PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin: 'Intolerants' Behind Phil Robertson's Suspension Attacking All of Us



Pages : [1] 2

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 10:28 AM
On Wednesday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin blasted "intolerants" for "hatin'" on Duck Dynasty patriarch and Duck Commander Phil Robertson for expressing his (straight) sexual preference in a magazine interview.

Phil Robertson's remarks in GQ:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And if that wasn’t explicit enough, the “Duck Commander” added: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/12/18/Palin-Intolerants-Responsible-for-Duck-Dynasty-Patriarch-s-Suspension-Attacking-All-of-Us

bogdog
12-19-2013, 10:36 AM
I hunt waterfowl, I even own Duck Commander calls,(they're not that great). I know nothing about Duck Dynasty other than what I see on tee-shirts but I'm pretty sure they're all quacks...

Arizona Bay
12-19-2013, 10:40 AM
Out to run a train at the railway station
Shotgun Betty stopped me dead in my shoes...


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/defending-phil-robertson-calling-gays-be-put-death

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 10:44 AM
I agree with you bogdog about their calls which I've been familiar with many YEARS before the television show; average at best. Even though the show Duck Dynasty is wildly popular, I've only seen it a couple times because my boys digitally record all the episodes and watch them religiously. My thoughts on the issue revolve around the extreme intolerance of the left. They strongly support free speech until someone disagrees with them. Sarah Palin makes a good point, this overreaction is an attack on all of us.

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 10:48 AM
Out to run a train at the railway station
Shotgun Betty stopped me dead in my shoes...


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/defending-phil-robertson-calling-gays-be-put-death


Don't you ever tire of internalizing lies and deception? I actually feel sorry for you....


"Defending Phil Robertson By Calling For Gays To Be Put To Death"

Yea, right

ccmanuals
12-19-2013, 10:48 AM
Yep, sounds like that sums it up pretty well. Next.

Arizona Bay
12-19-2013, 10:48 AM
4 Some anti-gays call for Homosexuals to be put to death as th'Bible' demands

pefjr
12-19-2013, 10:49 AM
Wonder, does he make the left-handed calls? If all those people are dis-owned, who will inherit the kingdom? Right-handed Baptists? Everything is blurred , who is hating who again?

Arizona Bay
12-19-2013, 10:50 AM
Don't you ever tire of internalizing lies and deception? I actually feel sorry for you....


"Defending Phil Robertson By Calling For Gays To Be Put To Death"

Yea, right
Ready the linky thing there bubbah

Full Tilt
12-19-2013, 10:51 AM
4 Some anti-gays call for Homosexuals to be put to death as th'Bible' demands


What exactly are you failing to say?

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 10:52 AM
4 Some anti-gays call for Homosexuals to be put to death as th'Bible' demands


I really do feel sorry for you. What a miserable existence it must be.....

Arizona Bay
12-19-2013, 10:55 AM
Actually I'm lovin' my exstance... thanks for the laugh :D

TomF
12-19-2013, 11:01 AM
Oh dear.

Seems to me that the Duck Dude is perfectly within his rights to say what he did, and most folks who disagree are similarly within their rights to say what they've said. I think he's crackers - and showing bad exegesis and theology - but he can say it.

If someone on the gay-supporter side of things verged into calling for the Duck's killing ... that's well out of line. Just as Shoebat (as in the link) was well out of line calling for gay killings.

In truth, and (full disclosure) without probing the crevices of the internet to find the specific words said by the most icky of either ilk, I suspect the extremists on both fronts stopped just short of explicitly inciting actual murders. So even they're within the judicial limits of free speech, though highly noxious free speech.

Why is the Duck Dude's opinion of such great value? And why is the show about his family (which i've never seen, thanks to turning off my cable a couple of years back) so integral to modern culture?

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 11:06 AM
Does this thread have any content worth discussing?

1) Some reality TV personality is anti-gay.

2) Some people object to that point of view.

3) Sarah Palin castigates people who don't agree with someone who is anti-gay.

Are we done here now?


It's quite a bit more than disagreeing with Phil's opinion that included heteros as well as homos. Mr Robertson has been effectively fired by the A&E Network due to pressure from the "tolerance" crowd. This might get interesting because the show Duck Dynasty has shattered all cable television ratings and is hugely popular. I don't think the Robertsons need A&E any more and it will be interesting to see what happens from here. This isn't like some ordinary persecution of someone who said something the gays don't like.

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 11:14 AM
Oh dear.

Seems to me that the Duck Dude is perfectly within his rights to say what he did, and most folks who disagree are similarly within their rights to say what they've said. I think he's crackers - and showing bad exegesis and theology - but he can say it.

If someone on the gay-supporter side of things verged into calling for the Duck's killing ... that's well out of line. Just as Shoebat (as in the link) was well out of line calling for gay killings.

Come on Tom, you are smart enough to immediately recognize the difference in what Phil Robertson and Sarah Palin are saying vs a deceptive from someone foaming at the mouth.


BTW, I quoted Phil Robertson's remarks which included heteros and homos in the OP. He is very much doctrinally sound if one believes the bible.

bogdog
12-19-2013, 11:16 AM
I don't get the outrage. A&E has every right to fire the quack guy, they may be bowing to pressure or they may just find quackman offensive. The "right" uses this type of tactic all the time in efforts to intimidate networks either directly or by threatening advertising sponsors. A&E can't be forced to televise something they find offensive.

TomF
12-19-2013, 11:19 AM
Hmm.

So A&E is acting like a Corporation, making a saw-off to protect where it perceives its overall profitability rests.

On the one hand, they're assuming that diehard Duck Dynasty fans will mostly continue to watch - even if they're ticked that Phil's on hiatus. So A&E can still sell most of that demographic to advertisers. And on the other hand, A&E assumes that the remainder of their regular viewers - who started watching A&E when they actually mostly programmed Arts and Culture - will be placated and still tune in for the occasional jazz, classical music or costume drama show that makes it into their much diluted schedule. So they can still sell that demographic to advertisers too.

I thought Corporations were persons in America, and entitled to their own free speech. Isn't this what A&E is exercising?

Peerie Maa
12-19-2013, 11:19 AM
Does this thread have any content worth discussing?
1) Some reality TV personality is anti-gay.2) Some people object to that point of view.3) Sarah Palin castigates people who don't agree with someone who is anti-gay.Are we done here now?5) (someone did 4) Sara Pailin is anti Free Speech?

John Smith
12-19-2013, 11:20 AM
I really do feel sorry for you. What a miserable existence it must be.....

I feel sorry for those who claim to believe in a God who teaches love, but seem only able to hate.

TomF
12-19-2013, 11:21 AM
BTW, I quoted Phil Robertson's remarks which included heteros and homos in the OP. He is very much doctrinally sound if one believes the bible.Yep, you quoted him accurately.

Rick, I'd guess that I've taken more grad study courses in biblical exegesis at a seminary than you. Robertson's opinion is certainly widely held, but also very certainly not the only way to "believe the bible." Or, I'd argue, the most sound way, in scholarly terms.

That's an argument for another thread though.

John Smith
12-19-2013, 11:22 AM
It's quite a bit more than disagreeing with Phil's opinion that included heteros as well as homos. Mr Robertson has been effectively fired by the A&E Network due to pressure from the "tolerance" crowd. This might get interesting because the show Duck Dynasty has shattered all cable television ratings and is hugely popular. I don't think the Robertsons need A&E any more and it will be interesting to see what happens from here. This isn't like some ordinary persecution of someone who said something the gays don't like.

I would not have fired him. The concept of "free speech" is, IMO, to be able to speak without consequence. I have to admit, I've been quite lonely in holding that position. I have not supported boycotts based on something someone said; only on actions taken.

John Smith
12-19-2013, 11:24 AM
I don't get the outrage. A&E has every right to fire the quack guy, they may be bowing to pressure or they may just find quackman offensive. The "right" uses this type of tactic all the time in efforts to intimidate networks either directly or by threatening advertising sponsors. A&E can't be forced to televise something they find offensive.

More importantly, no one can be forced to watch what they find offensive. Taking any action to prevent others from watching it, that's another thing entirely.

Arizona Bay
12-19-2013, 11:37 AM
I don't think he should have been fired, but then Faux News fired Glenn Beck. It Sounds like a business decision. Maybe there are a lot of offended gay duck hunters??? There are a surprising number of gay cowboys...
I do not think that death threats are acceptable from anyone, for any reason.

Palin's opinion doesn't add any credibility, I afraid.

bogdog
12-19-2013, 11:41 AM
Here's some other remarks made by Mr. Robertson. My question is has A&E actually said why he was suspended(not fired as I wrote)I suspect there maybe more than one reason.

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana:“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

BrianW
12-19-2013, 11:46 AM
Don't like what is being expressed on TV? Then don't watch it.



I think his quote is from a magazine article. I've watched the show a few times (it's not great, but it's funny at times) and have never seen him preach there.

BrianW
12-19-2013, 11:46 AM
Couple of the Duck Dynasty guys recently toured the 'Stan.

Pretty nice of them.

BrianW
12-19-2013, 11:47 AM
In any case, I support Phils right to say what he wants. I'm fine with A&E doing what they want.

Now we let them chips fall where they may.

hokiefan
12-19-2013, 11:49 AM
I would not have fired him. The concept of "free speech" is, IMO, to be able to speak without consequence. I have to admit, I've been quite lonely in holding that position. I have not supported boycotts based on something someone said; only on actions taken.

John, you keep saying this but you are wrong. The only freedom of speach we are guaranteed is the freedom from government consequences. Boycotts in response to free speach are a form a free speach as well.

Cheers,

Bobby

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 12:08 PM
I'm not whining about anything Norman and as one of the minority here in strong support of free enterprise and capitalism, nobody needs to explain to me A&E's rights and ability to exercise their own prerogative. My curiosity about this story twofold; 1) Observing yet another example of the intolerance of the tolerance crowd 2) Awaiting the potential fallout and backlash from the overwhelming majority who are responsible for the record breaking ratings of this program and subsequent profitability of the advertisers.

With millions of shocked viewers and heavyweights like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck entering the fray, evidenced by tens of thousands of comments from readers of these stories overwhelmingly supporting Phil Roberson's freedom of speech, things could get interesting for A&E. This network might find out they need the Robertsons a lot more than the Robertsons need them. I'll be watching carefully how this unfolds because my impression is the gigantic silent majority is rapidly growing weary of the tiny minority of militant gays and their hostile intolerance. I don't have a prediction because I have no idea about how restrictive or iron clad the legal contracts are in situations like this. But, things could get interesting.....

Canoeyawl
12-19-2013, 12:10 PM
Well the hype is certainly working, I never even knew a show about Dumbest Duck Hunters even existed.

Likely the poor dumb fool signed a contract that prohibited him from many things including a morals clause.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-19-2013, 12:10 PM
Do you,really care about this TV jerk or are you addicted to whatever Sarah Palin opines on?
Do you or Sarah Palin have any idea of the conditions contained in this guy's TV contract?
Ever occure to you this type of program is successful because it plays to a rural very right-wing audience?

Arizona Bay
12-19-2013, 12:15 PM
The silent majority is growing tired of bigoted, anti-gay preachers and politicians, and their nonsensical spokes people, more likely.

SMARTINSEN
12-19-2013, 12:22 PM
Like with Vlad, they are probably dealing with some repression issues.

Gerarddm
12-19-2013, 12:28 PM
It's a privately owned corporation. They pay the guy to appear on the show. If what he says damages their brand, they have every financial right to do what they did, and the 'free speech' angle has NOTHING to do with it. He can say what he wants, it's his right. Just as it is their right to react, and a viewer's option to watch or not watch accordingly.

TomF
12-19-2013, 12:30 PM
SP is a "heavyweight?" Hmm.

Again, it's refreshing to have one of her supporters start such a thread, and raise her flag unprompted. It goes a long ways towards dispelling the view in some quarters that any discussion of her public opinions can only be evidence of Palin derangement syndrome.

Ian McColgin
12-19-2013, 12:43 PM
A&E suspended him and not just for the anti-gay version of christianity.

Tribune wire reports
1:45 a.m. CST, December 19, 2013

A&E has indefinitely suspended "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson after anti-gay comments he made in the January 2014 issue of GQ magazine.

Robertson, outspoken about his Christian faith, equated homosexuality with bestiality and called the lifestyle a sin.

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty'," A&E said in a statement on Wednesday.

"His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

The Hollywood Reporter said that Robertson will likely appear in the new season, which begins Jan. 15, since production is nearly finished/

In the GQ interview, Robertson goes on record with comments about the sinfulness of gays and black people under Jim Crow.

In the profile, an unedited Robertson sounds off on what's ailing the country during a trip through the Louisiana backwoods.

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he tells reporter Drew Magary. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

He also muses about his own sexual orientation: "It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."

GLAAD rep Wilson Cruz responded to Robertson's remarks with a statement:

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.

"Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.

In a quote that may raise even more eyebrows than his feelings about gays, Robertson claims he "never" saw black people mistreated during the pre-civil rights era in his home state, and strongly suggests that African Americans were more content under Jim Crow.

"Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said. "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Robertson also shares an interesting rationale for voting for Mitt Romney over President Obama, saying he favored the candidate because he was from Salt Lake City, a safer city than Chicago. "Where would I rather be turned around at 3 o'clock in the morning?" he said. As Magary points out, Romney, though a Mormon, hails from Boston.

The Robertsons are outspoken about their Christian faith (each episode of "Duck Dynasty" ends with a prayer) and have also campaigned for Republicans, but their show, a hit in red and blue states alike, is largely nonpolitical and has so far carefully avoided issues such as race and gay rights.

The "Duck Dynasty" star also released his own statement to Fox411 on Wednesday, saying, in part, "I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

Jim Bow
12-19-2013, 12:49 PM
I would not have fired him. The concept of "free speech" is, IMO, to be able to speak without consequence. I have to admit, I've been quite lonely in holding that position. I have not supported boycotts based on something someone said; only on actions taken.

He has the right to say what he feels, however the network that runs his show needs to sell advertising. Why should they not remove a guy who, by his statements, has "pissed off" half of the customer base of the corporations that buy advertising. It's called capitalism. Say what you want on the corner soapbox, but don't drag my store / produce / service into it.

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 12:54 PM
Wow, here is a gay person who understands the issue:


The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s

http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/

Peerie Maa
12-19-2013, 12:59 PM
Like with Vlad, they are probably dealing with some repression issues.

and this

And if that wasn’t explicit enough, the “Duck Commander” added: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me.
reminds me of the series Stephen Fry presented looking at homophobia around the world, specifically of an interview with a media talking head from an African state. Said homophobic talking head was banging on about statistics on medical conditions that he attributed to anal sex. Fry countered by pointing out that more anal sex takes place between heterosexual couples, and that most gays do not need or want to engage in the practice. When the talking head ignored this expert testimony and kept on and on about anal sex Fry suggested that he had an unhealthy obsession with the topic and should seek counselling. The man was so taken aback that he had to leave the room. :D

Peerie Maa
12-19-2013, 01:01 PM
SP is a "heavyweight?" Hmm.



OK, SP is built for comfort and not speed, but she ain't that fat.

Rick-Mi
12-19-2013, 01:05 PM
Now Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal weigh in:

But it's not just Palin. "Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the State of Louisiana," said Gov. Bobby Jindal in a statement Thursday. "The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with." He goes on:

I don't agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just posted to the Cruz campaign's Facebook page:

Free Speech Matters

The reason that so many Americans love Duck Dynasty is because it represents the America usually ignored or mocked by liberal elites: a family that loves and cares for each other, believes in God, and speaks openly about their faith.

