Television

A&E Reverses Phil Robertson's "Duck Dynasty" Suspension, Says Core Values of "Inclusion" Caused it to React So Strongly

Surprise

|

duck duck
Reason

Duck Dynasty reruns have been getting a lot of play on A&E, and given the backlash to its suspension of the show's star, perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise the network's reversed itself.

From USA Today:

A&E has ducked away from a controversy surrounding the stars of its hugely popular reality series Duck Dynasty

In a statement, the network cited its "core values" of "inclusion and mutual respect" to explain why "we reacted so quickly and strongly." "While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the 'coarse language' he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would 'never incite or encourage hate.' We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold."

More Reason on the Duck Dynasty brouhaha here, here, and here.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

NEXT: Police: Python Strangled Security Guard to Death Near Luxury Bali Hotel Before Escaping into Bushes

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.

  1. We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.”

    The statement continues:

    “And then we realized just how much money the Duck Dynasty franchise earns for our network and we said ‘Holy Fuck! We can’t suspend this guy, we’ll go broke!'”

    1. See, that is what separates the compassionate Left from evil Capitalists. Feelings about raking in money.

    2. If it were up to Barack Obama, there wouldn’t be any Duck Dynasty or pr0n.

      Think about it.

      1. A&E is a property of painfully politically correct NBC Universal. So I bet it was NBCUni criers that pulled the show, not A&E internally.

        But Comcast, blessedly evil Comcast, owns NBCUni and is far away from the People’s Republic of 30 Rock.

        There’s always a bigger fish.

    3. Incentives, how do they work?

  2. In a statement, the network cited its “core values” of “inclusion and mutual respect” to explain why “we reacted so quickly and strongly.”

    Just as it is the duty of tolerant people to be intolerant of those with improper ideas, it is the duty of inclusive people to exclude those with improper ideas. That is because equality dictates that those with improper ideas are inferior.

    1. I love the way folks like A&E do the exact opposite of what they actually do. If proggies didn’t exist, would they have to be invented?

      1. Did A&E just act like ‘proggies’ here in rescinding the suspension?

        1. they could have just left it alone and avoided the hassle.

          1. I do not disagree there, I just think that the entire behavior of A&E strikes me as motivated by the more mundane corporate values of worrying about offense hurting brand and sales than any ‘proggie’ sentiments. Were it otherwise they would not have rescinded the suspension, ‘though the heavens fall.’

            1. here’s where the proggie part comes in – some lefty commentator, like Bill Maher or Ed Schulz, slams a person on the right, calling them a cunt or a slut, and NOTHING HAPPENS. But when a liberal constituencies feelings are hurt, mass faux outrage follows. It is tedious.

              1. But the very example you point to, MSNBC, recently fired (not suspended) two of its ‘stars’ for remarks.

                1. Alec Baldwin’s remarks were anti-gay. Bashir’s were over anyone’s line. Maher and Schulz still stand as examples of how it’s okay to knock certain folks.

                  You can make fun of whites, males, southerners, church folks, tea partiers, and a few other groups with absolutely no worry. But look at something as basic as criticizing Obama. Racist! And so forth.

                  1. I actually think it is easy to argue Bashir’s comments were much less objectionable than Robertson’s. Bashir’s was a hypothetical about a controversial, polarizing political figure while Robertson’s were, among other things, denigrating of an entire group of people.

                    I do not think you are wrong when you point out that some groups, such as whites, men and Southerners, seem to be fair game for media criticism while others are not. But the example you point to seems to actually ‘cut the legs out from under’ your argument: the MSNBC thing shows a network, and an explicitly liberal one at that, actually firing, rather than suspending, someone for a remark about a political figure on the other side. It is exactly what you are complaining about never happening.

                    1. We might be overlooking that fact that even MSNBC thinks Martin Bashir sucks and just used the Palin thing as an excuse to replace him with a lefty that gets better ratings.

                    2. Who can know if they simply ‘did not let a crisis go to waste’? I just think that if you are arguing that left wing commentators never get in trouble for what they say about right wing figures, and you specifically point to MSNBC as an example, the fact that just recently they punished one of their commentators for exactly that undercuts that argument quite a bit.

                    3. I’m saying that the left gets a far wider swath in making comments that could be considered incendiary. As a rule, I oppose firing people who are in the opinion business for saying things someone doesn’t like. Obviously, Phil is not a talking head and while what he said should surprise no one, and employer does not owe you a platform.

                    4. I really think it depends. I have heard right wing commentators on right leaning networks make comments about left wing political figures that could be seen as ‘outrageous,’ similar to or equivalent to what Bashir said, and the right wing networks did not fire the person. I think it depends on the ratings the person commands as much as anything else, and that is not really a ‘progressive’ value.

                    5. I’m saying that the left gets a far wider swath in making comments that could be considered incendiary.

                      They’re hypocrites and liars. Might makes right, the end justifies the means, and all that.

                    6. Yes, the only political partisans and ideologues who think the end justifies the means, who are hypocrites and liars, are the left.

                    7. Generally, but with exception, when someone’s retort contains the word “only” (or “all”) I assume they’re attacking a man of straw.

                      Yours was not one of the exceptions.

                      Thing about most leftist feeling people is that they have a difficult time separating a person from their ideas. I regularly see Ayn Rand’s ideas attacked on the basis of her personal life. Not that I’m defending either, but that’s a textbook ad hominem fallacy on display every day.

                      The other thing about most leftist feeling people is that they take attacks on ideas as attacks on the person. Perfect example was when Limbaugh said he wanted O’Bummer’s policies to fail. That was taken as an attack on the person because most lefty feeling emotional types can’t make that distinction..

                      Whatever. You’re an ass and I don’t like you. Good night.

                    8. So ‘only’ and ‘all’ are indicators for you, but ‘they’re hypocrites and liars’ is not. And ‘they’re’ is not supposed to read ‘they are all’?

                      You are projecting.

                    9. And ‘they’re’ is not supposed to read ‘they are all’?

                      Maybe in your straw man school ‘they’re’ reads ‘they are all,’ but I didn’t go to your straw man school. In my school ‘they’re’ reads ‘they are.’ Ass.

                    10. It sure looked like a reference to all of ‘them’ to me.

                    11. It sure looked like a reference to all of ‘them’ to me.

                      That’s because you’re an ass.

                    12. every rule has exceptions.

                    13. Bashir’s remarks were far more loathsome than Robertson’s, the difference between a personal attack and a guy stating his world view (which I disagree with).

