Anti-PC people making a mistake on the Duck Dynasty story

[LoneLaugher]

You mean other than your crazy hatred of how other people are having sex?

Seriously. How does that effect your life in any way shape or form?

People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be black.

Therefore, screaming about how they are "oppressing" Duck Bigot when they call him out on his vile language isn't oppressing him, and it isn't "Political Correctness". It's calling a wrong a wrong.

No, more like your crazy hatred of someone who has an accent you don't like.

I've a deep southern drawl myself, but I've run Joe under table many times this year. Must be cause I'm a southern boy. That or he doesn't hold a stick to me debate wise.

No. You are mistaken.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given half a chance the gay gestapo would do the same to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Gay gestapo? I bet their uniforms are fabulous. Seriously, where do you people get this stuff?

from the actions of gay gestapo a.k.a GLAAD and your defense of it.

What did GLAAD do, specifically, that would it comparable to the Gestapo?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives have lost their battle against gay rights.

Now they're just collecting their consolation prizes and parting gifts.

Hahahaha.



Good one.

More made up crap from the left..They can't be honest...Or no one would buy their dirt they spread about others

Oh really? Then why you don't tell us how gay rights haven't advanced in the last 10 years, or 5 years, or a year,

and then convince us that the bigots on the Right haven't fought those advances (and lost) every step of the way.

I want to hear this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay gestapo? I bet their uniforms are fabulous. Seriously, where do you people get this stuff?

from the actions of gay gestapo a.k.a GLAAD and your defense of it.

What did GLAAD do, specifically, that would it comparable to the Gestapo?

Nothing, of course – as the comparison is idiocy.

Unlike the Gestapo, or any other state police entity, GLAAD hasn’t the authority to arrest or detain.

 

[beagle9]

I have another opinion or rather this is my take on (Phil's) speaking on the blacks when he spoke about his up bringing with them, and how he had worked with them and etc. If anything I think he was trying to give them a compliment when looking back in the day, otherwise when he said that they were all in the same boat together, and that he never heard them complain about their situation, just like he didn't complain about his either. All they seemed to be to him was happy, and Christians who knew that someday it would bet better as time went by for them, and that it would be better because they would better themselves each day, just like Phil looked at it in the same ways along with them.

Interpreted - Phil being a poor country boy who knew the blacks that resided in his area back in the day were the same as him, and this was when he was a young man/boy. He did not understand them to be racist against whites back then, and that is what he was speaking about when he spoke on the subject (I think) upon concerning the blacks and their plight in life, just like what his plight was along with them, and in which for him was all the same in his life as well.

He described back then how he worked with them in the fields, and he was with them. He also said that he was considered white trash by his peers, and this meant that he was oppressed or mistreated by them, and this due to certain things that he may or may not have done in order to suit them and their ideals of what a Phil should be in his life in their eyes.

He said that he never seen any mistreatment of the blacks while he was on their level (i.e. what he meant was, is that they weren't mistreated no more than he was in life at the time, and especially not by him because he was their friend and co-worker). You see they all just worked for the farmers in that day just as he did with them. He said they were all happy doing what they were doing at the time (no complaining about it ever came from their mouths, nor did they trash whitey for it), and they all knew that there would always be hope to someday do better for all of them, and this is what him and they knew because they all believed in God and still do.

The blacks ought to be defending Phil, because he did not believe in slavery nor did he ever own a slave, and he worked with the blacks at the same levels, and just as hard along side of them, and he had friends in those blacks in which he worked with, and he never heard them complain or blame whitey for their plight in life. They just did what Phil did, and they eventually loosed themselves from the situation that they were in over time, and this by doing something about it instead of blaming others as the game is now being played today. I also worked with great black folk on a farm in my day, and we made great friendships while working in the hot scorching sun for over 12 to 13 hours a day during the growing and harvesting seasons. I to never heard them complain or accuse white people of their situation when we worked together. This was in the seventies. Many went on to retire and they still were great friends to the owner of the farm, and also to me and other workers for whom we all had worked hand in hand together back in those days. Phil is just frustrated on all the race baiting and immoral life styles that is going on today, and I think that he would rather stay out of the lime light on such issues. And hey he is right to not want to be in the lime light on such issues, because he probably knew that he would be miss-interpreted, and his words would be taken out on context if he did.

