DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:31 pm**

.....first off, I love this show, and have since season one when a friend of mine from Missisippi told me of it. Wholesome, funny, outdoorsy, and nothing negative about it. Yeah, you could tell the Robertsons were setting up the scenarios, yes, you could tell they were devout Christians. Still, no one beat you with religion over the head, the stuff was fresh and funny. Then, they started to appear EVERYWHERE. In marketing/public relations, this is called overexposure, and they got overexposed BADLY. Now, I figure it never concerned them, as they overexposed themselves to tens of millions of dollars. The same friend who touted me to the show, and is in public relations himself, for a living, agreed with me that they had started down a dangerous path. And then, they paid the price: Phil becomes an interview magnet, and eventually spouts the same Fundamentalist bull★■◆● about gay people being sinners just like murderers and ADIOS! Phil's gone from the show, about 2 million people are threatening to boycott A and E sponsors(in 48 hours, that number will easily quadruple), and a perfectly good, simple TV show is fecked from here on in. Too bad, but they overdid it and with fame comes a life under the microscope.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:54 pm**

Lessons from duck dynasty....

So much for "freedom of speech" and "freedom to practice religion." In this you're allowed to think whatever you want as long as it's the same as all the other sheeple.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:25 pm**

snoopy wrote:Lessons from duck dynasty....

So much for "freedom of speech" and "freedom to practice religion." In this you're allowed to think whatever you want as long as it's the same as all the other sheeple.

as I wrote elsewhere: Freedom of speech works both ways. You can surely say what you wish, but that doesn't negate the right of those who are offended by that speech from boycotting all sponsors of your TV network. That is THEIR right. As I said, when you chase the almighty buck by selling out to 'celebrity'(what did Jesus say about this?), expect a backlash when you make a dimwitted comment about gay people(who Jesus failed to mention anywhere near as clearly as he did those who chase money).

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:35 pm**

I'm not so sure Phil gives a ★■◆●.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:37 pm**

The guy does have the right to freedom of speech. If he wants to mouth BS and hate, let the audience decide his fate. A&E should've just left the guy on the show and let the ratings make the decision. Besides, what should we expect out of the mouth of a redneck Bible thumper? Just what we got. Besides, I watched the show one time to see what all the hullabaloo was about. I decided to not waste my time with the show ever again.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:40 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:The guy does have the right to freedom of speech. If he wants to mouth BS and hate,

Besides, what should we expect out of the mouth of a redneck Bible thumper? :

Hello pot meet kettle and all in a single post too

bravo

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:16 pm**

flip wrote:I'm not so sure Phil gives a ****.

pretty sure you're right. The big losers here are A and E, committing to a 5 season extension for a show already getting dangerously thin.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:15 pm**

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:The guy does have the right to freedom of speech. If he wants to mouth BS and hate,
Besides, what should we expect out of the mouth of a redneck Bible thumper? :
Hello pot meet kettle and all in a single post too

bravo

Hating the act of hatred is hardly equal to hating someone for no reason.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:33 pm**

"Reality TV" is a huge reason I'm glad I haven't watched television in well over a decade.

It's nothing more than slow brain death.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:36 pm**

Amen to that. Everything else aside, you could not pay me enough money on this planet to sit through an episode of that show.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:18 pm**

Top Gun wrote:Hating the act of hatred is hardly equal to hating someone for no reason.

As I said: So much for "freedom of speech" and "freedom to practice religion." In this country you're allowed to think whatever you want as long as it's the same as all the other sheeple.

I'm appalled at all you people who think that comparing homosexuality to paraphilia is an insult. I mean, seriously, how can you all stand there and call yourselves human beings, hating on progressive people who are born with the genes that make them love little children and animals. They can't help it.... they were born that way. I personally think we need some more laws about how anyone can marry and bang whoever or whatever they want.

Posted: **Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:54 pm**

Sad to see how his comments are mis characterized as 'equating' homosexuality and terrorism. When he didn't do that. He clearly suggested a wide ranging list of things that as a Christian he finds to be offensive and said it is up to god to judge.
He didn't say being gay is like being a terrorist. He said there are lots of different things he finds to be wrong/sins but none of them are for him to sit in judgement of...

