Liberal Elites, PC Crowd, “Intolerants” Responsible for A&E Indefinitely Suspending “Duck Dynasty” Reality Show Star Over Anti-Gay Comments, Part of War on Christians, Religious Liberty, or Free Speech, Duck Dynasty Supporters Allege

they probably say merry christmasA&EIf you haven’t heard of Duck Dynasty before, you probably have today. That’s because Phil Robertson, the star of the A&E reality TV show that follows a family in the duck hunting business, was suspended indefinitely for making comment perceived to be anti-gay in a GQ profile that asked “How in the world did a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters become the biggest TV stars in America?” Here is the relevant excerpt, where Robertson appears to be comparing homosexuality to bestiality:

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he [Phil Robertson] tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“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. Then heparaphrases 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.”

In the profile, Robertson complains that the more “controversial” statements he makes in his religion-laden show about hunting ducks get cut by A&E. He opines to GQ about how a vagina should just be “more desirable” to a man than an anus. “That’s just me.” It’s a show about a duck hunter operating in the Louisiana backwoods, who says the kinds of things you might expect a duck hunter from the Louisiana backwoods to say. In deciding to suspend Robertson indefinitely, A&E sought to make sure people understood “[h]is personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”  I don’t know who could confuse the things said by a man who stars in a reality show about duck hunting with things the executives at the network might believe. Nevertheless, A&E made the decision the controversy stirred up by Robertson was something they wanted to distance themselves from. They haven’t pulled episodes of Duck Dynasty (or any merchandise), and I expect they’ll get a decent ratings bump because of all the people who’ve never heard of Phil Robertson or Duck Dynasty before this story broke.

Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell rightly called A&E’s decision “a gross misstep.” After all, it should not have surprised A&E that Phil Robertson would say the things he did. Engaging and challenging Robertson’s ideas is a more effective response to those ideas than trying to silence Robertson, which Kirell notes, only provides “culture warriors” more ammo.  

And has it. Todd Starnes, who Kirell singled out as one of those culture warriors, claimed A&E declared a war on Christian values. It hasn’t. It decided to appear to penalize one of its stars for making a comment it believes some of its viewers (though probably not of Duck Dynasty itself) might take offense to in an effort to limit its liabilities in an incident it had nothing to do with.

Sarah Palin blamed Robertson’s suspension on “intolerants” and called it an “attack on free speech.” It’s not. A & E has the right to choose to associate or not with Robertson, and should be able to base that decision on anything it wants. Labor laws may prohibit them from some forms of discrimination, but not for punishing someone who says he’s just espousing his religion’s views. Ideally, laws wouldn’t constrict A&E’s freedom of association at all.

Bobby Jindal blamed “political correctness.” Maybe. He tried to frame it as a first amendment issue too, claiming to “remember when TV networks believed” in such a thing, going on to call it “a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended." I wouldn’t put it past Jindal to pull Cyrus and other performers who say things offensive to him off the air if he could.

Ted Cruz tried to channel his inner TV critic, suggesting Duck Dynasty was popular “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.” Cruz went on to pay lip service to the freedom to disagree in a free society, but followed up by saying “the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.” A&E, though, writes the checks Phil Robertson cashes, so it can certainly “censor” him for views they disagree with. To borrow a framing beloved by statists, the mainstream media is “just us,” a reflection of what Americans want to watch and hear. People who disagree with Robertson want to tune in to hear him condemned. People who agree with Robertson want to tune in to hear him defended.

A&E’s suspension of Robertson is within their right. If their aim, however, is actually to be “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community,” their application of the Streisand effect to Robertson’s views couldn’t possibly have helped.

In this month’s issue of Reason, Jonathan Rauch explains why the argument for restricting speech to promote tolerance is even weaker than it was 20 years ago, when his book Kindly Inquisitors, a defense of free speech and the public criticism necessary to build knowledge that it fosters, was first published. An updated version for the twentieth anniversary was released this year. Watch a Reason TV Q&A with Rauch below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tonio||

    Or maybe, just maybe, A&E saw them as a liability to their brand. Funny how those whining about others playing the victim card are all to eager to play that card themselves.

  • ||

    Or maybe, just maybe, A&E saw them as a liability to their brand.

    If so, they probably should have canceled the show like 3 years ago. The kind of people who would be offended by the guy's remarks aren't the kind of people who watch Duck Dynasty. If they don't want their network to attract those sort of viewers, maybe they should consider not whoring themselves out to lowest common denominator rednecks for a quick buck.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Yeah. I'm okay with A+E decision to suspend/fire Phil. But I don't understand the logic of it. Like you said, the people who would be offended by Phil Robertson probably weren't watching Duck Dynasty to begin with.

    If you think Phil Robertson shouldn't be on TV after his comments to GQ, what did you think about the hundred of other comments that he's made over the past 4 years?

  • Banjos||

    "maybe they should consider not whoring themselves out to lowest common denominator rednecks for a quick buck."

    Considering that it is the number one show on cable and has been breaking cable records with viewership, A&E is making more then a quick buck and is more than just pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    Note: I don't watch the show, I find it boring.

  • ||

    I hate to sound like a snobby hypocrite, because I do watch TV, but it's hard to argue that anything on TV isn't pandering to the lowest common denominator, especially in the "reality" segment. Mencken was bang-on when he said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"

  • wareagle||

    please. A&E didn't hire this guy or his family blind. This is easy publicity. Yes, free speech has consequences and the Palin/Cruz/etc wing crying censorship is full of shit. But the pearl-clutching from A&E is no less disingenuous.

  • Banjos||

    Culture war at its worse.

  • ||

    So what would be KULTUR WAR at its worst? Hee-Haw?

  • wareagle||

    there were always some fine women on Hee-Haw.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I think I got my first boner watching Hee Haw. Or maybe it was Cher on the Carol Burnett show....

  • ||

    Amateurs. I think I felt my first stirrings watching Erin Gray on Buck Rogers.

  • Rasilio||

    I'll be in my bunk

  • CE||

    Schwing...

  • ||

    bidi bidi bidi bidi!

  • H. ReardEn||

    Linda Carter, Superwoman.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I don’t watch the show, but:

    1. He has the right to say anything he wants.
    2. His boss (a private company) has the right to fire him for anything they want.
    3. He sounds like a Jesus freak who needs to push his beliefs on others. While that’s his right, I reserve my right to call him an asshole for doing so.
    4. The LGBT have the right to condemn him if they wish, but they sound like freaks who need to push their beliefs on others. I reserve the right to tell them to grow a sac and give it a rest.

    I’m just sick of everyone needing to be outraged about anything anyone says that’s not PC.

    Who fucking cares...about any of them?

  • Paul.||

    1. He has the right to say anything he wants.

    No he doesn't.

    2. His boss (a private company) has the right to fire him for anything they want.

    Not actually.

    3. He sounds like a Jesus freak who needs to push his beliefs on others.

    He was asked to describe himself. He did so.

    . I reserve the right to tell them to grow a sac and give it a rest.

    You do.

    4. The LGBT have the right to condemn him if they wish, but they sound like freaks who need to push their beliefs on others.

    They actually have by forcing the issue on the courts.

    In the kulture war score (if one were keeping score) it's LGBT 1, Duck Dynasty 0.

    Now, regarding my response to your 1 and 2, of course I don't believe what I said, but the reality is we live in a country where freedom of speech is under hard assault, and a private company's right to associate, hire and fire who they want is highly limited. So... reality.

  • entropy||

    2. His boss (a private company) has the right to fire him for anything they want.

    That's a hell of a point to make. You really can't. We don't have a free labor market we have a highly regulated one.

    If you fired someone for saying they like gay sex, it would be lawsuit time. That would be illegal. But apparently firing them for not liking it is not only allowed but strongly encouraged.

  • thom77||

    Yep. I think that's where a LOT of the outrage comes from here. Its the double standard which gets applied to certain beliefs.

    If he was a flamboyant gay man on a reality show who gave an interview to GQ and humorously talked about how gross he thought female private parts were in comparison to the male anus, he'd barely raise an eyebrow, and likely would be celebrated in several corners of the media. He certainly wouldn't have been fired.

    But because he's a rural evangelical Christian who talked about how he likes female vagina more than male anus and mentioned his religious belief that gay sex is a sin (along with heterosexual adultery and promiscuity, I might add), he's losing his job and being used as a punching bag.

  • Seamus||

    Push his beliefs? Bullshit. He was asked a question by the GQ interviewer, and he answered it honestly.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    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.
  • Paul.||

    My mission today is to go forth and tell politicians to go fuck themselves. Fat lotta good it's done me.

  • KMA Too||

    That is your definition of "pushing" one's beliefs???

    Talk about moving the goalposts...

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    What would your definition of pushing one's beliefs be?

  • JurisCani||

    It means that he travels the country preaching in churches and to church groups that already share his views (by and large). He is not going door to door hectoring people in their homes.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Well, I guess we differ in the definition of "mission" then.

    Mission

    The vocation or calling of a religious organization, esp. a Christian one, to go out into the world and spread its faith

  • ag ore||

    right. the biggest audience A&E is a liability.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Let me first say that I don't really care what Phil Robertson says and I think A+E has every right to suspend or fire him.