If you believe in free speech or religious liberty, you should be deeply dismayed over the treatment of Phil Robertson. Phil expressed his personal views and his own religious faith; for that, he was suspended from his job. In a free society, anyone is free to disagree with him--but the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.

And, as PC enforcers often forget, tolerance is a two-way street. Here's what Phil himself had to say about accepting and loving everybody:

"I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/actual-politicians-respond-to-duck-dynasty-star-s-comments-about-genitals-20131219?

TomF
12-19-2013, 01:12 PM
Baahh. Humbug.

Phil made a business decision to have his personality be a key element of his brand. And to express more of his personal opinions in an interview, which doubtless he'd hoped would have a positive impact on his brand.

A&E similarly made a business decision, gauging that Phils comments may have an unintended impact on their brand.

And frankly, Palin, Cruz and Jindal are each using the situation to promote their brands.

pefjr
12-19-2013, 01:15 PM
Quoting this guy, "They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
In addition to being on the very dumb side, he musta been deaf too, Blacks invented the Blues. They even blues up Gospel, I know because it captivated me as a kid and I would ride my bicycle down through the all black sections to find a church where they were singing. I still love these old Blues. Here is the Oreos, ....did you know Bruce Willis has a Blues Band. ....Sinners prayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB_xW0Q-koA&feature=player_detailpage

bogdog
12-19-2013, 01:16 PM
The American Family Association (AFA) is alerting its members to companies who are supportive of GLBT employees and is asking "Christian consumers…to think twice before they patronize companies that support the homosexual agenda." AFA lists major corporations that have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation or that offer domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, including Eastman Kodak, Citigroup, PepsiCo., American Airlines, Allstate Insurance, and the Coca-Cola Company. "One company losing five to ten percent of its sales will send a clear message to every company in America," offers Don Wildmon. AFA attacked Kraft Foods (owner of brand names Post, Oscar Meyer, and Maxwell House, among others) for the company's support of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.
Wal-Mart and its affiliate Sam's Club became an AFA boycott target because of the retailer's support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
The American Family Association has called for a national boycott of the Ford Motor Company over the manufacturer's sponsorship of gay pride events and continued advertising in gay publications. AFA claims its boycott has played a major part in Ford's drop in sales.
Donald Wildmon has called for the shutdown of PBS and as a result of the AFA's campaign, many state legislatures reduced funding for public broadcasting. The AFA spearheaded the attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the 1980's, using direct mail and extensive print advertising to distort the NEA's record of sponsorship of the arts.

http://www.afa.net/detail.aspx?id=2147486887

David G
12-19-2013, 02:01 PM
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1525306_727405303937117_1920767008_n.jpg

And... freedom of speech will not protect you from being fired, disciplined, or passed over for promotion - if you say something ignorant and hateful while a recognizable representative of my company or brand.

TomF
12-19-2013, 02:11 PM
... Here is the Oreos, ....did you know Bruce Willis has a Blues Band. ....Sinners prayer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB_xW0Q-koA&feature=player_detailpageMust be a great thing to be a rich Hollywood guy. Would be amazing to be able to sit in with B.B. and Billy Preston, but Willis' own harp chops at least in that solo were by far the least of that otherwise grand tune. Even the arrangement was pretty damned sweet.

But Willis shouldn't give up his day job just yet, eh? :D

ccmanuals
12-19-2013, 02:12 PM
and in other news for 19 Dec.........................

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico's highest court has legalized same-sex marriage, declaring it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to gay and lesbian couples.

The state Supreme Court issued its ruling Thursday. New Mexico joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage.

Ian McColgin
12-19-2013, 02:23 PM
Brandon Ambrosino's points are so much more on target than Palin's, Jindal's, Cruz's et alia. Thank you Rick-Mi.

BrianY
12-19-2013, 02:46 PM
Tom F - please stop being so reasonable! You're gonna give the Bilge a bad reputation if you keep it up!!:p

skuthorp
12-19-2013, 02:51 PM
Round here the media calls the Dec-January period "the silly season". I see it holds good in the US as well

TomF
12-19-2013, 02:58 PM
Tom F - please stop being so reasonable! You're gonna give the Bilge a bad reputation if you keep it up!!:p

Keith thinks it's genetic. Sorry, man.

BrianY
12-19-2013, 03:03 PM
Keith thinks it's genetic. Sorry, man.


pfft! What does Keith know about anything that can't be displayed on a chart or graph ?




(just kiddin' Keith !! :d )

Keith Wilson
12-19-2013, 03:06 PM
Hey!! I've been having a conversation about technology and philosophy with Tom all morning, totally in haiku form! Scurvy bugger . . .

:D

TomF
12-19-2013, 03:19 PM
Hey!! I've been having a conversation about technology and philosophy with Tom all morning, totally in haiku form! Scurvy bugger . . .

:DOnly on one thread at a time though, mate! We've wandered into statistics expressed in haiku, and my head's gonna explode soon.

pefjr
12-19-2013, 03:26 PM
Must be a great thing to be a rich Hollywood guy. Would be amazing to be able to sit in with B.B. and Billy Preston, but Willis' own harp chops at least in that solo were by far the least of that otherwise grand tune. Even the arrangement was pretty damned sweet.

But Willis shouldn't give up his day job just yet, eh? :DHmmm..... I thought he sounded very good. I can play along on this number with a A blues harp, but crossing it in an E scale. The band is in A. My play just alternates with a couple chords and pieces of the melody, while Bruce took off by himself there once and was playing original riffs in E, even BB looks up approvingly.
Actually it's hard to mess up when playing blues if you know the E scale and the corresponding blow draw/ holes, all the notes in E will sound good. Try playing along on your piano in an E scale, bet you sound like Jerry Lee Lewis. Try some E and A chords, they work too. B7 chord might work, but I don't have that chord on Harp.

RodB
12-19-2013, 03:32 PM
The best post on this thread... for sure by Rich-Mi ... lets see what happens now.


Posted by Rich-MI ....I'm not whining about anything Norman and as one of the minority here in strong support of free enterprise and capitalism, nobody needs to explain to me A&E's rights and ability to exercise their own prerogative. My curiosity about this story twofold; 1) Observing yet another example of the intolerance of the tolerance crowd 2) Awaiting the potential fallout and backlash from the overwhelming majority who are responsible for the record breaking ratings of this program and subsequent profitability of the advertisers.

With millions of shocked viewers and heavyweights like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck entering the fray, evidenced by tens of thousands of comments from readers of these stories overwhelmingly supporting Phil Roberson's freedom of speech, things could get interesting for A&E. This network might find out they need the Robertsons a lot more than the Robertsons need them. I'll be watching carefully how this unfolds because my impression is the gigantic silent majority is rapidly growing weary of the tiny minority of militant gays and their hostile intolerance. I don't have a prediction because I have no idea about how restrictive or iron clad the legal contracts are in situations like this. But, things could get interesting.....



Ambrosino comments are some commonsense from a gay man....

The ‘Duck Dynasty’ Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?
By Brandon Ambrosino (http://ideas.time.com/author/timecontributor/)Dec. 19, 2013





http://assets.pinterest.com/images/pidgets/pin_it_button.png (http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fideas.time.com%2F2013%2F12%2F19% 2Fthe-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Ftimeopinions.files.wordpress.co m%2F2013%2F12%2Fap580905426613.jpg%3Fw%3D100%26h%3 D100%26crop%3D1&description=The+%26%238216%3BDuck+Dynasty%26%23821 7%3B+Fiasco+Says+More+About+Our+Bigotry+Than+Phil% E2%80%99s)


Read Later (http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/#)


http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ap580905426613.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1



Last night, GQ released a story about Duck Dynastywhich quotes Phil’s thoughts about homosexuality (http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-anti-gay/):
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

As you can imagine, everyone had an opinion about this statement, including GLAAD and Phil’s check-signer, A&E, who suspended the star indefinitely.
One of the conservative tweeters I follow—one of those Christians convinced that Obama is going to have him killed for his faith—lives for stuff like this. He quickly took to the Twitterverse and posted a side-by-side image of Pope Francis and Phil, with the following caption: “Both preach truth on homosexual sin. One is TIME’s Person of the Year (http://topics.time.com/person-of-the-year/). The other JUST GOT FIRED.”
(MORE: Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty (http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-suspended/))
The point is worth considering. Even though Phil used crass, juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual “desire” is unnatural, and inherently disordered. This opinion isn’t unique to Phil. It’s actually shared by a majority of his fans.
It’s also shared, to some extent, by the Pope. Yes, that Pope—the one on the cover not just of TIME but also of The Advocate.
Of course, The Advocate knows the Pope’s thoughts on LGBT issues, including marriage equality (http://topics.time.com/marriage-equality/). But as they note, Francis’ “stark change in rhetoric from his two predecessors” has set a positive example for how religious people ought to treat LGBT persons—an example that Phil, an elder at the White’s Ferry Road Church of Christ, ought to have followed in his GQ interview.
To compare Papa Duck to Papa Francis, as conservatives are doing, is, in my opinion, to misrepresent both of them. Francis, though he privately holds to certain doctrine which some might see as “anti-gay,” has not used any of his public speaking opportunities to share these with the world. Instead, Francis has repeatedly offered grace to the LGBT community. At one point, he even uttered what might go down as the expression of public humility that singlehandedly saved the Church: “Who am I to judge?”
(MORE: Sarah Palin Defends Duck Dynasty Star Suspended For Anti-Gay Remarks (http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/19/sarah-palin-defends-duck-dynasty-star-suspended-for-anti-gay-remarks/))
Phil, on the other hand, went on record as rhetorically asking how any man could ever enjoy gay intercourse, since vaginal intercourse is better. (Which certainly makes you wonder how he’s able to make the comparison.)
There are two notable differences between the Pope’s views on sex, and Phil’s. First, the Pope is a trained philosopher, and has undoubtedly spent countless hours examining, challenging, and refining his views. Phil—if we are to take his brief statements on homosexuality as representative of his position—seems to hold a view on sex that manages to reduce the entire orthodox understanding of “desire” down to nothing more than a juvenile “tooshie = bad, vagina = good.”
The second difference has to do with tone. In fairness to Phil, the tone of his off-the-cuff statements may not accurately represent his philosophy on this issue, but I do think it’s a fair representation of what many see as his southern charm. There’s a way to disagree with majority opinion without coming across as disagreeable. The Pope knows how to do this. Phil does not. As a result, we respect Papa, and shame Phil.
For the record, I’m undecided on whether or not I think Phil actually is homophobic, although I certainly think his statement was offensive, and not only to the LGBT community. But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him—even in spite of his position on gay men. It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage (http://topics.time.com/marriage/), and yet not be bigoted.
I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation, too.
Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizeable audience—most of whom, by the way, probably share his views (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/08/22/red-america-blue-america-and-reality-tv/)—and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.
GK Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right—and he usually is—then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.
Brandon Ambrosino is a writer and professional dancer based in Baltimore.







bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.

I'd say there is more bigotry on the left on this forum... then on the right by far...

RodB

TomF
12-19-2013, 03:33 PM
I play some harp too - IMO Willis is an OK amateur, but no Little Walter. Nice solid tone on a couple of his 2nd hole draws though. If the band's in A, wouldn't he have probably played "cross harp" style, using a D? It must be intimidating to trade licks with B.B. out there in public.

Flying Orca
12-19-2013, 03:51 PM
It's been a long time since I played harp, but I seem to think the cross harp for a tune in A would be an E...?

TomF
12-19-2013, 04:06 PM
Lemme think here. I've got the harp in front of me that I use to play cross-harp blues in G ... and it's a C. So the key for the band is a 5th up from the key of the harp.

To play in A ... I'd use a D. But to play in E (along with most of the guitar gods), I'd use an A.

pefjr
12-19-2013, 04:15 PM
Lemme think here. I've got the harp in front of me that I use to play cross-harp blues in G ... and it's a C. So the key for the band is a 5th up from the key of the harp.

To play in A ... I'd use a D. But to play in E (along with most of the guitar gods), I'd use an A.You are right, but looking at it the opposite direction. With a C harp, the cross will be G. Whatever Key you use, the draw on hole 1,2, or 1,2 3 is a chord of the cross which in this case is a G. The blow on those two or three holes will be a c chord. Take the key of the harp and count to 5, CDEFG and that is the cross key. You are taking the cross key and counting to 4 gabc.

Old Dryfoot
12-19-2013, 04:24 PM
Well this is a rather pleasant development from the expected coarse. Well done gentlemen.

bogdog
12-19-2013, 04:27 PM
I'll stick with my chromatic harps all the rest of yous guys are Luddites....

TomF
12-19-2013, 04:32 PM
I'll stick with my chromatic harps all the rest of yous guys are Luddites....I've got a chromatic piano already. Sometimes trading down is a good thing :D

pefjr
12-19-2013, 04:36 PM
This guy is a great teacher harpguru (http://michaelrubinharmonica.com/pageVideoArchive.html)

TomF
12-19-2013, 04:38 PM
This guy is a great teacher harpguru (http://michaelrubinharmonica.com/pageVideoArchive.html)
Thanks Pefjr - I'll check him out.

Flying Orca
12-19-2013, 04:41 PM
I think for cross you want the harp in the key that gives you the mixolydian mode of the key of the song, i.e. the major scale with the flat 7, which would be the fifth of the key of the song... so cross for A would be a D harp, cross for C would be a G, etc. (and then you can bend the 3rd flat to get the true blues thing happening).

bogdog
12-19-2013, 04:42 PM
bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.

RodB

That's very true, it presents real problems when trying to have a rational dialog about human rights with ultra-conservative religious believers all over the world. The idea that they could be mistaken just isn't acceptable to most of them.

pefjr
12-19-2013, 04:44 PM
Thanks Pefjr - I'll check him out.Amazon has some unbelievable xmas specials going on right now. I am partial to the Suzuki and just bought 6
new ones. The Promaster valved at $22 is a steal. The Overdrive at 25 is a great Harp, as is the Rosewood pure harp at 52. Some of these you might can still get, make sure you get the key you want.

TomF
12-19-2013, 04:47 PM
Amazon has some unbelievable xmas specials going on right now. I am partial to the Suzuki and just bought 6
new ones. The Promaster valved at $22 is a steal. The Overdrive at 25 is a great Harp, as is the Rosewood pure harp at 52. Some of these you might can still get, make sure you get the key you want.I mostly play Hohner Special 20s, though i have a couple of Big River harps too. What do you especially like about the Suzukis?

John Smith
12-19-2013, 04:49 PM
John, you keep saying this but you are wrong. The only freedom of speach we are guaranteed is the freedom from government consequences. Boycotts in response to free speach are a form a free speach as well.

Cheers,

Bobby
Yes, and no. One can believe in free speech or not. I think political speech, specifically, is protected. Then, freedom of religion would seem to protect religious speech.

I paint with a broader brush. Words, unless they're designed to trigger a riot or violence, IMO, all come under free speech. I absolutely believe a person has the right to speak his mind and not suffer consequences passed not being listened to.

If we are talking about a tv show, one can change the channel. If one organizes a movement to get the show off the air, it's my solid opinion this person does not believe in the concept of free speech. Unless it is fraud, libel, slander, or designed to incite violence, it should be without consequence past changing the channel, or not going into the theater.

John Smith
12-19-2013, 04:57 PM
He has the right to say what he feels, however the network that runs his show needs to sell advertising. Why should they not remove a guy who, by his statements, has "pissed off" half of the customer base of the corporations that buy advertising. It's called capitalism. Say what you want on the corner soapbox, but don't drag my store / produce / service into it.

