In article <uq6h8n$2s2ua$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/9/24 6:54 PM, shawn wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:31:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
> >> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
> >>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
> >>>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
> >>>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
> >>>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
> >>>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
> >>>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
> >>>>> going forward.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
> >>>>> out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
> >>>>> in court but also outside of the court.
> >>>>
> >>>> That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
> >>>> aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
> >>>> difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
> >>>> awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
> >>>> while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
> >>>> employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
> >>>> either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
> >>>> harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
> >>>
> >>> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
> >>> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
> >>> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
> >>> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
> >>> Disney with the facts in the case.
> >>>
> >>> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
> >>> show Carano was being a disruptive force.
> >>
> >> Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
> >> conservative.
> >
> > If that was the case then I would expect the evidence would show that
> > to be the case. Hopefully Kennedy and the Disney lawyers are smarter
> > than that.
> >
> Ask Ron DeSantis.
>
> "Disney blocks Ron DeSantis' Florida power play with a royal family clause."
>
> > The Walt Disney Co. used a legal clause that name checks King Charles III
> > to apparently thwart Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' attempt to strip the
> > company of its self-governance power in the state.

> > As part of a 30-year development agreement, Disney no longer needs board
> > approval to build high-density projects or buildings of any height and can
> > sell or assign development rights. It also bans the board from using
> > Disney�s name or any of its characters.
>
> > The agreement includes a royal clause that dates back to 1692 in Britain
> > and would extend its term limit for decades.
> >
> > This "Declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death
> > of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of
> > England, living as of the date of this declaration," the document said.
> > This kind of clause is most often used in the U.K., typically when it comes
> > to trusts, and provides a buffer against perpetuities.
>
> Sounds like Gina is going to need a really good lawyer. (Sorry, Thanny...)

You're acting like Disney is so wickedly clever for including a clause
that satisfies the Rule Against Perpetuities. That's Property Law 101.
They literally teach that to 1Ls in law school. Any sale or rental of
property that doesn't contain such a clause is void as against public
policy.

On 2/9/24 10:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uq6h8n$2s2ua$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/24 6:54 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:31:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
>>>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>>>>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>>>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>>>>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>>>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>>>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>>>>>> going forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>>>>>>> out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>>>>>>> in court but also outside of the court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
>>>>>> aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
>>>>>> difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
>>>>>> awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
>>>>>> while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
>>>>>> employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
>>>>>> either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
>>>>>> harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
>>>>> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
>>>>> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
>>>>> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
>>>>> Disney with the facts in the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
>>>>> show Carano was being a disruptive force.
>>>>
>>>> Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
>>>> conservative.
>>>
>>> If that was the case then I would expect the evidence would show that
>>> to be the case. Hopefully Kennedy and the Disney lawyers are smarter
>>> than that.
>>>
>> Ask Ron DeSantis.
>>
>> "Disney blocks Ron DeSantis' Florida power play with a royal family clause."
>>
>>> The Walt Disney Co. used a legal clause that name checks King Charles III
>>> to apparently thwart Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' attempt to strip the
>>> company of its self-governance power in the state.
>
>>> As part of a 30-year development agreement, Disney no longer needs board
>>> approval to build high-density projects or buildings of any height and can
>>> sell or assign development rights. It also bans the board from using
>>> Disneyšs name or any of its characters.
>>
>>> The agreement includes a royal clause that dates back to 1692 in Britain
>>> and would extend its term limit for decades.
>>>
>>> This "Declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death
>>> of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of
>>> England, living as of the date of this declaration," the document said.
>>> This kind of clause is most often used in the U.K., typically when it comes
>>> to trusts, and provides a buffer against perpetuities.
>>
>> Sounds like Gina is going to need a really good lawyer. (Sorry, Thanny...)
>
> You're acting like Disney is so wickedly clever for including a clause
> that satisfies the Rule Against Perpetuities. That's Property Law 101.
> They literally teach that to 1Ls in law school. Any sale or rental of
> property that doesn't contain such a clause is void as against public
> policy.
>

So you're point is Republicans like DeSantis, who went to Harvard AND
Yale, wasn't as smart a lawyer as a first year law student?

The Republicans got their ass beat by Disney, and you think that makes
your boys look GOOD?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:31:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
>> ><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>> >>slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>> >>Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>> >>video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>> >>trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>> >>got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>> >>going forward.
>> >>
>> >>So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>> >>out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>> >>in court but also outside of the court.
>> >
>> >That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
>> >aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
>> >difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
>> >awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
>> >while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
>> >employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
>> >either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
>> >harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
>>
>> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
>> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
>> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
>> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
>> Disney with the facts in the case.
>>
>> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
>> show Carano was being a disruptive force.
>
>Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
>conservative.

i followed the situation as it unfolded. Disney punished her for not
falling in the liberal line. They then fired her and trashed her
publicly. They will lose big.

NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:31:03 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <tjcdsid79c00jfj0h1f60l678so0vm9q9h@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:04:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 16:49:55 -0500, shawn
>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>>>> going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's Disney taking advantage of their position of power to carry
>>>>> out multiple attacks on someone suing them. So they carry on the fight
>>>>> in court but also outside of the court.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like Disney is "asking" for a lawsuit since one of the key
>>>> aspects of employment law (and from what I've heard the main
>>>> difference between Canadian and US employment law is that damage
>>>> awards to plaintiffs tend to be a lot more generous Stateside) is that
>>>> while an employer may or may not be justified in dismissing an
>>>> employee the key thing they are NOT allowed to do is make statements
>>>> either publicly or privately to prospective new employers that would
>>>> harm the former employee's prospects of new employments.
>>>
>>> Supposedly Kennedy is going to be presenting the facts behind Carano's
>>> being let go. If she sticks just to the facts I don't think that is
>>> going to violate employment law since Carano has been disparaging the
>>> company. So this could be seen as Kennedy just defending herself and
>>> Disney with the facts in the case.
>>>
>>> Of course that assumes that Kennedy actually has verifiable facts that
>>> show Carano was being a disruptive force.
>>
>> Or that she isn't just defining 'disruptive' as being stubbornly
>> conservative.
>
> i followed the situation as it unfolded. Disney punished her for not
> falling in the liberal line. They then fired her and trashed her
> publicly. They will lose big.
>

They certainly deserve to.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Feb 8, 2024 at 3:04:10 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 22:15:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:49:55 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>>>>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>>>>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>
>>>> Conservative political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>
>>>> Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>
>>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>
>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>> going forward.
>>
>> She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
>> tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS spin-off
>> show centered solely around her.
>>
>> And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS franchise.
>> The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for every show and
>> movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And if there are any
>> legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them off or make them seem
>> ridiculous.)"
>
> That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
> openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
> mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
> writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
> people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
> we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
> read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
> perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
> by Kennedy and others.

When you're so woke you end up bring back segregation:

https://ibb.co/3dqR9hf

On 2/14/24 12:55 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2024 at 3:04:10 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 22:15:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:49:55 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>>>>>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>>>>>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conservative political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>>> going forward.
>>>
>>> She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
>>> tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS spin-off
>>> show centered solely around her.
>>>
>>> And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS franchise.
>>> The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for every show and
>>> movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And if there are any
>>> legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them off or make them seem
>>> ridiculous.)"
>>
>> That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
>> openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
>> mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
>> writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
>> people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
>> we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
>> read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
>> perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
>> by Kennedy and others.
>
> When you're so woke you end up bring back segregation:
>
> https://ibb.co/3dqR9hf
>
>

Guess "Go Woke, Go Broke" ain't working out for you...

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2/14/24 4:58 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2/14/24 12:55 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 3:04:10 PM PST, "shawn"
>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 22:15:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:49:55 PM PST, "shawn"
>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>   On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn"
>>>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>    You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that
>>>>>>> she got
>>>>>>>    fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop
>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>    statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>   Conservative political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>   Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>   She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>>>   It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have
>>>>> more mud
>>>>>   slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>>>   Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to
>>>>> make a
>>>>>   video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>>>   trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>>>   got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire
>>>>> her
>>>>>   going forward.
>>>>
>>>> She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
>>>> tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS
>>>> spin-off
>>>> show centered solely around her.
>>>>
>>>> And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS
>>>> franchise.
>>>> The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for every
>>>> show and
>>>> movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And if there are
>>>> any
>>>> legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them off or make
>>>> them seem
>>>> ridiculous.)"
>>>
>>> That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
>>> openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
>>> mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
>>> writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
>>> people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
>>> we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
>>> read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
>>> perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
>>> by Kennedy and others.
>>
>> When you're so woke you end up bring back segregation:
>>
>> https://ibb.co/3dqR9hf
>>
>>
>
> Guess "Go Woke, Go Broke" ain't working out for you...

Carano came up with: Choke, and then go broke. But Gina and Ron
DeathSamntis will give Disney their just desserts any day now, just watch.