                    14. And his ‘worldview’ denigrated an entire class of persons. By your logic the declarations of a Klansman would be less offensive because it was their ‘worldview.’

                    15. “I actually think it is easy to argue Bashir’s comments were much less objectionable than Robertson’s. Bashir’s was a hypothetical about a…figure while Robertson’s were…denigrating of an entire group of people.”

                      So, in short, you’re saying that you think a specific person should be personally made to eat shit and drink piss is more offensive than saying you think certain behaviors are sinful.

                      Well, everyone’s entitled to their opinions, I guess.

                    16. “certain behaviors are sinful.”

                      He said certain groups, entire groups.

                      People say worse things here than Bashir did about political figures they loathe all the time, but Robertson’s comments were what we usually describe as ‘prejudiced.’

                    17. If you believe Robertson’s comments are prejudiced, then you pretty much believe that the bulk of believers of mainstream Christianity are either liars or prejudiced, as they conform to pretty much mainstream Christian doctrine. They view homosexuals as engaged in sinful behavior. They view drunkards as engaged in sinful behavior. They view (heterosexual) people who sleep around or have sex outside of marriage as engaged in sinful behavior. They define someone engaged in sinful behavior as a sinner. That’s why they view pretty much everyone as a sinner. That’s why they believe that pretty much everyone needs to repent and put their faith in Jesus as the key to their salvation.
                      And, as to Bashir’s comments, please cite examples of people calling for worse things.

                    18. “If you believe Robertson’s comments are prejudiced, then you pretty much believe that the bulk of believers of mainstream Christianity are either liars or prejudiced, as they conform to pretty much mainstream Christian doctrine.”

                      I believe people who subscribe to the idea that people are sinful because their expressions of love and sexuality happen to be oriented to people of the same gender to be prejudiced, whether that is grounded in ‘mainstream Christian doctrine’ or not, yes. I do not equate them or include them with behaviors that are irresponsible or harm others.

                      “please cite examples of people calling for worse things.”

                      I have seen people here wish death on Palin’s B*ttplug. I have seen Glenn Beck pretend he is Obama pouring gasoline on a person to light them on fire, Rush Limbaugh call persons sluts and prostitutes, etc.,.

                    19. Bo,

                      Tell me what is actually wrong with calling someone a “slut” or prostitute? Especially if their behavior is of that description?

                      It might be impolite, but does it actually harm others?

                      It seems to me no one today really cares if someone has that kind of reputation anymore…maybe 50 years ago…

            2. “…I just think that the entire behavior of A&E strikes me as motivated by the more mundane corporate values of worrying about offense hurting brand and sales…”

              No, Bo, that’s a cop-out. “Fundamentalist Christian says something consistent with fundamentalist Christian beliefs” just wouldn’t get a whole lot of play in the public domain. And most of the world has never heard of GLAAD. And it’s not like gays and lesbians are a core demographic for Duck Dynasty. This would have been a complete non-story if A&E hadn’t sacked Robertson. And a routine handling of corporate/brand image would have meant issuing a perfunctory statement that Robertson’s views are his own and don’t reflect A&E’s, blah, blah, blah. You don’t put your premiere franchise in jeopardy to create a hell of a lot more controversy than would have been there in the first place.

              1. If they were motivated by these values why did they back off? It seems like the dollar was their guiding star the entire time.

                1. “If they were motivated by these values why did they back off?”

                  It doesn’t occur to you that different decision-makers may have decided to rehire Robertson than decided to “suspend” him?

                  1. You are just conjecturing about all of that, right?

                    1. No, responding to your conjecture as to their motivation (“It seems like the dollar was their guiding star the entire time.”).

                    2. My conjecture was based on making their actions internally consistent whereas yours seems based on little else but tired partisan narratives.

                    3. And it’s not internally consistent. As my initial point makes clear. You have to assume that the organization’s profit maximization skills are wildly at odds with any rational level of business judgement. On the other hand, the assumption that different people within an organization might make decisions counter to one another is something any adult is familiar with.

                    4. And this isn’t a court of law, asshole. Conjecture is perfectly legitimate in a reasonable discussion.

                    5. First of all, what kind of person calls a person they do not know and who has not spoken to them thus an ‘*sshole?’ If you lack manners yourself one would think you would at least respect our host here who asks the discussion to be civil. Control your emotions Bill.

                      Secondly, while conjecture is allowed almost anywhere others are free to point out that is all a statement seems to rest upon.

                    6. “First of all, what kind of person calls a person they do not know and who has not spoken to them thus an ‘*sshole?'”

                      The kind of person who is fed up with a disingenuous asshole using false legalism to manipulate a debate. Your claim that my statement was conjecture was plainly intended to illegitimate it. It only does so in a court of law, which this discussion thread is not part of. It’s clear you have nothing to offer these discussions but third-rate sophistry.

                2. I’m just cynical enough to suspect A&E recently made a sizeable contribution to Glaad.

                  1. I’m cynical enough to think a&e “suspended” Robertson to drum up even more viewers.

      2. do the exact opposite of what they actually do

        I’m guessing you meant “say the exact opposite …”

        That, or the alcohol is kicking in early for you this eve.

        1. good catch. Time for a refill.

    2. I realize you are likely being ‘cute,’ but I am not sure the contradiction you are having fun with necessarily exists. If there were a group of people who aimed to create a ‘tolerant’ community, would they ‘tolerate’ intolerant members? You might think ‘yes’ because if they were ‘tolerant’ then they must ‘tolerate’ the intolerant, but on the other hand by not excluding the intolerant they have suddenly caused their community to not be a ‘tolerant’ one.

      1. tolerance does not equal acceptance. Proggies frequently conflate one with the other every time they experience manufactured outrage. Nastiness towards non-proggies, however, is totally permissible. In fact, it is in keeping with not tolerating the intolerant.

        1. A&E deciding to suspend Robertson, intolerance or non-acceptance?

          1. A&E deciding to suspend Robertson, intolerance or non-acceptance?

            Revenue………..

            1. I think the rescinding the suspension can be explained by revenue.

              1. Captin Obvious moment.

              2. “I think the rescinding the suspension can be explained by revenue.”

                As can the suspension.

                I believe A&E knew all along this was going to happen…they knew they had a cash cow and they full well knew how other boycotts have gone.

                They knew the suspension would make DD’s value rise.

                And they knew that they would rescind after a short while and make everyone happy.

                All the talk about tolerance and acceptance is probably just progressive cover.

