30
   

So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

 
 
jcboy
 
  7  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 04:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

the more I hear about Duke Dude the more I like him, not because i agree with him because I mostly do not, but the guy seems to live by some sort of a code of conduct that includes honesty.

lovely.


You would. You’d probably marry your 15 year old daughter off so she can be a mother at 16, then you’d have her working in that tacky ass diner of yours making sure the popcorn bowls are full at every table.

Lovely
BillRM
 
  -3  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 04:19 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
If someone says something outrageous and people speak up against them, they are trying to shut down free speech while the racist or bigot or whatever is just expressing his beliefs.


For a tiny tiny pressure group organization GAALD to send an employee to AE in an attempt to take away a man livelihood that is hardly the same thing at all as speaking up against his opinions.
BillRM
 
  -3  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 04:26 pm
@jcboy,
Quote:
you would. You’d probably marry your 15 year old daughter off so she can be a mother at 16


Plenty of 16 years old mothers in this society and almost all of them currently are without a husband to help raised their children with.

So a 16 years old birthing a child out of wedlock is to be prefer to a 16 years old with a husband?

PS Phil wife seems to have done well for herself as a matter of fact and have a stable relationship to raised her and his children in.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 04:35 pm
@jcboy,
Quote:
Let's get them girls married off when they are 15 or 16 when they can cook and pick your ducks. If you wait till they are 20, the only skill they will have is picking pockets.

If you wait until they are 20, the females may be too well educated and mature to go along with the way Phil thinks. Laughing

One episode of Duck Dynasty I watched, out of sheer curiosity, during the recent DD marathon, showed old Phil giving his version of a "sex education talk" to his teenage granddaughter and a young male friend while, I think, the couple was out on their first date. "Sex education"--as given by Phil-- was advocating abstinence. Nothing more than a kiss on the cheek, ever, before marriage. Pre-martial sex, as Phil advised them, leads only to, "gonorrhea, herpes, and crabs."

The two teens listened dutifully to the old man, but they seem to be exchanging glances suggesting they felt he was rather out of touch with today's world and today's teens. It came off more like a glimpse of how the younger generation humorously views the opinions of the old fogies who give them advice, than any serious sermon on the topic of pre-marital sex. And that was further emphasized by showing that Phil's idea of a great first date was going fishing for giant catfish, and then enjoying the messy job of gutting them with your bare hands. Just what every teen couple wants to do on a first date. Laughing

That was as close as he got on, any of the DD episodes I watched, to espousing any sort of views about how other people should act, based on his religious views--all of that stuff, that's overly religious or preachy, or that's at all controversial, is carefully edited, or just eliminated, from what is a carefully scripted version of life with the Robertson clan as shown on DD.

And Phil, in his younger days, definitely did not practice abstinence before he married his child bride. And it was a long time before he provided any sort of "stable relationship"--or even a tolerable relationship--for his wife and children. He was an abusive and violent man.
Quote:
This “man of God and family values” married 16-year-old Marsha Kay Carroway in 1966 after she was pregnant with their oldest son, worked as a commercial fisherman and was known around town as an alcoholic who abused his wife and children.

His violent behavior had him running from the law in his 20s when he beat up the couple who owned the bar he leased — putting both in the hospital.

With a warrant out for his arrest, Robertson fled the state and hid in the woods. He was also arrested and charged with other crimes.

The couple later filed a restraining order against him. He separated from his wife after throwing her and his kids out of their home several times during drunken rages.

Robertson says he later found God, cleaned up his life and reunited with his wife and family.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/51064

I'm glad, for his sake, and his family's sake, that Phil finally cleaned up his act.

But his own past behaviors suggest he is the last person who should be casting stones at anyone.

And, obviously, pre-marital sex brought him more than "gonorrhea, herpes, and crabs"--it also brought him a child I assume he loves very much, and a child he likely does not regard as tainted because he was conceived out of wedlock. And, if he had had proper "sex education" and not just admonitions about abstinence, he might have known more about preventing unwanted pregnancies, if that pregnancy with his first child was not opportune. And he might have waited before marrying, until he was stable enough to assume the responsibilities of being a husband and father.

Personally, I'd like to hear Phil do more ranting about the real "evils" of domestic abuse, and child abuse, and less ranting about the imagined evils he thinks others are causing through their private sexual behaviors, that really don't affect others at all.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 04:51 pm
@BillRM,
You seem bound and determined to ignore the fact that A&E didn't have to take any action, irrespective of what group demanded it do so.