I've seen boycotts aimed at advertisers. I wondered if Pepsi runs ads on a show you want to boycott and runs ads on your favorite show, how does one handle that.

Let's suppose the gay rights people demand action. The network takes that action. Then the anti-gay rights people who may be smaller in number but louder of voice, demand action. Where does it lead.

I say let the people decide to watch or not watch and the rating will determine network actions, rather than political correctness.

I've seen a lot in my life. I've seen a show I liked taken off the air because 15,000 letters of protest were received by the network. Never mind millions of people enjoyed the show. Those 15k people had an absolute right to not watch that show. They had no right, IMO, to make it impossible for me to watch the show.

I've seen a local church organize picketing at a local theater to get it to stop showing a film they didn't like. Again, they had a right to not buy a ticket, but no right to prevent me from buying one.

Speech is speech. Boycotts, letter writing campaigns, etc. are actions. I don't believe anyone who supports such actions truly believes in free speech.

John Smith
12-19-2013, 05:01 PM
The American Family Association (AFA) is alerting its members to companies who are supportive of GLBT employees and is asking "Christian consumers…to think twice before they patronize companies that support the homosexual agenda." AFA lists major corporations that have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation or that offer domestic-partner benefits for same-sex couples, including Eastman Kodak, Citigroup, PepsiCo., American Airlines, Allstate Insurance, and the Coca-Cola Company. "One company losing five to ten percent of its sales will send a clear message to every company in America," offers Don Wildmon. AFA attacked Kraft Foods (owner of brand names Post, Oscar Meyer, and Maxwell House, among others) for the company's support of the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago.
Wal-Mart and its affiliate Sam's Club became an AFA boycott target because of the retailer's support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
The American Family Association has called for a national boycott of the Ford Motor Company over the manufacturer's sponsorship of gay pride events and continued advertising in gay publications. AFA claims its boycott has played a major part in Ford's drop in sales.
Donald Wildmon has called for the shutdown of PBS and as a result of the AFA's campaign, many state legislatures reduced funding for public broadcasting. The AFA spearheaded the attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the 1980's, using direct mail and extensive print advertising to distort the NEA's record of sponsorship of the arts.

http://www.afa.net/detail.aspx?id=2147486887

Pretty much everyone dislikes speech when it takes positions we disagree with. The question is whether that gives us the right to stifle that speech just because we find it offensive.

I seem to be in a minority in that I don't think so. Change the channel. Go to a different church. Lots of options short of stifling the speech we don't like.

TomF
12-19-2013, 05:05 PM
Pshaaaw. Picketing is free speech, whether it's that church picketing a theater, or PETA folks picketing a furrier, or Martin Luther King's folks carrying signs about civil rights. It is their right of free speech which makes it possible for them to picket.

It is also free speech when those being picketed ... make a choice to continue to show the movie, or sell fur coats or etc. The fact that someone else is standing and waving a sign, in and of itself, doesn't stop you from buying a ticket or a coat. They're not using brass knuckles, eh? Now if the theater or store owner judges that their best commercial interest is changed and they shift their line of business a titch ... well, that's an example of them exercising free speech too.

bogdog
12-19-2013, 05:46 PM
The AFA (American Family Association)whose Naughty and Nice list I posted is going after Radio Shack this Christmas, now I should point out the AFA is considered a Christian hate group, by more than a few. Anyway their claim is that Radio Shack is anti-Christmas because they don't mention Christmas in their print or on air commercials. This Naughty and Nice list gets a tremendous amount of positive attention from conservative religious groups. Have any of them bothered to check with Radio Shack about the AFAs claim they are anti-Christmas? That would be a bit too much independent thinking I'm afraid. Radio Shack prefers an inclusive greeting in their ads and encourages all their franchise owners to greet their customers in any fashion they desire. Of course now they're fighting for their corporate life for more reasons than just the AFA but the AFA is proud to say they'll make a dent in Radio Shack's bottom line. So what would Jesus do? http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/files/2013/11/afa-radio-shack2-300x300.jpg

hokiefan
12-19-2013, 05:47 PM
Yes, and no. One can believe in free speech or not. I think political speech, specifically, is protected. Then, freedom of religion would seem to protect religious speech.

I paint with a broader brush. Words, unless they're designed to trigger a riot or violence, IMO, all come under free speech. I absolutely believe a person has the right to speak his mind and not suffer consequences passed not being listened to.

If we are talking about a tv show, one can change the channel. If one organizes a movement to get the show off the air, it's my solid opinion this person does not believe in the concept of free speech. Unless it is fraud, libel, slander, or designed to incite violence, it should be without consequence past changing the channel, or not going into the theater.

My right to stand on the corner and picket a business is free speech as well.

Once again, the only freedom of speech we are guaranteed in any way is the freedom from government consequences. Society does not and never has agreed with your concept of free speech, because that infringes on everyone elses freedom of speech.

Everything we do in life has consequences. Everything.

Cheers,

Bobby

pefjr
12-19-2013, 05:52 PM
I mostly play Hohner Special 20s, though i have a couple of Big River harps too. What do you especially like about the Suzukis?see PM

Gerarddm
12-19-2013, 05:54 PM
Nah, sorry John. Your perspective wouldn't have held water for, say, Gandhi or MLK Jr.

If you do not respect reality, it will hurt you. Including in the pocketbook.

moTthediesel
12-19-2013, 05:59 PM
I'll listen more closely to Sarah Palin when she starts to ask for both the Duck Guy and Martin Bashir to be reinstated.

What's sauce for the Duck is sauce for the Bashir.........?

John Smith
12-19-2013, 06:02 PM
Pshaaaw. Picketing is free speech, whether it's that church picketing a theater, or PETA folks picketing a furrier, or Martin Luther King's folks carrying signs about civil rights. It is their right of free speech which makes it possible for them to picket.

It is also free speech when those being picketed ... make a choice to continue to show the movie, or sell fur coats or etc. The fact that someone else is standing and waving a sign, in and of itself, doesn't stop you from buying a ticket or a coat. They're not using brass knuckles, eh? Now if the theater or store owner judges that their best commercial interest is changed and they shift their line of business a titch ... well, that's an example of them exercising free speech too.

Picketers can be quite intimidating.

So, I have the right to prevent YOU from enjoying your freedoms?

John Smith
12-19-2013, 06:08 PM
My right to stand on the corner and picket a business is free speech as well.

Once again, the only freedom of speech we are guaranteed in any way is the freedom from government consequences. Society does not and never has agreed with your concept of free speech, because that infringes on everyone elses freedom of speech.

Everything we do in life has consequences. Everything.

Cheers,

Bobby

I'm willing to agree that you have the right to picket a business based on something that business has done. Perhaps it can't find the tv you left for repair and won't compensate you.

I don't agree you have the right to picket the business because of its owners political views, or to picket a movie theater because you don't think it should be showing a particular film. I don't think you have the right to picket an abortion clinic in an effort to prevent someone else from getting a legal procedure. I acknowledge that most disagree with me, but that doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

The free market will provide what the people want. Those who don't want something are free not to buy it. I believe their freedom ends when they make efforts to prevent others from getting the product. They have the right to speak on the subject, but not to threaten anyone, including the theater owner or a network.

TomF
12-19-2013, 06:14 PM
Picketers can be quite intimidating.

So, I have the right to prevent YOU from enjoying your freedoms?That's what "free speech" means.

They have a right to picket - not to get violent or physically prevent you from doing your thing. You get to say stuff too.

And on the basis of their speech, or your speech, people may decide to do things differently. Whether because they were convinced, or because on a cost/benefit analysis, it made more sense in terms of supporting their other goals.

hokiefan
12-19-2013, 06:19 PM
I'm willing to agree that you have the right to picket a business based on something that business has done. Perhaps it can't find the tv you left for repair and won't compensate you.

I don't agree you have the right to picket the business because of its owners political views, or to picket a movie theater because you don't think it should be showing a particular film. I don't think you have the right to picket an abortion clinic in an effort to prevent someone else from getting a legal procedure. I acknowledge that most disagree with me, but that doesn't necessarily make me wrong.

The free market will provide what the people want. Those who don't want something are free not to buy it. I believe their freedom ends when they make efforts to prevent others from getting the product. They have the right to speak on the subject, but not to threaten anyone, including the theater owner or a network.

The fact is though, that I do have these rights. It comes from my freedom of speech. Others may not like it and may therefore boycott my business, that is their right as well. Freedom of speech comes with potential consequences, that is just the way it is.

I will agree that I do not have the right to threaten anyone, beyond the threat of spreading the word about what I think of someone's views, actions, etc.

Cheers,

Bobby

Fitz
12-19-2013, 07:38 PM
The GQ article is available on-line. It appears to have been written by a twelve year old. Every other word rhymes with "duck" and starts with "F". I have enjoyed the show and especially Phil, and I watch next to no TV. I could watch it with my kids and there is no profanity and other reality TV problems. Kinda refreshing actually.

So the article indicates Phil's religion says certain things are sinful. He was fired for his beliefs/religion. He may well end up owning A&E?

BrianW
12-19-2013, 08:02 PM
He also mentions adulterers and drunkards.

Where's the outcry from those communities? :D

BrianW
12-19-2013, 08:07 PM
Hmm.

So A&E is acting like a Corporation, making a saw-off to protect where it perceives its overall profitability rests.

On the one hand, they're assuming that diehard Duck Dynasty fans will mostly continue to watch - even if they're ticked that Phil's on hiatus.

I suspect they gambled wrong. The show was not aimed at the LGBT community, or even the metrosexual/hipster/city boy community. But we'll see how it works out.


I thought Corporations were persons in America, and entitled to their own free speech. Isn't this what A&E is exercising?

Can they decide not to include abortions in their healthcare plan too? ;)

RodB
12-19-2013, 08:21 PM
I'll listen more closely to Sarah Palin when she starts to ask for both the Duck Guy and Martin Bashir to be reinstated.

What's sauce for the Duck is sauce for the Bashir.........?

Everything has limits... Martin Bashir with premeditation said Sweet Sarah Palin should have someone piss and defecate into her mouth.... so you don't have a problem with that? Is that crossing a line for a network to allow???? Oh, I forgot... she's a conservative woman so anything goes... what a hypocrite you are. Anyone on the left is sacred... both sexes...but women on the right are fair game because they undermine your ideology. No honor here... you should be ashamed.

RodB

bogdog
12-19-2013, 08:32 PM
Martin Bashir with premeditation said Sweet Sarah Palin...
RodBWell, we certainly know Palin doesn't think much before she speaks, shouldn't Bashir be given the same consideration? It can happen to anybody, apparently.

Chip-skiff
12-19-2013, 08:36 PM
So the Duck Bugger got docked for his public statements by his private employer? I thought that right-wingers supported the right to hire, fire, cheat, steal, etc. in the private sector.

Hilarious! Tempest in a toilet.

pila
12-19-2013, 08:36 PM
I've never watched Duck Dynasty. Maybe because I don't like programs with dudes that look like moonshiners, talk about religion, and other hillbilly crap....

BrianW
12-19-2013, 08:38 PM
I've never watched Duck Dynasty. Maybe because I don't like programs with dudes that look like moonshiners, talk about religion, and other hillbilly crap....

How do you know what they talk about, if you've never watched it?

RodB
12-19-2013, 08:43 PM
More details on the interview in question.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/ae-declares-war-on-duck-dynastys-christian-values/


]Duck Dynasty has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.[/B]
By now you probably know that A&E indefinitely suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family, for following the teachings of the Holy Bible. Nothing says tolerance and diversity by silencing the Christians and shoving them in a closet.
Between you and me, I think Duck Dynasty ought to indefinitely suspend A&E.
Phil ran afoul of intolerant leftwing bullies after making comments about homosexuality to GQ magazine (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png. When the writer asked Phil what he considered to be sinful behavior, he replied:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says.

Sadly, Duck Dynasty values are not Hollywood’s values. And that’s why I’m not surprised A&E dropped the hammer on Phil.
Then he paraphrases Paul’s letter to the Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
That comment went over about as well as a Chick-fil-A sandwich at a gay pride parade.
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD rep Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.
Before you could shout tolerance and diversity, gay rights organizations were demanding Phil be tarred and feathered. And A&E was more than happy to oblige.
“The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely,” A&E declared. “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”
Let’s not mince words.
A&E is apparently run by a bunch of anti-Christian, bigots. Duck Dynasty worships God. A&E worships GLAAD. If Phil had been twerking with a duck the network probably would’ve given him a contract extension. But because he espoused beliefs held by many Christians, he’s been silenced.
Perhaps A&E could provide the nation with a list of what they believe is politically correct speech.
Maybe they could tell us what Americans can say, think and do. S
hould the U.S. Constitution be amended to prevent Americans from holding personal beliefs that others might not agree with?
I suspect A&E’s decision is going to create a firestorm of controversy. If you thought feathers got ruffled over Chick-fil-A, wait until Duck Dynasty fans take to the streets. I’m one of those fans.
I was a Duck Dynasty fan before being a Duck Dynasty fan was cool. And for the sake of full disclosure, I drink my sweet tea from green Tupperware glass just like Uncle Si.
There was something wholesome and heartwarming about the story of the Robertson family from Monroe, Louisiana. It harkened back to the days of black and white television when Father Knew Best, when afternoons were spent down at the fishing hole and Mary Ellen said good night to John Boy. It was a time when right and wrong were black and white.
It’s no surprise that "Duck Dynasty" became the most-watched non-fiction cable television show in history. American moms and dads have been clamoring for quite some time for family-friendly television programming – and Phil and Miss Kay and Uncle Si delivered the goods.
The Robertsons showed America that you can make it in show business without cursing, backstabbing people, or getting butt-naked. Each episode was sort of like a modern-day parable, wrapped up with the family gathered around the supper table, holding hands as somebody prayed.
Sadly, Duck Dynasty values are not Hollywood’s values. And that’s why I’m not surprised A&E dropped the hammer on Phil.
It’s not about capitalism. It’s about driving an agenda and shoving it down the throats of the American public. And Hollywood is beholden to an agenda that is anti-Christian and anti-family.
Fathers are portrayed as bumbling idiots and Christians are portrayed as intolerant bigots. Anybody remember “Good Christian Bitches”?
But these days it’s open season on Christians and Hollywood has both barrels aimed at folks like the Robertsons and anyone else who loves God and the traditional definition of marriage. Maybe President Obama could hold a Duck Dynasty summit in the Rose Garden duck blind.
I would encourage you to read the GQ article (http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png. I think you’ll find it both entertaining and thought-provoking.
For me, the most poignant moment near the end of the story when Phil inquired about the GQ reporter’s plans for the afterlife.
“So you and your woman: Are y’all Bible people?”
“Not really, I’m sorry to say,” the reporter replied.
“If you simply put your faith in Jesus coming down in flesh, through a human being, God becoming flesh living on the earth, dying on the cross for the sins of the world, being buried, and being raised from the dead—yours and mine and everybody else’s problems will be solved,” Phil said. “And the next time we see you, we will say: ‘You are now a brother. Our brother.’ So then we look at you totally different then. See what I’m saying?”
Phil Robertson was, in the words of the great hymn writer, a wretch – once lost, now found. He was a sinner saved by grace. And his life’s mission is to help others find the path to that oh so amazing grace.
It’s a message that I find compelling. It’s a message Hollywood wants to silence.
Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations.

pila
12-19-2013, 08:50 PM
FYI, my wife had it on once, and I got a good enough taste.

What Martin Bashir said about Ms Palin, was totally over the top & inexcusable, for a news type with a large audience...
maybe he should be made un-welcome here...

And who wants to listen to all the religion that people are involved in, regardless of political leanings......not this old man...

