Duck Dynasty?

[TemplarKormac]

Quite interesting... was I too on point?

 

[ClosedCaption]

no, it is NOT.

it is your subjective perception.

And God forbid ever to live in a country where a society is an arbiter.

Thank God it is STILL not here as well.

Everything is subjective perception.

nope, not everything. and since the members of the society subjective perception can not and SHOULD not be an arbiter here, what you call "reality" is not reality as an objective fact at all.

it is your subjective reality.
but you can not impose your subjective reality on others.

and that is what all this conflict is about - about the group of extremely intolerant people trying to impose their perception of reality on others.

therefore the well deserved backlash.

Its not my reality, its reality dude. There isnt alternate realities here. Reality is imposed onto people not my reality or yours just reality. In reality, ppl had a problem with what he said. You dont like that reality. What do you want another reality? Sorry one doesnt exist.

And the reality is that your use of the word intolerant isnt used for intolerance. You call people intolerant when they dont like YOUR intolerance.

You can call someone a faggot and someone can complain about you using the word. Dont get me wrong I'll tell a faggot joke in a second but I understand that everyone wont accept it. I'm ok with that

 

[Amelia]

Why did President Obama feel the need to comment on the Henry Louis Gates arrest? It had nothing to do with him yet he still felt the need to take sides on it.

And I jumped all over Obama for doing that.

Obama had no business going there when he didn't even know the details of the case.


It's quite reasonable to ask why Jindal commented on it. Why did he? Especially when he didn't even take the time to make a good comment. This wasn't a first amendment matter. Not a very intelligent comment to make and not a good reason for risking offending blacks and gays in his state. Did Jindal look into the details of Robertson's comments? Or did he just jump right in feet first without studying the matter?

 

[Gracie]

Because he has the same rights everyone else does in having an opinion and stating it? Oh. Wait. Pretty soon that will be illegal.

 

[Gracie]

I thinik there are just way too many threads about DD, so great posts like this one...gets lost because there are so many already in progress.

 

[Dutch]

I've been mulling this over for a while, and I've come to the distinct conclusion that we are all being more bigoted about this than Phil. Each side wants constantly to silence the other. I no longer think this is about Duck Dynasty anymore, but more to do with deep seated political viewpoints than anything. I'm beginning to see how petty this has gotten, yes, let me be the first to acknowledge reality.

Phil Robertson isn't being hurt by any of this. A&E was well within it's right to suspend him, Phil was well within his to say what he wanted to say. Neither one of them will suffer financially for this. But, none of us are concerned about that. As I've just mentioned, this is all one colossal political food fight. Let's get one thing straight here: I don't advocate any third party group bullying anyone into silence all simply because they disagree with them. But this has morphed into a microcosm of the left vs. right division in our country, not an issue of constitutionality or tolerance to one demographic or another. This whole thing leads me to believe we are all being bigots. Not to Phil, not to gays, but each other.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?

Last night, GQ released a story about Duck Dynasty that quotes Phil Robertson’s thoughts about homosexuality:

“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. The other JUST GOT FIRED.”

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. 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?”

The 'Duck Dynasty' Fiasco Says More About Our Bigotry Than Phil's | TIME.com

The oligarchs on both sides love shit like this. They laugh their asses off while the unwashed masses fight over thIs petty shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

From the same link:

The organization is also currently researching companies who use Robertson as a spokesperson.

“Silence is agreement in this case,” he said. “With such egregious anti-gay and racist comments, those companies that choose to be affiliated with this family need to speak out.”

Pathetic. GLAAD is now using the same crap tactics that Jesse Jackasson and Al Sharpie use.

Uh no.

Stop with the breast beating and the silly ass bible thumping for a moment and try THINKING.

Remember llimbaugh? Beck? Other rw idiots?

How about left wing pundits and comedians?

This is the great American way. We vote with our money. If you love racism and taking rights away from Americans, then you should contact the sponsors and tell them so.

If you believe that all Americans are Constitutionally entitled to the same rights, then you should tell the sponsors you won't be buying their products any more.

As for the DD's - the old fart lives in the Dark Ages. He signed a contract, now he's broken the rules he agreed to and now he's paying the price. Quit whining and grow up.