Granted, the efforts of the gay activisit group(s) was an exercise in bullying, but A&E could easily have told them to fly a kite.

If, however, you are objecting to engineer's characterization of Roberstson as a racist and bigot while implying that the gay activists were paladins of decency and justice, I agree with you.

However, the gay activists aren't trying to shut down Free Speech. Anything but, as I am sure they would come to the aid of any homosexual who publically recounts his or her sexual activity in the basest of terms, but disguised as "art."

What they are trying to do is shut down speech with which they disagree and which they don't like. It's an entirely unpleasent effort, but within their rights as long as they don't threaten violence and such.

It only works on people who are weak, much the way any bullying does.

There must be something, if said or advocated, would drive you to register a protest with medium that published the offending words. Would that be you trying to shut down Free Speecch? And if you threatened to take your commerce elsewhere because of the offense, would that constitute an attempt to shut down Free Speech?

If the offense is great enough (to you) would you want the offender to profit from it? If, somehow, I can make a living from advocating (even tangentially) that children with blue eyes should be impaled, would you worry about my livelihood?

I am, of course, using extreme examples to make my case, but that is the way we have to look at issues like Free Speech.

If A&E's (possible) capitulation to gay activists offends you, you can register your offense with them by communicating with them and refusing to access their product.

I can assure you that your's will not be the only protest.

If, for ideological reasons, the Main Gazains at A&E suspended Phil, then it's hard to imagine how they can relent in the future. If they don't then we can say that they are at least prepared to sacrifice profit for principle I don't, for one second, believe this is the case.

Instead I believe their reaction was either:

1) A knee-jerk response to bullying tactics
2) A cynical means to attempt to drive up ratings and revenues.

I think both are equally likely.

Either way, they have pissed off a financially very important group to mollify a far less influential one.

Fortunately, the Robertson family isn't relying on A&E for their livlihood. They are not making anything close to what A&E is making on this series. There is no reason for them to swallow what they might consider a betrayal so that their little ones might go to college. A&E needs them more than they need A&E.

Hopefully, they will tell A&E to stick it and take their money making franchise to another network.
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 05:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I have a feeling that anyone who opines that homosexuality is a sin, no matter how reserved and circumspect their language would face the same reaction Robertson received.

Not at all. People express that sort of viewpoint all that time, and it doesn't provoke outrage, because it doesn't include the vile stereotyping--“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 ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil"--that Phil Robertson threw in of his own accord.

There is a difference between religiously biased viewpoints that homosexuality is sinful, and the sort of flat-out defamation, and vilification, and slander, of an entire group that Robertson engaged it. Where the latter is acceptable, even to those who don't agree, the former is offensive and really not acceptable, even to many Christians. The outrage was about Robertson's crossing that line.
Quote:
Fortunately, the Robertson family isn't relying on A&E for their livlihood. They are not making anything close to what A&E is making on this series. There is no reason for them to swallow what they might consider a betrayal so that their little ones might go to college. A&E needs them more than they need A&E.

Hopefully, they will tell A&E to stick it and take their money making franchise to another network.

The Robertsons just signed a multi-year contract with A & E this past August. They're not upset with A & E, or the money they're raking in thanks to A & E. And that contract prevents them from taking their franchise to another network--Duck Dynasty is A & E's franchise. And DD has enabled their business empire to swell considerably.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -2  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 05:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
You seem bound and determined to ignore the fact that A&E didn't have to take any action, irrespective of what group demanded it do so.


Completely independent of whether A&E was fool enough to go along with GAALD or not GAALD actions was as immoral as the keepers of the 1950s blacklists of actors,writers and others that should not be allow to have a movie careers.

Both GLAAD and A&E should be ashamed of their behaviors.

We are however talking about morals not legal elements here.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 05:38 pm
@BillRM,
Sixty years ago the target was people who was left wingers and now it right wing fundamental christians that should be ban from earning a living.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the mid-20th-century practice of denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and other U.S. entertainment professionals because of their suspected political beliefs or associations. Artists were barred from work on the basis of their alleged membership in or sympathy with the American Communist Party, involvement in progressive political causes that enforcers of the blacklist associated with communism, and refusal to assist investigations into Communist Party activities. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit and verifiable, but it caused direct damage to the careers of scores of individuals working in the film industry.