RodB
12-19-2013, 08:54 PM
Well, we certainly know Palin doesn't think much before she speaks, shouldn't Bashir be given the same consideration? It can happen to anybody, apparently.

Ya think Martin B misspoke? This was a premeditated thought out attack... check the facts.


So the Duck Bugger got docked for his public statements by his private employer? I thought that right-wingers supported the right to hire, fire, cheat, steal, etc. in the private sector.

You are right... we just seem to have political correctness to the point of insanity where every once in awhile the left wing progressives put their machine in action to destroy the most recent individual who said something they disagreed with.

Personally, I have never seen this show...but its difficult to miss the extreme leftist machine at work once they decide to go after someone.

RodB

bogdog
12-19-2013, 08:56 PM
More details on the interview in question.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/ae-declares-war-on-duck-dynastys-christian-values/


]Duck Dynasty has been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness....[/B]

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations.
What does Obama have to do with this? I see the speaker brought him up, is this Obama's fault, the fact that Mr. Robertson is an intolerant bigot?

RodB
12-19-2013, 09:07 PM
What I'm thinking may happen...

The Robertson family quits A&E... and they could be picked up by other networks, etc... oops!!! just now on Fox... 8:05PM.... the family gave a statement per this situation. They said although they have had a good relationship with the management of A&E... they cannot imagine going forward with the show without their patriarch.

I knew this would get interesting...

RodB

BrianW
12-19-2013, 09:25 PM
I've never watched Duck Dynasty. Maybe because I don't like programs with dudes that look like moonshiners, talk about religion, and other hillbilly crap....


How do you know what they talk about, if you've never watched it?


FYI, my wife had it on once, and I got a good enough taste.

Oh, so you have watched it.

Did anyone insult homosexuals during that time?

Okay, that was rhetorical, because the answer is going to be "no." They do pray at dinner though. The fact is that Phil made the comments during a magazine interview, not on the show. If a magazine was looking to make the news, and increase their readership, then asking a 67yo man about a hot topic is a sure way to to get there. :)

Anyhow, with all this wonderful free speech going around, I hope A&E learns a painful not so free lesson. ;)

RodB
12-19-2013, 09:43 PM
Is anybody surprised to see RodB and BryanW come out in support of a RWW, Fundamentalist Bigot, Homophobe?
No?

Now the personal attacks start... Glen has arrived with his simplistic vocabulary ... don't forget troglodyte...

Lets be clear... I only speak against the politics of personal destruction practiced by the left in situations like this. Mr Robertson certainly knew what he was saying... he also knew the degree of insanity pushed on the country by the "political correctness police".

RodB

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2013, 09:46 PM
So the Duck Bugger got docked for his public statements by his private employer? I thought that right-wingers supported the right to hire, fire, cheat, steal, etc. in the private sector.

Hilarious! Tempest in a toilet.
Yep.

The RWW contingent engages in moral relativism. Is this a surprise to anyone?

It is amusing to watch.

BrianW
12-19-2013, 10:03 PM
This message is hidden because Glen Longino is on your ignore list (http://forum.woodenboat.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist). View Post (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?171609-Sarah-Palin-Intolerants-Behind-Phil-Robertson-s-Suspension-Attacking-All-of-Us&p=4007412#post4007412)

Remove user from ignore list (http://forum.woodenboat.com/profile.php?userlist=ignore&do=removelist&u=21178)




Been a good week or so since I made that decision. Please don't quote him Rob, because it just reminds of this...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/SpikeandChester_zpsf4f70f24.jpg

ccmanuals
12-19-2013, 10:04 PM
http://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1482962_254434904714331_783323650_n.jpg

BrianW
12-19-2013, 10:07 PM
Yep.

The RWW contingent engages in moral relativism. Is this a surprise to anyone?

It is amusing to watch.

I've supported everyone rights in this very unimportant conflict. Phil's, A&E's, fans, advertisers, whoever... they are free to do as they will, and let the chips fall as they may.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2013, 10:10 PM
Did I name you? Nope.

Do you identify as a right wing wacko? If so, that's on you. I did not have you in mind.

BrianW
12-19-2013, 10:11 PM
http://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1482962_254434904714331_783323650_n.jpg

Really? They were censored?

Their records were altered? They weren't allowed to sell albums? They were forbidden from saying what they wanted?

BrianW
12-19-2013, 10:12 PM
Did I name you? Nope.

My mistake.


Do you identify as a right wing wacko? If so, that's on you. I did not have you in mind.

I don't, so it's cool.

Steve McMahon
12-19-2013, 10:12 PM
I admit, I watched the show once just to see what all the hype was about, I almost got all the way through an episode but one of my dogs needed to go out for a crap and that proved to be more entertaining. After reading through this thread from the first post it seems this poor Phil fellow has had a string of bad luck and it keeps getting worse. First he gets interviewed by a magazine and has to use his own words and says some really dumb stuff, Strike two Sara Palin supports him, Strike three a right wing religious extremest group supports him, Strike four Fox is talking to him. He really should get the hint and realize it's time to give up and head for the hills.

From what I saw I would rather be forced to watch reruns of that show that had Daisy Duke and Cooter in it. :eek:

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2013, 10:14 PM
The Dixie Chicks' recorded music and performances were boycotted by many in their country music audience. And they were certainly protested and called all those awful things ("traitors," "Dixie sluts," etc.) by many in the public as well as the radio broadcast media.

BrianW
12-19-2013, 10:40 PM
The Dixie Chicks' recorded music and performances were boycotted by many in their country music audience. And they were certainly protested and called all those awful things ("traitors," "Dixie sluts," etc.) by many in the public as well as the radio broadcast media.


I remember. :)

It was a lot of free speech being employed, and re-employed. A thing of beauty for every free speech aficionado.

Tom Montgomery
12-19-2013, 10:43 PM
We agree! :)

jclays
12-19-2013, 11:06 PM
I agree with you bogdog about their calls which I've been familiar with many YEARS before the television show; average at best. Even though the show Duck Dynasty is wildly popular, I've only seen it a couple times because my boys digitally record all the episodes and watch them religiously. My thoughts on the issue revolve around the extreme intolerance of the left. They strongly support free speech until someone disagrees with them. Sarah Palin makes a good point, this overreaction is an attack on all of us. I agree except your experience with the duck calls. They work just fine for us.

jclays
12-19-2013, 11:15 PM
Here's some other remarks made by Mr. Robertson. My question is has A&E actually said why he was suspended(not fired as I wrote)I suspect there maybe more than one reason.

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana:“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”
Nothing offensive on What Phil said. He is talking from his experience.. What he actually experienced. Not necessarily the experience of others or the rest of the black community. Just his experience. Nothing wrong or racist in his remarks.

jclays
12-19-2013, 11:22 PM
Do you,really care about this TV jerk or are you addicted to whatever Sarah Palin opines on?
Do you or Sarah Palin have any idea of the conditions contained in this guy's TV contract?
Ever occure to you this type of program is successful because it plays to a rural very right-wing audience?
Get off of the left wing right wing crap this has nothing to do with that. It's a simple funny show and nothing more. A man/hunter with strong religious convictions gets interviewed and expresses his personal opinions. The overly sensitive gay community who pro ports to want tolerance freaks out and wants his head on a plate. Not left wing nor right wing. Just pissy people wanting it one way.

jclays
12-19-2013, 11:25 PM
It's a privately owned corporation. They pay the guy to appear on the show. If what he says damages their brand, they have every financial right to do what they did, and the 'free speech' angle has NOTHING to do with it. He can say what he wants, it's his right. Just as it is their right to react, and a viewer's option to watch or not watch accordingly.
Agreed ed. I dont like the fact that one group can ask for someone's head on a plate but on the other hand ask for tolerance. I truly believe A&E needs This family/show more than they need him.

BrianW
12-19-2013, 11:26 PM
Hey look! Another Facebook image...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1531673_10152174755949047_977628325_n.jpg

:)

jclays
12-19-2013, 11:30 PM
Hey look! Another Facebook image...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1531673_10152174755949047_977628325_n.jpg

:)
Right on Phil.

RodB
12-20-2013, 12:06 AM
The Dixie Chicks' recorded music and performances were boycotted by many in their country music audience. And they were certainly protested and called all those awful things ("traitors," "Dixie sluts," etc.) by many in the public as well as the radio broadcast media.



I specifically remember some debates about this and also remember saying I think they can say whatever the hell they want... and I will buy or not buy their music in the future. I might not agree with about 90% of what Obama and his administration do...but I would not demean him in another country if I had a public stage as they did.

On the other hand... from reading the following, I must admit I never thought their career would be so strongly affected for so long. They did not deserve that and I'm sorry it happened. They were/are a damn good group and I'd owned some of their music. Means was young... but I doubt has ever changed her political persuasion.

RodB



The Dixie Chicks controversy 10 years later: Natalie Maines rehashes it

Do men get a free pass for much harsher crimes? Why is Natalie Maines rehashing it?
BY MELINDA NEWMAN MONDAY, MAR 11, 2013 3:32 PM


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3239114312/3a7dd3dd36f29c76b091bd3bf41e476e_normal.jpegNatali e Maines @1NatalieMaines (https://twitter.com/1NatalieMaines)
Follow (https://twitter.com/1NatalieMaines)
Good thing I'm not a told ya so kind of person or I might point out that 10 years ago today I said GWB was full of bull and I was right.
8:30 PM - 10 Mar 2013 (https://twitter.com/1NatalieMaines/statuses/310925745453137920)


Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/news/the-dixie-chicks-controversy-10-years-later-natalie-maines-rehashes-it#x3DUebZ2ghmiXGKw.99

As you may recall, 10 years ago on March 10, the Dixie Chicks were on tour in London. Under President George W. Bush’s command, the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq under the alleged belief that Saddam Hussein was hiding “weapons of mass destruction.” Like many people in the U.S. and the rest of the world who opposed the war from the start, more than 1 million Brits had marched again the impending invasion. Maines looked out over the audience at Shepherd’s Bush Empire Theater and said, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

That’s it. Since then, the level of discourse between politicians has sunk so low that it’s hard to believe it even registered a blip. It was painful to watch as the press piled on and she had to make an apology that felt forced and ultimately did no good anyway. Her fellow Dixie Chicks, Emily Robison and Martie Maguire, publicly stood by her as they watched their career go down; Innocent bystanders standing too close to the flame

I remember exactly where I was when I learned of her remarks. I was in Texas at South By Southwest in Austin. I remember reading about it online that night and having that feeling of “This is either going to blow over” or “This is going to be a disaster.” It was that kind of hold-your-breath feeling, like when you watch a baby fall and you wait to see her reaction to see how spooked she is before you react. Sometimes the baby gets back up and laughs, and sometimes the exact same fall can provoke screams and an avalanche of tears.

Maines’ comments were a country career killer. The reaction was swift, brutal and ongoing. It included stations boycotting the group and fans burning their CDs. Regardless of whether one agreed with her views, the unofficial blacklisting, which continues to this day, was a ridiculously knee-jerk overreaction in a format that wraps itself in jingoistic patriotism often defined in one very narrow, conservative way with little tolerance for opposing views. And I say that as a great fan of country music. But its long-held embrace of this vision of America that no longer exists, if it ever did other than in the movies or on “The Andy Griffith (http://www.hitfix.com/categories/andy-griffith) Show,” is antiquated and damaging.
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/news/the-dixie-chicks-controversy-10-years-later-natalie-maines-rehashes-it#x3DUebZ2ghmiXGKw.99

Contrast country radio’s response to Natalie Maines’ comments, in which she merely expressed her opinion, and a relatively mild one at that, with how R&B and pop radio treated Chris Brown, who actually broke the law and horribly abused a woman in 2009. He’s been welcomed back into the fold with all kinds of back-slapping and merriment. Hmmm.

Plus, for all the cries of Un-Americanism that occurred when Maines criticized Bush, the same rules clearly don’t apply to criticizing Obama. Otherwise, how do you explain Ted Nugent (http://www.hitfix.com/categories/ted-nugent)? Yes, Hank Williams Jr (http://www.hitfix.com/categories/hank-williams-jr-2). got dumped by ESPN in 2011 for comparing Obama to Hitler, but those remarks were far more egregious than anything Maines ever said and no classic country stations pulled his music for any duration. At least Maines’ comments never required the Secret Service to launch an investigation they were so incendiary.

Does that tell us something about how female artists who voice an opinion are considered too strident, whereas their male counterparts don’t fall under the same confines?
The Dixie Chicks made one more album, 2006’s “Taking the Long Way Home,” which included the song “Not Ready To Make Nice.” The tune addressed the Iraq controversy in this verse: “And how in the world/can the words that I said/Send somebody so over the edge/That they’d write me a letter/ Saying that I better shut up and sing/Or my life will be over.” The song received little country airplay.

The tune went on to win song and record of the year at the 2007 Grammy Awards (http://www.hitfix.com/music/grammy-awards), while “Taking the Long Way Home” won album of the year. It was a clear mandate from the mainstream Grammy voters that they supported The Chicks both musically and politically.

A 2006 Cecilia Peck (http://www.hitfix.com/categories/cecilia-peck)-directed documentary, the excellent “Shut Up & Sing,” chronicled the ordeal. Maines, who, to be honest, does not always come off as particularly likable (and God only knows what prompted her to open back up this can of worms via Twitter yesterday), vacillates between incredulity and anger that her words caused such a firestorm. Indeed, a decade later, it is really impossible to believe that the statement caused so much destruction.

So how have things changed? In the country world, sadly, I would say not at all. If anything, country artists are even more close-mouthed today for fear of offending their fans in the fly-over states, many of whom are conservative. I’ve had conversations with country superstars who were Obama supporters and yet they would no more announce that publicly in 2008 or 2012 than they would insult your mama. Sometimes, even playing at Obama’s White House is enough to set off reactionary fans.

In fact, I know of no way to make a country artist clam up faster than to ask him or her about his political views. They will voice their support for the troops (Make no mistake about it, country artists have really done wonderful work that way and many of them put their lives on the line going to perform for the troops), but that’s about it.

Maines’ solo album comes out in May and, as one would expect, she’s staying a country mile away from country radio. The set, “Mother,” leans more toward rock. Maybe all her Twitter talk was simply a way of calling attention to herself.

So a decade later we seem to be no wiser and no more tolerant of opposing political views. I wish instead of flippantly mouthing off on Twitter (Typical follow up: someone tweeted back “You’re a dumbass,” Maines responded “You are”) Maines had written a serious piece about what she had learned from this experience 10 years down the road. I’m not sure the rest of us learned anything.
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/news/the-dixie-chicks-controversy-10-years-later-natalie-maines-rehashes-it#x3DUebZ2ghmiXGKw.99

Steve McMahon
12-20-2013, 12:07 AM
And you wonder why under previous administrations we had Cancon (Canadian Content) legislation to try to limit the influence of American media programming on our airwaves. when we had TFS - two fuzzy channels on TV. Sadly we are being assimilated, resistance is futile.

hokiefan
12-20-2013, 12:09 AM
Get off of the left wing right wing crap this has nothing to do with that. It's a simple funny show and nothing more. A man/hunter with strong religious convictions gets interviewed and expresses his personal opinions. The overly sensitive gay community who pro ports to want tolerance freaks out and wants his head on a plate. Not left wing nor right wing. Just pissy people wanting it one way.

Actually its his bosses at A&E that don't like what he said and fired him. It was too early in the process for them to be feeling any heat yet, they did it pretty much immediately and thus on their own. Their right to do so, if it hurts them financially thats a consequence they will have to deal with at A&E.