    But I do enjoy the twisted stupidity of his "vagina vs. anus" argument. I mean, it doesn't occur to him that being gay, by definition, means that you just don't like female genitalia.

    It's like if you were a fan of chocolate ice cream, and you went up to a guy who was eating strawberry ice cream and expressed your disgust: "I mean, chocolate ice cream has some much more to offer!"

  • Brett L||

    From what I read, his statement included fornicators of all sexual preference. Perhaps only singling out gays in that his view may not allow for a non-fornicating relationship between people of the same sex.

  • R C Dean||

    No, he refers specifically to homosexual behavior, which he regards as "sinful" on the same basis as adultery and bestiality.

  • Brett L||

    Right. So no more sinful than straight sex in an adulterous relationship. The only possible thing to take exception to is his idea that there is no way to engage in homosexual conduct in a non-sinful manner.

  • wareagle||

    So no more sinful than straight sex in an adulterous relationship.

    yup, except that adulterers and others he mentioned have no seat in the church of the aggrieved and offended. Saying anything unkind about gay folks is going to be trumpeted these days, something that likely does not surprise Phil.

  • RBS||

    I'm going with the "I don't give a shit" theory. Although, I bet Willie Robertson gives a shit.

  • wareagle||

    you are probably right as Willie seems more about the money/brand than anyone else.

  • Steve G||

    Yeah, because red state adolescents never engage in pre-marital relations. To me this part of his comments were just as outrageous as his "attack" on TEH GAYZ.

  • robc||

    Yeah, because red state adolescents never engage in pre-marital relations.

    Im confused. He clearly thinks they do, thats his problem.

  • ||

    I mean, it doesn't occur to him that being gay, by definition, means that you just don't like female genitalia.

    If we're being totally honest, I don't even understand how women don't like female genitalia.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Boobs. That is all.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Well. That's the kind of weird "logic" that Phil is using. He think that everyone should share his sexual preference. It doesn't occur to him that his own wife prefers penises. Does that make her a pervert? Just the same, gay people have their own sexual preferences.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I remember once seeing a notable preacher saying he didn't get male homosexuality, but female homosexuality was perfectly understandable because it was totally natural to be attracted to a beautiful woman.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Yeah. Phil seems to have the stunted empathetic capability of a four year old.

  • wwhorton||

    That's always puzzled me about the "choice" argument. I mean, seriously, if you're a teenager in rural Alabama in like 1990, why in the holy living fuck would you OPT to be gay if you had the choice? Because you just really like getting beaten black and blue? You just totally dig making your life as hard as possible?

  • wareagle||

    shocking as it must seem, gay folks existed in Alabama in 1990 and even prior to that. Some pretty much advertised it, others kept to themselves; I must have missed the mass beatings.

  • Josh H||

    I don't think he thinks this at all. The Bible speaks of all kinds of desires that humans face. Just because we desire something doesn't make it right. Whether you are Christian or not, I'm sure you have some sort of morality that you live by. Someone of another morality that says a certain act is right may not line up with what you think. If you are unsure of his logic, then open up the Bible and read it for yourself. Human desires take all shapes and forms, some sinful and some not. Desire != good. So keep an open mind and realize that some people think differently. It's not "weird logic" to those who have a different world view. It's just different to you.

    I'm Christian, and I do wish overall that Christians would be more loving to homosexuals. I do not think that hounding them for their lifestyle is the right way to go. However, it is a part of our beliefs to call it out as a sin when asked. If someone wants to leave that lifestyle (and yes, some people do leave that lifestyle), then they can seek and find someone within their church to guide them. There are many loving churches out there, but overall I see many people struggling with loving one another, and would rather smirk and judge.

    "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" - Romans 3:23

  • Banjos||

    Boobs are awesome, vaginas are disgusting, smelly, wet holes that might swallow me whole. Penises on the other hand are awesome, beautiful, mighty, penises.

  • Brett L||

    "Let's have 'the penis mightier' for 100, Trebeck."

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Ever been to Thailand?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You're selling the best of both worlds here?

  • ||

    ^^This

  • ||

    (replying to Banjos)

  • robc||

  • Seamus||

    It's like if you were a fan of chocolate ice cream, and you went up to a guy who was eating strawberry ice cream and expressed your disgust: "I mean, chocolate ice cream has some much more to offer!"

    Exactly. And if I were a fan of chocolate ice cream, and I went up to one of those guys from Mississippi with pica, who was eating dirt or laundry starch, and expressed my disgust, telling him, "I mean, chocolate ice cream has some much more to offer," that would be equally closedminded, hateful, and intolerant.

  • ||

    Men are equal to dirt? How very feminist of you.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Besides women also have anus'. An asshole is an asshole.

  • Brett L||

    So the founder of a wildly successful business who has made no missteps for about four years, after making more money than he could possibly spend suddenly starts making wildly inpolitic statements? I'm going with the theory that he was tired of doing the show and figured the clan family has plenty of money. Perhaps also that his granddaughter is starting to run with idiot celebrities and boy pop singers.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    That's my guess.
    He probably didn't want to just shut it down - some of the family like the celebirty more than others. So saying something contreversial will get them fired/no new contract and he doesn't have to explain it at sunday dinner.

    He'll probably work the christian lecture circuit for spending money.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I read the word "contreversial" in the voice of Ernet T. Bass.

  • prolefeed||

    He probably didn't want to just shut it down - some of the family like the celebirty more than others.

    It's the number one rated cable TV show, IIRC. If A&E doesn't find some way to save face and unsuspend them, some network like Fox or FX will be glad to make buttloads of money airing the show.

    Perhaps it's a cynical publicity stunt by A&E combined with a "look, we're gay friendly" pitch, or maybe the execs crunched the numbers and decided the show was a liability, but I doubt this show is done running somewhere.

  • Joe Clave||

    Assuming they don't have the right to the show even if they don't renew a contract. I don't know how it works with cable TV, but that is what record companies do; they bench a band and regardless if they are contracting new albums. So they either break up or do side projects or just go away.

  • Drake||

    I don't think so. He was answering a specific question in an interview, not just spewing nonsense in public.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Also, consider that this was in an interview with GQ, which basically caters to the metropolitan SWPL demographic. Most of the people who read GQ aren't the types who actually made the Robertson family millionaires; they're urban self-styled sophisticates who are very deliberate about broadcasting to the world how NOT RACIST, SEXIST, etc. they are. These weren't just off-the-cuff remarks, the whole thing strikes me as a very calculated maneuver to cool down the marketing/money machine that's spun up around the show. It's not like this is the first time someone's recorded Phil espousing hardcore SoCon philosophy, it's just he's never been punished by A&E for it until now.

    Like I said in a previous thread, the Robertsons aren't stupid. People who want their gravy train to come to a halt don't consciously do things that will throw it off the tracks. If Phil did this interview, and said the things he did (and I have no doubt this is what he actually believes), it's probably because he wants things to go back to how they were before the show came along.

  • ||

    I have never seen this Duck Dynasty show, though recently I've heard a bit about it. Can someone explain to me why anyone gives a shit?

    (I avoid reality TV like it's a plague spawned in Warty's festering anus.)

  • R C Dean||

    Its hilarious.

  • Brett L||

    Its a pretty well-written show with two brothers who like to push each other's buttons, a crazy uncle, and a matriarch who I suspect of having a tumbler full of whiskey just off-camera. The conceit is that they are rich rednecks so various hijinks ensue often involving boats, ATVs, and a Cadillac Escalade. Grandpa is kind of the gruff, worked his way up character who is trying to see his grandkids get raised right. Also, all the wives are hot.

  • ||

    So the chicks are hot? OK, now I'm fractionally more interested.

    Still, reality shows are like the 8th circle of hell, and watching them is like being there. New Archer can't come soon enough.

  • Brett L||

    Listen, my choices for watching TV with my wife include football, House Hunters, or some form of reality TV. I can either go with Duck Dynasty, which has some interesting parts to me occasionally, or Real Housewives, which makes me so angry I would kick my infant son if it would do physical harm to the people who inhabit that show. So mostly, we don't watch TV together, or we fight about what we watch, but sometimes, its just okay to leave Duck Dynasty on.

  • ||

    I suggest getting stoned and watching Archer. You'll have a lot more fun.

  • Brett L||

    She hates Archer. Actually, I think she thinks she hates all animation, although I got her to watch Despicable Me and she professed to find it okay. Anyhow, I DVR Archer and watch when I can. I haven't been able to get her to sit down and actually watch as yet, but I may try again as I watch all the previous episodes in runup to the start of the new season.

  • ||

    Then I suggest getting stoned and watching Always Sunny. This past season was hilarious, a nod back to the majesty of season 4.

  • Brett L||

    Huh. She does like Always Sunny. I'm the one who can take or leave it. I find some episodes ridiculously funny and others leave me flat. However, I have not been adhering to any strict drug regimes since it came on, so maybe that's it.

  • tarran||

    Actually, I think she thinks she hates all animation,

    Dude, one night when she is busy but in earshot and you have the TV to yourself, put on Kung Fu Panda I or II. If she doesn't get engrossed in it, you need to pull the ejection seat handles as quickly as possible.