So there is a bit of misrepresentation of his words taking place in order to get them to sound more hateful than they were offered.

Then again, how do you not judge someone if you call them out as being wrong but then say it's not for you to judge? Isn't it more accurate to say you are judging them to be wrong but deferring the authority to deliver any punishment to the almighty?

And if so why should he be fired from the show for being exactly who they hired him to be?
Was he just supposed to be the tongue in cheek southern Christian stereotype. Let the audience imagine he doesn't like gays but don't let him say out loud that which you hope the audience will infer from having the genuine article cast in the role?!?

In my mind A&E deserves the backlash they get for being completely hypocritical. And those people suddenly offended are lemmings.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:18 am**

snoopy wrote:
Top Gun wrote:Hating the act of hatred is hardly equal to hating someone for no reason.
As I said: So much for "freedom of speech" and "freedom to practice religion." In this country you're allowed to think whatever you want as long as it's the same as all the other sheeple.

I'm appalled at all you people who think that comparing homosexuality to paraphilia is an insult. I mean, seriously, how can you all stand there and call yourselves human beings, hating on progressive people who are born with the genes that make them love little children and animals. They can't help it.... they were born that way. I personally think we need some more laws about how anyone can marry and bang whoever or whatever they want.

You have every right to believe and say whatever you want, but everyone else also has the right to call you out on it. Freedom of speech works both ways, you see. And there's no constitutional protection against an employer terminating your employment if they feel that your publicly-expressed views reflect poorly on them as a company, especially when you're doing so in a national media interview.

And are you seriously making the pedophilia analogy? Really?

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:44 am**

snoopy wrote:They can't help it.... they were born that way.

You are right, a person's sexual orientation is predetermined. The difference is consent. (I'm not sure why I'm explaining this basic fact to a grown man, but here goes...) I don't hate a pedophile or a zoophile because they are attracted to children or animals. The problem is acting on that desire because doing so is abuse at best and rape at worst. Two consenting adults of any gender can freely express their sexuality with each other. We don't let adults have sex with teenagers who are in the throws of puberty because consent and abuse are still issues. The range of physical and mental maturity in young adults is wide. A gay man having sex with a gay child is wrong not because they are gay, but because one is an adult and the other isn't. Pedophiles and zoophiles need special help and caring because their disposition hurts people and animals physically and mentally. It is not any different than a person born with a disposition to abuse drugs and alcohol. We need to help them stop hurting themselves and others.

I don't judge consenting sexual practices. In fact, if your German Sheppard wants to hump you and this gets you off, go for it. As long as no one gets hurt... be free and have your fun!

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:45 am**

Top Gun wrote:You have every right to believe and say whatever you want, but everyone else also has the right to call you out on it. Freedom of speech works both ways, you see. And there's no constitutional protection against an employer terminating your employment if they feel that your publicly-expressed views reflect poorly on them as a company, especially when you're doing so in a national media interview.

....Right, and if it happens to differ from what the masses think, they have free reign to viciously hate because you're the one who's hating first. Hate cuts both ways, too... but you (and the rest of the masses) don't seem to think so. I've said it before... what people call "acceptance" is really just thinly veiled conformism, because as acceptance it's comically inconsistent. You say do I really go to pedophilia - I say if you really claim to be accepting why wouldn't you accept and embrace pedophilia?