Rules? Which rules are those? The ones you dreamed up?
Come one....Show the "rules"....
Umm, left wing people who have made awful comments about conservatives and still have their jobs......Whoopie Goldberg. David Letterman. Bill Maher...
All three have made vicious untrue or derogatory comments about conservatives and gotten away with it.
There are other guilty libs who've been protected..
Phil Robertson quoted the Bible.. He said NOTHING untrue, inflammatory or derogatory.
It's all in your closed mind.
Your side is losing this one. And losing BIG..
With this incident, your side has been exposed. Your side can longer successfully threaten sponsors. Your side no longer has the clout to ram your far left wing PC bullshit down our throats.
From now on, if you want to get along in this country you'll just have to grow a thicker skin and stop looking for shit with which to bother yourselves.

 

[Votto]

Quite interesting... was I too on point?

This is akin to conservative twerking.

Attention whores bring in money, and Duck Dynasty just got a cash infusion.

The wealthy use the right vs. left dogma to enrich themselves off us and gain our support.

 

[Vox]

Everything is subjective perception.

nope, not everything. and since the members of the society subjective perception can not and SHOULD not be an arbiter here, what you call "reality" is not reality as an objective fact at all.

it is your subjective reality.
but you can not impose your subjective reality on others.

and that is what all this conflict is about - about the group of extremely intolerant people trying to impose their perception of reality on others.

therefore the well deserved backlash.

Its not my reality, its reality dude. There isnt alternate realities here. Reality is imposed onto people not my reality or yours just reality. In reality, ppl had a problem with what he said. You dont like that reality. What do you want another reality? Sorry one doesnt exist.

And the reality is that your use of the word intolerant isnt used for intolerance. You call people intolerant when they dont like YOUR intolerance.

You can call someone a faggot and someone can complain about you using the word. Dont get me wrong I'll tell a faggot joke in a second but I understand that everyone wont accept it. I'm ok with that

it is YOUR reality. a subjective one where you think the world is evolving around the leftards agenda. It is not.

the backlash in all this story is exactly proving that YOUR reality is not the objective reality.

GLAAD thought so as well.

They might just have crossed the Rubicon.


p.s. nobody called somebody a faggot. and as far as I remember calling somebody a faggot is usually the leftards prerogative ( exemplified by the left's vocal proponent recently fired exactly for the word LOL) - when they are losing the arguments with the opposite side they call the opponents faggots. shows exactly where their REAL beliefs are

 

[Amelia]

Because he has the same rights everyone else does in having an opinion and stating it? Oh. Wait. Pretty soon that will be illegal.

He is the governor. He made his comment in an official capacity. I still haven't heard a good reason for him to complain about a private corporation firing someone who made offensive statements. When he mentioned the 1st Amendment he showed misunderstanding of the Constitution. And again ... did it in an official capacity.

The governor of Louisiana should have a very good reason before he issues an official statement complaining about a private company firing someone who made racially offensive and homophobic comments, not to mention the insult he made in that official statement against Miley Cyrus. From what I can see, the governor did not have a good reason to do so. It would be hard to find a good reason for a governor to make such an ignorant statement about the 1st Amendment.

 

[Vox]

Why did President Obama feel the need to comment on the Henry Louis Gates arrest? It had nothing to do with him yet he still felt the need to take sides on it.

And I jumped all over Obama for doing that.

Obama had no business going there when he didn't even know the details of the case.


It's quite reasonable to ask why Jindal commented on it. Why did he? Especially when he didn't even take the time to make a good comment. This wasn't a first amendment matter. Not a very intelligent comment to make and not a good reason for risking offending blacks and gays in his state. Did Jindal look into the details of Robertson's comments? Or did he just jump right in feet first without studying the matter?

because the show is promoting the Louisiana tourism and that is an economy issue for Jindal.
The whole family and their empire is a big enterprise and JOBS in Louisiana.
Unlike our failure in chief, Louisiana governor knows that jobs make people happy, not unemployment benefits extension.

 

[Vox]

Because he has the same rights everyone else does in having an opinion and stating it? Oh. Wait. Pretty soon that will be illegal.

He is the governor. He made his comment in an official capacity. I still haven't heard a good reason for him to complain about a private corporation firing someone who made offensive statements. When he mentioned the 1st Amendment he showed misunderstanding of the Constitution. And again ... did it in an official capacity.

The governor of Louisiana should have a very good reason before he issues an official statement complaining about a private company firing someone who made racially offensive and homophobic comments, not to mention the insult he made in that official statement against Miley Cyrus. From what I can see, the governor did not have a good reason to do so. It would be hard to find a good reason for a governor to make such an ignorant statement about the 1st Amendment.

He does.
It's the economy of his state

 

[Dutch]

The Blaze is a bunch of rubes that will eat up anything Beck puts on the channel. Very limited market.