  • RBS||

    Brett, are we married to the same woman?

  • Brett L||

    I don't know, but if we are, she needs to spend more time at your house.

  • Banjos||

    Your wives better be really hot to put up with that level of bullshit.

  • Brett L||

    I pay her back by flipping incessantly between 3-5 channels when I have the remote. It makes her the same level of crazy. She has to leave the room.

  • Banjos||

    Sounds like sloopy DJing. He flips through his iphone in the car, playing the first 15 seconds of every song. Just long enough for me to get into it before switching to the next. One day I am going to punch him in the face.

  • Brett L||

    I fully expect to be punched in the throat one day and have her shout, "put the fucking remote down!"

  • ||

    Ha, I do that too. It drives people nuts. Maybe that's why I do it...

  • wareagle||

    and you two are why there is no libertarian Dear Prudence. I'm guessing is the newborns.

  • Paul.||

    So the chicks are hot? OK, now I'm fractionally more interested.

    Episiarch, they're rich... of course the chicks are hot.

  • Paul.||

    Its a pretty well-written show with two brothers who like to push each other's buttons, a crazy uncle, and a matriarch who I suspect of having a tumbler full of whiskey just off-camera.

    Huh, then why don't I have a reality show?

  • sarcasmic||

    A year or so back I caught a few episodes when they were doing a marathon. Basically it's a bunch of rich bumbling rednecks playing with lots of expensive toys. The novelty wore off on me after the third episode or so. Haven't watched it since.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Don't watch it much, but it's kind of like a real-life Beverly Hillbillies, only with more combative characters.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I'm not at all sure that they are more combative. Granny could be pretty feisty.

  • Rasilio||

    The show is not really reality tv in the strictest sense as pretty much every episode is scripted to some extent, however the dialog and personalities are not and the Robertson boys have better senses of comedic timing than 80% of the actors in Hollywood.

    Basically the characters are real people acting as they normally would but placed in set up situations to ensure maximum entertainment value.

    And yeah, the wives are all at least above average looking with Willie's wife being about a 9

  • ||

    It just appeals to people in that area. Same interests, values, etc. I don't personally watch the show, but I live in Louisiana, so I'm like a Satanist down here for never having seen it. Shows like Duck Dynasty, Swamp People (show about alligator hunters), etc. are wildly popular down here.

  • Seamus||

    I must be getting old. I remember when blacklisting people from work in the entertainment industry because of their unpopular views was considered to be a *bad* thing.

  • sarcasmic||

    What matters isn't that the views are unpopular, but who it is who finds those views to be unpopular.

    In this case, it's the tolerant people who find his views to be unpopular. And as we all know, it is the duty of tolerant people to shut down intolerance whenever they find it. The more intolerant you are of unpopular views, the more tolerant you are.

  • ||

    Only 2 kinds of people I genuinely despise. Intolerant bigots, and rednecks.

  • ||

    "The only thing we hate more than racists are spics!"

  • ||

    Only 1 kind of person I genuinely despise. Politicians.

  • SusanM||

    Even worse when you consider that a TV personality who might have come out as gay in 1980 or 1990 might have gone through the same shit then.

    FWIW, I don't think that A&E should can the guy. As a matter of principle, if nothing else but also the show's a pretty bad advertisement for homophobia.

  • Zeb||

    What are you, some kind of communist?

    There is a difference between losing one job and blacklisting.

  • ||

    There is a difference between losing one job and blacklisting.

    Depends on what you said and who you offended.

    On the other hand, even Mel Gibson is still working in the ostensibly Jew-kingdom of Hollywood, so there's hope for anybody.

  • Zeb||

    That's what I'm saying. Maybe this guy will be effectively blacklisted, who knows. But there are lots of people working in the entertainment industry who have said regrettable things on various subjects and lost jobs because of it who still get work.

  • ||

    Mel Gibson is also an actually talented guy who brings in big bucks, even though he's a drunk anti-Semitic maniac. Money rules in Hollywood; as it should.

  • ||

    Money rules in Hollywood; as it should.

    Well, money rules everywhere, which is why A&E may have screwed the pooch here. Believe it or not, Duck Dynasty is a fucking juggernaut. Not just the TV show, but the merchandising. Your local Wal Mart has at least 10 shipping containers of Duck Dynasty branded products fresh from China ranging from coffee mugs to T shirts to back packs to pet food. What this'll do to sales of the Duck Dynasty Christmas album is anyone's guess. No, I'm not joking.

  • ||

    I'm impressed that this show could get so big yet be completely off my radar. I guess it's a testament to my hatred of reality shows, even as much as I like to be up on what's going on currently.

  • Paul.||

    I haven't even seen this... this... 'breaking bad' as everyone calls it.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No kidding. I walked into Walmart one day and Duck Dynasty had apparently taken over the store. Their shit was everywhere, signs, themed crap, giant heads on blankets. When the hell did that happen?

  • ||

    Inorite? I do a lot of my grocery shopping at Wal Mart and it's everywhere. If A&E doesn't want their piece of that, I'd sure as hell take it.

  • wwhorton||

    Dude, until this year I didn't even realize there was a connection between Duck/Buck Commander and this show. I'm one of the few people I know who first encountered the Robertsons in a commercial context.

  • Jack Holby||

    Duck Dynasty Chia Pets. Chia Pets. ffs.

  • Mike M.||

    On the other hand, even Mel Gibson is still working in the ostensibly Jew-kingdom of Hollywood, so there's hope for anybody.

    Only because he had the foresight to create his own company years ago.

    Icon Productions may be physically located in Hollywood, California, but it's completely independent of HOLLYWOOD in the meaningful sense. He works for himself.

  • Invisible Finger||

    He still has to work WITH people. It's not like his films are only playing revival tents.

  • ||

    Yeah, without distribution through the studio system you might as well be selling your movies out the trunk of your car. Mel's still got somebody in LA county who can tolerate him.

  • JWatts||

    Mel's still got somebody in LA county who can tolerate his money.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    On the other hand, even Mel Gibson is still working in the ostensibly Jew-kingdom of Hollywood, so there's hope for anybody.

    He had to profusely apologize and put himself into rehab first. And as others have said, he's a legitimately talented actor and director and has enough money and connections to still make his art.

  • Invisible Finger||

    He had to profusely apologize and put himself into rehab first. And as others have said, he's a legitimately talented actor

    The natural ability to fake sincerity is what modern society calls charisma.

  • Seamus||

    Of course there is. Blacklisting isn't losing one's own job; it's causing others to lose *their* jobs.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    A&E can do whatever it wants, within the bounds of whatever contract they have with these people, to protect their ratings and their bottom line.

    Of course conservative idiots and culture warriors will overreact and grumble about the First Amendment, that's how you make hay with your audience if you are Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.

    If their aim, however, is actually to be “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community,” their application of the Streisand effect to Robertson’s views couldn’t possible have helped.

    Misuse of the Streisand Effect. Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is hardly going to improve Phil Robertson's reputation the more people know about it.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is hardly going to improve Phil Robertson's reputation the more people know about it.

    That depends on the people doesn't it? Maybe they'll start a show broadcasting in Russia or Saudi Arabia.
    He also compared sleeping around with bestiality too. Wait for the ensuing hetero outrage.

  • LynchPin1477||

    This will make him something of a martyr among SoCons, too.

  • lap83||

    Heteros don't have enough commmunity organizers to be outraged.

  • Steve G||

    The moment we reached Peak Retard on this: when it was reported Sarah Palin weighed in on the matter.

  • wareagle||

    so far, we've gotten that you don't like red states or Palin. Did you mistake this site for HuffPo or Daily Beast?

    Yes, Palin - per usual - is going overboard in ignoring that rights, like free speech, come with responsibilities. But she's a sidebar. At best.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think finding Palin exceedingly silly means you have to report to HuffPo.

  • Invisible Finger||

    No, but making it a point to give a flying fuck what she says puts one in a similar camp of derangement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "making it a point to give a flying fuck what she says puts one in a similar camp of derangement."

    What is the proper criteria for whether someone should give a flying f*ck about what a person says?

  • wareagle||

    the proper criteria is responding to what the principles in a story say, not the peripheral figures who show up after the fact. Steve dislikes Palin and, judging from an earlier post, red states in general, neither of which is germaine to this story.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Palin is covered quite a bit in the Reason article to which we are all commenting on, so it seems germaine to me to point out how her comments were silly (though I agree it is silly to criticize 'red states' in general and in particular in this discussion).

  • wareagle||

    and Ted Cruz is basically echoing Palin, yet Steve says nothing about that. This leads to the conclusion that is driven more principals than any principal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a stretch in my opinion.

    Someone below comments only on Cruz's comment, do you infer from that he is driven more by principals than principles?

  • ||

    Kind of the definition of ad hominem though. To dismiss something due to the source rather than the content. Considering most of Palin's staunchest critics voted for a presidential ticket that included Barack Obama and Joe Biden, it's kind of hard to take their criticism of anyone's intelligence all that seriously.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Er, do you see what you just did there?