Cheers,

Bobby

TomF
12-20-2013, 07:22 AM
I remember. :)

It was a lot of free speech being employed, and re-employed. A thing of beauty for every free speech aficionado.Yep. Phil, Sarah, Cruz, Jindal and the various Fox and other commentators oughta take note.

Getting ahead of the next curve of this discussion ... let's imagine there's an off-chance that there's some contractual obligation between A&E and the DD crew about not taking their show to a competing network. Would that be an instance of obstructing Phil's family's freedom of speech, if it was a clause in a contract each side had signed? Or simply of fairly standard business practices.

Peerie Maa
12-20-2013, 07:41 AM
Yep. Phil, Sarah, Cruz, Jindal and the various Fox and other commentators oughta take note.

Getting ahead of the next curve of this discussion ... let's imagine there's an off-chance that there's some contractual obligation between A&E and the DD crew about not taking their show to a competing network. Would that be an instance of obstructing Phil's family's freedom of speech, if it was a clause in a contract each side had signed? Or simply of fairly standard business practices.

If he had signed that sort of clause, he should have been aware of A&E's editorial policy before engaging his mouth.

No body is forced to say anything, keeping your lip buttoned is not being dishonest.

Ian McColgin
12-20-2013, 07:43 AM
Entertainment can get quite complex and many contracts indeed define what the entertainer can and cannot do for renumeration and/or for publicity. It really depends on the contract. In general though, the contract will define some level of 'noncompetition' where the main gig is protected from the economic consequences of other activities. One reason why many, like Duck Dynasty, take production ownership is to expand their own commercial options without sharing with certain others, like a TV network.

All that leaves the promotion entity - TV network, concert venues, booking agencies - with little option except cancellation when the act's behavior, as here with the Rev or fameously with the Dixie Chicks, threatens the money stream. Give that in our history hysterical white right wingers have silenced more acts than ever the shriller of the politically humorless left did, Sarah and company should just take a chill pill - except that their rants on this are such a gold mine for themselves. They ought to be secretly thanking the network, just as people like Bill Mahr openly thank Sarah Palin just for being there.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 10:58 AM
Did you guys see this facebook page? 1.4 MILLION likes in a little over a day! My intuition on the groundswell of push back by the silent majority on this attack by the real intolerance crowd is proving correct.

https://www.facebook.com/Philrobertsonsupport?fref=ts

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 11:00 AM
I've supported everyone rights in this very unimportant conflict. Phil's, A&E's, fans, advertisers, whoever... they are free to do as they will, and let the chips fall as they may.

Well said as usual Brian. You've made some great comments on this and many other issues.

ccmanuals
12-20-2013, 11:01 AM
sounds like a bromance in the making. :)

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 11:06 AM
I agree except your experience with the duck calls. They work just fine for us.

That's good, certainly can't go by one example and I wasn't throwing a blanket statement over all their calls. It's always possible to get a clinker, especially since mine was a present given just about the time they started having them mass produced in high volume. Sure would like to have one hand made during the early days in the shed behind Phil's house. Those might be a big collectors item someday!

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 11:11 AM
1.4 million is very, very far from a majority, silent or otherwise. All it tell us is that there are still a lot of people who support anti-gay prejudice, and we knew that already.

The idea that "political correctness", i.e. criticism of those who express certain reactionary opinions, is the real oppression, while the legacy of hundreds if not thousands of years of anti-gay, anti-female, and racist attitudes is of no consequence - this is so far from reality, and so deeply wrong, that it's amazing a rational being could believe it.

bogdog
12-20-2013, 11:32 AM
The number of Americans who think homosexuality is wrong dwindles faster each year. Probably hasn't been a majority in ten years. The number of Americans who think as Phil does that homosexuality is a life style choice is even smaller and deceasing rapidly. If Phil truly loved all mankind he'd take this time to educate himself about some history and culture not his own. Who knows maybe he's educable in spite of his comments that one lead one to believe otherwise.

BrianW
12-20-2013, 11:37 AM
1.4 million is very, very far from a majority, silent or otherwise. All it tell us is that there are still a lot of people who support anti-gay prejudice, and we knew that already.

How did you come to the conclusion they all support him because they are anti-gay? Perhaps they support Phils right to free speech despite the subject.

ccmanuals
12-20-2013, 11:39 AM
Who violated this guy's right to free speech that it would need to be defended?

Canoeyawl
12-20-2013, 11:41 AM
Free speech works both ways...
If that corporation doesn't want him speaking for them and he signed a contract saying he won't they have the right to say 'we don't want him speaking for us'.

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 11:43 AM
Perhaps they support Phil's right to free speech . . . Perhaps they do. One can hope. So do I, in fact. However, again, free speech does not mean the freedom to say things with no consequences. Actions, including speech, sometimes affect what other people do.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 11:51 AM
1.4 million is very, very far from a majority, silent or otherwise.

Are you kidding??? Brand new facebook page gets 1.4 million likes in only about 30 hours in support of a man and his family isn't indicative of a silent majority??? I suppose powerful indicators don't mean much to those who prefer obfuscation.




All it tell us is that there are still a lot of people who support anti-gay prejudice, and we knew that already.

This is what liberal progressive and militant pro-homosexual minds fail to comprehend. This is NOT about anti-gay prejudice, it's about push back of gross intolerance from a vocal minority who pay lip service only to the concept of tolerance. They support tolerance as long as a person's speech agrees with them. The truth is, the silent majority is rapidly growing tired of such and the tremors rumbling under our feet on this issue are clear to those with eyes to see.

Gerarddm
12-20-2013, 11:52 AM
Per #131, an assistant principal at a catholic school was fired this week in WA because he got married last summer to his partner ( he is gay ). The students are up in arms about it and boycotted classes yesterday. On the news students used comments like 'unfair', 'just wrong', and 'disgusting' to describe the school's action.

Regressives have lost the strategic war on this issue. Dittoheads can like his Facebook page all they want, it is like King Canute raging against the rising tide.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 11:52 AM
how did you come to the conclusion they all support him because they are anti-gay? Perhaps they support phils right to free speech despite the subject.


bingo!

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 11:53 AM
Perhaps they do. One can hope. So do I, in fact. However, again, free speech does not mean the freedom to say things with no consequences. Actions, including speech, sometimes affect what other people do.

Ohhhhh, it's the consequences connected to freedom that make this situation so interesting!

BrianY
12-20-2013, 12:07 PM
This is what liberal progressive and militant pro-homosexual minds fail to comprehend. This is NOT about anti-gay prejudice, it's about push back of gross intolerance from a vocal minority who pay lip service only to the concept of tolerance. They support tolerance as long as a person's speech agrees with them. The truth is, the silent majority is rapidly growing tired of such and the tremors rumbling under our feet on this issue are clear to those with eyes to see.

OK, so the issue is intolerance... Let me think this one through...

SP and other like-minded folks accuse "liberal progressive and militant pro-homosexual" of being intolerant because they object to what this guy said and they are arguing that such opinions should be tolerated as expressions of free speech and they are holding this incident as an example of the repression of free speech... am I right so far?

buuuut....Aren't SP and other like-minded folks guilty of doing exactly the same thing that they're mad at the otehr side for doing? Aren't they expressing intolerance for the other side's expressions of free speech and thereby attempting to supress their free speech rights?


I mean, each side is "intolerant" of the other's expression of its opinions... If SP and company were truly concerned about "free speech" instead of trying to supress expression of views that they don't agree with, wouldn't they be applauding and encouraging the free speech expressions from all sides?

I guess for SP and her ilk, the right of free speech only applies when people are saying things that they agree with.

BrianW
12-20-2013, 12:11 PM
Perhaps they do. One can hope. So do I, in fact. However, again, free speech does not mean the freedom to say things with no consequences. Actions, including speech, sometimes affect what other people do.

We all agree with that point.

Yet it's entirely possible they support Phil because they disagree with the actions of the network after he used his right to free speech, and not because they are anti-gay.

It's true in my case. I'm not anti-gay, yet I support Phils right to say what he wants, and I disagree with A&E's actions.

To claim all 1.4 million support Phil because they are anti-gay is taking the most pessimistic view possible, and not likely to be true at all.

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 12:17 PM
Ohhhhh, it's the consequences connected to freedom that make this situation so interesting!Indeed. So what do you think would be legitimate? Remember that the guy is a public figure, seen on TV by many people, the star of a reasonably popular show AFIAK. It's not like a machinist who mutters darkly about "those damned fags" in the back of the shop, and doesn't bother anyone. Are there any opinions he could have expressed that you think would be just cause to fire him? If he said Hitler had the right idea with the Jews? That black folks aren't fully human and are better off as slaves? That a Communist revolution is necessary to free us from the oppression of the ruling bourgeoisie? That monarchy is the best form of government? (All opinions held by a lot of people not that long ago.) Are there any opinions offensive enough to justify what happened to him? Or are you just upset because you agree with him, and he got whacked for expressing opinions you like?


To claim all 1.4 million support Phil because they are anti-gay is taking the most pessimistic view possible, and not likely to be true at all.I hope you're right. However, I'm sure you could find far more than 1.4 million people who would have attitudes at least as harsh as Mr Robertson's. I could probably find half a dozen where I work, no problem - good guys, all of them. There are a lot of people in the country, and bad old ideas sometimes take a long time to fade away.

Peerie Maa
12-20-2013, 12:25 PM
Are you kidding??? Brand new facebook page gets 1.4 million likes in only about 30 hours in support of a man and his family isn't indicative of a silent majority??? I suppose powerful indicators don't mean much to those who prefer obfuscation.


I seem to remember some discussion recently about hundreds of numpties liking some truly offensive post on twitter or facebook.
All that demonstrates is that people poke the "like" button with their brains in neutral because it requires no thought to twitch a finger.

TomF
12-20-2013, 12:26 PM
...This is what liberal progressive and militant pro-homosexual minds fail to comprehend. This is NOT about anti-gay prejudice, it's about push back of gross intolerance from a vocal minority who pay lip service only to the concept of tolerance. They support tolerance as long as a person's speech agrees with them. The truth is, the silent majority is rapidly growing tired of such and the tremors rumbling under our feet on this issue are clear to those with eyes to see.Rick, read what a number of us "liberal progressive" types have said here. It is rather different from what you seem to be thinking we've written:

Phil has a right to free speech. He certainly had the right to say what he did in that interview.
Phil is presently using his right to free speech. Since that Esquire interview went live, we've actually heard his views expressed far more widely than ever before, through many more venues. It is patently obvious that his right to free speech is not stifled by whatever A&E is doing.
A&E has the right to make business decisions respecting the content they broadcast, and the people who are associated with them. They've made one.
Decisions about broadcast content are explicitly connected with A&E's right to free speech. There is a certain irony that the Supreme Court's extension of this right to corporations delighted many who are now infuriated in the way A&E is expressing it.

If there is a "silent majority" which changes viewing habits as a result, that's fine too. But nobody's rights to free speech are being trampled here - they're just being expressed.

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 12:38 PM
One doesn't have to assert a corporate right to 'free speech' to claim that A&E had the right to do what they did. He's the star of a show, one major public face of the company. If he does something that they think reflects badly on the company and would hurt their business, they have every right to get rid of him. Now maybe they're wrong; maybe old-time anti-gay attitudes would attract viewers, not repel them, but they have the right and responsibility to make that decision as they see fit. This is not a free speech issue.

Certain kinds of anti-gay prejudice are no longer socially acceptable. This is Rick's problem, I think; he wants these attitudes to be acceptable like they used to be.

moTthediesel
12-20-2013, 12:39 PM
How did you come to the conclusion they all support him because they are anti-gay? Perhaps they support Phils right to free speech despite the subject.

Once again, "they" support only the free speech that they like to hear.

The whole argument is ludicrous, beginning with Palin's charge of "intolerance" against the duck guy. What he said in the first place was clearly "intolerant" by any definition, whether you agree with it or not. So is she saying true tolerance requires society to tolerate intolerance? My head is swimming in a pool of circular logic now... Added to that is the firing, just in the last month, of someone who made offensive statements about Palin herself. She certainly voiced no objections to that -- my hypocrisy meter is officially pegged at 11.

The thing about people with TV shows like duck guy and Martin Bashir is that they are employees of corporations. When they take those jobs they sign contracts, in those contacts surely there are clauses that are put there to protect the image of the show and the corporation that produces it. There's a line there somewhere that you cross at your peril, and in both these cases the line was crossed, with predictable results. Mr. Duck could have just stayed in his swamp making his tooters and saying anything damn thing he wanted, but he chose to work for a network on TV, with all the responsibilities that come with that job.

As a bigot, he should have realized that the smart bigot knows what to not quite say out loud -- many others do. Perhaps puffed up over his shot at a GQ interview, he forgot himself for a moment and made the great mistake of saying what he really believes, and so now he's riding the whirlwind. Sorry, but I have no more sympathy for him then for Bashir, or Paula Dean, or Alec Baldwin, etc. etc. etc.

TomF
12-20-2013, 12:46 PM
Keith, I agree that it doesn't have to be a Free Speech issue for A&E - just a business decision.

But A&E's existing right/responsibility to make business decisions is now additionally buttressed by free speech rights extended to corporations, IMO. Presumably "speech" is a characteristic of broadcast content as much as of lobbying money.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-20-2013, 01:46 PM
Get off of the left wing right wing crap this has nothing to do with that. It's a simple funny show and nothing more. A man/hunter with strong religious convictions gets interviewed and expresses his personal opinions. The overly sensitive gay community who pro ports to want tolerance freaks out and wants his head on a plate. Not left wing nor right wing. Just pissy people wanting it one way.

Sorry clays but it would only be funny if the whole thing was a put-on. The show is real cinema in the raw and none of the participants have any comic ability. The ever present camo clothing, the shoulder length hair and belly-button length beards and the suggestion they are engaged in the Lord's work makes them very strange. And that is why A&E hired them.
What is sad is that none of them realized they are getting paid big bucks for participation in a freak show and they had best keep their opinions to themselves until after the gravey train was gone.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 02:32 PM
Gay Activist Camille Paglia: Duck Dynasty uproar ‘utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.

Robertson has been suspended from Duck Dynasty due to comments he made to GQ that have been deemed “anti-gay.” According to Paglia, the culture has become too politically correct.

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, this is the second gay activist who understands the issue at hand. Wonder when the bilge libs are going to catch on?

ccmanuals
12-20-2013, 02:40 PM
A little point of order. Just because you hit "like" on a FB page doesn't mean you actually like the page or what it stands for you. You have to like the page to also make comments contrary to the stated position of the page.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 02:50 PM
If you believe what I've just written, then you'd have to agree that Sarah Palin isn't demonstrating either tolerance, OR the virtue of free speech... she's representing intolerance.

That's flat out wrong Norman. Here is Sarah Palin last night in her own words expressing that the people who said such vile and evil things toward her were exercising their free speech. SP is not exercising intolerance, but the gay community sure is, as pointed out above in post #153 by gay activist Camille Paglia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXy63pcDSvo

switters
12-20-2013, 03:08 PM
Robertsons sticking together, family first. Stupid conservative values:d

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 03:13 PM
Sure she is... she's done precisely the SAME thing as the people she's accusing, just from the other side of the border. It is EXACTLY the same. People who criticize this Robertson character are expressing intolerance... and people who criticize people who criticize Robertson are ALSO expressing intolerance.

LOL, you wouldn't recognize genuine hypocritical intolerance as expressed by the gay activist community if it bit you in the butt.... BTW, what exactly did Sarah Palin say in that live interview that make you conclude they are "precisely the SAME thing"?



Camile Paglia is hardly describable as a gay activist.

If you say so Norman <rolleyes>. But, as Ms Paglia herself said; “I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so."