 

[Stephanie]

A & E COULD GIVE A RAT'S ASS if someone was a Democrat or a Republican.
They care about DOLLARS.
Can not believe how naive and gullible you folks are.
This is about MONEY ONLY.

My dear you're going to have a stroke or something over this topic

man oh man

 

[Amelia]

Why did President Obama feel the need to comment on the Henry Louis Gates arrest? It had nothing to do with him yet he still felt the need to take sides on it.

And I jumped all over Obama for doing that.

Obama had no business going there when he didn't even know the details of the case.


It's quite reasonable to ask why Jindal commented on it. Why did he? Especially when he didn't even take the time to make a good comment. This wasn't a first amendment matter. Not a very intelligent comment to make and not a good reason for risking offending blacks and gays in his state. Did Jindal look into the details of Robertson's comments? Or did he just jump right in feet first without studying the matter?

because the show is promoting the Louisiana tourism and that is an economy issue for Jindal.
The whole family and their empire is a big enterprise and JOBS in Louisiana.
Unlike our failure in chief, Louisiana governor knows that jobs make people happy, not unemployment benefits extension.

Well, that's food for thought. Thank you. It still doesn't excuse the ignorance of his reference to the 1st Amendment, or the gratuitous insult to Miley Cyrus. The Governor of Louisiana shouldn't be trashing young women in an official capacity.

 

[HenryBHough]

Of course the primary reason for the support has been totally overlooked.

It's simply that by so doing the right has caused the left to froth at the mouth and piss their pants in their rage. We probably should tell them about Depends but that would take a lot of fun out of watching them.

 

[Vox]

The issue is that what he said about blacks was very offensive,

Do you even know what Phil Robertson was referring too? He was referencing the specific negroes that he personally hoed the fields with in his community back in the late 50's. Those negroes didn't complain about repression. They were glad to have a job like Phil. He wasn't referring to all other negroes that might have felt different in other parts of the country. Only the ones he worked along side with in the fields. So no, what he said of his personal experience was not offensive and this is a prime example how liberals twist things out of the original context to stir the masses. And you fell for it Black_Man1.


“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once,” he said. “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.”

Do you actually think a black would tell Phil what he thought of whites in 1950s LA? I can see the scene now:

Phil: "Hey Joe, what do think about all of this segregation stuff."

Joe: "Well, Mr. Robertson, I really don't have anything to say about that sir.

It does not matter. even if he was wrong, because they did not confide in him - that is what he thought and perceived as reality and there is nothing offensive or bigoted in his perception.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not this duck hunter,or any duck hunter I know. There are plenty of good duck calls out there. Zink or Rich-N-Tone comes to mind.
It's not like they use a different design. They all work off a reed or a double reed.

And, they're damn easy to make on the spot.

If you don't know how, there are instructions on line.

Its all the Made In China shit at WallyWorld that they make their money off of.

All Duck Commander Duck Call products are made by the Robertson's in West Monroe, La and then distributed all over. They're American made as Apple Pie.

Luddy despises success. Reason why he has to dump all over the Robertsons...Luddy knows success is beyond his reach so he has to do the only thing in defense of his agenda, that is to criticize and impugn the achievers.

 

[Gadawg73]

A & E COULD GIVE A RAT'S ASS if someone was a Democrat or a Republican.
They care about DOLLARS.
Can not believe how naive and gullible you folks are.
This is about MONEY ONLY.

My dear you're going to have a stroke or something over this topic

man oh man

LOL, no, just frustrated that BOTH SIDES have it wrong.
Same as everyday everything politics these days.
Media has pitted an US versus THEM "story" again.
Same as the Zimmerman case.

 

[Vox]

And I jumped all over Obama for doing that.

Obama had no business going there when he didn't even know the details of the case.


It's quite reasonable to ask why Jindal commented on it. Why did he? Especially when he didn't even take the time to make a good comment. This wasn't a first amendment matter. Not a very intelligent comment to make and not a good reason for risking offending blacks and gays in his state. Did Jindal look into the details of Robertson's comments? Or did he just jump right in feet first without studying the matter?

because the show is promoting the Louisiana tourism and that is an economy issue for Jindal.
The whole family and their empire is a big enterprise and JOBS in Louisiana.
Unlike our failure in chief, Louisiana governor knows that jobs make people happy, not unemployment benefits extension.

Well, that's food for thought. Thank you. It still doesn't excuse the ignorance of his reference to the 1st Amendment, or the gratuitous insult to Miley Cyrus. The Governor of Louisiana shouldn't be trashing young women in an official capacity.

that's a different story, but I was just concentrating on the only issue of the economic enterprise.