  • tarran||

    That's not an ad hominem Bo.

    Like arguing that just because someone wore a grey uniform in the war between the states they can't be a good person, it's a judgement of someone based on their actions.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Considering most of Palin's staunchest critics voted for a presidential ticket that included Barack Obama and Joe Biden, it's kind of hard to take their criticism of anyone's intelligence all that seriously."

    So it is wrong to reject an argument because of the source, but correct to accept it because of the source of opposition?

    And further, you really want more display of your Confederate apologia here?

  • wareagle||

    And further, you really want more display of your Confederate apologia here?

    judging the acts of people from the 1860s through the lens of 2013. There is a term for that. Look into it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So we should not judge, say, Stalin and his operatives negatively, because who are we in 2013 to judge people in 1935?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Besides wareagle, I am not talking about judging someone for choosing to fight for the Confederacy, just not honoring them when their claim to fame is having done so.

  • wareagle||

    Bo,
    tarran did not suggest honors for all Confederates.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Just the leaders who had more choice than the conscripts? I do not think that helps.

  • Banjos||

    Judging Stalin by 1935 standards still makes him a monster, fuck face.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And there were lots of Americans who recognized slavery as a profoundly immoral thing in the 1860s, no?

  • Banjos||

    You really must be in shape with all that goal post moving you do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "You really must be in shape with all that goal post moving you do."

    Since you spotted it so quickly perhaps you could explain where goal posts were moved?

  • tarran||

    And further, you really want more display of your Confederate apologia here?

    More? That implies I have in the past published apologia for the Confederates.

    Care to provide a source for this libel?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Cf. your defense of honoring Confederate leaders yesterday

  • tarran||

    Nope, Bo... you suck at reading comprehension.

    I argued that the military honoring enemy military leaders wasn't necessarily a bad thing. (an aside: an acquaintance of mine who fought in Iraq in Gulf War I used to keep a picture of Rommel in his tank. I should warn him about his Nazi apologia)

    Moreover, I argued that they were making similar moral judgements as guys like Grant who fought on the winning side, and that if you condemned one batch, you had to condemn them all.

    Just to set things straight between us, I think the free states should have seceded from the Union long before the 1850's, and completely agree with Lysander Spooner's analysis of the legitimacy of the War Between the States.

    If you want to become a good lawyer, I suggest you start paying attention to what people are saying instead of emotionally making assumptions. Because if you don't, an experienced litigator is going to lead you by the nose into a nice little trap where he verbally stomps you into paste, and people will stop wanting to hire you. All your student loans will go unpaid, and life will be a world of suck.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My position is not based on whether the person as an 'enemy' but rather on whether we should honor those who consciously joined a profoundly evil cause. Lee and Jackson did so, and whitewashing that is or comes pretty close to a form of apologia for their actions.

  • tarran||

    We're not talking about *your* position Bo, sweetie. We are discussing your seeming inability to grasp *my* position and the way you keep shooting yourself in the foot as an inevitable consequence of that failure.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Then you're a half-wit. Lee and Jackson joined the confederacy because the U.S. government was going to march a fucking army into their states.

  • ||

    So it is wrong to reject an argument because of the source, but correct to accept it because of the source of opposition?

    Criticizing someone's judgment because they did something stupid is different from rejecting an argument without addressing its substance. There's no argument being dismissed. Being judgmental isn't an ad hominem.

    For example, saying "Given Sarah Palin's record as governor, she should be careful about criticizing the governing performance of Andrew Cuomo" wouldn't be an ad hominem. It's judgmental, but it's not addressed to any specific argument she made. Saying "Sarah Palin's arguments about censorship are wrong, because she's a retard" is an ad hominem, because it dismisses her argument based on something besides the argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are saying 'given someone supported Joe Biden they must be stupid' is in the same vein. It is based on the ad hominen regarding Biden (or whomever). Here is how you can see that: if Steve said 'given Ted Cruz supports Sarah Palin I think it is safe to say he is not very smart.'

  • ||

    if Steve said 'given Ted Cruz supports Sarah Palin I think it is safe to say he is not very smart.'

    And, as I labored to demonstrate, that's not an ad hominem in the classical sense, because it expresses an opinion - it doesn't refute an argument (or attempt to refute it without addressing it, which is the nature of the fallacy). If Steve said "given Ted Cruz supports Sarah Palin I think it's safe to say he is not very smart, and therefore you should reject his tax plan", that would be an ad hominem.

    I also wasn't saying "given someone supported Joe Biden they must be stupid" (although I would strongly suspect that to be the case), I was saying "given someone supported two politicians who do the same things they dismiss other politicians who they don't like for doing, they're hypocrites". Here again, that's an opinion; or judgment. It's not an ad hominem unless I suggest we ought to reject some argument that are making on that basis.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What you said exactly was: "Considering most of Palin's staunchest critics voted for a presidential ticket that included Barack Obama and Joe Biden, it's kind of hard to take their criticism of anyone's intelligence all that seriously."

    This strikes me as easily read as 'considering Palin's critics supported these two dumb people it is hard to take their criticism seriously.' You reject their criticism based on the stupidity of someone they supported without addressing the substance of their criticism itself.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, Bo, he's questioning their judgement, not evaluating their arguments, which haven't been offered.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I do not think finding Palin exceedingly silly means you have to report to HuffPo.

    Of dourse you don't.

  • fish||

    The moment we reached Peak Retard on this:

    I thought we had demonstrated the "peak retard" is a myth. As soon as Palin weighs in a day later a someone to be determined later will up the retard ante!

  • ||

    Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is hardly going to improve Phil Robertson's reputation the more people know about it.

    Er, that's not what the Streisand Effect means. The Streisand Effect is when you try to bury something (usually through legal action) that you think is damaging and the fact that you tried to bury it draws more attention to it than if you had just left it alone.

  • wareagle||

    Phil didn't compare homosexuality to bestiality. Read the fucking article. He lumped both along with things like adultery in a broad list of behaviors he doesn't like.

  • CE||

    As a drunkard, I refuse to watch Duck Dynasty. It was easy to give up though, since I've never seen it.

  • Acosmist||

    Culture warriors are what started this. Or didn't you know it takes two sides to fight the culture war? The Theban Sacred Mafia's hurt feelings are the reason for this.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Oh for fucks sake. His comparison of homosexuality to beastiality only extends as far as them both being labeled as sinful. Read the text of his interview, “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,”.

    If he meant being gay means turning to beastiality then by the same extension being gay leads to promiscuity with women folk.

    Read it again. Poor choice of wording, yes I'll grant you that. But his meaning is evidently clear; that they're all sin not that one leads to the other.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I think something that people aren't realizing when they accuse A&E of cowtowing to the LGBT community is that A&E's parent company is DISNEY!

    Disney is EXTREMELY gay friendly. Actively so. Allowing one of their employees to gay bash on TV is not something they would stand for.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Did he gay bash, or just explain his religious point of view? He went on to say that he doesn't judge gay people personally and further stated that he doesn't discriminate against anyone.

  • ||

    Engaging and challenging Robertson’s ideas is a more effective response to those ideas than trying to silence Robertson, which Kirrel notes, only provides “culture warriors” more ammo.

    When you start firing people because of their social and religious viewpoints with which you disagree, haven't you actually become a "culture warrior" yourself?

  • Zeb||

    Maybe. Sometimes it's just good business. I don't know or care if that is the case here.

  • ||

    What I'm saying is that the statement is kind of a non-sequitur. You can't have "culture warriors" without something to culture-war against. When you take sides on a cultural or social issue and people oppose you for it, you don't get to act like you've taken some neutral high ground above the fray.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Well it's really two culture warriors fighting each other.

  • ||

    That really was the point I was driving at.

  • Libertarius||

    We are living under censorship already; don't believe me? Imagine if he had said nice things about gays, and A&E fired him for that. How many national outrages would arise in defense of A&E's right to fire him for being pro-gay?

    Oh that's right, that would be crimethink. Every leftoid legal group would be suing the hell out of A&E, and if anybody mentioned the 1st amendment or freedom of association, the predictable response from that bastion of intellectual integrity, the leftoids, would be "STFU, FYTW".

  • Mike M.||

    In the end, little really matters in the world but raw political power.

    And in present-day America the far left has it, and the rest of us don't. The arguments and debates are all just a bunch of ever changing bullcrap designed to try to distract people from this simple reality.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Every leftoid legal group would be suing the hell out of A&E"

    Suing them? I do not think so. Even in the recent flap over Orson Scott Card writing Superman I do not recall any lawsuits.

  • ||

    Orson Scott Card wasn't fired for saying nice things about gay people, so I don't get the reference.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    My point is I do not see leftists filing lawsuits about gay speech issues. There is no legal cause of action for when a media outlet lets go (within their contract) someone because of their speech.

  • CE||

    Unless you don't want to bake someone a wedding cake?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not see it falling under anti-discrimination laws (which I oppose by the way), no.

    Take that fellow that harangued the Chik-Fil-A employee in the drive thru. He was fired and I do not recall any lawsuits from the pro-gay side that supported him.