On 2/8/24 8:49 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2/8/24 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn"
>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>    moviePig
>>>>>>>>    BTR1701
>>>>>>>>    And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>    conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>    livelihoods?
>>>>>>>    When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>    employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't
>>>>>>> lost her
>>>>>>>    right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing
>>>>>>> mouse
>>>>>>>    ears.
>>>>>>    And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin
>>>>>> Kaepernick
>>>>>>    had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in
>>>>>> company
>>>>>>    uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the
>>>>>> NFL into
>>>>>>    supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>    Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>    her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she
>>>>>> worked for
>>>>>>    and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>    Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>   Again... NFL has a contract that permits it.  C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>   Carano has a history of shit-talking.  If she has a contract that
>>>>>   permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>   But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate
>>>>> shit talking.
>>>>
>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in
>>>> public,
>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>
>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other lionized.
>>>>
>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not
>>>> being a
>>>> Leftist.
>>>
>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>
>> They said the SAME thing.
>>
>>> Such as that
>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>
>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>>
>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>
>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>
>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>
>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>
>>
>
> Pascal wasn't fired because he's the title character, you moron.
>

I like saying "titular character" because it sounds vaguely dirty. What
did a Carano play anyway, Grogu's nanny?

On 2/14/24 6:23 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 2/8/24 8:49 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 2/8/24 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn"
>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>    moviePig
>>>>>>>>>    BTR1701
>>>>>>>>>    And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>>    conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>>    livelihoods?
>>>>>>>>    When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>>    employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't
>>>>>>>> lost her
>>>>>>>>    right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing
>>>>>>>> mouse
>>>>>>>>    ears.
>>>>>>>    And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin
>>>>>>> Kaepernick
>>>>>>>    had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time, in
>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>    uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming the
>>>>>>> NFL into
>>>>>>>    supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>>    Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she made
>>>>>>>    her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she
>>>>>>> worked for
>>>>>>>    and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>>    Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>>   Again... NFL has a contract that permits it.  C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>>   Carano has a history of shit-talking.  If she has a contract that
>>>>>>   permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>>   But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate
>>>>>> shit talking.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk in
>>>>> public,
>>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other
>>>>> lionized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not
>>>>> being a
>>>>> Leftist.
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>>
>>> They said the SAME thing.
>>>
>>>> Such as that
>>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>>
>>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>>>
>>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>>
>>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>>
>>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>>
>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Pascal wasn't fired because he's the title character, you moron.
>>
>
> I like saying "titular character" because it sounds vaguely dirty.  What
> did a Carano play anyway, Grogu's nanny?

Technically, eponymous. She played a former Alliance Shock Trooper/
Republic Marshal.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

"trotsky" wrote:
> On 2/14/24 12:55 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 22:15:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that she got
>>>>>>> fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop making
>>>>>>> statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conservative political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have more mud
>>>>> slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>>> Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to make a
>>>>> video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>>> trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>>> got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire her
>>>>> going forward.
>>>>
>>>> She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
>>>> tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS
>>>> spin-off show centered solely around her.
>>>>
>>>> And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS
>>>> franchise. The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for
>>>> every show and movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And
>>>> if there are any legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them
>>>> off or make them seem ridiculous.)"
>>>
>>> That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
>>> openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
>>> mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
>>> writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
>>> people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
>>> we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
>>> read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
>>> perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
>>> by Kennedy and others.
>>
>> When you're so woke you end up bring back segregation:
>>
>> https://ibb.co/3dqR9hf
>
>Guess "Go Woke, Go Broke" ain't working out for you...

Actually, it's working quite well, thank you very much!
Do try to keep up, "trotsky".