I know where Phil is coming from, and he may not have been able to articulate his words correctly when speaking about that time period (NO NOT THE 1800's either), but rather it was a time period where him and the blacks all worked together, laughed together, probably smoked pot together, and were the best of friends. I am glad that he knew them in that way, and they are probably glad that they knew him in that way also. GQ knew that they could exploit Phil due to his articulating problems, and they set him up I think.. The question is this now, where as is GQ a super political driven entity that is out to destroy people for an evil agenda in which they have or are they just dumb and/or all out stupid ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Given half a chance the gay gestapo would do the same to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Gay gestapo? I bet their uniforms are fabulous. Seriously, where do you people get this stuff?

from the actions of gay gestapo a.k.a GLAAD and your defense of it.

There’s another aspect to this idiocy as well, one conservatives are obviously not aware of – that when they refer to GLAAD as ‘the Gestapo,’ this only reinforces the argument that conservatives are hostile to homosexuals’ civil liberties, encouraging more private citizens to support GLAAD and other civil rights organizations.

 

[asaratis]

Some sage advice to Conservatives....

When speaking about Homosexuality, bringing up bestiality and pedophilia will get you in trouble every time.......Don't do it

Jim Crow was a dark period in our history. Lynching, bombing, terrorism are not something to be nostalgic for.......Don't do it

Some corrective criticism to knee jerk reaction:

Mentioning three things in a list does not make them equal. To say that the list of sins includes bestiality, pedophilia and homosexuality does not imply any similarity among them except that they are all three considered sinful...by the author of the list.

To be "in trouble" according to the definition of numbnuts...is unavoidable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hahahaha.



Good one.

More made up crap from the left..They can't be honest...Or no one would buy their dirt they spread about others

Oh really? Then why you don't tell us how gay rights haven't advanced in the last 10 years, or 5 years, or a year,

and then convince us that the bigots on the Right haven't fought those advances (and lost) every step of the way.

I want to hear this.

Correct.

As we’ve seen with Romer, Lawrence, Perry and Windsor this year, conservatives for the most part have stood in opposition to the civil liberties of gay Americans, seeking to indeed deny them their civil liberties.

 

[Vox]

Figured that out over here, did ya?

Please, you can't disagree Pelosi has had too much plastic surgery...
that is what I was responding too, so get real

Why would I know (or care) about somebody's plastic surgery? Who the fuck cares?

nobody CARES, still a great option to mock the idiot as she clearly does not understand how artificial she looks ( pelosi after all those surgeries)

pelosi is a great example of total harmony of the looks and the content of the inside

 

[beagle9]

A guy shot his mouth off and was held accountable

The end of freedom as we know it

I like it, good stuff.

The best thing that can happen here is that the PC Police keep doing what they're doing and deny it all the way. That will make it easier for those of us who have had enough to turn this around. And it's already begun.

.

One thing missing in this argument is the fact that the many of the folks buying into your claim regarding PC Police have themselves been the PC Police. How many threads have gone after the Hollywood establishment and their pretty controversial comments/actions? Sean Penn, Susan Sarandone or Matt Damon ring a bell?
Personally, I don't pay attention what lefty or righty celebrity heroes have to say. All I know is that I support their right to say whatever they want. If someone supports one side's right to say what they want, they should support every side's right to say what they want. Let's stop being so picky.

I think everyone supports free speech, and also ones right to use that freedom of speech to say what ever they want to say yes, but when people disagree with the content therefore that comes out of it afterwards, then it is quickly suggested by some here that someone wants to control the speech part of the deal, when everyone knows that that is not it at all.

It's only that they may disagree with the content that came out of the speech, and so they don't have a problem with the free speech part of it at all. People once something is said, well they only want to have a debate over the content afterwards, but that seems to set the left or their PC police on fire these days. Now why is this I wonder? Hmmm.

If the truth is told freely, and it destroys what the other has said also freely, then the only thing left is to suggest that free speech is under attack when it is not. Now to the dislike of the idealog who has an agenda, well he will say that free speech is under attack when others disagree with his content.

We should know better, and we should all do better about these sort of things.

 

[Vox]

Here's what he's talking about -- the "morality clause".

except there is absolutely no "morality clause "in this instance. If anything the morality standards are on the side of PR

 

[Vox]

Gay gestapo? I bet their uniforms are fabulous. Seriously, where do you people get this stuff?

from the actions of gay gestapo a.k.a GLAAD and your defense of it.

What did GLAAD do, specifically, that would it comparable to the Gestapo?

