However, I think people do have the right to boycott, which is as equally valid a form of "free speech" as any other.

You're right, it wasn't the government, but instead political groups and supporters of the current administration. Only a mere step away.

I think Democrats ought to do the same thing... write your local network affiliates and tell them you are boycotting their channel until they stop airing the deceptive anti-Kerry campaign ads, and that if they continue to air those ads right up til the election, you will boycott them permanently. What else can we Kerry supporters boycott that might help Kerry win the election? Also, write to slim-fast telling them if you ever get fat, you will never buy their product because of the way they have treated Whoopi Goldberg.

That was actually a question I wanted to pose earlier: When have democrats done something on this order?

The conservatives have an advantage. The liberals' sense of tolerance and fair play hurts them here. The libs believe in free speech and personal rights so they do not try to control what others say. They lack the self-righteous hostility towards anyone with different beliefs.

You're right. Conservatives boycott and protest a lot more then Libs. :\

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Some of you just don't understand the business model in an advertisement age. You want a figure who will stand their for image purposes alone and you want them to keep their damn mouth shut when it comes to 'hot issues' with major dividing lines.

Apparently this spokesperson couldn't do that so she'll be spokespersoning no more! It has nothing to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with neocons or political groups. For all we know there were grandmothers calling in saying that now when they think of Weight Watchers points they think of Whoopi pointing at her 'President'. I'm not 100% sure that's necessarily a political statement or just plain sick.

BS. It was an organized campaign by the neocon hate mongers. The "grandmothers" never heard about it until they got their directions from RAM central.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Some of you just don't understand the business model in an advertisement age. You want a figure who will stand their for image purposes alone and you want them to keep their damn mouth shut when it comes to 'hot issues' with major dividing lines.

Apparently this spokesperson couldn't do that so she'll be spokespersoning no more! It has nothing to do with free speech. It has nothing to do with neocons or political groups. For all we know there were grandmothers calling in saying that now when they think of Weight Watchers points they think of Whoopi pointing at her 'President'. I'm not 100% sure that's necessarily a political statement or just plain sick.

BS. It was an organized campaign by the neocon hate mongers. The "grandmothers" never heard about it until they got their directions from RAM central.

Proof please that the 'neocon hate mongers' (your words, even if you don't understand them) organized a campaign to unseat Whoopi Goldberg of all people. Come on now. It is WHOOPI GOLDBERG. Just how hard do you think these people had to try to get Slim Fast to drop her. Hell, it probably went like this :

Person #1 calling 'Hi, I saw that Whoopi said something about Bush and I don't like her'
Slimfast 'Okay'
Person #2 calling 'Hi, I don't like black people'
Slimfast 'Okay'

Slimfast Meeting
Person #1 '2 people have called in the last hour wanting to fire Whoopi Goldberg'
Person #2 'Whoopi works here?'
Person #1 'No, she's our spokesperson'
Person #2 'We have a spokesperson? Is she dressed like a nun?'

This story is stupid and so is the conspiracy theory that some massive right wing movement was in play to remove Whoopi Goldberg from 'power' at Slim Fast. Give it a break.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Ldir
The conservatives have an advantage. The liberals' sense of tolerance and fair play hurts them here. The libs believe in free speech and personal rights so they do not try to control what others say. They lack the self-righteous hostility towards anyone with different beliefs.

Which is generally why the dems/libs have been the frontronners in censorship and implementing regualtions?? right...

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Ldir
The conservatives have an advantage. The liberals' sense of tolerance and fair play hurts them here. The libs believe in free speech and personal rights so they do not try to control what others say. They lack the self-righteous hostility towards anyone with different beliefs.

Which is generally why the dems/libs have been the frontronners in censorship and implementing regualtions?? right...

That was a nice smoke bomb. Censorship and "regualtions" (sic) are two entirely different subjects.


-------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Ldir

That was a nice smoke bomb. Censorship and "regualtions" (sic) are two entirely different subjects.

don't both work to stifle "free speech"??

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Originally posted by: csf

Originally posted by: Todd33
Limbaugh , Savage, etc. say worse things on a daily basis and on public airwaves. Oh ya, they are pro-Bush and policed by the pro-Bush FCC.

But so do the leftists at Air America. You also forget that the Senate voted 99-1 and the House voted 391-22 to increase FCC indecency fines. That means it's a clearly bipartisan effort. Your point?

When? What else were they voting on?

Nothing...

The Senate "bill" was a rider, IE: voted on by itself, to be added to another bill. It doesnt matter what the later bill passed by(defense bill), as the rider itself passed by 99-1. As for the House Bill, I believe it was its own bill, not attached to another one. I dont think their were any riders added to it.

For the indecency fines to become law(not sure if they have or not), the house and senate would have to rangle out the details in the defense bill. It was a few weeks ago, the media hasnt reported on it much since, so I dont know whats going on.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Limbaugh , Savage, etc. say worse things on a daily basis and on public airwaves. Oh ya, they are pro-Bush and policed by the pro-Bush FCC.

This stuff does happen both ways.

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that there was a liberal charge to get advertisers to stop sponsoring Rush's site?