            2. Even though revenue is not at the top of the list. Nope, feelings are top and now they are making more money by pretending they have feelings for something besides money.

          2. “A&E deciding to suspend Robertson, intolerance or non-acceptance?”

            yes. Also, proof that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. They acted out of politics initially and reconsidered out of business.

            1. “They acted out of politics initially and reconsidered out of business.”

              Why assume that? I think it more likely they just miscalculated about what was best for their brand/bottom line, and that was likely all they cared about throughout. If they were hard core progressives they would not have rescinded the suspension for anything.

              1. assumption is based on the evidence: say something mean about a liberal constituency, or group perceived as such, and what A&E did follows. Slam some right-leaning or libertarian group/person, and no one cares because the folks in charge likely believe what was said anyway.

              2. Inside word is that management originally caved to angry gay employees. I don’t think they ever thought “Yes, suspending the central character on our most popular show will be good for our bottom line.”

                1. are you saying its typical for gay employees to be intolerant of others right to opinion?

                  1. No, just reporting what I read. Seemed like a reasonable alternative explanation for why A&E shot themselves in the foot this way.

        2. tolerance does not equal acceptance. Proggies frequently conflate one with the other…

          How can you accept something that offends you? You cannot be offended by something and not do something about it! When you are offended it’s time to get up and do something! It’s an outrage that you’ve been offended! That’s why this Robertson guy cannot be tolerated! He’s going to act on what offends him! He has no choice! He’s dangerous! And he likes guns!

      2. “but on the other hand by not excluding the intolerant they have suddenly caused their community to not be a ‘tolerant’ one.”

        That’s simply, logically, wrong.

        1. Ipse dixit, the argument of champions?

          1. No, actually, it’s because tolerance isn’t a ratio, so a “community” can’t be “tolerant”.

            It’s behavior, on a case by case basis. So, in this case, by exhibiting the BEHAVIOR of TOLERANCE, they are BEING TOLERANT, but you are using this as some kind of evidence of INTOLERANCE.

            You’re the one that tossed out a stupid fucking argument with no support. And it consisted of “being tolerant makes them intolerant”. WHich only illuminated that you have exactly no idea what tolerance is, and aren’t terribly bright to boot.

            1. “a “community” can’t be “tolerant”.”

              Pretty silly, but perhaps if it had been posted a third time, with more all caps?

              1. And still you fail to refute it. Or any of it.

                So, another solid argument from you.

                1. If my refutation at 8:42 did not convince you, nothing will my friend.

                  1. “Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:41PM|#

                    If my refutation at 8:42 ”

                    From the future?

                    You didn’t refute anything, and you’re a liar.

                    1. Mine is the only post in this thread from 8:42.

                      So, you

                      1)insulted
                      2)dodged
                      3)dodged
                      4)lied about a refutation

                      lol, you’re not even good at trolling

                    2. OK, that was cruel, I apologize.

                    3. “Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:41PM|#

                      If my refutation at 8:42 did not convince you”

                      Quote your refutation from 8:42 or admit you’re a liar, and that it doesn’t exist.

                    4. The refutation is right behind the snipe. Find it and you find the refutation!

                    5. So, now that Bo has proven my point about shitting all over the thread, by shitting all over the thread, and decided to lie rather than admit he sucks at logic, I’ll take my leave.

                      And bookmark this for the next time you show up and shit all over another thread.

                    6. He came, he saw, he conquered.

                    7. Your snark does not help the terribleness of your argument.

                    8. He stayed a little longer.

                    9. Bo being to stupid to understand take my leave has multiple meanings.

                      You know, like, take my leave from handing you your ass over something you’ve obviously come to terms with being wrong about.

                      Again, Bo presumes he has a level of intelligence that his words prove he lacks.

                    10. I fully understand taking one’s leave can have many meanings.

                      For example, it could mean ‘he’s taken leave of his senses’ to describe someone who is acting deranged.

                    11. It takes a lot to admit you have a problem like that Bo, but it explains a lot.

                      Go get help now.

                    12. I think someone isn’t aware that we don’t get to edit out posts here, after submission.

                      I also hear there’s a film coming out soon that’s called “Dumb and Dumber To.”

      3. “but on the other hand by not excluding the intolerant they have suddenly caused their community to not be a ‘tolerant’ one.”

        So then you just create an accepted group of non-persons against whom discrimination is favored. Of course they deserve it. They always deserve it. It’s like ‘Why would the cops arrest him if he wasn’t a criminal’?

        Then you get affairs like this:

        http://www.esquire.com/feature…..n-internet

        Let’s examine the dynamic at play there. First she is basically picking on the out group for attention with the in group. She makes fun of retard teabaggers so people will think she is cool at a party.

        Then people think she actually is a retard teabagger, and so they are awful to her. Because they want a tolerant society and teabaggers threaten that?

        Hah. No, for the same reason she started it – because it’s fun and it makes them feel like part of the group to tear apart outsiders. How tolerant.

        The entire thing is an exercise in quadruple ironic hypocrisy.

        1. “So then you just create an accepted group of non-persons against whom discrimination is favored.”

          That seems a little far to go. I am just saying, if a group of people wanted to form a community, let us say a commune or workplace, which was tolerant in the sense that people there would not run into intolerant people and remarks, then it would seem to me they would have to exclude any intolerant person from that community, though, of course, by excluding them they are in a sense ‘not tolerating’ them and therefore being intolerant!

          1. No, it’s not far at all to go. It’s the way it always happens.

            First you define what is BAD. Then you figure out which people are the BAD people. Then you can do bad things to them without having to feel bad about it.

            If you don’t want to get burned at the state, then don’t consort with Satan in the forest? How can a tolerant community tolerate a witch in league with the Enemy of All Things cursing our crops at night? Obviously for the name of tolerance the witch must be burned.

            1. If you don’t want to get burned at the state…

              Best. Typo. Ever.

            2. “First you define what is BAD. Then you figure out which people are the BAD people. Then you can do bad things to them without having to feel bad about it.”

              Are you talking about Robertson or A&E? Can you not see how both could fall under what you are saying (Robertson, and people who share his view, defined all ‘homosexuals’ as ‘bad’)?

          2. Is it necessarily “intolerant” to believe and express your spiritual sensibilities?

            I don’t think it is. It’s no more different for Christians to believe homosexuality is a sin as it is for Muslims to view drinking alcohol or eating pork as a sin.

            Would I be considered intolerant if I decided to exclude Muslims because they view me drinking a beer as a sin?