The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to give testimony to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. A group of studio executives, acting under the aegis of the Motion Picture Association of America, announced the firing of the artists—the so-called Hollywood Ten—in what has become known as the Waldorf Statement. On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels appeared, focusing on the field of broadcasting. It named 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of "Red Fascists and their sympathizers"; soon most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in much of the entertainment field. The blacklist was effectively broken in 1960 when Dalton Trumbo, an unrepentant communist member of the Hollywood Ten, was publicly acknowledged as the screenwriter of the films Spartacus by Kirk Douglasref blacklist Douglas. A number of those blacklisted, however, were still barred from work in their professions for years afterward.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 05:46 pm
@BillRM,
you are confusing reality tv stars with real actors.

surely you don't think the dumb dude has a SAG card...
firefly
 
  3  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 05:52 pm
@BillRM,
You are aware, aren't you, that all G.L.A.A.D. wanted was to speak with A & E, about Robertson's comments, aren't you? They wanted to express their point of view. And that was all the other activist groups, offended by Robertson's comments, wanted too.

They never called for the man to be fired.

And you completely ignore the Christian right-wing pressure groups, like the Family Research Council, and the organization Faith Driven Consumers, who opposed Robertson's suspension, and is still insisting that A & E, a private corporation show, "equal embrace of our biblically based values and deeply held beliefs". Since when should a private organization be pressured to "embrace" anyone's religious beliefs by their programming? It's the groups on the religious right who are acting like dictators.

There's a difference between activist groups saying they don't want their group to be insulted by a network's programming, or by the people identified with the network, and faith-based groups demanding that a private network "embrace" their particular religious views.

Engineer was very correct when he said this about you...
Quote:

But you do seem to have a problem with other people expressing their opinions of Phil's opinions. Phil's opinions seem to be valued free speech while those who disagree are the PC police. This seems to be a common thread. If someone says something outrageous and people speak up against them, they are trying to shut down free speech while the racist or bigot or whatever is just expressing his beliefs.


I suggest you take a look at the true pressure groups on the religious right, and the tactics they use to get what they want. They are very much the PC police, and the morality police, with their own definition of what is "correct" and "moral" for everyone. And they were just trying to bully A & E with threats of blacklisting.




0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 05:54 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
you are confusing reality tv stars with real actors.


Real actors? how amusing so you need to had a SAG card to have a career in TV/movies and without that card it is ok to blacklist your ass?

The last I hear they was being paid around 200,000 each a show and they are indeed performers.

Try harder to come up for a better excused to allow the rebirth of a blacklist.
firefly
 
  4  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 06:00 pm
@BillRM,
Lately, all you do is repeat whatever propaganda the anti-gay conservative Web sites are peddling, without any regard for the truth of the matter.

There was no call for Robertson to be fired by any of the activist groups I'm aware of. Although those opposing Robertson's suspension were calling for a blacklisting of A & E.

There is no specter of "blacklisting" being promoted by the civil rights activist groups. Your Chicken Little hysteria is starting to match Hawkeye's.

On the other hand, you're ignoring the calls for blacklisting coming from the other side. If you're so concerned about blacklisting, look at the tactics coming from groups representing the religious right-wing. That's who was bullying A & E. This wasn't just the sentiment of fans who like Duck Dynasty, and who want DD to stay on the air, it was an organized campaign against A & E by groups like Faith Based Consumers.

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/head_up_ass.jpg
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 06:01 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
surely you don't think the dumb dude has a SAG card


Footnote that dumb dude have a master degree do you and have a net worth of many millions do you?
firefly
 
  2  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 06:12 pm
A & E negotiated it's way out of this situation, not by silencing anyone, but by listening to everyone--including the Robertson clan.
Quote:
‘Duck Dynasty’: A&E Ends Phil Robertson Suspension; Aims to Turn Controversy into Teachable Moment

A+E Networks has maneuvered its way out of the “Duck Dynasty” controversy surrounding its top-rated show by consulting with the key advocacy groups in a position to raise the loudest ruckus over its response to the inflammatory remarks made by Phil Robertson about homosexuals and African-Americans, among other topics.

A&E said Friday it would lift the suspension against the family patriarch implemented on Dec. 18 after Robertson’s remarks in an interview with GQ made national headlines, exposing the lingering divide in the nation over the acceptance of homosexuality.

In the ensuing days, A+E Networks CEO Nancy Dubuc and other top execs had extensive conversations with the Robertson clan about how to move forward with the show after the decision to suspend Phil Robertson sparked a furor about his right to voice his opinions.