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 2/15/24 9:04 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 2/14/24 6:23 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 2/8/24 8:49 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 2/8/24 3:27 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Feb 7, 2024 at 10:41:50 PM PST, "shawn"
>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 03:08:44 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 13, 2021 at 2:17:05 PM PST, "FPP" <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   On 2/13/21 10:29 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>    moviePig
>>>>>>>>>>    BTR1701
>>>>>>>>>>    And... that's it? That's the full depth and breadth of what
>>>>>>>>>>    conservatives are allowed to say online without risking their
>>>>>>>>>>    livelihoods?
>>>>>>>>>    When you use your employer as a platform, you can expect your
>>>>>>>>>    employer (a self-interested entity) to take note. She hasn't
>>>>>>>>> lost her
>>>>>>>>>    right to speak her mind online, she just can't do it wearing
>>>>>>>>> mouse
>>>>>>>>>    ears.
>>>>>>>>    And yet we were endlessly harangued by the media that Colin
>>>>>>>> Kaepernick
>>>>>>>>    had some kinda “right” hold protests while on company time,
>>>>>>>> in company
>>>>>>>>    uniform and on company property, effectively strong-arming
>>>>>>>> the NFL into
>>>>>>>>    supporting and promoting his personal political agenda.
>>>>>>>>    Meanwhile, Gina Carano was not "wearing mouse ears" when she
>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>    her comments, that had nothing to do with the company she
>>>>>>>> worked for
>>>>>>>>    and were done on her own time.
>>>>>>>>    Are you immune to hypocrisy?
>>>>>>>   Again... NFL has a contract that permits it.  C O N T R A C T.
>>>>>>>   Carano has a history of shit-talking.  If she has a contract that
>>>>>>>   permits it, Disney will pay.
>>>>>>>   But she has no such 'right' to work where they don't tolerate
>>>>>>> shit talking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet her co-star Pedro Pascal talked the exact same shit-talk
>>>>>> in public,
>>>>>> and was not only NOT fired for it, he was praised by the Left.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same shit-post, same show, same company. One fired, the other
>>>>>> lionized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make it make sense without acknowledging Carano was fired for not
>>>>>> being a
>>>>>> Leftist.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't that she was not a Leftist, but that rightly or wrongly she
>>>>> was seen as saying much more controversial statements.
>>>>
>>>> They said the SAME thing.
>>>>
>>>>> Such as that
>>>>> one tweet she made that seemed to be equating the political fighting
>>>>> to Nazism. Which we all know never goes well since it breaks Godwin's
>>>>> law (or at least a related law.)
>>>>
>>>> And Pascal made the same Nazi comparison.
>>>>
>>>>> Though the real problem seems to be that she said such things that
>>>>> were taken as offensive and when told to stop she didn't. My
>>>>> understanding is that there was another actress that said similar
>>>>> things and got into trouble, but when she was told to stop she did and
>>>>> still kept working. As for Pedro Pascal his comments were not seen as
>>>>> offensive because his political comments were in support of things
>>>>> like BLM and LBGTQ.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. He's a leftist and said things in support of leftism. She's a
>>>> conservative and said things in support of conservatism.
>>>>
>>>> She was fired. He wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pascal wasn't fired because he's the title character, you moron.
>>>
>>
>> I like saying "titular character" because it sounds vaguely dirty.
>> What did a Carano play anyway, Grogu's nanny?
>
> Technically, eponymous.  She played a former Alliance Shock Trooper/
> Republic Marshal.

Maybe she'll do a movie with Kevin Sorbo now. "Intentionally Left
Behind" or something like that.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:19:31 -0600, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

>On 2/14/24 4:58 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 2/14/24 12:55 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 3:04:10 PM PST, "shawn"
>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 22:15:48 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:49:55 PM PST, "shawn"
>>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:20:49 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>   On Feb 8, 2024 at 1:01:39 PM PST, "shawn"
>>>>>>> <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>    You say that but it's not clear to me from what I recall that
>>>>>>>> she got
>>>>>>>>    fired over any specific statements but for refusing to stop
>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>    statements that made Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>>   Conservative political statements make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>>   Leftist political statements do not make Disney uncomfortable.
>>>>>>>   She was fired for not being a leftist.
>>>>>>   It sounds like she's also going to have her public image have
>>>>>> more mud
>>>>>>   slung at her according to a video I just saw. Apparently Kathleen
>>>>>>   Kennedy is pulling together comments from a number of people to
>>>>>> make a
>>>>>>   video coming out in the next month or two that points out how much
>>>>>>   trouble Carano supposedly was. Thereby helping to justify why Disney
>>>>>>   got rid of her, but also providing reasons why no one should hire
>>>>>> her
>>>>>>   going forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> She was *so* much trouble that right up until the moment she
>>>>> tweeted-while-conservative they were planning an entire STAR WARS
>>>>> spin-off
>>>>> show centered solely around her.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Kathleen Kennedy is everything that's wrong with the STAR WARS
>>>>> franchise.
>>>>> The guys at SOUTH PARK got it right: her basic strategy for every
>>>>> show and
>>>>> movie is: "Make a woman the lead and make her gay. (And if there are
>>>>> any
>>>>> legacy characters, especially the male ones, kill them off or make
>>>>> them seem
>>>>> ridiculous.)"
>>>>
>>>> That's not some theory from the South Park guys. It's something she's
>>>> openly stated as focusing on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is the
>>>> mantra that all at Disney are expected to follow. So bringing in women
>>>> writers/directors/actors is a desirable thing for her even if the
>>>> people don't know or even like the material they are working from. So
>>>> we get people working on shows/movies based on the comics who never
>>>> read them and don't want to read them so they can "bring a unique
>>>> perspective to the project." That's what has been said multiple times
>>>> by Kennedy and others.
>>>
>>> When you're so woke you end up bring back segregation:
>>>
>>> https://ibb.co/3dqR9hf
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Guess "Go Woke, Go Broke" ain't working out for you...
>
>
>Carano came up with: Choke, and then go broke. But Gina and Ron
>DeathSamntis will give Disney their just desserts any day now, just watch.

Oh Disney is doing a fine job self-destructing on it's own. Adding
Carano to the mix just makes it more entertaining.