            1. “Would I be considered intolerant if I decided to exclude Muslims because they view me drinking a beer as a sin?”

              Do you not see you are restating my argument?

      4. “…by not excluding the intolerant they have suddenly caused their community to not be a ‘tolerant’ one.”

        That’s just weapons grade stupid, Bo. Tolerance is a description of a behavior, not of an innate nature. It would be the very act of “excluding the intolerant” that would define the community as intolerant. If this is the future of the country’s legal profession, I mourn for jurisprudence.

        1. “It would be the very act of “excluding the intolerant” that would define the community as intolerant.”

          And the actions of intolerant people left in the community (making intolerant remarks, treating people differently based on intolerant ideas, etc.,) would not make the community an intolerant one (or one in which intolerance is encountered) as well?

          1. “…an intolerant one (or one in which intolerance is encountered) as well?”

            No, because you’re defining “an intolerant community” so broadly as to define away any answer other than your own. An intolerant community is not one where “intolerance is encountered”, but one where intolerance is the norm. By the standard you’re setting, you’d have to agree with the Westboro Baptist Church folks that America is a “fag country” because one encounters homosexuals in America.

            1. You did not seem to read my hypothetical that started this entire conversation. I am talking about a group of people who want to create a tolerant community in the sense of a workplace or actual commune like community, a community in which people do not encounter acts of intolerance. My point was that such a community would ironically have to exclude people who would do such acts or else it would not be the tolerant community they envisioned.

              I also think you are mischaracterizing the Westboro view which as I understand it is that America is a ‘f*g country’ because it tolerates/accepts/encourages homosexuals and their behavior.

              1. Again with the re-defining to suit your argument. No. What you’re describing ISN’T a tolerant community. It is by definition NOT a tolerant community. The governing social norms are to not tolerate people who don’t agree with the governing ethos. That defines itself as intolerant. You or they can call that group “tolerant” to your hearts’ content. Hell, you can call that group the 1972 Republican convention for all I care. It doesn’t make it either.
                And nothing in your assessment of the Westboro lunatics at all undermines my point. They call America a “fag country” because it tolerates homosexuals. You suggest that a country is intolerant because it tolerates intolerant people. There really is no difference, other than “they’re bad, so principles don’t apply”.

                1. You are still not getting it.

                  Of course it can be said that by excluding the intolerant they are not tolerating them and hence are being ironically ‘intolerant.’ What you are missing is that if their goal is also to create and live in a voluntary community where its members do not encounter intolerant remarks/actions, then by not excluding such people their community ceases to be a tolerant one in that sense.

                  “There really is no difference”

                  I think you are missing what is the difference, and that is that intolerance might be the one thing tolerant communities cannot tolerate, lest they cease to be tolerant communities (you have broadened this to ‘country’s’ which is likely a very different topic). In other words, far from their being no difference there is one that is key to what it means to be a ‘tolerant place or community.’ The Westboro person hates and does not want to see tolerated a group based on some characteristic not associated with their commitment to tolerance, while my hypothetical commune hates and does not want to see tolerated a group based solely on their commitment to intolerance, the opposite of what the community believes in. It seems pretty different to me.

                  You are equating a community or person who says ‘I hate gays’ with someone who says ‘I hate people who hate gays.’ Notice the ‘double hate’ in the second sentence, does that not make it different?

                  1. No, Bo. YOU’RE still not getting it. The “sense” in which you’re claiming it would be a tolerant community doesn’t exist. Demanding that there be uniform views with regard to “tolerance” isn’t tolerant. Period. You can’t be tolerant and demand that everyone share the same views and attitudes. At that point you cease to be tolerant. You can try to clean up your stance with claims that your values are better than the fellows from Westboro. But, that’s utterly and totally irrelevant to the question of whether you’re tolerant or not. When you insist others conform to your own values or views, you’re no longer tolerant.

    3. They meant their core values of “making bank on advertising sales.”

  3. At least he didn’t cop a ‘rehab’ plea.
    It was their choice to can or keep him in any case.

    1. At least he didn’t cop a ‘rehab’ plea.

      …and good on him for not!

      Regardless of your opinion on what he said there’s nothing worse than the two week rehab followed with with a tearful live apology.

      1. Phil’s got more balls than Steve Martin does, that’s for sure.

        1. Yeah, that apology was completely pathetic. He apologized for making a joke about a name that sounds like an italian entree.

          Needs to grow a sac.

      2. reeducation camp is called for with these grievous assaults on human rights

    2. And by letting him back on relatively quietly, they’ve ensured ratings will stay high, and given the American public’s limited attention span, everyone will have forgotten this completely by mid-January.

      1. Forgotten what? I’m ready to skip to that point right now.

        1. yep, who gives a fuck

      2. C. Anacreon|12.27.13 @ 7:57PM|#
        “And by letting him back on relatively quietly, they’ve ensured ratings will stay high, and given the American public’s limited attention span, everyone will have forgotten this completely by mid-January.”

        Obo is counting on it; late-Friday non-announcements, trickle-changes, short attention spans:
        Hey! O’care is wonderful!

      3. my reaction is to boycott the show until its under different management.

        not that i would watch the show, but now i will actively avoid it.

  4. Do they actually show gay duck sex? Is it blurred out or do you get to see hot drake-on-drake action?

    I’m, um, asking for a friend.

    1. I’m sure if it did your TiVo would have already recommended it to you based on your…uh…other viewing habits. You perverted dope.

    2. “Warty Hugeman Fills the Bill”

    3. It’s the full Monty.

    4. You might be confusing this cable TV show with that new DiCaprio movie.

    5. DUCKS HAVE EXPLOSIVE SPIRALING PENISES!!!!!!!!

      1. Because Duck Rape.

    6. For my money two male pheasants getting it on is where it is at.

      Two cocks banging each other.

      Only a cosmo-libertarian is into drake on drake.

  5. “While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the ‘coarse language’ he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article.

    What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate.

    1. Let me help communicate Duck Gramps views in his own words:

      But the unlikely television star actually expounded at length in expressing the same contentious views three years earlier in Pottstown, Pa.

      “Women with women. Men with men,” he said at one point. “They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.

      “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

      We all (myself included) have issues with any number of groups – religious, political or whatevers – yet how many of us refer to people associated with those groups as being killers?

      It was A&E’s right to kick him off and their right to take him back. But lets not pretend that the guy is somehow misunderstood or that his message is not just one of intolerance but one of hate too.

  6. The market at work.

  7. We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

    Of course, A&E could have said exactly that from the beginning and avoided the entire issue.