  • ||

    Here again, that's not the example that was given. Here's the quote:

    Imagine if he had said nice things about gays, and A&E fired him for that... Every leftoid legal group would be suing the hell out of A&E

    The reference wasn't to "gay speech issues" in a broad, generic sense, it was specific to a speech issue in which the targeting of the speech was configured in a non-politically correct way (censoring someone for speaking positively about homosexuality vs censoring someone for speaking negatively about homosexuality). You're not going to be able to come up with any examples, because that type of censorship does not happen.

  • ||

    You're not going to be able to come up with any examples, because that type of censorship does not happen.

    This, by the way, happened to be the point the OP was making.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The example was the converse of what happened here: someone being fired for their speech in support of gays or gay rights.

    That is exactly what happened with that fellow that was fired for haranguing the Chick-Fil-A employee, and it is something that has happened more than a few times regarding employees of religious employers (like Catholic or Mormon schools) who speak out for gay rights. And I can not recall any lawsuits as responses.

  • ||

    I must have been thinking of a different Chick Fil A case. I don't know anything about the case you're talking about. Also, religious organization are subject to different employment rules thanks to the 1A. Anyway, like I said, I think the OP's point was more that A) getting fired for speaking positively about gays is probably a lot more rare than the opposite, and B) firing someone for speaking positively about gays is much less likely to be tolerated. My only intention was to point out the initial Orson Scott Card analogy wasn't quite right (like I said, I didn't get the Chick Fil A reference; I know nothing about that case).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Conceded that the Card example was not 100% apt, you were correct there.

  • KMA Too||

    He was fired for being an ass, not for advocating for any side of an issue. His pro-gay allegiance may have been at the root of what he did, but it's what he did that got him fired, and that was being a turd.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Uh... didn't he write Ender's Game?

  • JWatts||

    Yes, and the movie reviewers went out of their way to point it out in the recent movie adaptation. Which seemed a little overboard, since Card had little to do with the movie and it was a decent movie.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's how this shakes out:

    Mr. Robertson has every right to state his views.

    A & E has every right to refuse to air him or his views.*

    We have every right to piss and moan about how other people exercise their rights.

    *As an aside, A & E also has obligations to its owners (ultimately, Disney shareholders) to not allow the political/cultural views of A & E executives negatively impact earnings. Cancelling your most popular show could well do exactly that.

  • Drake||

    And, the rest of the family has plenty of Fuck You money, so they might all refuse to film any more episodes.

  • ||

    I would be shocked if they didn't do this.

  • JWatts||

    The network already has 9 of 10 episodes for the year filmed, so A&E wouldn't take too much of a hit off of that this year. Assuming, they haven't pissed off a lot of the fan base. It's possible the show will have a dip in ratings caused by both the comments and A&E's reaction to the comments. They really handled this sensitive manner pretty poorly.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Kultur Cons are being their predictable and butthurt idiotic selves, but I can't believe A&E would end the show. It got 14 million viewers. You can't say no to that!

  • ||

    You can't say no to that!

    That's what she said!

    ...Or he said!

  • KMA Too||

    How DARE people be mad when their views are pilloried by others with more social power than they?!?

  • Paul.||

    Looks like the bitter clingers will have to get their entertainment elsewhere. Because they're not tolerated here.

  • Enough About Palin||

    The show will be picked up by CMT is my guess.

  • Banjos||

    I turned on CMT the other day and it was airing old reruns of Hell's Kitchen. There is not even a semblance of order left when it comes to cable channels. They just air whatever the fuck they can get their hands on that can get viewership.

  • Brett L||

    I think this is running in place of Paula Deen's stupid show where they'd interrupt decent classic movies by having some bubble head pop-country group make smalltalk with Paula.

  • Invisible Finger||

    They don't even care about viewership. All they care is that the channel exists so Viacom can mulct another 50 cents out of every cable customer for each channel Viacom provides. They can get that money because most people want CBS.

  • Libertarius||

    Or imagine if the old man had made transparently racist statements to the effect that "white people are stupid" or "white men are dorks". How much howling from the brainwashed mob would we endure in that case?

    You can turn on any tv channel and see the leftoid matrix, before your very eyes, indoctrinating the country with racism and sexism and all the things they claim to be against. But as long as the target of their neurotic self-loathing is white males, no one dares to say anything, everybody cowardly cowtows to the leftoid propaganda narrative.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or imagine if the old man had made transparently racist statements to the effect that "white people are stupid" or "white men are dorks".

    Just put on BET if you want to see someone making racist rants against white people.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Just put on BET MSNBC if you want to see someone making racist rants against white people

  • Brett L||

    Weren't the Duck Dynasty guys backing a conservative guy for Landrieu's seat? Would Phil throw a bomb just to get the "they hate us because we's simple, God-fearin' rednecks" demographic on their side? Hold on, this aluminum foil doesn't block out the gayrays as well as tinfoil used to.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Try lead foil. You have to order it from germany, but it has different properties.

    Whatever you do - don't layer the three.

  • ||

    Is the show live? I saw it twice and it looked like it was edited before airing.

  • ||

    It's scripted and edited.

  • Brett L||

    Heavily edited. This was in a GQ interview, in case you missed that part.

  • ||

    Reality shows are all fake. Even the more "real" ones are still massaged and manipulated, and the least "real" ones are often scripted. Of course it was edited.

  • sarcasmic||

    Deadliest Catch is not fake!

  • ||

    Captain Phil is still alive and living a comfortable retirement in the Florida Keys. Just think how much the network cleared on THAT little hoax!

    *straightens tin foil hat*

  • ||

    If there's a producer credit on a TV show, then by definition it isn't "reality".

  • sarcasmic||

    Gold Rush is kinda fake. At least on the Hoffman side it's pretty staged. I watch it because I'm rooting for the Parker kid.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I watch it because I'm rooting for the Parker kid.

    I watch it because I'm waiting for somebody to knock his teeth out after one of his smart-ass remarks.

  • ||

    Prospectors is fricken awesome. And it features one, maybe two, hot babes.

  • wareagle||

    in the article, Phil alludes to the planned out skits that comprise this program's reality. I got the sense that the writer's chief worry was being able to leave without getting shot.

  • ||

    *Headsmack*

    The question was rhetorical. I know the damn thing is not live. I was pointing out that Phil is not the responsible party.

    If some character on a scripted show says something controversial it is because the show's editors wanted him to, editors who do what the companies execs tell them to do.

  • sarcasmic||

    They're mad at him not for what he said as part of the show, but for what he said in a magazine interview.

  • ||

    Ahhhhh. Ok, well you see how well I keep up with this nonsense.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I am shocked - shocked! - to discover that a backwoods duck hunter from Louisiana holds some opinions unpopular among the coastal liberals.

  • ||

    Yeah, same here.

    I am sure the PC crowd harbored a seething, white hot hatred for the show and it's characters. This just gives them an excuse to do what they wanted to do all along.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Everything about that clip fits this scene, especially the part where the cop gets his winnings.

  • CE||

    No, they liked the show, because it allowed them to laugh at and look down on the rednecks. But now they're gettin' too uppity.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Like I said before, I don't think A&E ever expected this show to blow up like it did--they probably expected 2-3 seasons of "look at the stupid hillbillies" episodes--it's no accident that Si is the most heavily featured person on the show--and then would move on to something else. The Robertsons managed to build it into a cultural phenomenon by emphasizing the devoted family angle as much as the rich redneck one. The whole thing about them ending each show with a prayer together at dinner was their idea, not A&E's.

  • ||

    He didn't only compare homosexuality to beastiality; he also compared sinful hetero sex to beastiality. Not that I care or anything, just pointing it out.

  • ||

    “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,”

    No, the other part was with adultery was a separate part. He compared homosexuality to bestiality, then he said there are a bunch of sexual sins that only god can judge.

    We can read what he said with our own eyes.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I don't see a meaningful difference. He basically condemned sexual misconduct in general and ranked homosexuality highly in that category. The only direct comparison he made seems to have been that they are both sinful, which is a common enough belief.

  • ||

    “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. Then heparaphrases 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.”

    Well I'd like to see a video or something. What happened in that break in the quotes? Did they follow one after the other or not? Was there another question inbetween?

    I still see them as two separate statements. The way he said it is that homosexuality is some kind of root deviancy that "morphs" society into committing other deviancy like bestiality.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Mayhaps you could use a dose of reading comprehension?

    “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,”

    In your interpretation it would mean that homosexual acts also lead to promiscuous sex with women and then men.

    The more logical interpretation is that he meant if you start with a sin which was more socially acceptable (homosexuality) and morph out from there to cover more sinful acts which he believes is wrong (according to his religion) you would have a better understanding of what he meant by a previous statement.

  • Killaz||

    Ain't nothing like a good ol' kulturwar to distract from government failure!

  • Invisible Finger||

    I thought people mostly watched the show (and almost every reality show) because it made them feel superior to the people in the show. Basically the same appeal as COPS or the news.

  • ||

    From what I understand, these hillbilly rednecks have made a metric fuckton of money, and that was before the show. How do you feel superior to someone who has succeeded massively more than you? Even some smug asshole who thinks they're better than them still has to butt up against the wall of "they are self-made rich and you are not, smug guy".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps money is not the measure of all things?