The irony is how blind the masses are to their own hypocrisy.... but then that's part of the human condition, too.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:50 am**

Top Gun wrote:
CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:The guy does have the right to freedom of speech. If he wants to mouth BS and hate,
Besides, what should we expect out of the mouth of a redneck Bible thumper? :
Hello pot meet kettle and all in a single post too

bravo
Hating the act of hatred is hardly equal to hating someone for no reason.

but that's not what she did now, did she? Dont try playing stupid.
Hatred and hate filled comments are just that. If its not acceptable for one it should not be acceptable for the other. trying to justify one with the "well he did it first" approach is so grade school.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:59 am**

the more I ponder this whole incident, the more I suspect that Phil just wanted to go back to hunting and fishing, and was smart enough to find an out.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:15 am**

Here is outspoken gay icon, Camille Paglia's, take on the firing of Phil.
She calls it
"utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, " and calls her own party out for their lack of intellectual ability. Pretty hard hitting and long overdue reflection in my mind.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:21 am**

Will Robinson wrote:Here is outspoken gay icon, Camille Paglia's, take on the firing of Phil.
She calls it
"utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, " and calls her own party out for their lack of intellectual ability. Pretty hard hitting and long overdue reflection in my mind.

I can't see where Paglia gets the whole 'party' thing.....both parties have inflexible zealots. I do agree with her on intellectual closemindedness to ideas, and not just from 'Ivy League' schools. That whole concept has been lost in higher education, to a great extent.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:16 am**

callmeslick wrote:...

I can't see where Paglia gets the whole 'party' thing.....both parties have inflexible zealots....

Both parties don't have equal access to the pop culture 'megaphone'...TV, Movie, Celebrity chatter, etc.
Nor do both parties have the same presence among administration and faculty in universities molding young minds. Those bully pulpits are dominated by the left and they are extremely effective.

And the number one reason you and many in your party don't see the glaring distinction she is pointing out is a simple one. Denial.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:27 am**

My favorite line of the whole article

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life.

those that scream tolerance are least willing to offer tolerance.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:34 pm**

CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:The guy does have the right to freedom of speech. If he wants to mouth BS and hate,
Besides, what should we expect out of the mouth of a redneck Bible thumper? :
Hello pot meet kettle and all in a single post too

bravo

Nice kneejerk reaction there. And according to most conservatives, only liberals are supposed to have thin skins.

First off, I'm pretty sure these guys have called themselves "rednecks" and are proud of it.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-lea ... ed-empire/

Secondly, I used the term "Bible thumper" in one of it's used definitions:

Urban Dictionary wrote:"One who uses the Bible to attack/defame others' characters instead of as a guide to proper living."

That perfectly describes the statements this guy made in that magazine interview. So why do you think MY description of that person is even remotely comparable to the vile vitriol this idiot spewed forth? He may be a "Godly man", but his "opinions" of others concerning human behavior, gender, or skin color is revolting, disgusting and backward.

And his statements about blacks shows he's still a holdover from the Jim Crow South. Just another uninformed, revisionist, bigoted and uneducated white hick from the South.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... 73474.html

Be that as it may, he does have the right to mouth his trash, as nasty and vile as it is. But A&E did make a stupid decision to remove him from the show. That action instantly promoted him and his family into victim status. Conservatives like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have jumped right into the fray like hungry, rabid, slathering wolves attacking their liberal prey. No, I think A&E should have left the show on, and let the ratings drive things. If uniformed and bigoted people want to keep watching a bunch of rednecks live their boring redneck lives and spew their filth day in and day out, let them them have at it. It's a free country. Personally, I only see a family of people, who did work hard in life, did became successful at what they did, and did make it big. But then they ruined that story by showing everyone that at their core, they're still nothing but white trash, and that IS my insult.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:45 pm**

Wow, editing my list of reasons to never become a liberal.

Ahhh, never mind....already there.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:54 pm**

and, now a video:
http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=844528&gt1=28103

to get back to my original point: It ISN'T that Phil has no right to hold these beliefs, or spout them. It's that, in seeking to become a 'reality' celebrity, he has, by definition, become an EMPLOYEE of A and E Network, and in a larger sense, Disney Corporation. Those entities have every right to fire him for saying something, in public, that brings negative business pressure to their corporation. I worked for 30 years under a similar contractual obligation. Most folks working for large corporations do likewise. This isn't a free speech issue, it is an employee contract issue. And, I still hold to my position that Phil, who has a B.A. in English, was savvy enough to have done this to break free from a life that was making him uncomfortable, and allowing him to return to fishing and hunting without having to renege on a long-term deal with Willie and Duck Commander to air the show for 5 more seasons.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:10 pm**

Spidey wrote:Wow, editing my list of reasons to never become a liberal.