    1. The “rookie mistake” referenced earlier by industry insiders.

  8. I bet the Daily Kos morons are already writing their threatening boycott letters to A&E, even though they just use Hulu anyway.

    1. I always pegged them to be closet Metallica fans who get their music on torrents.

  9. Phil Robertson A&E.

    1. Phil Robertson A&E.

      1. Phil Robertson [GREATER THAN] A&E.

            1. Okay why does the less than html work but not the greater than?

              1. Squirrels. That’s all; explains everything.
                Why does your team suck? Why is booze so expensive? Why is your hair falling out?
                Squirrels!

                1. Squirrels stole Christian Ponder’s jock strap and look where that left Vikings fans.

                  We need a bounty on fucking tree rats.

        1. If you go by the title, you can do “A&E”

          1. It interpreted that HTML entity?

            We might be able to get another Commenter? Freedom? Day

        2. I watched this show just once for a few minutes, so I only know the main family members and the show’s basic concept. What I didn’t know until the controversy is that this guy’s name was Phil Robertson — isn’t that the most non-Dickensian name for a long-bearded redneck ever? Phil Robertson sounds like he should sell life insurance in Eau Claire. I would have expected something instead like Dusty Mortimer or Gabby Burnsides.

          1. He was the QB for La Tech prior to Terry Bradshaw, I bet these days he’s making more coin…”life is a carnival” The Band

  10. Who the hell is wasting ad click money with that “Phil Robertson Fired! Do you agree?” ad on the upper right?

    1. Let your voice be heard!

      1. ^the target audience.

        1. I believe this is called ‘sarcasm detector failure’ by many here.

          1. Also called “walked right into that one”

  11. As they should have.

    The comments we keep getting back are the Christian is a bigot. The Christian and right wing has no right to judge. That we can’t tell someone they can’t be gay.

    I never said that. I’ve said that I am more than tired of the homosexual community shoving their lifestyle on everyone else’s throat. The lifestyle is abnormal. It is deviant. And that’s just my opinion. They don’t agree. And that’s fine–they want to engage in it I’m not holding up a protest sign.

    They made themselves an enemy to me by deciding that I must accept it. That they have the right to teach deviance in public schools. That every baker must conform to baking gay wedding cakes regardless of the owners’ beliefs. That if you are on a television show then you have no right to an opinion unless it is pro gay. That if you are a Christian church you must reform your traditions to match the Progressive’s beliefs.

    So what’s next Mr Progressive. Plural marriages? Three parent transgender marriages and adoption? Because that’s what the Progressive sides with isn’t it? Anything abnormal we will label “evolved” and attempt to force it on everyone else.

    And like in my fiction, your moral breakdown will continue. And so will the breakdown of your nation. I don’t have to prove my point. Your children are proving it for me. Every day on the news.

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

    1. “I am more than tired of the homosexual community shoving their lifestyle on everyone else’s throat”

      I think you meant so say ‘down,’ not ‘on,’ but who knows what goes on in the homosexual community you live near.

      1. If you really need a safe for work video to help you out, let Marty be your guide:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOuOZEzmrVI

    2. If your fiction is as stupid and boring as you are, don’t quit your day job.

      1. And he’s an expert on stupid and boring.

    3. Charles Hurst. Author of Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock?. An offbeat story of my morning at the health club.

    4. “Gay Wedding Cakes” is an excellent name for a band.

      1. Not as good as “Gay Bikers on Drugs”

    5. Nice try asshole.

    6. Charles Hurst has just dropped the mic. Now he’s stalking off the stage! Awesome!

    7. I welcome “three parent transgender marriages” as I support the freedom of adults to enter whatever contracts they desire. I support adoption by any parents willing to provide love and guidance to children.

      You’re dense if you think any supposed “moral breakdown” concerning families is related to TEH GAYZ and not inculcated dependence on government for everything and everyone, cradle-to-grave.

  12. Related: Catholic School fires popular homosexual administrator after he gets married

    First, Zmuda set the record straight about his dismissal: It was the school’s decision, not his, he says. Following publicity from a school-wide protest, Eastside claimed that Zmuda had voluntarily chosen to quit his job. This, Zmuda says, is a lie; the school unequivocally terminated his contract “because [he] violated Catholic teachings” by marrying a man. Upon hearing the news, Zmuda notes that he “asked ‘if it was breach of contract.’ They say ‘no.’ I said, ‘did it have to do with my job performance or evaluations’ and they also said ‘no.’ ” Eastside then confirmed the sole reason for Zmuda’s termination: marrying his partner.

    Perhaps more shocking, Eastside has admitted to making a last-ditch effort to keep Zmuda in his position: School President Sister Mary Tracy asked him to dissolve his marriage in order to retain his job. Zmuda declined the offer. As his student explains, “I think that he would much rather share that love with [his partner] and get married than think about what the school was doing.”

    Now the school was unquestionably within its rights, and yet the gay rights activists are acting just like the Duck Dynasty people: outraged that distasteful behavior resulted in punishment.

    1. Well, of course that cuts both ways. For example, will Palin and Huckabee release comments denouncing the school?

    2. The Slate article says the sister committed “a vile and morally repulsive act of iniquity.” Yet this writer would be utterly shocked if he was called judgmental and hateful.

      Imagine Robertson using the same language to describe sodomy.

      1. “Yet this writer would be utterly shocked if he was called judgmental and hateful.”

        I imagine that would be because he thinks firing an employee for marrying the person he loves is vile and hateful, but deploring the same is not. You are kind of arguing ‘hey, he made a judgment, and he condemned a guy for making a judgment!’ Of course, leaving out what the judgments were and about is pretty big, unless you want to argue the relativistic position that anyone who decries any other person being judgmental must never be judgmental about any other person, lest they be hypocrites.

        1. If I were judgmental, I would say, “O Lord, smite Bo with hay fever, since he seems far too comfortable around straw men. And enlighten his mind, so that he can see why a vice principal of a Catholic institution might be expectged to abide by Catholic teachings.”

          1. If you do not want to defend the substance of your analogies when you offer them on a public discussion board, why put them there? I mean, after writing your comment you accuse me of straw men? A quote about motes and beams obstructing vision comes to mind which I imagine you would get…

            1. Gesundheit!

              (hay fever, you see)

              1. Your snark does not help the terribleness of your argument: ‘hey, the Slate guy condemned Robertson for making a judgment, but then he himself made a judgment about the Sister! Gotcha!’