  • ||

    Perhaps money is not the measure of all things?

    Said every Masters in Sociology holding Starbucks barista ever.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do you really think someone is better than you because they have more money?

    Nancy Pelosi is better than you? Miley Cyrus?

  • ||

    Nancy Pelosi is better than you? Miley Cyrus?

    I'd be willing to bet they're both a hell of a lot happier than I am. And either one of them could buy and sell me. One of them could even use the power of the state to destroy my life in both the figurative and literal sense. So in a sense, yeah, I guess they are. Or in any case, it'd be hard to make a case that I'm better than either of them by any objective standard.

  • robc||

    As I said in the morning thread, Phil has "Fuck You Money". That is all that matters to him. He has enough that he can walk away from whatever any time he likes.

    Just like he passed on the NFL because football interfered with Duck Season.

    Money isnt the measure, but when you reach that point (and are happy with the rest of your life) its a nice place to be.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Isn't that the S.O.P. of the Occupy crowd? "They don't DESERVE that money!!"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I could be wrong, but I am not sure the Occupy Crowd is the source of most fans of Duck Dynasty.

  • SQRLSY One||

    With ALL of yer talk of MONEY and DUCKS, I must tell y’all a moral allegory I heard as a small child on my Daddy’s knees, who was a duck-hunter in the back-woods of Lerweeeesiana… He said there was a poor yung feller, Depression-era timeframe, his Dad said to him, “Here, Son, ya is gonna learn a lotta stuff about takin’ good care o’ that them thar animals, & who knows WHAT all else ya might learn about. So here is a pet duck fer ya.” … The kid and the duck got along splendidly, they did everything and went everywhere together, but eventually the kid, getting older, got just a wee tad tired of the duck. So when the kid stumbled across an attractive young “lady of the evening”, and he was smitten, he hit on her, but had nothing to offer. Amused, the young lady offered here services in exchange for the duck. “She offered her honor, he honored her offer, and all night long, it was honor and offer”. The young lad finally got tired and begged to stop. She was enjoying it so much, she begged him to go on! “Well, whatcha gonna GIVE me fer it?”, he demands. “I’ll give you yer duck back”, she quacks. And it was off to one more round… On his way home, though, a mac track drove close by the young man and smashed the duck to smithereens & feathers.

  • SQRLSY One||

    The young kid was heart-broken, so when the truck driver stopped to check up on things, he gave the young man two dollars (a small fortune in those days). When the young man got home and told his Dad the story, his Dad, ever concerned for the young man’s learnings in the Adventure called Life, asks, “Well, Son, whatcha learn here, then?” He said, “Dad, I learned this: A duck fer a fuck, a fuck fer a duck, and TWO BUCKS fer ONE FUCKED UP DUCK!”

  • Seamus||

    How do you feel superior to someone who has succeeded massively more than you?

    Easy. The very fact that rubes like this make more money than journalists, elementary school teachers, and unemployed wymyns studies majors is proof positive of the inherent injustice of the capitalist system, and of the need for radical redistribution of income and/or wealth.

  • Jim in Denver||

    You do realize this "rube" was essentially a dirt farmer/fisherman who created his own product and built a successful company to sell said product BEFORE A&E turned their life into a circus act to entertain the masses?

    It is, in fact, a classic example of why the government shouldn't and doesn't need to redistribute a dime.

  • Gray Ghost||

    That sarcasm detector? You should probably go have that looked at.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Ah yes... probably! I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of Seamus I suppose.

  • JWatts||

    The "wymyns" studies majors was a definite clue.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    because it made them feel superior to the people in the show. Basically the same appeal as COPS

    Who am I supposed to feel superior too when I watch COPS? Humanity?

  • ||

    Who am I supposed to feel superior too when I watch COPS?

    The cops. Just like the criminals do.

  • setTHEline||

    And this is why I don't trust Ted Cruz:

    ...but (Cruz) followed up by saying “the mainstream media should not behave as the thought police censoring the views with which they disagree.”

    See Ted, while I loathe most every aspect of the mainstream, you don't get to tell A&E how to run their business. In fact, when Martin Bashir got fired, you were probably pretty jazzed about that and I didn't hear you telling MSN to stop censoring views it didn't hold*. So how are you any different from A&E**?

    *Martin Bashir is a dick.
    **I like Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson.

  • Seamus||

    Martin Bashir wasn't fired simply for his views that Sarah Palin was wrong, or even that holding those beliefs was sinful (which would be the equivalent of what Robertson said). Or perhaps I missed the part where Robertson said that gays deserved to have someone shit in their mouths. Unless I did, I think there's a lot of difference between what A&E did to Robertson and what MSNBC did to Bashir.

  • R C Dean||

    One difference would be that Bashir said what he said as part of his employment. Robertson said what he said outside the ambit of his relationsjip with A & E.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The same guy is in some 'hot water' for comments about blacks during Jim Crow in that interview as well, correct?

  • wareagle||

    he said he didn't see blatantly racist things, that his people were white trash working right along side of blacks, so I don't see how that qualifies as hot water.

    Maybe he saw what he chose to see but the idea of poor whites working with poor blacks, even in the Jim Crow and right after era is not unusual. That sort of thing happened across the South for decades.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, that part doesn't fit the Southern Redneck Klansman narrative.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think he likely 'saw what he chose to see,' but I think where the hot water more likely will come in was in his invoking the vision of blacks happily singing in the fields.

  • wareagle||

    he and folks like him were working with those blacks in the fields, too. And this was not a time of militant black folks. The only hot water is from people who choose to see what is not there or to make of what little "there" there is.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not sure blacks were as happily singing in sharecropper fields in Jim Crow Louisiana as he seems to recall is what I am saying. Regardless, I predict invoking that imagery will get him into hot water (have you seen the Song of the South on TV recently?).

  • wareagle||

    jesus, bo; the water will heat up only if you are looking for reasons to raise the temp. That the blacks he worked with showed up with something other than pissed off dispositions is not unreasonable.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Bo's not getting the with part.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    his invoking the vision of blacks happily singing in the fields.

    If you hear the dog whistle, Bo, that means you're a dog.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is a profoundly stupid comment. One can be aware of a common racial trope without endorsing it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That is a profoundly stupid comment

    Don't like that shit being thrown back in your face, huh?

    One can be aware of a common racial trope without endorsing it.

    Let's see what you said here:

    invoking the vision of blacks happily singing in the fields.

    You're going to have to point out exactly where he said it. If you can't, you're projecting.

    Or were you just exercising hyperbole to rub your "I HATE SOCONZ" boner?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think Cyto has answered you sufficiently.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I think Cyto has answered you sufficiently

    And yet Cyto never mentioned anything about "singing in the fields." That was all you.

    What's the tone of that dog whistle, Bo?

  • ||

    ...I think where the hot water more likely will come in was in his invoking the vision of blacks happily singing in the fields.

    "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.'"

    I'm not seeing "singing in the fields" in that quote.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He implied that everything was hunky-dory for negroes in the pre-Civil Rights era South. Only an ultra-obtuse KULTUR CON couldn't see why that remark was weird and kind of offensive.

  • robc||

    I agree. And yet, its not apparently the reason he is suspended.

  • KMA Too||

    Wrong. You may have inferred that little summary from what he said, but that doesn't mean that's what he was trying to get across.

    If anything, he's trying to get across the idea that welfare has negatively impacted blacks and made it more difficult to have any kind of positive racial/ethnic relations.

    It's kind of offensive when you kind of have a chip on your shoulder.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    See Ted, while I loathe most every aspect of the mainstream, you don't get to tell A&E how to run their business.

    Damn him and his opinions! He probably introduced a bill banning A&E too!

  • LibertarianDave||

    Just want to point out that freedom of speech and freedom of association are two distinct rights listed by the first amendment: the first protects what you do in public, and the second protects what you do in private. The article quotes Palin on free speech, then argues she's wrong based on association -- a non sequitur.

    Sarah Palin is wrong about the free speech issue not because A&E isn't allowed to terminate its association with an employee (of course it can), but because A&E can promote or stifle whatever speech it wants since it's not the government. The first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law...", and A&E surely isn't Congress.

  • CE||

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Doesn't say anything about freedom of association. Or what A&E can do with their employees. It just puts limits on what Congress can do.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    After a very brief consideration this morning upon reading about this, I suspect (and others in the morning links also suggested) it was Phil's way of getting out from under something he finds tiresome and boring.

    There was an episode in which Willie arranged for a portrait of Phil and Mrs Phil. The photographer was rather, shall we say, effete, and Phil mocked him mercilessly. I don't see how anybody (A and E executives included) could have had any delusions about Phil's feeling toward gay persons after watching that episode.

  • ||

    After a very brief consideration this morning upon reading about this, I suspect (and others in the morning links also suggested) it was Phil's way of getting out from under something he finds tiresome and boring.

    A lot have said this. If true is there any point in being outraged on his behalf?

  • RBS||

    Even if it's not true there isn't much use in being outraged on his behalf.