The execs also kept in close contact with reps for GLAAD, the NAACP and other orgs in an effort to find a path to allowing the show to continue. The rest of the family issued a statement in support of Robertson on Dec. 19, suggesting that they would not continue filming without him. But it was notable that none of the family members took to the media to bash A+E for the suspension, despite ample opportunities.

Before A+E announced its reversal on Robertson’s suspension and plans for a PSA campaign aimed at promoting tolerance, GLAAD and NAACP were apprised of the cabler’s decision — ensuring that there would be no immediate backlash from the two prominent advocacy orgs. The Robertson family’s reps at WME were also involved in the discussions, none of which were held face to face because of the holiday timing of the flap.

“After discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming ‘Duck Dynasty’ later this spring with the entire Robertson family,” the network said in a statement.

Robertson was placed on “indefinite hiatus” for saying “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.”

On Friday, A+E sought to continue to distance itself from those remarks by arguing that the show is not about politics or the cultural issues, but the homespun antics of the Louisiana-based family that made it big selling duck hunting equipment.

“We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article,” the statement said, “and reiterate that they are not views we hold. But ‘Duck Dynasty’ is not a show about one man’s views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness. These are three values that we at A+E Networks also feel strongly about.”

The sheer volume of punditry and commentary unleashed by Robertson’s comments and A+E’s initial response added urgency to the company’s need to find a resolution to the standoff with the family. Numerous conservative critics and orgs cited the suspension as an example of the media’s anti-Christian bias given the religious foundation of Robertson’s expressed beliefs, while GLAAD and other advocacy orgs condemned the sentiment behind his remarks as intolerant and highly insensitive....

The PSA campaign amounts to A+E’s attempt to turn the turmoil into a teachable moment, and also provide some cover. The decision to reinstate Robertson to the show may dampen A+E’s standing with some in the creative community, where tolerance and respect for gay rights are considered a given, not a subject for debate.

Details of the PSA campaign, which will run across A&E, History, Lifetime and other A+E outlets, were sparse on Friday. There was no word if any of the “Duck Dynasty” family members would appear in the spots, or if any of the issues would be addressed in the future episodes of the show.

A+E vowed that the campaign would promote “unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in ‘Duck Dynasty.’ “

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/phil-robertson-to-return-to-duck-dynasty-in-2014-1201003922


If there was any high road in this situation, I think it's the one A & E took.
IRFRANK
 
  6  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 06:51 pm
Firefly,

I appreciate your efforts to counter the outlandish and error filled posts that are showing up. You are doing a good job of being specific and accurate. You won't get any recognition from those you rebute, but some of are paying attention.
Rockhead
 
  4  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 06:55 pm
@BillRM,
dumb is as dumb does, billy.

I was involved in reality tv before it was called that.

it is not about art or talent.

it is all voyeurism and staged drama, spun to make lots of money.

off of folks like you...
BillRM
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 06:57 pm
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
are doing a good job of being specific and accurate


Firefly being specific and accurate what kind of mind altering drugs are you on?

LOL

Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 07:01 pm
@Rockhead,
So you were one of the artistic geniuses who gave us Jerry Springer?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 07:02 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
off of folks like you...


I do not watch that show even those I do enjoy the reality Pawn Stars show on History even those it is no longer a real pawn shop I found out from my one short visit to it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Sun 29 Dec, 2013 07:12 pm
@firefly,
No, it was the one the Robinson family took.

A&E was never going to kill their golden goose by "banning" Phil for more than a few weeks, and, by the way, the ban or hiatus (or whatever they want to call it) is a cynical joke. They didn't stop airing episodes (quite the contrary, they aired a marathon) and the new season hasn't gone into production.

Quote:
The PSA campaign amounts to A+E’s attempt to turn the turmoil into a teachable moment, and also provide some cover. The decision to reinstate Robertson to the show may dampen A+E’s standing with some in the creative community, where tolerance and respect for gay rights are considered a given, not a subject for debate.


PSA? Public Service Announcement?

Are they going to run 30 second spots featuring famous gay people saying it's OK to be gay?

Guess what? The overwhelming majority of Americans don't belong to the "creative community," and certainly this is the case for the Duck Dynasty audience. Why does anyone give a fig about what sits well with the "creative community?"

This is the same "community" that forces "creative conservatives" to hide their political opinions for fear of being black-balled.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 12:08:17