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 03:24 PM
A little point of order. Just because you hit "like" on a FB page doesn't mean you actually like the page or what it stands for you. You have to like the page to also make comments contrary to the stated position of the page.

Fair enough CC. Now, how about leaving the bilge bubble and read the comments on that facebook page. Doesn't look very supportive of the intolerant crowd to me. BTW, over 1.5 million likes now....

https://www.facebook.com/Philrobertsonsupport?fref=ts

bogdog
12-20-2013, 03:24 PM
Camille calls everybody Nazis and Stalinists, I wish she could make up her mind. Anyway she always disagrees just to be disagreeable, it's her life story.

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 03:27 PM
Camille Paglia is very odd, something of a professional contrarian, to be polite. I doubt you really want her on your side.

One more time, Rick: So what do you think would be legitimate? Remember that Phil Robertson is a public figure, seen on TV by many people, the star of a reasonably popular show. It's not like a machinist who mutters darkly about "those damned fags" in the back of the shop, and doesn't bother anyone. Are there any opinions he could have expressed that you think would be just cause to fire him? If he said Hitler had the right idea with the Jews? That black folks aren't fully human and are better off as slaves? That a Communist revolution is necessary to free us from the oppression of the ruling bourgeoisie? That monarchy is the best form of government? (All opinions held by a lot of people not that long ago.) Are there any opinions offensive enough to justify what happened to him? Or are you just upset because you agree with him, and he got whacked for expressing opinions you like?

bogdog
12-20-2013, 03:31 PM
Fair enough CC. Now, how about leaving the bilge bubble and read the comments on that facebook page. Doesn't look very supportive of the intolerant crowd to me. BTW, over 1.5 million likes now....

https://www.facebook.com/Philrobertsonsupport?fref=ts

There's a lot of intolerant bigots out there who love to support their own and a number who obsess over celebrities especially those that they think are just like them. Ever looked at the faux TV news at the grocery store check-outs. Now you'll pardon me as I gotta go watch my soaps...

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 03:33 PM
Camille calls everybody Nazis and Stalinists, I wish she could make up her mind. Anyway she always disagrees just to be disagreeable, it's her life story.

What do you think about gay activist Brandon Ambrosino's comments that said:

"The Duck Dynasty Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s. Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?

I’m reminded of something Bill Maher said during the height of the Paula Deen controversy: “Do we always have to make people go away?” I think the question applies in this situation too."



BTW, I thought his column was really, really well written although I don't share his personal views.

ccmanuals
12-20-2013, 03:42 PM
Rick, I can't figure out who your beef is with.

Is it A&E or is it with liberals who could really give a rats a$$? :)

switters
12-20-2013, 03:47 PM
mad as hell that he compared drunkenness with beastiality,

Old Dryfoot
12-20-2013, 03:48 PM
Is this really worth 4 pages?

Dude shows he is a homophobic bigot and gets canned. People rush to support and or condemn the bigot. A few people see merit in engaging bigots, trying to enlighten them, good for them. Most would not choose to do so... so what. End of story.

Let this ridiculous thread sink to the bottom where it belongs.

TomF
12-20-2013, 03:51 PM
I think Rick wants to be mad at Bilge libs. And is likely frustrated that we won't own the people he thinks we should, or disown others. For instance, i've never had much time for Ms. Paglia, and don't see why I have to start.

Rick, do you think a business does have the right to put conditions on the public activity or utterances of those it pays, and who in some minds represent it? Hint - there are restrictions on my speech, in contract language.

bogdog
12-20-2013, 03:54 PM
"The Duck Dynasty Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil’s. Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?



Isn't this essentially what organizations like Fox News does when they invite opposing views on their shows, I've never seen O'really let any guest he disagrees with fully express their viewpoint without interruption. That's pretty much the conservative debate strategy, it's what makes Cobert so humorous when he emulates that in his interviews. Fact is the Right-wing in this country has set the tone on how to not engage in dialog and screams bloody murder when it back fires on them. Mr. Robertson expressed an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical, racist, view point. A&E has no obligation to retain him, fact is they could fire just about anybody for any reason that's how it works in the real world. I say good riddance to bad rubbish and I hope they have a two year non-compete clause in their contract. More would be better.

Soundbounder
12-20-2013, 04:01 PM
BTW, over 1.5 million likes now....

https://www.facebook.com/Philrobertsonsupport?fref=ts

The August 2013 season premier drew an audience of 11.8 million viewers.
1.5 million Likes is not even a majority of their viewers, nevermind the nation or English speaking world. It's less than the population of Brooklyn.

One more thing......if they are clicking the Like button, or leaving comments on FB, then they are not "silent" either.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 04:02 PM
Camille Paglia is very odd, something of a professional contrarian, to be polite. I doubt you really want her on your side.

One more time, Rick: So what do you think would be legitimate? Remember that Phil Robertson is a public figure, seen on TV by many people, the star of a reasonably popular show. It's not like a machinist who mutters darkly about "those damned fags" in the back of the shop, and doesn't bother anyone. Are there any opinions he could have expressed that you think would be just cause to fire him? If he said Hitler had the right idea with the Jews? That black folks aren't fully human and are better off as slaves? That a Communist revolution is necessary to free us from the oppression of the ruling bourgeoisie? That monarchy is the best form of government? (All opinions held by a lot of people not that long ago.) Are there any opinions offensive enough to justify what happened to him? Or are you just upset because you agree with him, and he got whacked for expressing opinions you like?

First of all, I'm not upset about the Robertson firing Keith and am quite entertained observing the tsunami type fallout unfold. Extreme hypocritical intolerance from the gay activist crowd is nothing new and I've become very accustomed to it over the years. (Although I admit it's nice to see a little push back from the silent majority who is waking up by the day) What makes this situation different is it appears the real intolerant group may have bit off more than they can chew this time. It appears attacking Phil Robertson for expressing his personal opinion in a magazine interview completely separate from his role in a television show is going to backfire badly. Not only for the militant gays shoving their agenda down American throats, but if I were Nancy Dubuc and Abbe Raven (who purportedly are the A&E execs who made the decision) I would make sure my resumes were fully up to date. This could apply to other brass at A&E as the entire network has positioned itself to potentially lose or foul up the record breaking number one show on cable television. We free market capitalists fully support their corporate decision, but wow, hard to imagine being that stupid.

I didn't respond the first time because I feel those rhetorical questions were designed to falsely accuse, thus not worthy of a reply.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 04:05 PM
Rick, I can't figure out who your beef is with.

Is it A&E or is it with liberals who could really give a rats a$$? :)


My beef is with the hypocrisy of a crowd that preaches tolerance and exhibits the exact opposite. Looks like they bit off more than they can chew this time....

Soundbounder
12-20-2013, 04:11 PM
A&E Network has had to beef up security at its New York headquarters after receiving death threats and suspicious packages from people enraged about the network’s decision to suspend Duck Dynastypatriarch Phil Robertson (http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-suspended-anti-gay-comments/).

http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/ae-grapples-with-death-threats-and-clan-ultimatum-on-duck-dynasty-star-suspension/

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 04:11 PM
You didn't answer the question. Rick, do you really believe a 'silent majority' of people in the US are upset about 'militant gays shoving their agenda down American throats"? Precisely what would that agenda be? What are they 'shoving'?

Personally, I think that you're upset that fewer and fewer people agree with you on his subject all the time.

Peerie Maa
12-20-2013, 04:13 PM
Rick do you really believe a 'silent majority' of people in the US are upset about 'militant gays shoving their agenda down American throats"? Precisely what would that agenda be? What are they 'shoving'?

Teabags?

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 04:26 PM
I think Rick wants to be mad at Bilge libs. And is likely frustrated that we won't own the people he thinks we should, or disown others. For instance, i've never had much time for Ms. Paglia, and don't see why I have to start.

Rick, do you think a business does have the right to put conditions on the public activity or utterances of those it pays, and who in some minds represent it? Hint - there are restrictions on my speech, in contract language.

Tom, never ignored any of your other similar questions (comments), but this freedom of speech and business decision thing is getting a bit repetitive. I support both 100% as do most of us here, with consequences. I don't think that has ever been the issue. IMO what we are witnessing in this explosion of emotion from the general population is a major push back against a small number of activists who pretend to support tolerance, but conduct themselves exactly the opposite.

BTW, I'm always frustrated with bilge libs, but not in a hateful way. It's more of a curiosity how otherwise intelligent and reasonable people can be so screwed up on certain issues. Of course, I'm sure the libs interact with conservatives here for the same reason. That's what makes this place interesting. If it weren't, we could just click a RW site and you could log into the daily kos and we would all be bored out of our minds! |:)

I brought up the contract issue early in this thread, the problem is none of us have any idea what is applicable so there is no point even talking about it. But, you can bet there are at least two teams of lawyers feverishly pouring through every detail of contractual minutia as we speak!

TomF
12-20-2013, 04:33 PM
The frustration is common to us both, then. We each are quite certain that the other guy's position is not particularly valid.

I think there's absolutely no infringement on Phil's freedom of speech at all - and you disagree.

ccmanuals
12-20-2013, 04:37 PM
This guy has a funny rant about this kerfuffle. WARNING: there is some offensive language here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKW343K1-upo&app=desktop

PeterSibley
12-20-2013, 04:40 PM
My beef is with the hypocrisy of a crowd that preaches tolerance and exhibits the exact opposite. Looks like they bit off more than they can chew this time....

Yep, intolerance of intolerance is a bitch eh Rick ?

Flying Orca
12-20-2013, 04:46 PM
I think the basic issue is how one interprets the notion of "tolerance" when it runs up against intolerance. Should intolerance be tolerated, or not? I think you'll find that intolerance is not well-tolerated, and IMNSHO that's as it should be. People with intolerant views of others are the first to bitch and moan when their views are not tolerated, though, and I for one think that's hypocritical.

Old Dryfoot
12-20-2013, 04:47 PM
This guy has a funny rant about this kerfuffle. WARNING: there is some offensive language here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKW343K1-upo&app=desktop

Awesome rant! :D :D :D

I can't say I'm surprised at the well cultivated southern hillbilly image either.

Cuyahoga Chuck
12-20-2013, 04:57 PM
Robertsons sticking together, family first. Stupid conservative values:d
Straw man,booger. Nobody here condemned their familial cohesiveness.
The damage was done by one family member shooting his mouth off on a medium where retrieval is not an option.

Rick-Mi
12-20-2013, 04:59 PM
You didn't answer the question. Rick, do you really believe a 'silent majority' of people in the US are upset about 'militant gays shoving their agenda down American throats"?

Absolutely, yes!



Precisely what would that agenda be? What are they 'shoving'?

Keith, for some reason you are unwilling to internalize what is happening with this explosive issue before us. Look around you, this is a prime example of undue hostile actions against anyone who speaks their own opinion which doesn't goose step with the gay agenda. I've got news for those who advocate this type of gross hypocrisy about tolerance, the silent majority has just about had enough and it shows.

Another part of the equation is the homosexual agenda toward children in public education. A prime example is Obama’s safe schools czar Kevin Jennings who advocates Queering Elementary Education. This type of activism like this is NEVER going to progress without a fight every step of the way. Ultimately, although some battles have been lost, good will ultimately prevail over evil in this war for the minds of children.

Gay marriage isn't a big issue with me. Basically think it should be a states rights issue. The problem is, liberals are too hypocritical on this topic to cede gay marriage on the basis of states rights and then give them overwhelming federal government control in every other arena. The liberal/progressive agenda would like that, but it doesn't work that way.



Personally, I think that you're upset that fewer and fewer people agree with you on his subject all the time.

I'm very content being part of the vast majority on this issue. But, even if I'm the last one standing:


"Let God be true and every man a liar"

bogdog
12-20-2013, 05:02 PM
This guy has a funny rant about this kerfuffle. WARNING: there is some offensive language here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKW343K1-upo&app=desktopReally excellent! Should I have used a different color? Gone bigger?

switters
12-20-2013, 05:05 PM
but if they really are yuppies disguised as southern rednecks do we still get to hate on them? (I hadn't seen the Jcrew vacation images before)

dang this is confusing. And who did the rant, that guy is funny.

David W Pratt
12-20-2013, 05:07 PM
I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but my interpretation of "the right of free speech" is that it only protects me from the government stifling my speech, not other private citizens

Arizona Bay
12-20-2013, 05:08 PM
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/131220-palin-a-forceful-advocate-for-free-speech.jpg

Peerie Maa
12-20-2013, 05:08 PM
Another part of the equation is the homosexual agenda toward children in public education. A prime example is Obama’s safe schools czar Kevin Jennings who advocates Queering Elementary Education. This type of activism like this is NEVER going to progress without a fight every step of the way. Ultimately, although some battles have been lost, good will ultimately prevail over evil in this war for the minds of children.



We had a row about some right wing scare mongering on a similar topic in our schools, so I googled "Queering Elementary Education". This is a sample of what I found:

Queering Elementary Education is not about teaching kids to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight. It’s not part of a sinister stratagem in the “gay agenda.” Instead, these provocative and thoughtful essays advocate the creation of classrooms that challenge categorical thinking, promote interpersonal intelligence, and foster critical consciousness.

Queer elementary classrooms are those where parents and educators care enough about their children to trust the human capacity for understanding and their educative abilities to foster insight into the human condition. Those who teach queerly refuse to participate in the great sexual sorting machine called schooling where diminutive GI Joes and Barbies become star quarterbacks and prom queens, while the Linuses and Tinky Winkies become wallflowers or human doormats.

Queeering education means bracketing our simplest classroom activities in which we routinely equate sexual identities with sexual acts, privilege the heterosexual condition, and presume sexual destinies. Queer teachers are those who develop curriculum and pedagogy that afford every child dignity rooted in self-worth and esteem for others. In short, queering education happens when we look at schooling upside down and view childhood from the inside out. This groundbreaking volume demands we explore taken-for-granted assumptions about diversity, identities, childhood, and prejudice.

Is that really soooo bad?

Old Dryfoot
12-20-2013, 05:08 PM
but if they really are yuppies disguised as southern rednecks do we still get to hate on them? (I hadn't seen the Jcrew vacation images before)

dang this is confusing. And who did the rant, that guy is funny.

People are outraged about the bigotry, not the southern element. The guy in the rant is a southern gay man... perfect irony!

Keith Wilson
12-20-2013, 05:16 PM
Ultimately, although some battles have been lost, good will ultimately prevail over evil . . . . "Good" will ultimately prevail over "evil", eh? Treating gay folks with kindness, equality, and respect is 'evil'? No, it isn't. I'm just glad that you're part of an ever-diminishing minority on this issue.

Do not be too confident that you're on the side of the angels here. I'll leave you with an excellent quote from Anne Lamott: "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

Soundbounder
12-20-2013, 06:33 PM
Absolutely, yes!




Keith, for some reason you are unwilling to internalize what is happening with this explosive issue before us. Look around you, this is a prime example of undue hostile actions against anyone who speaks their own opinion which doesn't goose step with the gay agenda. I've got news for those who advocate this type of gross hypocrisy about tolerance, the silent majority has just about had enough and it shows.

Is that why Time Magazine named Pope Francis its Man Of The Year?

Chip-skiff
12-20-2013, 06:44 PM
Back to basics: is the network, a private business, within its rights?

Since the Duck Dynasty thing is allegedly a reality show, I'd let the Christian swamp bigots express themselves. And I'd likewise allow the viewing public and advertisers to be the judges.

Peerie Maa
12-20-2013, 06:50 PM
Back to basics: is the network, a private business, within its rights?