  • Rasilio||

    So, anyone want to take bets on how long it is before nude pics of Willie's teenage daughter show up? Either because she takes the money to do a porn shoot (I'd bet Playboy would offer her a million at least) or nude selfies leak.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Is she old enough for it to not be creepy?

  • Rasilio||

    Not yet, would still be considered child porn for another year iirc

  • LynchPin1477||

    I didn't realize they were duck hunters, I thought they just made duck calls. How did they get to be so rich? Is there really that much demand for duck products?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Is there really that much demand for duck products?

    Yeah, and they aren't cheap either.

    http://www.cabelas.com/product.....243773.uts

  • LynchPin1477||

    So wait, did they make their money making calls or by selling ducks that they hunted? I'm still confused.

  • RBS||

    Duck calls and duck hunting videos/dvds.

  • wayne@herberts.org||

    Where's the free speech aspect here? A&E can also do as they wish. IS this any different than calling your boss a shithead, then not expecting some sort of retaliatory action?

  • Drake||

    The new American way to suppress speech is by firing people. He didn't call his boss a shithead. He answered a question while not at work.

  • ||

    Reality celebrities are always at work. Every interview they do is in part to generate interest in the show.

    And its not suppression of speech anyways. He was free to say what he said and he continues to be free to say what he wants. Nobody is suppressing him.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: wayne@herberts.org,

    Where's the free speech aspect here? A&E can also do as they wish.


    Where's the backbone here? A&E can also do as they wish and tell the LGBT crowd to go fuck themselves, which considering the group, would not have been an impertinent request.

  • ||

    Or they can tell all the people who get butthurt over the gayz to go fuck themselves and say they won't financially support them. Either way is fine with me.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Apatheist,

    Or they can tell all the people who get butthurt over the gayz to go fuck themselves and say they won't financially support them. Either way is fine with me.


    In order to understant the equivalency, A, you will have to explain to me how one financially maintains what is essencially the revenue source. I need to have the financials explained to me because I don't remember ever seeing that during my MBA.

  • wareagle||

    given the choice, who is A&E more likely to tell to fuck off: the gay community and its acolytes in the media, or a family of bearded rednecks and the caricature of its supporters?

  • Banjos||

    "or a family of bearded rednecks and the caricature of its supporters"

    And all the money they make off of them.

  • R C Dean||

    I think the tradeoff is more a choice between a massive revenue stream from its most popular show ever, and . . . what, exactly?

  • ||

    I think the tradeoff is more a choice between a massive revenue stream from its most popular show ever, and . . . what, exactly?

    Pretty much this. I don't think the A&E brand's value would be diminished enough by one of their stars' comments to a magazine than the revenue loss if that shows goes tits up. Like I said upthread, the merchandising and branding of that show is crazy.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Unfortunately there's another facet to this, Disney. Disney owns A&E and is hugely pro GLBT.

  • Andrew S.||

    The behavior of everyone associated here, on all sides of the argument, is furthering my hatred for every human being alive (save for a very few).

  • ||

    Ayup

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    THIS!

  • kinnath||

    OT

    Justin Peters at Slate gets schooled by Northeastern University criminologists James Alan Fox and Monica J. DeLateur.

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/12.....p#comments

    What, then, can be done to stop mass shootings in America? Maybe nothing. “Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious,” the authors conclude. “Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued.” Well. Merry Christmas, I guess.

  • magma2||

    I don't even watch DD, but when did homosexuals turn into such a bunch of snowflakes that they're now shocked that the Bible calls what they do sin? Really? Cut the PC theater. I read the Bible and it doesn't take long for me to be convicted of my own sins which are many. I'm a sinner. Even worse, I was born that way. Isn't that the point (see Romans 3:20).

  • CE||

    And Jesus said lay off the guilt trips man, and love thy neighbor.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The problem is that bible thumpers tend to focus on homosexuality and ignore those multitude of other sins laid out in the Good Book.

    It makes it appear that the thumpers are attempting to redirect the Lord's judgment the gays' way. Either that or gives the appearance that the thumpers are using the Word as a weapon to attack others with or a pedestal to elevate themselves. The optics aren't good for those supposedly trying to spread their almighty's love.

  • R C Dean||

    The problem is that bible thumpers tend to focus on homosexuality and ignore those multitude of other sins laid out in the Good Book.

    I'm guessing you don't know many Bible thumpers, then. The ones I've known (and I've known plenty) practically never said anything about gaiety, and lots of time bitching about other people, well, drinking, not going to church enough, and fucking other people's wives.

    Now, this goes back before the famous Gay Freedom March on Selma, with the footage of the dogs and water cannons and polarization of the debate, so it could be different now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We apparently run into different flavors, because the ones I suffer are all about gays. Lip service is sometimes paid to the other, less same-sexy sinning, but it's always homosexuality that's singled out right up front as the depravity that's ruining the country.

  • robc||

    The problem is that bible thumpers tend to focus on homosexuality and ignore those multitude of other sins laid out in the Good Book.

    Except that is the exact opposite of what he did in this case.

    Its the gay agendaists that seem to be focusing on homosexuality.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Not to mention he lumped himself right in there as a sinner as well.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If true is there any point in being outraged on his behalf?

    Not that I can see. Anybody who claims to be surprised by what he said is either lying, or a world class imbecile.

    I'm curious, though, about the mechanics of this "suspension'. If a new season's episodes are complete and ready to air, will they put a black bar over Phil's face, and cartoon curse-bleeping noises over everything he says?

  • ||

    I suspect they will air it as normal, cash in on all the people "showing support" with even bigger ratings, then decide before filming next season if things have died down enough to lift the suspension or move on (assuming Robertson isn't just done with the show himself).

  • OldMexican||

    Re: wayne@herberts.org,

    Where's the free speech aspect here? A&E can also do as they wish.


    Where's the backbone here? A&E can also do as they wish and tell the LGBT crowd to go fuck themselves; considering the group, it would not have been an impertinent request.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A&E's job is to make money, not have 'backbone' which here is obviously code for 'lash out against people that irritate OM'.

  • R C Dean||

    If that's their job, then I can't see why they would threaten their cash cow like this.

  • ||

    My guess is that this move by A&E will cause them to lose money, not make it. I think the rest of the family is going the flip A&E the bird and not agree to film anymore shows.

  • SAL||

    Isn't killing the golden eggs goose for ethical reasons a clear demonstration of a backbone? Also, telling gays to "fuck themselves" is probably the oldest pun in the world; even Robertson is wittier than that.

  • ||

    Isn't killing the golden eggs goose for ethical reasons a clear demonstration of a backbone?

    Begs the question in terms of their motives. But even if true, maybe it does, but it should also piss off their shareholders, and in those terms could actually be thought of as a violation of business ethics. Corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

  • Killaz||

    Some days everything is all right with the world. My African American crush from high school.

    https://www.facebook.com/annitted

    Even that picture doesn't give you an idea of how hot she was. Dressed in tight leather, all the time. Usually with a tiger striped bow in her hair.

    is a member of this group:

    The Anti-Obama Task Force

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/129437400453104/

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I was wandering through some store, more nicer than Walmart, and they had an array of Duck Dynasty bobbleheads. I was seized by the desire to buy a twelve pack to take to the range, but I didn't.

    I didn't even see how much they cost.

  • Cytotoxic||

    KULTUR CONS truly are the biggest crybabies in the world. They need to just lay and die already.

  • R C Dean||

    Can't we just say culture warriors of all stripes are crybabies? Because, honestly, I would hate to have to say which sub-tribe of culture warriors are the biggest crybabies.

  • ||

    This X1000

  • JurisCani||

    Apparently not.

  • robc||

    where Robertson appears to be comparing homosexuality to bestiality

    and adulterers and sleeping around.

    And being greedy. And etc.

    And by equality, he compared sleeping around (gay or straight) to bestiality.

  • SAL||

    yep. Except that adultery is morally reprehensible because it's a breach of confidence and contract between two people who have previously agreed to have a monogamous relationship.

  • robc||

    That is ONE reason it is morally reprehensible.

  • robc||

    In Phil's view, its also immoral if its an agreed upon open relationship, even without the breach of confidence.

  • SAL||

    regardless of his reasons, most people find adultery generally reprehensible, so there's no reason to expect outrage in defense of people (straight or gay) who cheat.

  • Jim in Denver||

    I'd bet if you got an honest opinion poll 60%+ Americans would say that homosexuality is generally reprehensible. Granted, I'd be in the 40% as I don't care what consenting adults choose to do to each other but there's still a huge contingent of Christians and non-christians who disapprove of gays.

  • Jim in Denver||

    I'd bet if you got an honest opinion poll 60%+ Americans would say that homosexuality is generally reprehensible. Granted, I'd be in the 40% as I don't care what consenting adults choose to do to each other but there's still a huge contingent of Christians and non-christians who disapprove of gays.

  • Bruce Majors Libertarian4Mayor||

    I'm not really going to defend Phil Robertson for saying I can't go to heaven; but if I went on Letterman or NBC or Bravo and called him a hick, implied he was a racist, and made jokes about his family being inbred, I'd just be invited back or made a host on MSNBC, no?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I think Cyto has answered you sufficiently.

    ANSWER THE QUESTION, BO.

    ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

  • Jim in Denver||

    Not going to happen... liberals are to self-reflection as the wicked witch is to water. They love to shine their beacon upon the heathen socons but the minute you ask them to turn it inwards... MENTAL GYMNASTICS GOLD MEDALISTS!! The lot of 'em.

  • Response||

    Each group had a right to do what they do. Nothing to see here. Duck Dynasty will simply move to another network. I think, however, any pundit that comes out mocking a particular group associated with this story should avoid living in glass houses.

  • ChrisO||

    I thought for the longest time that Duck Dynasty was some sort of Daffy Duck spinoff show. That guy always did deserve his own show. The hell with Bugs Bunny.

  • JeremyR||

    There's a problem when you cannot hold a job simply because you hold certain views.

    Another example - Rush Limbaugh is not allowed to own a NFL team, even as a minor owner.

    Unless you hold politically correct views, you are simply not allowed to speak in this country anymore. The entire weight of the media goes against you.

    Yeah, it's not the government doing it. Does that make it okay? No, no it doesn't.

  • Nixonfan||

    It's all in the appendix to 1984 by Orwell.

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    This may be true they do have the right to employ him or not. But there is a greater point here.
    The homosexual community has made a great effort in recent years not to just gain toleration which most were willing to do but wants to shove their agenda down the huge majority that is not gay.
    Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle. The gay "rights'" movement wishes for all of us to celebrate their lifestyle. Examples? They want it taught in schools to the point where one school book featured two homosexual penguins as a guise that "this is normal too." Few years ago. They want to strip Master Sergeant Monk of position because he told his lesbian commander he did not believe in the homosexual cause. They propagate it as normal when in fact it is not normal--it is deviant.
    Phil was fired because he states out loud his opposition to the lifestyle. Many go along with this nonsense of the gay movement because they are afraid of social repercussion. And no I do not believe Piers Morgan would be just fine if his son told him he was gay like Piers pontificated.
    As a writer, sorry, I too am not interested in propagating this lifestyle which I find unnatural and deviant. Good for Phil for standing up and stating out loud what a great deal of America is too weak knee'd to address.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon.
    And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  • RishJoMo||

    Dude thats liek totally cool man!

    www.PrivaWeb.tk

  • ||

    So is this issue the "new abortion thread"?

  • John B. Egan||

    Yep! Complaining that head Duck whatever his name is, is a bigot for saying bestiality and homosexuality are the same, and the fact the show booted him for being a raging jack*ss is clearly "a War On Christmas", because nothing says Christmas like a dog screwing gay..... or a reject from the "squeal like a pig scene" in the movie "Deliverance". 'Merica! Where any retard can get his own TV show!

  • Jim in Denver||

    WOOOO You're a keeper!

    Get a grip on yourself man!

    He did compare homosexual acts with beastiality... in that they're both sins. Full stop.

    “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,”

    If he was directly comparing being gay to having sex with animals then he was by extension saying that gay men also have promiscuous sex with women.

    Reading comprehension for the win!!!!

  • Nixonfan||

    What Robertson said is not too far from what the Old Testament says, and what an Orthodox rabbi would say today. As a pro-gay atheist, I see no reason why a person should be punished for professing his religion in public. If you disagree with him, don't watch his stupid show. Don't ban him from the public square.

  • Jim in Denver||

    Liberals are the fount of all that is good and true. If you do not agree with them you are an evil bigot and should be killed with fire.

    Isn't this self-evident by now?

  • Michael Hihn||

    We should laugh at today's faux Christians who defend Holly Hobby and damn A&E.

    "Phil Robertson was simply expressing his faith."

    Somebody teach him what Christ said in his Sermon on the Mount.

    5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. ... 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them,
    --Jesus of Nazareth, Sermon on the Mount

    Which part confuses the faux Christians ... who follow false prophets?

  • Jim Bouchard||

    Absolutely NOT a 1st Amendment issue. It's amazing how many high-profile pols are flying that banner.

    Would they dictate to A&E what it airs and what it should not...well...

    No- had the government intervened and pulled Phil, we'd have a real issue. He was free to express himself- and he did. A&E was free to fire him- and they did.

    System intact...

    http://knockitoffblog.wordpres.....ck-it-off/

  • HarryUSA||

    American was founded on Christian values like thou shall not kill? Really? The Incas ate their young? The Cahokia didn't love their children? Where did Christians get their values from? Pagans? Arabs? Since when did Christians invent rules against killing? Thou shall not kill was written by Jews prior to the birth of Christ.

    Looks like neanderthal man has his history mixed up.

  • HarryUSA||

    *America

  • SQRLSY One||

    HarryUSA Man Sir Dude Man, The Xtians git that them thar VALUES from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they’d be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven’t actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must’ve broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they'd be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we've broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can’t weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he’s come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There’s working on Sunday. There’s also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord’s priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we’re finally there... God’s Word COMMANDS us such that we’ve got to kill EVERYBODY!!!

  • Charles Hurst Author||

    And as far as the angered filled comments about Christians sinning as well. You're right we do. The difference is if a Christian decides to engage in a deviant behavior we do not attempt to force it on everyone else. And we usually know we are wrong. And if we didn't think we were wrong we do not go to your schools demanding that "our alternative" view point be taught. You don't see swingers protesting that they be acknowledged.
    The gay community has picked this fight. You didn't wish to be just left alone. You're end goal is that we celebrate your deviant choices. You want to propagate the lifestyle into our schools. You demand a Christian baker design your wedding cakes. You want us to state out loud our allegiance to your deviance. You want the churches to disregard their beliefs and traditions because you believe your deviance trumps our beliefs. You wish Sergeant Monk to state out loud that he agrees with gay marriage to his lesbian commanding officer--regardless of his Christian beliefs, I was willing to live and let live. You have made yourself my enemy. Your stance--side with us in speech and thought or we retaliate.
    This is not Iran. You will not be persecuted. And by God you will not persecute us.The Duck Dynasty stated out loud what most have been afraid to speak.

    And there are many more of us out there who aren't afraid as well..

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hi Charlie Sir Dude Sir, Good Buddy, Tell me true though, REALLY, is it not true that a LOT of devout Christians / Republicans / Conservatives will rail, not only against the gays… Even though I challenge you to find ONE Bible verse supposedly straight from Jesus, who SPECIFICALLY condemned GAY sex, as opposed to abusive (free-will-violating) sex? I would recommend that you read the book, “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do, the Absurdities of Consensual Crime in a Free Society”, by Peter McWilliams… He EXTENSIVELY examined what the Bible has to say about such things. And yes, as it turns out, he was a gay man… I will bet you that you will NOT be able to read his book with an open mind, now… Above and beyond that, though, continuing my earlier thoughts… Is it not true that your kind of people, are not willing only to condemn the gays, but also that them that thar ILLEGAL humans? And the pot-smokers? So… Can you please justify why it is that God Himself loves YOU and YOURS more so than, not only the gays… Let’s let you slide on that one… But the pot-smokers and the illegal aliens as well? When is the last time you REALLY spoke out for “the least among us” instead of puffing yourself up as Author-Dude, whose books we should all buy?

  • SQRLSY One||

    And what I REALLY meant to say is, ***IF*** you will read McWilliam’s book, it will become clear to you that all of these “Biblical” prejudices end up being enacted as violence-backed laws, putting all the gays (in days now thankfully gone) and the illegal humans and the pot-smokers (to this very day!) in jail, breaking up families, because of “family oriented, Bible-loving”, God’s-Ass-Kissing Re-Smuglicans!!! (God’s Ass-Kissing Demoblicans want to make all of our charity choices at the point of a gun, but that’s another story). Has it EVER occurred to you, that what God REALLY wants you to burn up on the sacrificial alter, and forswear, and give over to God, is NOT your money, but your arrogant, self-righteous PRIDE? It doesn’t cost all that much, actually, to give up your false pride, and we will ALL be better off for it! You, too!

  • SQRLSY One||

    “I’m trying my best to love my wife & kids & cats & dogs & pet fish & bunny Waaaabbits & all the whole loving family, in Obedience to God, but, ya know… Those GAY bastards down the street are loving each other & getting marriage licenses & by them having done that them thar EVIL thing, they have devalued MY marriage license, and so now I can NO LONGER honor my marriage vows”… So gays… Who Jesus never condemned specifically… V/S straight people who get divorced all the time, which (divorce) Jesus DID speak out against… We’re gonna cuss & swear about that them thar gays, & say nothing about divorce; we want divorced people to come to our church and donate money, ya know… But at the end of the day, my breaking my marriage vows, it’s cause of the cussedness of the GAYS who devalued my sacred marriage license!!! Makes sense to me, Bro!

  • ag ore||

    GLAAD has helped make Phil's question more reasonable. They argue there is no difference between an aarse and a viagina. How "logical" is that?

  • ag ore||

    GLAAD has helped make Phil's question more reasonable. They argue there is no difference between an aarse and a viagina. How "logical" is that?

  • montana mike||

    I'm guessing there is a difference between pussy and a bung hole, but it's a matter of perception and the clit. I prefer pussy but if someone prefers bung hole rock on, no skin off my ass.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement