While I fully believe the daily wire did some shady ass shit, I’m pretty sure Danny was more willing than he’s trying to make it seem.
He chooses his roles, he owns resturants, he has hundreds of acting credits and plenty of money. He can afford to walk away if he actually believed what he says.
Do you know [for sure] that he [doesn’t want to walk] away from it?
It’s one thing to quit a job, it’s another one entirely to put yourself at unnecessary legal risk for violating a contract that says you can’t badmouth your employer.
Well, thanks for answering, but there’s a reason why I edited.
Also the article says that his son said that (by account of the San Fernando Sun) by contract he’s barred from leaving or speaking out against the production.
If we’re to even believe that is accurate - which given your vast intelligence and the source that this is coming from, you undoubtedly already used your critical thinking to discern that this is likely ragebait from the Huffpost or they don’t even have their facts straight. (Wouldn’t be a shocker coming from a sensationalist paper and an article that lacks any source more than a twitter post edit:[a screenshot of a twitter post]) - it’s not even second hand knowledge it’s coming from a third party and we should take that with a grain of salt.
So do you have some better sources to back up what you were saying originally or are you just being an ass because you have some vague notion of superiority over people you’ve never met?
While I fully believe the daily wire did some shady ass shit, I’m pretty sure Danny was more willing than he’s trying to make it seem.
He chooses his roles, he owns resturants, he has hundreds of acting credits and plenty of money. He can afford to walk away if he actually believed what he says.
He always plays bad guys, his son said it was the chance of playing a good guy for once that made him rush in. He’s 82 ffs this is elder abuse.
Do you know [for sure] that he [doesn’t want to walk] away from it?
It’s one thing to quit a job, it’s another one entirely to put yourself at unnecessary legal risk for violating a contract that says you can’t badmouth your employer.
Edit: in brackets for clarity
You gotta work on your reading comprehension.
You should answer the question. Unless you can’t cause you don’t have the facts, then you should say that when confronted.
I’ve met rocks smarter than you.
So you’re “meeting” with rocks? And I’m the one who isn’t smart here? Yikes.
Ok lets answer your original un-edited stupid ass question
“Do you know that he isn’t walking away from it?”
Yes, read the article.
You would have been able to answer your own question if you had any ability to comprehend what you read. Assuming you read it at all.
Now please go back to playing with the other rocks.
Well, thanks for answering, but there’s a reason why I edited.
Also the article says that his son said that (by account of the San Fernando Sun) by contract he’s barred from leaving or speaking out against the production.
If we’re to even believe that is accurate - which given your vast intelligence and the source that this is coming from, you undoubtedly already used your critical thinking to discern that this is likely ragebait from the Huffpost or they don’t even have their facts straight. (Wouldn’t be a shocker coming from a sensationalist paper and an article that lacks any source more than a twitter post edit:[a screenshot of a twitter post]) - it’s not even second hand knowledge it’s coming from a third party and we should take that with a grain of salt.
So do you have some better sources to back up what you were saying originally or are you just being an ass because you have some vague notion of superiority over people you’ve never met?