Phil Robertson FIRED from A & E

[RadicalModerate]

I'm fairly certain Phil beat his wife within an inch of her life back in the day...maybe he should be a bit more careful on who he casts judgement on.

Apparently A&E isn't real good about vetting their Celebrities?
Gee . . . And to think of all the tee-shirts and whatnots that will now not be made in China to fulfill a tiny niche of The American Dream . . .
did someone mention a unicorn farting in a rainforest at some point in here? =)

[Stan Silliman]

Maybe the ducks have a little bit of quack in this melee. If you're going metaphysical and otherworldly in this debate, perhaps there's such a thing as duck karma. Maybe it was time for Phil Robertson to pay his "bill."

I could see it as a great karmic set-up. If you were a duck in a past life and you wanted to get even with a guy who created a product which simulated mating calls to send horny ducks to their early demise, which magazine would you write for? Naturally GQ, only in Ducktown it's known as Gander Quacks. It used to be Greenhead Quacks, but they were bought out. This works, if you were a former duck returned as a snarky sports writer, Drew Magary, (anagrammed as Web Gray Ram) writing for Deadspin, Kissing Suzy Kolber and Gawker then sometimes stringing for GQ.

It works because in your past life you were hunted for sport. They gawked at you in flight. When you went out for a spin, the duck hunters tried to give you a woody by setting out some woodies. In the end your spin around the lake turned into a "Deadspin." It's time to get even. Of course, being a past duck you're a friend of Drake, a black-Jew, and if you can get your target, Mr. Robertson, to also say something demeaning about Blacks and Jews, all the more ammunition to shoot down your target. The duck shooting down the hunter.

[RadicalModerate]

Maybe the ducks have a little bit of quack in this melee. If you're going metaphysical and otherworldly in this debate, perhaps there's such a thing as duck karma. Maybe it was time for Phil Robertson to pay his "bill."

I could see it as a great karmic set-up. If you were a duck in a past life and you wanted to get even with a guy who created a product which simulated mating calls to send horny ducks to their early demise, which magazine would you write for? Naturally GQ, only in Ducktown it's known as Gander Quacks. It used to be Greenhead Quacks, but they were bought out. This works, if you were a former duck returned as a snarky sports writer, Drew Magary, (anagrammed as Web Gray Ram) writing for Deadspin, Kissing Suzy Kolber and Gawker then sometimes stringing for GQ.

It works because in your past life you were hunted for sport. They gawked at you in flight. When you went out for a spin, the duck hunters tried to give you a woody by setting out some woodies. In the end your spin around the lake turned into a "Deadspin." It's time to get even. Of course, being a past duck you're a friend of Drake, a black-Jew, and if you can get your target, Mr. Robertson, to also say something demeaning about Blacks and Jews, all the more ammunition to shoot down your target. The duck shooting down the hunter.

Wasn't it the late John Lennon who--on the tail end of Celebrity--observed: "Instant Karma Gonna Getchu?"
I'm thinkin' A&E is in fo' a big slap on IT's Be-hind.
Not that any of this matters to me. the entire "Duck Dynasty" Reality TV thing is more boring to me than . . .
honey boo boo? =)

Jest Kiddin' o' course.

[Dustin]

Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?

[ljbab728]

You know what's really sad? Our news media is covering this like its a worthy front page story. With all that's going on in this country not to mention the world, we have wall to wall coverage of some bigot being fired. This is a non-story. The media should be ashamed of itself.

And this topic has generated 79 posts so far today. How does that compare to the other topics you are interested in and what does that say about our posters? Should they all be ashamed of themselves?

[jerrywall]

Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?

I watched it at first, and it was funny. Especially when they road a row boat on a conveyor belt. Then I never watched again. So I don't know.

[Just the facts]

I'm fairly certain Phil beat his wife within an inch of her life back in the day...maybe he should be a bit more careful on who he casts judgement on.

Who did Phil cast judgment on?

Here is the rest of the quote so many of you are worked up over.

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”


Read more: Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Makes Anti-Gay Statements | TIME.com

[RadicalModerate]

Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?