Ahhh, never mind....already there.

Just needed to vent. Ol' Phil actually calls himself a redneck and CUDA objects to my using the term "redneck". He's forgetting that gays call themselves queers, blacks call themselves niggas and many rural people call themselves rednecks, proudly. Now he can call me out for using the term "white trash" if he wants. No one likes that one as a term of endearment. Perhaps CUDA didn't like my using the term "Bible thumper"?

Yes, you're right Slick. Since Phil is under contract, he violated the terms of his contract. So kicking him off the show was a business decision. Hmmm, sounds like something a conservative would like, a business enforcing it's own contract. That's not a "liberal" problem and it's not a free speech problem, so tough tooties to all those whining conservative windbags like Palin and Jindal. It's just "bidness".

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:14 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:...
they're still nothing but white trash, and that IS my insult.

"White trash"!?

Do you understand what that term implies?

If someone is 'trash' then you call them trash. There is no need for any qualifier.

If, however, you call a white person trash and you feel compelled to qualify them white BUT trash...like you just did...you have declared all non-whites to be wholly trash and only some whites are trash.

White trash is a white bigots phrase designed to acuse a white person of being as lowly as that white bigot sees non-whites.
Way to go hater!

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:29 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:White trash is a white bigots phrase designed to acuse a white person of being as lowly as that white bigot sees non-whites.
Way to go hater!

I'm the hater? Pfffffffffffft! I didn't spout what Phil spouted in a public speech, or a magazine article. By the way, white trash refers to poor white people from the South. Phil WAS poor and from the South in his beginnings, so technically he WAS white trash at one time. Obviously, he didn't learn something useful like tolerance towards others who are not lily white, southern, heterosexual and Christian like him from all his family's successes and dealings in the public sphere, so he's still white trash in my book.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:40 pm**

bull★■◆● you called them rednecks. That is a derogatory term. Its no different then blacks calling each other niggers. Its still wrong......

Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the Southern United States. It is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks), and white trash (but without the last term's suggestions of immorality)

and then you talk about tolerance when you have none yourself. Pathetic

and I'll refer back to the article on those people that do that kind of thing are showing their immaturity and juvenility

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:53 pm**

Yes, you're right Slick. Since Phil is under contract, he violated the terms of his contract.

how the HELL do you know what the terms if the cotract are? Just a little presumptuous on your part dont you think.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:00 pm**

Sounds pretty right-on to me. He was quoting from the Bible during part of that clip, and I didn't catch anything unBiblical after that. It certainly wasn't hate speech. Don't know if I totally grasp his motivation, but I felt he made some good points. I'm going to venture a guess that the show will not be losing much in the way of viewership (~10-20%), and all the noise they're making will probably lead to picking up fair number of viewers. People who try to hurt A&E in order to keep organizations like them from associating with people who hold these kinds of views in the future are another matter, and that may cause a little more of a problem. What I'd like to see from A&E is a little loyalty to the folks whom they have benefited from in any success they have enjoyed.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:22 pm**

"IF" they have a show. Family is already indicating they will probably bail if Phil is not allowed back.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:25 pm**

CUDA wrote:
Yes, you're right Slick. Since Phil is under contract, he violated the terms of his contract.
how the HELL do you know what the terms if the cotract are? Just a little presumptuous on your part dont you think.

I'd say a little naive(or willing blindness) on yours, CUDA, if you don't think there was a public conduct clause. Don't you have one, with your employer? You know, a little paragraph to the effect of(and I'm reading this off an old copy of my contract):" In the event it is deemed by_____ Incorporated, that the employee, in his public conduct or communications, has in any way caused harm or undue controversy to ______Incorporated, immediate termination of employment can occur, without warning beforehand. Employee has the right to appeal before the appropriate government employment regulators, in such circumstance."

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:26 pm**

Five months ago, the prospect of the Robertsons continuing without the Duck Commander dad wasn't so unlikely. When asked how much longer he planned to be part of "Duck Dynasty," Phil told Parade at the time, "Not long. But I think it'll go on without me."

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:27 pm**

CUDA wrote:**** you called them rednecks. That is a derogatory term. Its no different then blacks calling each other niggers. Its still wrong......

Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the Southern United States. It is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks), and white trash (but without the last term's suggestions of immorality)
and then you talk about tolerance when you have none yourself. Pathetic

and I'll refer back to the article on those people that do that kind of thing are showing their immaturity and juvenility

OK, so I'm a baddie for the couple nasty words I called poor Mr. Phil, one he used himself as a term of his own endearment, but he's an OK guy and just a poor innocent victim of that horrible liberal bias? That essentially means people can't criticize Phil's own trash talk about several groups of our population without being called haters in the process.

And it's OK for rednecks to call themselves rednecks, but not for someone who isn't a redneck? That's the most twisted logic I ever heard. Typical conservatives. They like to wear the shackles of victim-hood, narrow-mindedness and intolerance, then justify wearing those shackles by quoting the Bible. Of course, they blame everyone else when they trip over their own intransigence and rigidity. Kinda why I don't ascribe to the Bible.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:30 pm**

The New Testament(and especially the words of Jesus, himself) has FAR more to say about coveting money, than it does about sexual conduct. Just an observation.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:37 pm**

Yeah, and I don't hear any Christians condemning our greedfest of a free market system, of which the Duck Dynasty made fortunes in, except maybe for the new Pope. I'm starting to like that guy already.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:05 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, and I don't hear any Christians condemning our greedfest of a free market system, of which the Duck Dynasty made fortunes in, except maybe for the new Pope. I'm starting to like that guy already.

You mean that new Pope who has expressed the same opinion of gays as Phil did (minus the contrasting of anus to vagina of course)?

Lol!

By the way, you skipped over your explanation of why you needed to add "white" when describing trashy white people? Deflecting with the excuse 'other people say it' doesn't address you and your need to qualify your indictment of a white person.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:23 pm**

OK, so I'm a baddie for the couple nasty words I called poor Mr. Phil, one he used himself as a term of his own endearment, but he's an OK guy and just a poor innocent victim of that horrible liberal bias?

nope your a baddie because you hold someone else to a different standard that you refuse to even attempt to meet.

And it's OK for rednecks to call themselves rednecks, but not for someone who isn't a redneck? That's the most twisted logic I ever heard. Typical conservatives. They like to wear the shackles of victim-hood, narrow-mindedness and intolerance,

you mean like the black community does? And the homosexual community does? Kind if hypocritical of you just to call out conservatives huh.

then justify wearing those shackles by quoting the Bible. Of course, they blame everyone else when they trip over their own intransigence and rigidity. Kinda why I don't ascribe to the Bible.

You have no idea even what the verse says that he quoted do you? The verse calls out ALL sin. But you only choose to focus on homosexuality. How convenient to your little victim hood play.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:25 pm**

callmeslick wrote:The New Testament(and especially the words of Jesus, himself) has FAR more to say about coveting money, than it does about sexual conduct. Just an observation.

yes it does.

Doesn't deminish the fact that it does talks about sexual conduct though.

Posted: **Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:41 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:And it's OK for rednecks to call themselves rednecks, but not for someone who isn't a redneck? That's the most twisted logic I ever heard. Typical conservatives. They like to wear the shackles of victim-hood, narrow-mindedness and intolerance, then justify wearing those shackles by quoting the Bible. Of course, they blame everyone else when they trip over their own intransigence and rigidity. Kinda why I don't ascribe to the Bible.

Try calling a black person a ★■◆●, then come explain how twisted the logic is….

Because I agree, but all of the white liberal enablers like you, keep convoluting the issue.

If it’s wrong for “rednecks” then it’s wrong for everyone…period.

DescentBB

The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty

Re: The Sad Lessons of Duck Dynasty