Blackmailed A&E

and others

 

[Vox]

Gay gestapo? I bet their uniforms are fabulous. Seriously, where do you people get this stuff?

from the actions of gay gestapo a.k.a GLAAD and your defense of it.

There’s another aspect to this idiocy as well, one conservatives are obviously not aware of – that when they refer to GLAAD as ‘the Gestapo,’ this only reinforces the argument that conservatives are hostile to homosexuals’ civil liberties, encouraging more private citizens to support GLAAD and other civil rights organizations.

drop the gestapo tactics - nobody will name them that.

simple.

 

[Iceman]

A guy shot his mouth off and was held accountable

The end of freedom as we know it

I like it, good stuff.

The best thing that can happen here is that the PC Police keep doing what they're doing and deny it all the way. That will make it easier for those of us who have had enough to turn this around. And it's already begun.

.

All societies have behaviors that they find offensive. Offensive speech has always had consequences....always will

The consequence here was A&E backed off.

People are offended by the Thought Police, and the Thought Police don't have enough muscle to stop A&E from acting in interest of their profits and keeping Phil Robertson on.

Of course, this whole episode just how irrelevant the issues are that our political discourse allows discussion on, showing how easily the little people are distracted by side issues of no significance, whether it be the christians or the fag foot soldiers of the left. It also shows how far the culture has degenerated that some scripted TV personality is the political rally point of one side and the demon of the other.

Politics is now like professional wrestling. Scripted and moderated for mass consumption.

 

[Pogo]

I have another opinion or rather this is my take on (Phil's) speaking on the blacks when he spoke about his up bringing with them, and how he had worked with them and etc. If anything I think he was trying to give them a compliment when looking back in the day, otherwise when he said that they were all in the same boat together, and that he never heard them complain about their situation, just like he didn't complain about his either. All they seemed to be to him was happy, and Christians who knew that someday it would bet better as time went by for them, and that it would be better because they would better themselves each day, just like Phil looked at it in the same ways along with them.

Interpreted - Phil being a poor country boy who knew the blacks that resided in his area back in the day were the same as him, and this was when he was a young man/boy. He did not understand them to be racist against whites back then, and that is what he was speaking about when he spoke on the subject (I think) upon concerning the blacks and their plight in life, just like what his plight was along with them, and in which for him was all the same in his life as well.

He described back then how he worked with them in the fields, and he was with them. He also said that he was considered white trash by his peers, and this meant that he was oppressed or mistreated by them, and this due to certain things that he may or may not have done in order to suit them and their ideals of what a Phil should be in his life in their eyes.

He said that he never seen any mistreatment of the blacks while he was on their level (i.e. what he meant was, is that they weren't mistreated no more than he was in life at the time, and especially not by him because he was their friend and co-worker). You see they all just worked for the farmers in that day just as he did with them. He said they were all happy doing what they were doing at the time (no complaining about it ever came from their mouths, nor did they trash whitey for it), and they all knew that there would always be hope to someday do better for all of them, and this is what him and they knew because they all believed in God and still do.

The blacks ought to be defending Phil, because he did not believe in slavery nor did he ever own a slave, and he worked with the blacks at the same levels, and just as hard along side of them, and he had friends in those blacks in which he worked with, and he never heard them complain or blame whitey for their plight in life. They just did what Phil did, and they eventually loosed themselves from the situation that they were in over time, and this by doing something about it instead of blaming others as the game is now being played today. I also worked with great black folk on a farm in my day, and we made great friendships while working in the hot scorching sun for over 12 to 13 hours a day during the growing and harvesting seasons. I to never heard them complain or accuse white people of their situation when we worked together. This was in the seventies. Many went on to retire and they still were great friends to the owner of the farm, and also to me and other workers for whom we all had worked hand in hand together back in those days. Phil is just frustrated on all the race baiting and immoral life styles that is going on today, and I think that he would rather stay out of the lime light on such issues. And hey he is right to not want to be in the lime light on such issues, because he probably knew that he would be miss-interpreted, and his words would be taken out on context if he did.

I know where Phil is coming from, and he may not have been able to articulate his words correctly when speaking about that time period (NO NOT THE 1800's either), but rather it was a time period where him and the blacks all worked together, laughed together, probably smoked pot together, and were the best of friends. I am glad that he knew them in that way, and they are probably glad that they knew him in that way also. GQ knew that they could exploit Phil due to his articulating problems, and they set him up I think.. The question is this now, where as is GQ a super political driven entity that is out to destroy people for an evil agenda in which they have or are they just dumb and/or all out stupid ?