Since the Duck Dynasty thing is allegedly a reality show, I'd let the Christian swamp bigots express themselves. And I'd likewise allow the viewing public and advertisers to be the judges.

You had better start figuring out what you are going to say to the employees of A&E when the viewing public and advertisers abandon the channel causing it to fold.

An exaggeration I know, but other outlets have failed when they lost their revenue stream.

Canoeyawl
12-20-2013, 07:04 PM
Curious about the free speech bit, Did he speak or not?
Seems to me that he spoke and we are all free to discuss it... But if he spoke or mispoke on someone else's nickel (contract?) then maybe they don't want him to do that anymore. That's just good business practice.

Chip-skiff
12-20-2013, 07:06 PM
You had better start figuring out what you are going to say to the employees of A&E when the viewing public and advertisers abandon the channel causing it to fold.

An exaggeration I know, but other outlets have failed when they lost their revenue stream.

I'd say that the controversy will increase the fan base of this show and make the fake redneck Jesus camo crap ever more profitable.

Arizona Bay
12-20-2013, 07:43 PM
All about the dollar...



RM...
this is a prime example of undue hostile actions against anyone who speaks their own opinion which doesn't goose step with the gay agenda.

The "Gay" agenda is from the Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).

Sounds quite conservative to me.

There are no 'special rights' being asked for.
All the protests, and legal actions are about putting and end to the obstacles erected by a few bigoted, narrow minded, selfish people who call themselves conservatives, and are anything but.

BrianW
12-20-2013, 07:47 PM
It's taken a few pages, but the rhetoric about what he actually said is starting to grow.

Time to bail...

LeeG
12-20-2013, 08:46 PM
I preach tolerance!
I'm perfectly tolerant of Robertson expressing his homophobia and perfectly tolerant of A&E firing him!
I'm perfectly tolerant of Sarah Palin expressing her garbled views and helping Obama become POTUS in 2008!Keep up the good work, Troglodytes!:D

Get that man a beer!

LeeG
12-20-2013, 08:53 PM
This guy has a funny rant about this kerfuffle. WARNING: there is some offensive language here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKW343K1-upo&app=desktop



Most excellent

Chris Coose
12-20-2013, 09:32 PM
Is this really worth 4 pages?



Having no TV certainly has its advantages. I know nothing of this shtbird.

BrianY
12-20-2013, 11:40 PM
For all this talk of who is intolerant about intolerance and free speech and who speaks for homosexuals, the central point of this whole thing has been ignored. The question is should bigotry be tolerated in the name of free speech? It's pretty obvious to most people that if the guy had been talking about blacks or Jews or Chinese or any other racial or ethnic group in the same terms, such "free speech" would deserve condemnation. Why is it different when the subject of the bigotry is homosexuals? I imagine that some people would say that it's different because the guy is expressing his religious beliefs, that his bigotry is based in his religious faith. But does that really make it OK? If my religion teaches that people of another race are inferior and the source of all evil, is it reasonable to expect people to just accept it when I express those views? Of course not. So why should people treat expressions of bigotry towards homosexuals differently?

Peerie Maa
12-21-2013, 03:48 AM
^ Absolutely blob on.

elf
12-21-2013, 09:17 AM
For all this talk of who is intolerant about intolerance and free speech and who speaks for homosexuals, the central point of this whole thing has been ignored. The question is should bigotry be tolerated in the name of free speech? It's pretty obvious to most people that if the guy had been talking about blacks or Jews or Chinese or any other racial or ethnic group in the same terms, such "free speech" would deserve condemnation. Why is it different when the subject of the bigotry is homosexuals? I imagine that some people would say that it's different because the guy is expressing his religious beliefs, that his bigotry is based in his religious faith. But does that really make it OK? If my religion teaches that people of another race are inferior and the source of all evil, is it reasonable to expect people to just accept it when I express those views? Of course not. So why should people treat expressions of bigotry towards homosexuals differently?
We're not talking bigotry here, Brian. We're talking culture wars and the political force which thinks there's an advantage to fanning them.

And there is. The fanning has rewarded them mightily. They have been liberated to reveal their fear, hatred and tribal culture after 50 years of having to pretend, at least on the surface, that they could get along with all kinds. They've been funded well and organized well, and clogged up the government with enormous success.

And they've appalled a larger portion of the populace, opened its mind to the actual sickness within the wider society, forced other changes to occur which have lain unacknowledged for a long time.

Priest abuse of children
Same-gender marriage
Economic collapse
Failure to keep church and state separate
Stymied government
Collapse of privacy

All of a sudden lots more people see the sad ugliness of the inside of the unhealed wounds of our economic policies, our deep paranoia after the World Trade Center attacks, our attempts to bring equality to the disadvantaged. Sure, other factors have really helped - electing a non-white person to lead the government, the rise of uncontrolled communication, the abject failure of philanthropy, the liberation of money in politics.

So now the question is how are we going to deal with this. Should we continue to patronize and ridicule these sorry bigoted people? We've already come to understand that they aren't susceptible to reason or logic. Their spiritual lives admit of no challenge. Do we restructure the public communication system to reduce the power of their voices? Do we just wait them out? Do we organize to reinstitute economic restraints on the people funding them? Do we enforce or redesign our understanding of parts of the Constitution which promote a better separation between church and state? Do we ever start to understand that most of their anger and resentment is the result of economic uncertainty?

How do we calm their terror of the changes in their lives which drives them to reveal their tribal uglinesses?

bogdog
12-21-2013, 09:25 AM
How do we calm their terror of the changes in their lives which drives them to reveal their tribal uglinesses?We don't calm them. We flood the region with Krisby Kreme donuts, after they stuff themselves they'll get sleepy and then we boop 'em all on the head with a preacher. http://fishwrecked.com/files/Willy/Fish%20bats.JPG

Breakaway
12-21-2013, 09:35 AM
Since the Duck Dynasty thing is allegedly a reality show, I'd let the Christian swamp bigots express themselves. And I'd likewise allow the viewing public and advertisers to be the judges.

I second this opinion A & E knew what they were getting. In the show's beginning the network edited out the prayer at the end. The Robertson's threatened to walk.

They still close each episode with a prayer.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Figmental
12-21-2013, 10:10 AM
I haven't read the whole thread so please forgive me for posting this if it has been featured here, but this is hilarious. I just posted it to my Rep asking for comment. Be sure to check out the photos of the show's stars before they all grew beards and got back in the woods http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&feature=player_embedded

John Smith
12-21-2013, 10:23 AM
People say things I disagree with all the time. Frequently they say things I'm apt to find offensive.

Making an issue out of this is the wrong response. Ignoring it would be better.

I don't care what this "duck" guy says, and I'm certainly not concerned with what Palin says, other than she's a hypocrite. She's all concerned about this nut having free speech, but gets all upset with "Happy Holidays"

If we could stop "enjoying" these things, maybe we could put our attention to creating jobs.

delecta
12-21-2013, 10:30 AM
I haven't read the whole thread so please forgive me for posting this if it has been featured here, but this is hilarious. I just posted it to my Rep asking for comment. Be sure to check out the photos of the show's stars before they all grew beards and got back in the woods http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&feature=player_embedded

That was quite classy and you thought that low rent rant was hilarious?

Ian McColgin
12-21-2013, 10:50 AM
Let's try to remember that even though we (liberals) support free speech, gay marriage, and civil rights in general, those fundamentalists are against it where they can get away with it, as in Unganda.

Fundamentalist missionaries from the US have done a bang-up job in that nation, making their firebreathing brand of christianity the majority religion. And that majority has passed a remarkably draconian anti-gay law that enhances the already existing penalties for gay sex, out laws any form of talking about gay sex except to condemn it, mandates (with prison for failure) anyone but especially physicians, mental health workers, teachers and parents to report any suspicion of homosexuality in any person.

This is what we get when people like reverend duck get their way with a society's laws. His christian fundamentalism's pretenses of tolerance are simply mouthed lies for US public consumption.

Boater14
12-21-2013, 11:51 AM
It's all thin skinned over reaction if your not black or gay. Ultimately, like firing bill mahar, suspending Ed Schultz, it's the free enterprise system at work. A &E has a brand and they will decide what this does for or against that brand. Not a freedom of speech issue. You Americans worship money....it's a money issue.

Figmental
12-21-2013, 12:32 PM
"That was quite classy and you thought that low rent rant was hilarious?" Could you rephrase that for me? I can't quite get your drift.

pefjr
12-21-2013, 03:03 PM
Interesting that all the gays I have personally met in my life have been generally a higher class of folks, more educated, more polite, courteous, ....kinder and gentler so to speak. Tennis Players are the same, better than the average...much better folks. That goes for Atheists also. Wish I could say that about the lefthanders.

John Smith
12-21-2013, 06:30 PM
It's all thin skinned over reaction if your not black or gay. Ultimately, like firing bill mahar, suspending Ed Schultz, it's the free enterprise system at work. A &E has a brand and they will decide what this does for or against that brand. Not a freedom of speech issue. You Americans worship money....it's a money issue.

I disagree.

RodB
12-21-2013, 09:23 PM
Let's try to remember that even though we (liberals) support free speech, gay marriage, and civil rights in general, those fundamentalists are against it...

Liberals support free speech???? yea as long as you agree with them! If not, a mob of them will attack and try to destroy you.

RodB

TomF
12-21-2013, 09:31 PM
That's a rather broad brush, Rod.

RodB
12-21-2013, 09:43 PM
Tom... when the issue is related to someone saying they think the gay lifestyle or same sex marriage is wrong... per their religious beliefs.... the attackers (who ever they may be) tend to act as a mob to intimidate the offender (offender: definition...someone who disagrees with pro gay folks). This piling on as a mob has been a tactic used by the gay movement for quite a while.

Glen... take your medicine and go watch "Brokeback Mountain"....:d

Merry Christmas to you too...

RodB

RodB
12-21-2013, 09:52 PM
You can't voice your religious beliefs if asked... and the firestorm begins... the attack on Christianity continues....

RodB

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/20/which-key-christmas-lyrics-were-cut-from-student-choirs-rendition-of-silent-night/


EDUCATION (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/category/education/)WHAT THIS SCHOOL DID TO ‘SILENT NIGHT’ ISN’T GOING OVER WELL WITH SOME PARENTS


A Long Island, N.Y., school district has apologized after it came under fire following a fifth grade choir’s removal of some key lyrics from the traditional Christmas song “Silent Night.”
Many of the religious lines that point to the very heart of the Christmas season were simply axed from the students’ Dec. 12 performance at Ralph J. Osgood Intermediate School.
“Christ the Savior is born,” “Holy infant so, tender and mild,” “round yon virgin, mother and child” and “Jesus, Lord at thy birth” were strategically removed from the student rendition; the lyrics were simply deleted and nothing replaced them.
The Kings Park Central School District has since apologized to members of the community who were outraged over the changes, WNBC-TV reported (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Silent-Night-Song-Childrens-Chorus-School-Concert-236600201.html).
“The Board of Education sincerely apologizes to our community members who were offended by the change of lyrics to the song Silent Night and we share in your sentiment,” read a statement (http://www.kpcsd.k12.ny.us/news.cfm?story=77002&school=0)published on the district’s website. “This action was not approved by the Board of Education or district administration, nor is it their role to approve the songs chosen for our concerts.”
While officials said no disrespect was meant on the part of school staffers, they pledged to never allow such omissions to happen again, offering their “sincerest apologies.”
Watch the performance below and hear the omissions for yourself:



Keven McDonald, a parent whose son was in the orchestra during the sanitized version of “Silent Night,” spoke out against the changes at a recent school board meeting, Newsday reported (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/kings-park-parent-altered-silent-night-lyrics-insulting-1.6637649).“Silent Night’ at its core is a religious song. It’s a sacred Christian hymn that tells the story about the birth of Jesus,” he said. “What was performed was inappropriate and disrespectful to the Christian faith.”
In the end, it seems even the school district agreed with his sentiment.

Another source... http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/long_island&id=9366446

Ian McColgin
12-21-2013, 10:07 PM
The US Christian fundamentalists who have turned their brand into the strongest force in Uganda politics have shown the true stripe of that faith. Uganda's laws criminalizing homosexuality have been made more draconian and also criminalized any talking of gay sex except to condemn and mandating that anyone - doctors and teachers and counselors and wives and children and parents and neighbors - who suspects someone of homosexuality report it. The narrow phoney literalist - phoney because they so pick and choose which sins to get all deuteronomic over - crypto christians are utterly against freedom and their talk in nations like the US is simply to move us towards a legal environment like they have made in Uganda. The Rev Duck is free to talk in this country, as am I to argue against him. That's what free expression is for.

RodB
12-21-2013, 10:12 PM
The US Christian fundamentalists who have turned their brand into the strongest force in Uganda politics have shown the true stripe of that faith. Uganda's laws criminalizing homosexuality have been made more draconian and also criminalized any talking of gay sex except to condemn and mandating that anyone - doctors and teachers and counselors and wives and children and parents and neighbors - who suspects someone of homosexuality report it. The narrow phoney literalist - phoney because they so pick and choose which sins to get all deuteronomic over - crypto christians are utterly against freedom and their talk in nations like the US is simply to move us towards a legal environment like they have made in Uganda. The Rev Duck is free to talk in this country, as am I to argue against him. That's what free expression is for.

Arguing against his comments is one thing... people calling for him to be fired... saying he should lose his program on A&E, ... ie., destroy him ...etc... is wrong and reeks of bigotry and first amendment infringement. Also intolerance should be thrown into the mix.

RodB

RodB
12-21-2013, 10:18 PM
Glen, perhaps you need to get a priest to perform an exorcist on you to straighten you out??? :D

After all, your vocabulary is limited and you do speak in tongues....

...ie., some tongue no one understands....

RodB

RodB
12-21-2013, 10:31 PM
Gobbledygook!
Nobody called "for him to be fired"!
His boss fired him before any of us even heard about it.
"destroy him"
Ha! He's a danged multi-millionaire yuppie bigot, Rod! He's Not destroyed!
If you want to worry about people who are being destroyed, take a look at the 30 milion people who have no health insurance. Otherwise, you are a blatant and outspoken hypocrite!

Glen, you need to pay attention to the news on this... I'm quite sure gay rights activists have demanded he be gone from the show, period... pay attention.

RodB

TomF
12-22-2013, 08:01 AM
Arguing against his comments is one thing... people calling for him to be fired... saying he should lose his program on A&E, ... ie., destroy him ...etc... is wrong and reeks of bigotry and first amendment infringement. Also intolerance should be thrown into the mix.

RodBI think people can exercise their free speech to say any number of silly things, which will then sometimes have an impact on what decision makers later decide.

you mention a flood of calls, letters, etc from the Gay lobby trying to influence a private corpoation's decision ... I recall, some months before this Duck issue came up, I remember a flood of similar free speech a number of months back about a Muslim centre being built ... legally ... a few blocks from the Ground Zero site. I even remember many of these same people exercising their free speech in efforts to have the project de-railed, influencing not a corporation, but the approval processes of a duly elected government.

I argued at the time that they were fundamentally wrong to try to block the project, but never argued that they should not be allowed to say their drivel. Free speech.

What goes around, sometimes comes around ... and the irony isn't lost.

Ian McColgin
12-22-2013, 08:13 AM
If you don't think Rev Robertson is a hate filled bigot, take a listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDjXf4AUIE
There's also parts 1,2 and 4.

John Smith
12-22-2013, 08:31 AM
Liberals support free speech???? yea as long as you agree with them! If not, a mob of them will attack and try to destroy you.

RodB[/COLOR]

How do you explain the conservatives complaining about "Happy Holidays"?

elf
12-22-2013, 08:37 AM
Kinda fun to watch how "reactive" news completely messes with the heads of its recipients.