                1. You must be sneezing up a storm by now.

                  1. Nary a cough or achoo.

                    1. But behold, the hay fever will come upon you when you least expect it.

                    2. Well, I doubt I would see it coming as predictably as I did your straw man on his high horse just now.

                2. whether gay is right or not is a subjective opinion about the purpose of the universe.

                  to say 1 position in the paradigm is tolerant, and all others are intolerant is the problem. all positions are subjective. thus anyone who posits an opinion without affording others that same respect to make their own choice is intolerant. traditionally that was the position of christians, but in robertsons case it was everyone EXCEPT him.

                  in the case of progressives, as a standing rule they don’t allow others the luxury of having their own opinion. For others to do so is intolerant and bigotted. And this, on an issue that hinges on the purpose of life.

  13. Well, if they sincerely believed that Robertson had said the equivalent of “Hitler was awesome, he should have killed more people!” then they should have fired him and never rehired him no matter how popular he was.

    So maybe, in the final analysis, his remark wasn’t quite so bad.

    Saying that people who regularly commit sodomy are just as much sinners as people who regularly commit drunkenness or idolatry, and that all such offenders need to repent, is shocking to people in the corporate suites, but these same people in the corporate suites are learning that they have a large paying audience which doesn’t have a problem with such sentiments.

    Imagine a gay TV personality who said that refusing to affirm his sexual orientation is an offense against God, because Jesus. Such a statement would be just as judgmental as what Robertson said, but I can’t see anyone getting fired over it.

    1. Well, if one sees nothing wrong with sodomy, and does not equate it with being a drunkard, adulterer, slanderers and swindlers, (to say nothing of bestiality) then you can kind of see the offense they might take, right?

      1. I repeat – if they actually believed that saying this was the equivalent of praising Hitler, or saying that sometimes you have to lynch some black people to keep them in line, then it would have been their moral duty not to employ Robertson ever again. Apparently, they don’t believe this.

        And I don’t think gay TV personalities would have much to worry about if they said that homophobia was an abomination against God, hated by Christ, etc. Judgmentalism is in the eye of the beholder.

        1. And I don’t see many TV personalities getting in trouble for saying that it’s a sin against the earth to use fossil fuels – they wouldn’t even see this as controversial, just part of what every decent person believes.

          1. “I don’t see many TV personalities getting in trouble for saying that it’s a sin against the earth to use fossil fuels ”

            That is a pretty strange analogy, making a statement about political policy vs. making a statement about a group of people. A better one would be the amount of abuse that Southerners get in the media without an eyelash being batted.

            1. Fossil-fuel users are “a group of people.”

              1. And then Jesus said to Eduard’s analogy, ‘take up thy bed and walk!’

                1. Now you’re getting the hang of snark. Kinda fun, isn’t it?

                  1. But it would have been even funnier if you’d made a joke about healing the lame, just FYI.

                    1. The joke was about the lame, as in your argument. Do you not know your miracles?

                    2. I was thinking of Matt 9:6, the healing of the paralytic. You may have been thinking of a similar remark in John 5:8, the healing at the pool.

                      To quote the book of Zecharian: “puhtayto, puhtahto.”

                    3. Can you blame a fellow for thinking of a pool party on such a cold winter’s night?

                    4. Not if you’re Finnish.

                      Thank you, you’ve been a wonderful audience, be sure to tip your sauna attendants.

                    5. Sauna attendants?

                      This is starting to sound like the kind of place Phil would disapprove of…

            2. abuse that Southerners get in the media

              This is fair. Southerners deserve it. Same with New Englanders and Midwesterners.

              Horrible idiots all of them.

        2. I do not know if anyone thought the comment was equivalent to praising Hitler, there are degrees of this. But sure, I would agree that the network is, and has not, been guided by some respectable moral principle in any of this.

          I think there can be important differences in condemning homosexuals and condemning ‘homophobia’ that might justify the different treatment, but I think as to how any would be treated the context would be important. If the gay TV personality were, say, on CBN or some like network they would likely risk their job for saying that (or even just being gay).

          1. homophobe is a bigot word. its a negative moral statement identifier.

            faggot is of same type. just like ‘n’ word.

            but homophobe and faggot are twins.

            homosexual is a morally neutral identifier. What’s funny is there is no morally neutral word for someone who opposed homosexuality.

            think about that. there are less than 5% of the population who are gay, yet we can find a morally neutral word for them. meanwhile there are atleast 30% of US citizens who strongly oppose homosexuality, and there is only 1 identifier for them, and its definition explicitly means they are in a state of evil.

            1. Why do you think I put it in scare quotes?

      2. What the fuck is wrong with being drunkard?!?!

        1. Ask Phil Robertson, he said it, I just quoted him.

          1. Well, the fact that drinking in his 20s nearly ended his marriage might have had something to do with it.

        2. Being born and raised in the South – I don’t trust any Southerners who don’t drink beer.

    2. Eduard van Haalen|12.27.13 @ 7:55PM|#
      “Well, if they sincerely believed that Robertson had said the equivalent of “Hitler was awesome, he should have killed more people!” then they should have fired him and never rehired him no matter how popular he was.”

      Dunno.
      The Catholics let the Pope get away with ‘I know some nice Marxists’.

      1. He was loving the sinner while hating the sin. The Pope seems to have a gift for befriending people, even tax collectors and sinners.

        I mean, he’s from Argentina, you’d have to be a hermit to avoid meeting Marxists there.

  14. Oh look, Tulpa2 decided to shit all over the thread with his not terribly insightful to anyone but him and barely rising to the level of college freshman high on pot observations like “but on the other hand by not excluding the intolerant they have suddenly caused their community to not be a ‘tolerant’ one.”.

    You’re not insightful. You’re not clever. You’re an idiot. And for some reason, no one has drilled that into your bloviating idiot head yet.

    1. And a happy new year to you!

    2. You’re not insightful. You’re not clever. You’re an idiot. And for some reason, no one has drilled that into your bloviating idiot head yet.

      Amen!

      1. No shit…

    3. “You’re not insightful. You’re not clever. You’re an idiot. And for some reason, no one has drilled that into your bloviating idiot head yet.”

      Wonderfully well said. And I couldn’t agree more.

      1. That you fellows are in such happy agreement with a clearly deranged person should speak volumes about where your partisan proclivities have taken your minds.

        But really, it is not like anyone who has spent time as a libertarian is not used to a few packs of GOP/conservative friendlies jumping on the bandwagon and trying to hijack the movement, especially when a Democrat is in office. Of course you hate anyone who challenges your GOP narrative, and if your following me from comment to comment to comment does not show that, your syncophantic agreement with what is clearly a deranged person, as long as they are criticizing me, lights that up for all to se.