Here's a good, thoughtful post. I appreciate reading something that a person put some time and thought into.

I don't know if Phil has articulating problems but I'm not getting the impression he sees himself as 'misunderstood'. The magazine (which I haven't seen around for decades) is not by nature political AFAIK. But they are a magazine, and they need sales, and in doing an interview with some hot commodity they're naturally going to look for some kind of scoop, so their readers won't see the same old thing.

Apparently even though A&E had a rep there, at one point Phil and the reporter went out on their own in Phil's ATV. Needless to say this was the reporter's opportunity to get some raw meat. So in effect GQ is doing the same thing A&E is doing; making a buck off a personality. For that matter so are the Robertsons. And if you actually read the GQ finished article, it's very sympathetic to Phil Robertson and his lifestyle. Even envious.

So it's not a political angle and it's not stupid. It's just making a buck. Controversy sells.

 

[Pogo]

Here's what he's talking about -- the "morality clause".

except there is absolutely no "morality clause "in this instance. If anything the morality standards are on the side of PR

When you cut the post off there and stop reading, you gonna look really really stupid. As you just did.

"Morality clause" is a legal term as the rest of the post explained. Apparently one that flew over your head. Why don't you just go back to "libtards yammer yammer libtards yammer yammer"?

 

[Katzndogz]

So far you have not proven that this specific contract has a morality clause, what the specific language is in this particular contract or that anyone is relying on any morality clause.

If the contract between Phil Robertson and A&E is available on-line please post a link to that contract.

 

[Bfgrn]

.

Those of us who have had enough BS from the PC Police are making it easy for them to wiggle out of this story on the hairy southern duck guy.

By bringing up -- or worse, letting them move the conversation to -- freedom of speech or religion or television contracts or the Constitution, you're giving them the opportunity to avoid the real issue (at least in my humble opinion): Their hypocritical, narcissistic intolerance.

Plus, this issue doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's just the latest in a long, long line of examples of their bigotry and intolerance. Holy crap, some of the things I've seen them say here about people who live in that area, wow.

The pushback is absolutely great and terribly overdue. They've jumped the shark with their race-baiting, language-manipulating, phony self esteem-building, forced inclusion silliness and it's clear that the pushback has begun. Yay!

This isn't (or shouldn't be) about the 1st Amendment or television contracts or religion. It should be about the hypocritical, paranoid, intolerant narcissism of the PC Police, and how they want to punish and intimidate people and businesses.

.

Pretty funny. You are merely defending someone you agree with. So when someone YOU agree with decides to make PUBLIC his or her private beliefs, and those beliefs show their blatant bigotry, intolerance and narcissism, everyone else should just shut the fuck up.

You are an idiot, thanks for making THAT public.

 

[Pogo]

So far you have not proven that this specific contract has a morality clause, what the specific language is in this particular contract or that anyone is relying on any morality clause.

If the contract between Phil Robertson and A&E is available on-line please post a link to that contract.

It isn't. People don't post current contracts online. Even the one I posted the entire contract for is redacted, but it is the same kind of show, so you get the idea.

A morality clause is SOP. Has been for a long time. Especially if the Talent lives on some fringe, or has no filter etc. There's no way they would embark on this project gambling with no morality clause.

But go ahead and give yourself a Boxing Day present of if it helps the delusion.

 

[Katzndogz]

Morality clauses are strange clauses. Not all contracts have them because they are very hard to prove violated. For instance a star who is openly homosexual would not violate a morality clause if he was giving an outspoken speech on gay rights even if he worked for the Family Channel. Someone known to be a drug user or alcoholic would not violate a morality clause when arrested for a drug or alcohol offense. Aaron Hernandez killed someone and no one thought that violated some morality clause.
Even morality clauses are construed under what you see is what you get. You might think that a blanket clause that an individual is prohibited from embarrassing the employer network or studio is important but it would be void as being too vague. One person's embarrassment may not to someone else. That might be the reason that no one is discussing a morality clause but you.

How embarrassed is this network if they are running DD marathons? Not too embarrassed are they? Can they come back later and say they are too embarrassed to have him on their program lineup? No. Even if there were an applicable morality clause subsequent behavior has destroyed its usefulnes
Industry leaders have called what A&E did is a rookie mistake. Now they have to find a way out.