[
If that wasn't a possibly offensive rhetorical question then the answer is ["Quack"]

[RadicalModerate]

And this topic has generated 79 posts so far today. How does that compare to the other topics you are interested in and what does that say about our posters? Should they all be ashamed of themselves?

Damn Straight. Fer Shure.

[OU Adonis]

Well you need to pick a situation. Are they actively promoting the lifestyle and values that contradict the beliefs of the company/family or are they inadvertently promoting the lifestyle by coming out of the closet? Two TOTALLY different situations.

The first is going to be violation of company policy and that is the companies right since all employment is at-will. The second part you are going into outright discrimination which thankfully most companies and locals have laws against firing the person just for being gay.

In Oklahoma, Sexuality is not a protected class and Hobby Lobby employees are not federal employees so they could fire based on sexuality.

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

[RadicalModerate]

From back in the day when Celebrities were more carefully vetted:

(quack)
in order to restore perspective
(quack)

and just after he was let out on bail . . .



[Quack] GQ

[onthestrip]

For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?

Had a friend put it like this:

"So when the Boy Scouts of America, Chick-Fil-A, Fox News and other businesses take measures, as a business, that support anti-gay policy, it's not Freedom of Speech, it's "The Free Market's right to operate their business how they see fit." But when A&E takes measures, as a business, to drop a personality from its programming for taking a stance that goes against their corporate beliefs, suddenly the First Amendment has been shredded. "

[RadicalModerate]

For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?

Good Question. What's The Answer?

[ou48A]

[OKVision4U]

Had a friend put it like this:

"So when the Boy Scouts of America, Chick-Fil-A, Fox News and other businesses take measures, as a business, that support anti-gay policy, it's not Freedom of Speech, it's "The Free Market's right to operate their business how they see fit." But when A&E takes measures, as a business, to drop a personality from its programming for taking a stance that goes against their corporate beliefs, suddenly the First Amendment has been shredded. "

...and all those rules apply to the "Workplace". Where did this event happen? ...in a seperate location / off-hours. Now, I'm sure his contract may have a few clauses that preclude him from certain actions, but those are specific. This is about his "belief", not his opinion.

[Garin]

This issue is about the government handing out special rights to preferential groups.

[Just the facts]

For those that are upset with A&E, why weren't you up in arms when MSNBC dropped Alec Baldwin after his use of a gay slur?

I guess the difference is Baldwin was making the comments in a hurtful and demeaning way as part of an insult. Phil Robertson said we need to love the sinner and share the word of God with them and that to him sex between men didn't seem logical.

On a side note, MSNBC was trying to get rid of Baldwin almost from day one and his choice words gave them the out they were looking for. Of course, I would have fired back when he said this...

MSNBC fires Baldwin over anti-gay slurs | Page Six

When Baldwin was told he couldn’t have his way, he allegedly bellowed at the top of his lungs, “I don’t give a f - - k if she has cancer or not, I want that f - - king makeup room.”

[Jeepnokc]

Mainly my issue is how the liberals say they are tolerant but only is as far as if you agree with them.

Because that doesn't happen with the conservatives? Both sides are guilty of this. Example.....protesting the play (The most fabulous story I think was the name of it) that is going on right now or gay marriage. No one has been able to explain to me why two guys getting married affects my marriage to my wife in any way. As far as the play, if I don't want to see the play...I won't go. It's not like they are putting it on in my front yard. (Don't try the its in a government owned forum....so is the ten commandments at the capital)

[Urbanized]

Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?

Do you have any country cousins? If so, you know how much fun it is to go to family holidays and listen to them yammer about city folk, and hunting, and how entertaining it is watching them rig up ways to have fun and almost kill themselves in the bargain? OK, now imagine them with loads of money and comedy writers.

The end.

[Lord Helmet]

This issue is about the government handing out special rights to preferential groups.

Huh? This thread has nothing to do with government or rights. What are you talking about?

[Stan Silliman]

Can someone who watches this show explain what is so appealing about it?