        1. No, Bo, it isn’t me. It’s you. I have no problem with someone “challenging the GOP narrative”, when they argue from an honest position of goodwill with intellectual integrity. You don’t. And when you get called on it, you whine like a little bitch that everyone’s picking on poor little Bo. Well, no, we aren’t. You’ve made it very clear (in referring to yourself as “winning” discussions) that you’re not here to engage in an honest exchange of ideas, but to try to best other commenters. When I read many of the other commenters, even those I disagree with, I can often find quite good insights into the matters under discussion. Rarely is that ever the case with you. Instead, you subject us to hair splitting, false legalism, long tirades on minor sub-points, and distractions with false equivalences.

          1. Bill, your entire argument is totally undermined by your enthusiastic agreement with what is clearly a deranged, trolling stalker of mine. That you would agree so readily with him in order to take a shot at me shows plainly it is you who, like many partisan conservatives, does not value honest disagreement on goodwill on matters of conservative faith.

            As I said, anyone with any experience around libertarian groups, especially when a Democrat is in the WH, has seen plenty of that.

            1. Bill, your entire argument is totally undermined by your enthusiastic agreement with what is clearly a deranged, trolling stalker of mine.

              You were the one going back and forth with him, dummy.

              That you would agree so readily with him in order to take a shot at me shows plainly it is you who, like many partisan conservatives, does not value honest disagreement on goodwill on matters of conservative faith.

              Make a goodwill argument instead of your typical passive-aggressive methodology, and you might get more dialogue. As it is, your complaint boils down to THOSE HORRIBLE SOCONS ARE MEAN A BLOO BLOO BLOO :gooncry:

            2. HIS views are irrelevant to the legitimacy of his claims about YOU. You don’t argue in good faith. You “shit on the threads”. It isn’t clever and it doesn’t add to the discussion.

  15. Trayvon Martin is the Reason for the Season

    Trayvon Martin hasn’t been forgotten at Claremont United Methodist Church in Claremont, Cali.– in fact, he appears front and center in their Nativity display. He serves as a bloody and tragic reminder of the dangers of gun violence and racial privilege in today’s America, reports David Allen of the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

    Amongst the traditional holy family, Martin sits hunched over in his iconic black hoodie, blood pouring from his chest and pooling at his feet, reports Patch.com. The title of the scene, “A Child is Born, a Son is Given,” is outlined within the blood and evokes themes of both Christmas and Easter, according to artist John Zachary, who has been creating thought-provoking displays since 2007.

    Zachary told Allen in an interview that the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who fatally shot the unarmed teenager in 2012, “struck him as a worthy subject for Christmas comment.”

    “There is no better time to reflect on gun violence than advent, when we celebrate the birth of Jesus,” says a sign at the church.. “Jesus was born into a state of total vulnerability as an innocent, unarmed child during a time of great violence much like Trayvon Martin.”

    As families gather together at Christmas to celebrate, Zachary hopes to get them to think long and hard about their own blessings and privileges.

    Wow.

    1. I know I think the scene in the Christmas story that left the most indelible mark in my mind was when the Baby Jesus punched the Magi in the face for following him.

      1. No, actually, it’s because tolerance isn’t a ratio, so a “community” can’t be “tolerant”.

        It’s behavior, on a case by case basis. So, in this case, by exhibiting the BEHAVIOR of TOLERANCE, they are BEING TOLERANT, but you are using this as some kind of evidence of INTOLERANCE.

        You’re the one that tossed out a stupid fucking argument with no support. And it consisted of “being tolerant makes them intolerant”. WHich only illuminated that you have exactly no idea what tolerance is, and aren’t terribly bright to boot.

        1. You really are a deranged person.

          1. Solid counter to my clearly written argument.

            Insult me more now.

            1. “Insult me more now.”

              He said, with a lurid grin.

              1. Yet another solid argument.

                Insult me again.

                1. “Insult me again.”

                  Please, he whispered.

                  1. “Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:41PM|#

                    If my refutation at 8:42 did not convince you”

                    Quote your refutation from 8:42 or admit you’re a liar, and that it doesn’t exist.

      2. know I think the scene in the Christmas story that left the most indelible mark in my mind was when the Baby Jesus punched the Magi in the face for following him.

        Good one Bo.

        1. I mean, what kind of a ‘wise man’ stalks a young person at night? He had it coming!

          1. One wise in the ways of Gomorrah

            / Trayvon

      3. It’s a little before the scene where the Magi get worried about Baby Jesus having a gun only after they started getting their asses kicked by someone younger and in better shape.

        1. I think the players in your analogy have switched roles, sort of like Rashomon.

          1. Meh. Regardless of whether what happened was legal I don’t think it was right. I do know that if I’m being followed by someone acting suspiciously I’d be willing to slug the guy too.

    2. Some people just can’t stop trying to climb on dead bodies. Like, ever.

      1. I don’t need to know about your sex life.

    3. Jesus was born into a state of total vulnerability as an innocent, unarmed child during a time of great violence much like Trayvon Martin.

      Some weapons-grade derp right there.

  16. So, now that Bo has proven my point about shitting all over the thread, by shitting all over the thread, and decided to lie rather than admit he sucks at logic, I’ll take my leave.

    And bookmark this for the next time you show up and shit all over another thread.

    1. deja vu, all over again?

      1. Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:28PM|#

        Ipse dixit, the argument of champions?

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:37PM|#

        “a “community” can’t be “tolerant”.”

        Pretty silly, but perhaps if it had been posted a third time, with more all caps?

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:41PM|#

        If my refutation at 8:42 did not convince you, nothing will my friend.

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:45PM|#

        OK, that was cruel, I apologize.

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:47PM|#

        The refutation is right behind the snipe. Find it and you find the refutation!

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:51PM|#

        He came, he saw, he conquered.

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:34PM|#

        You really are a deranged person.

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:38PM|#

        “Insult me more now.”

        He said, with a lurid grin.

        Bo Cara Esq.|12.27.13 @ 8:43PM|#

        “Insult me again.”

        Please, he whispered.

        YEAH THAT’S SOLID COMMENTARY MAN! YOU TOTALLY DIDN’T SHIT ALL OVER THE THREAD OR ANYTHING!

  17. I guess I picked the wrong thread for intelligent debate.

    Nothing here but Bo being Bo.