Fox only reports on stories which are already begun, but, since Fox listeners hear nothing else they think they're getting it first.

So poor Rod thinks the liberals and gay lobby forced A&E to boot out Robertson, having completely missed the actual order of events in the story.

John Smith
12-22-2013, 08:38 AM
Tom... when the issue is related to someone saying they think the gay lifestyle or same sex marriage is wrong... per their religious beliefs.... the attackers (who ever they may be) tend to act as a mob to intimidate the offender (offender: definition...someone who disagrees with pro gay folks). This piling on as a mob has been a tactic used by the gay movement for quite a while.

Glen... take your medicine and go watch "Brokeback Mountain"....:d

Merry Christmas to you too...

RodB

Perhaps you should listen or read the entire quote. You seem to have missed the part where he states, as fact, it's sinful, it morphs out to bestiality, and the entire part about how well the blacks were treated and how happy they were.

I am in a minority here. I think he had an absolute right to say those things. His audience probably agrees with him. He should not have suffered suspension or loss of job for saying them.

All that said, he is a stupid, uneducated, nut if he believes what he said, but it's legal to be stupid and uneducated.

If we believe in the concept of free speech, we need to believe that what one says should be without consequence of any organized sort.

The distinction I draw is that anyone who is aware of his opinions has the right to not watch the show, but that seems as far as I'd go.

To put this in another area, let's say this man was a popular musician and I really enjoyed his music. I would not stop listening to his music because I disagreed with his political/religious positions. He's entitled to them.

John Smith
12-22-2013, 08:40 AM
Arguing against his comments is one thing... people calling for him to be fired... saying he should lose his program on A&E, ... ie., destroy him ...etc... is wrong and reeks of bigotry and first amendment infringement. Also intolerance should be thrown into the mix.

RodB

I agree. However, unlike most I'm not a hypocrite. Palin is. The people on Fox are. Who, but a bigoted Christian, would get angry at "Happy Holidays"?

John Smith
12-22-2013, 08:41 AM
Nope! You need to pay attention!
A&E fired the bigot of their own free will in their own best interest.
Get over it and go blow your duck call!:D

I think they fired him out of a knee jerk reaction.

Peerie Maa
12-22-2013, 08:41 AM
Well you can call me strange or different, but I have to agree with him on this.
Really, has the pendulum swung that far, that fast, that to profess a preference for women over men would make you a pariah?

Not a good example to pick.

There is more to a relationship than shoving your bone into an orifice.

elf
12-22-2013, 08:44 AM
Well you can call me strange or different, but I have to agree with him on this.
Really, has the pendulum swung that far, that fast, that to profess a preference for women over men would make you a pariah?
If that were what he was doing, you would have a case.

In actuality that's not what he's doing. What he's doing is saying that folks who prefer sex with their own gender aren't logical. This is quite sensible from the point of view of a straight man.

But it makes no sense to one of the 5%-10% of humanity which was born the other way.

And, just to leave no stone unturned, it may make no sense to quite a few straight men who enjoy a variety of modes of sexual stimulation.

John Smith
12-22-2013, 09:19 AM
I have to mention what I find disturbing. This thread, and others like it, get enormous numbers of posts. Threads about voting rights seem to stimulate far less interest, although I see them as dealing with more important subject matter.

I am reminded of a Phil Donahue interview where the mentioned a show about healthcare where most of his audience changed the channel to watch a show on cross dressing.

I'll grant the threads on Obamacare get a lot of action, but mostly it's based on what people believe is going to happen, as opposed to what has happened.

Not a lot of people seem concerned with unemployment benefits running out, or why a bill to extend them for only 90 days is being considered. Few seem to notice that no job creation bills have been discussed in the house.

If the bilge and the action the varies threads get is in any way even close to representing the priorities of the people, our future is indeed grim.

bogdog
12-22-2013, 09:21 AM
To put this in another area, let's say this man was a popular musician and I really enjoyed his music. I would not stop listening to his music because I disagreed with his political/religious positions. He's entitled to them.Ya mean the Dixie Chicks that were discussed earlier. Even after they apologized the right boycotted them and their sponsor and former fans destroyed their CDs.

John Smith
12-22-2013, 09:30 AM
Ya mean the Dixie Chicks that were discussed earlier. Even after they apologized the right boycotted them and their sponsor and former fans destroyed their CDs.

Wasn't that silly? They had already bought the CD's, so destroying them didn't hurt the 'chics'. If they really enjoyed the music, they paid the price, not the people who recorded it.

At one of my conventions an announcement was made that had something to do with was the Coca Cola company did. Everyone dumped their Coke, but me. I'd already bought it. No reason not to drink it. Maybe not buy another, but discarding something already bought; that's dumb.

elf
12-22-2013, 09:32 AM
Of course, drinking something like Coke is not so smart either. Made from poisons.

Canoeyawl
12-22-2013, 11:12 AM
Glen, you need to pay attention to the news on this... I'm quite sure gay rights activists have demanded he be gone from the show, period... pay attention.

RodB

Likely, but an equal number of right wing nuts have demanded he stay, period... so it's a wash

elf
12-22-2013, 11:35 AM
actually, I signed a petition calling on A&E to stop presenting broadcast material that glorified bigotry, racism and Christianity.

But not one that called for the removal of Robertson, and not before he was removed.

As usual, Rod is late to the facts, and seems to only have them regurgitated by a single source.

RodB
12-22-2013, 01:19 PM
actually, I signed a petition calling on A&E to stop presenting broadcast material that glorified bigoty, racism and Christianity.

But not one that called for the removal of Robertson, and not before he was removed.

AS usual, Rod is late to the facts, and seems to only have them regurgitated by a single source.



Theres not any perspective on this issue that I am not aware of. I agree he was stupid and insensitive to say such things... I agree A&E has the right to boot him off the program. I have never watched the program but I think in an interview away from the actual program.. .he had every right to express his opinion especially since similar comments by this man have been published and known about for a long time. This family was hired to do this show simply because they were christian rednecks. Additionally, do you think there would have been such a firestorm of criticism if Phil had shortened his comments to just ..." I believe what the bible says sin is... adultery and homosexuality for example...." I'd bet "homosexuality" would still have brought on a significant response.

Certainly People who believe everything in the bible literally can certainly appear ignorant, but let me be clear on exactly my view of this. Everyone in the country has the freedom of speech and if someone publicly states views that offend you... I think it intolerant and against the first amendment to insist and fight for their personal destruction (loss of job, etc). As I have said before... the definition of bigotry includes many folks behavior on this forum when intolerance for the other viewpoint is considered.

Another note.. I too was angered by the original remarks by Miss Maines of the Dixie Chicks... I think the significant degradation of their careers was unfortunate and uncalled for. After all, she was young and dumb and likely had no idea of what type of reaction her comments would bring. The reality was the majority of her fans were conservative... and it was stupid to make her political views obvious since her fans would then have the right to choose to buy her albums... or not.

Time and time again we have seen that political bias trumps all... that can include facts and commonsense. This is true on both sides of the isle and illustrated every day in this country. This statement in my mind explains why so much of the polarization in this country is continuously reinforced.

RodB

Rick-Mi
12-22-2013, 01:43 PM
We're not talking bigotry here, Brian. We're talking culture wars and the political force which thinks there's an advantage to fanning them.

We most certainly are and the actual culture warriors attempting to force their agenda down America's throat have begun to wake up the sleeping giant. But, this time the tiny minority that screeches so loud is getting their hypocrisy rammed in a place where Phil doesn't believe male member belongs by the upright majority who still believe one should be able to freely to speak their opinion without persecution from those "open minded" folks who believe in free speech, as long as it is in agreement with their views.



Do we restructure the public communication system to reduce the power of their voices?

What an idea comrade Elf! I have no doubt the commies in America would do just that if they had enough the power.

Canoeyawl
12-22-2013, 01:48 PM
The sleeping giant

Has been awakened by "activities designed specifically to cause anger so that you will behave in a way that benefits the persons who are deliberately angering you"

Rick-Mi
12-22-2013, 01:51 PM
let me be clear on exactly my view of this. Everyone in the country has the freedom of speech and if someone publicly states views that offend you... I think it intolerant and against the first amendment to insist and fight for their personal destruction (loss of job, etc). As I have said before... the definition of bigotry includes many folks behavior on this forum when intolerance for the other viewpoint is considered.

Well said Rod....

Peerie Maa
12-22-2013, 01:55 PM
Time and time again we have seen that political bias trumps all... that can include facts and commonsense. This is true on both sides of the isle and illustrated every day in this country. This statement in my mind explains why so much of the polarization in this country is continuously reinforced.



RodB


Seems it was always thus in the US, remember Simon & Garfunkel's "Songs of America"?

Rick-Mi
12-22-2013, 01:59 PM
Has been awakened by "activities designed specifically to cause anger so that you will behave in a way that benefits the persons who are deliberately angering you"

I agree there are some opportunists (SP not included) who have vested interests in hoopla like this. But, overall the "silent majority" is getting sick of the bitter little micro special interests and their loud, overbearing, obnoxious, demanding ways. Most Americans just want to go about their lives without the gay activists screeching and demanding removal of anyone who disagree with them.

Old Dryfoot
12-22-2013, 02:03 PM
Well now we have 5 pages of bitching and moaning about a jacka** being fired and the hypocrisy just keeps rolling on. It obviously works both ways.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/2013/131220-palin-a-forceful-advocate-for-free-speech.jpg

Will we see 6 pages? Just let this thread sink. No one is gaining anything here.

Peerie Maa
12-22-2013, 02:06 PM
I agree there are some opportunists (SP not included) who have vested interests in hoopla like this. But, overall the "silent majority" is getting sick of the bitter little micro special interests and their loud, overbearing, obnoxious, demanding ways. Most Americans just want to go about their lives without the gay activists screeching and demanding removal of anyone who disagree with them.

Perhaps they will stop.



















When the "followers of Christs teachings" (not) stop treating them differently than their fellow citizens.

Canoeyawl
12-22-2013, 02:09 PM
http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/duck-dynasty-osama.jpg

Chip-skiff
12-22-2013, 02:10 PM
Why are you guys so stuck on the idea of things being forced down your throats? You keep repeating that phrase in an obsessive way.

Do you have weird love/hate fantasies about it?

Chris Coose
12-22-2013, 02:19 PM
Liberals support free speech???? yea as long as you agree with them! If not, a mob of them will attack and try to destroy you.

RodB[/COLOR]

I'm a life long liberal who thinks the guy should stay right where he is. Just like the other American TV bible spokesmen. They end up choking themselves out or getting caught with a boy under the sheets.

bogdog
12-22-2013, 02:20 PM
I agree there are some opportunists (SP not included) who have vested interests in hoopla like this. But, overall the "silent majority" is getting sick of the bitter little micro special interests and their loud, overbearing, obnoxious, demanding ways. Most Americans just want to go about their lives without the gay activists screeching and demanding removal of anyone who disagree with them.

American's feeling about gay rights is one of the most polled questions of our time. There is no "silent majority" opposed to gay rights in the US. There is no majority of any type opposed to gay rights in the US.

mikefrommontana
12-22-2013, 02:40 PM
American's feeling about gay rights is one of the most polled questions of our time. There is no "silent majority" opposed to gay rights in the US. There is no majority of any type opposed to gay rights in the US.

But there are people who would want others to believe such a majority exists, especially if it creates situations that benefit themselves. Perception trying to trump reality.

Rick-Mi
12-22-2013, 02:47 PM
Why are you guys so stuck on the idea of things being forced down your throats? You keep repeating that phrase in an obsessive way.

Simple, because that is what this issue boils down to. A very popular man got fired because he was asked a question, answered honestly and a few intolerant people didn't like his opinion. It bears repeating because it appears some people can't seem to understand that the hoopla is about PUSH BACK from the formerly silent majority.

Rick-Mi
12-22-2013, 02:48 PM
American's feeling about gay rights is one of the most polled questions of our time. There is no "silent majority" opposed to gay rights in the US. There is no majority of any type opposed to gay rights in the US.

This isn't about gay rights, it's about gay and PC intolerance.

Peerie Maa
12-22-2013, 03:01 PM
Simple, because that is what this issue boils down to. A very popular man got fired because he was asked a question, answered honestly and a few intolerant people didn't like his opinion. It bears repeating because it appears some people can't seem to understand that the hoopla is about PUSH BACK from the formerly silent majority.

No, there are plenty of posts on here establishing that he was dropped for purely business reasons.


Seems it was always thus in the US, remember Simon & Garfunkel's "Songs of America"?
So what do you think about the Vietnam war now you have the benefit of hindsight?

bogdog
12-22-2013, 03:04 PM
...it's about gay and PC intolerance.No it isn't, but it certainly makes for a good smoke screen.

Rick-Mi
12-22-2013, 03:04 PM
Perhaps they will stop. When the "followers of Christs teachings" (not) stop treating them differently than their fellow citizens.

Followers of Christ's teachings are more concerned with the log in their own eye..... But, like Phil, don't expect them to endorse sin whether it be adultery, drunkenness, idolatry, homosexuality or any other human failing.

Ian McColgin
12-22-2013, 03:08 PM
" . . . A very popular man got fired because he was asked a question, answered honestly . . . " [#257]

Absolutely. He made statements of his long standing belief in literal interpretation of some of the sexually purient aspects of the bible. For more detail, in case Ric-Mi missed anything, try the click-to at #229.

He is free to hold his opinions in this nation and free to express them. A network that finds those opinions might damage profitability is free to fire him and a network like Fox that expects to make beaucoup bucks off his rants is free to hire him.

The righties really need to just have the courage to express themselves, maybe even support their opinions with reason and discourse, rather than whining.

bogdog
12-22-2013, 03:12 PM
Followers of Christ's teachings are more concerned with the log in their own eye..... But, like Phil, don't expect them to endorse sin whether it be adultery, drunkenness, idolatry, homosexuality or any other human failing.Your intolerance is a human failing...

Steve McMahon
12-22-2013, 03:18 PM
http://i1171.photobucket.com/albums/r556/SteveMcMahon/4c3c6eda-304d-40bd-a8a4-f824c5061f61_wes-duck-phil.jpg (http://s1171.photobucket.com/user/SteveMcMahon/media/4c3c6eda-304d-40bd-a8a4-f824c5061f61_wes-duck-phil.jpg.html)

Peerie Maa
12-22-2013, 03:24 PM
Followers of Christ's teachings are more concerned with the log in their own eye..... But, like Phil, don't expect them to endorse sin whether it be adultery, drunkenness, idolatry, homosexuality or any other human failing.

Sin? Drunkenness? Loving some one? Do you want to run that past yourself again?

Don't forget the bible used to teach you to bed your brothers widow. Just as the followers of the three books have changed their minds about that, they may come to change their mind about what is actually natures way.

Old Dryfoot
12-22-2013, 03:31 PM
I wonder what these fire and brimstone Christians think of all of the occurrences of bisexuality and homosexuality in nature, are all of those animals sinners too?

bobbys
12-22-2013, 03:57 PM
Funny how libs are "outraged" here.

Seems i pleaded to knock off teabag and libtard slurs and hardly any libs here wanted to join in a self ban of these words and in fact libs doubled down on how tea party people love gay slurs.

Spare me your fake outrage.

Most libs here giggled like school girls when teabagger was used here as they know the source and meaning of this act..

Chris Coose
12-22-2013, 04:16 PM
I think that is the first time the term, teabagger has been used in this thread.

Shoving it down our throats, teabagger, Sarah Palin, outrage....... you guys really are a hoot! You'll catch up one day, maybe.