Do you ever watch Coen Brothers movies? They show us provincial folks in their element and squeeze the funny out of these little ethnic studies.
Three movies in particular show provincial lower class types whooping it up: "Raising Arizona" "Fargo" and "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?"

The Coens accentuate the accents, show the actors in ridiculous situations. "The Big Lebowski" also has a little of that.

On "Duck Dynasty" you didn't have to hire actors. You get a glimpse of what America fears most, rednecks with money.

[onthestrip]

I guess the difference is Baldwin was making the comments in a hurtful and demeaning way as part of an insult. Phil Robertson said we need to love the sinner and share the word of God with them and that to him sex between men didn't seem logical.

If only Phil had put it so nicely we wouldnt be having this argument. Instead he lumped homosexuality with bestiality and then also insinuated all blacks are on entitlements and welfare when he said they were so happy slaving in the fields during their pre-entitlement days. Basically Phil didnt know how or didnt try to frame his words in a non offensive way, thus A&E decided to take action.

[OKVision4U]

If only Phil had put it so nicely we wouldnt be having this argument. Instead he lumped homosexuality with bestiality and then also insinuated all blacks are on entitlements and welfare when he said they were so happy slaving in the fields during their pre-entitlement days. Basically Phil didnt know how or didnt try to frame his words in a non offensive way, thus A&E decided to take action.

Really? Where exact did he say this? Provide link. Before you get too far down this path.

[Garin]

Huh? This thread has nothing to do with government or rights. What are you talking about?

Daniel D’Addario, writing for uber-liberal Salon, is correct. The Duck Dynasty imbroglio is not about the First Amendment. A&E has the right to suspend whatever actor or television show it deems appropriate for its business. “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,” said A. J. Liebling, highlighting what should be common sense.

D’Addario takes Sarah Palin and other conservatives to task for citing the First Amendment in the debate over Phil Robertson’s comments about his sexual preference and religion published in Esquire magazine. Palin was certainly off base, but notice D’Addario does not touch on the real issue here — the left activist and corporate media sanctified homosexual agenda currently masquerading as the next human rights campaign.

For many Democrats and libs, rejection of homosexuality along religious lines, as expressed by Robertson, is a hate crime little different than the hate crime of Nazis shuffling Jews off to death camps. The absurdity of this is imperceptible to the average liberal. In order to make up for this supposed prejudice, liberals insist gays must be granted special rights by the government. Special government granted rights for one preferential group, of course, necessitates a diminishment of rights of another group.

After special rights are granted to a preferential group by government, the real First Amendment issue arises. People who express disapproval and on occasion contempt for homosexuality are suddenly transformed into hate criminals who don’t deserve the right to exercise the First Amendment.

Since the late 1960s, gay activists have demanded society not only accept their lifestyle unquestioningly, but provide affirmation. “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives,” said homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi in 1987 before the National Press Club in Washington.
Acceptance of the gay lifestyle necessitates indoctrination. Soon after gay marriage was codified in Massachusetts, the government sanctified validity of homosexuality was merged into grade school curriculum. First grade teachers were instructed that they must “be aware of varied family structures, including… gay or lesbian parents,” and “children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household.” Books for children with names like “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Gloria Goes to Gay Pride” included the gay ethic in public education regardless of often vociferous opposition by parents.

The gay agenda, largely designed and promoted by the global elite and the establishment intelligentsia, has worked on multiple levels to erode Christian-based morals, rollback legal statutes with religious foundation, and modify laws to legalize homosexual marriage, force business to hire openly gay people, and in general make negative opinions by individuals regarding homosexuality illegal.
Salon does not tread this territory because it enthusiastically supports the gay agenda, as does the rest of the so-called left. Instead it concentrates on erroneous comments made by Sarah Palin and others who are confused about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For the left, special government-granted rights for homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals is the next wave in the socialist transformation. It is an ideal tool wielded by progressive activists as they bludgeon the opposition in authoritarian fashion and continue an effort to turn political ideology they disagree with into criminal behavior.