    1. So you are ‘shut up mary?’

      1. So you are ‘shut up mary?’

        Yeah, there’s totally only 1 single person in the whole world who thinks you’re an abject retard.

        1. Franscisco has ostensibly filtered me and so can not read my comments.

          1. Yeah, but he’s sleuthy; he might have inferred it from the wall of blank comments and the responses that mention your name.

          2. Just cause you’re filtered doesn’t mean when someone says your name that they get filtered too.

      2. I’m Sparticus.

  18. The fuck is going on here? This thread is full of blank slots from people Reasonable filters.

  19. Hudson Hawk…extremely underrated.

    Should have a huge cult following. I don’t get it.

    1. Haven’t seen it in ages. How about Split Second?

      80s and early 90s were great times for movies, especially the ones in the 90s that felt like 80s movies.

      1. It’s on Encore.

        Never saw Split Second. Do I need to rent it?

        1. It’s campy.

          “We need to get bigger guns. BIG FUCKING GUNS!”

          Honestly don’t remember a whole lot at the moment, but it’s fun.

          1. Daddy would have gotten us Uzis.

            (Night of the Comet)

            In college we’d do B movie Sundays. We’d go to the Uni-mart, rent the worst looking movies we could find and drink our hangovers away.

            Buckaroo Banzai
            Remo Williams…

            I love cheesy movies.

            1. Buckaroo Banzai is particularly awesome. I’ll have to check out the other.

              For my money, Evil Dead 2 is the peak of 80s horror.

              1. Ice Pirates – the best cheesy 80’s movie.

            2. Buckaroo Banzai = fucking epic.

      2. Michael Keaton movies.

        1. Night Shift!

    2. Well, I’m kinda partial to AMC Pacers, myself.

    3. I feel the same about Remo Williams the adventure begins.

  20. Hey guys what’d I miss?

  21. “@AdamMinter: @BloombergView could be worse – my comment threads occasionally suggest I’m operating out of a CIA station.” You win.

    This place was better when Postrel was running the CIA station.

  22. I jsut cant imagine anyone with an ounce of common sense watching that nonsense!

    http://www.BeinAnon.tk

  23. I go away for a day and this thread is what happens?!

    1. We all blame you for the decline around here. The pivotal moment was when you admitted you don’t like pants.

  24. I got half way through the comments and did not see anyone saying it so I guess I have to.

    Tolerance. I dont think this word means what A&E thinks it means.

  25. Classic video games from the 1970s and 1980s have been put online by the Internet Archive and can be played within a web browser for nothing.

    1. But for how long? Look at what Nintendo did to Full Screen Mario

      1. Did anyone tell the author of the slate hit piece on it? Would love to get his take on intellectual property uber alles.

        Nice to see it’s still on github. Will clone.

  26. As someone commented elsewhere:

    Duck hunters: 1
    Dick hunters: 0

    1. I don’t know. I’m willing to bet that soon A&E and will make a donation to GLAAD or some other gay rights group to affirm their “unwavering support for LGBTQIA community”.

      1. No doubt GLAAD will raise some money off this, though the negative publicity might hurt. Turns out they have a blacklist called the “commentator accountability project.”

  27. Master of Comedy?

    Albert Brooks ?@AlbertBrooks
    A & E promises to have more gay ducks.

  28. Wow – more about the DD stuff for me to not care about. Thanks!

  29. Netflix keeps telling me to watch Trading Places.

    1. It’s pretty good.

      1. It also told me to watch Black Adder’s Christmas Carol, which I of course did.

  30. Fucking kidney stones.

    This is bullshit of the highest order.

    That is all.

    1. You shall not pass!

    2. Ohhhh! No!

      I can TOTALLY empathize – may this soon come to…pass.

      Yeah….:( Good luck!

      PS Toradol – made for kidney stone pain. Totally works…just a suggestion from experience…

    3. Stay hydrated, my friends.

  31. HuffPo runs story about how the 0care website is working and the derpsquads are cackling about how they’ve been proven right. And also something herpaderp about Target and UPS screwing up proving that the government is better at things.

    No mention about if the back-end is working and will the insurance companies will be paid. No mention about the massive security holes. No concern over the fact that most people will have worse coverage for more cost.

    No clue at all about just because part of a website is working does not mean at all that the rest of the idea works and of course no awareness of what is coming down the pike.

    These people are so fucking stupid it’s hard to understand how they function at all in society.

    1. Tim H. (Sing_Out_and_Slap_Iron)
      6
      355 Fans?What’s that smell?
      What? The healthcare plan is gonna get better?

      While the republicans play checkers, the president plays three dimensional chess. Spock and Sarek would bow the president.

      The Greatest Genius in History.

      Nick Blade (CommentSense)
      9
      388 Fans
      The Baggervii want to keep returning to the same corporate health care policies that were in place just 5 years ago. “Free enterprise” health care corporations that taking advantage of Americans with junk insurance policies while corporate executives receiving huge bonuses based on their profitability. Their business model was collecting more money while paying the least amount of benefits.

      With the ACA the goal is preventative health care and it starts with free annual physical exams. BTW, private insurance companies are now on board and competing for clients, but now on a more leveled playing field. Checked their stocks lately? Everyone wins.

      Thank you President Obama.

      Barack the Liberator. I kneel and kiss your hand.

      Bob M. (snowmassey)
      8
      1,315 Fans?Tea. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
      What a surprise.
      Is it possible that foxlimbaughbeck were telling
      falsehoods about ACA the entire time?
      Of course they were.
      It’s what the kochbros pay them to do.
      27 DEC 8:13 PM
      REPLY FAVE MORE

      Gay D. (gaydood)
      2
      4,669 Fans?VOTE OUT THE REPUBS !!!
      stop them and ALEC
      27 DEC 8:17 PM

      Hey, why haven’t I received my Koch-ALEC paycheck?

      1. The communist personality cults of the 20th century only dreamed of having bootlickers with the dedication Obama’s sycophants demonstrate.

    2. That’s the problem with all the focus on the web site, as opposed to Obamacare itself.

      The website will eventually get fixed. Obamacare will not.

  32. UberFacts ?@UberFacts
    One alcoholic drink a day can reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes by up to 30%.

    Think of what 10 will do!

    1. I wonder if eggnog or Irish cream straight-up counts…

  33. I’ll be damned; they actually stood up to the Gay Mafia. Good for them; I never thought it would happen.

  34. So wait. I bought all of those Duck Dynasty Chia Pets for nothing?????

    Fuckers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.