I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[tussin]

"Who am I to judge?"

-Pope Francis

Yeah, that quote was taken completely out of context.

Pope Francis explicitly re-affirms the Catechism on homosexuality and criticizes the gay lobby as a serious problem « Protect the Pope

 

[wizards8507]

Can people who prefer Chicago Style pizza not get married, get fired for no reason, get bullied until they commit suicide at extremely high rates, and are an unprotected class?

Yes.

 

[magogian]

So, I'm browsing the Duck Commander online store for the first time. I'm thinking maybe I could buy something to support them. Duck Commander Store | Duck Commander

Lordie. There really is nothing for a Loop-living Chicagoan to buy. Its hilarious actually.

Maybe the Cajun seasoning?

 

[Cackalacky]

I guess I come down here...sort of. Sort of because he can't be a good Christian if he isn't trying to save others who he perceives as crosswise with God. I don't do it...but I am real tolerant of other faiths who try and "save" me because I know WHY they do it.

I really think people confuse a guy like this with someone in an elected position poised to make policy. Not the same thing...He's just another star with a controversial opinion...BFD!

I agree....BFD. I am much less tolerant of that behavior because I have multi-ethnic, gay, and other religious family members that I deeply love. Ever seen a Southern Baptist, Catholic and a Bhuddist go at it over the rewards for good deeds?

 

[nlroma1o]

Can people who prefer Chicago Style pizza not get married, get fired for no reason, get bullied until they commit suicide at extremely high rates, and are an unprotected class?

The above has nothing to do with the quote I addressed... Kind of confused. I think people should be able to do what ever they want. I had issues with your statement that just because someone talks about their beliefs, does not mean that they are trying to spew hatred into the world.

 

[wizards8507]

So, I'm browsing the Duck Commander online store for the first time. I'm thinking maybe I could buy something to support them. Duck Commander Store | Duck Commander

Lordie. There really is nothing for a Loop-living Chicagoan to buy. Its hilarious actually.

Maybe the Cajun seasoning?

Make sure it's "Duck Commander" brand, not "Duck Dynasty." That money goes to A&E.

I believe UnderArmour is the official camo provider of Duck Commander, to tie into ND.

 

[chubler]

Calling it "entitlement" makes it sound like he means black people think they are "entitled" to free things, which is a race issue.

That's the technical word for the category of mostly means-tested government programs designed to provide a social safety net, like food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, and the like.

In fact, his use of the word "entitlement" in that instance was not only 100% factually correct, but also rhetorically and stylistically correct was well. Completely "politically correct", if you want to go down that road.

I'd advise you lay off the criticism unless you can ground it in something real.

 

[magogian]

Are you just trolling us now? "Entitlement program" is a VERY common turn of phrase in the American vernacular. Have you seriously never heard it used in this context? Do a quick Google of "entitlement program," or "entitlement reform."

You should realize that so many people here are remarkably uninformed.

 

[woolybug25]

So, I'm browsing the Duck Commander online store for the first time. I'm thinking maybe I could buy something to support them. Duck Commander Store | Duck Commander

Lordie. There really is nothing for a Loop-living Chicagoan to buy. Its hilarious actually.

Maybe the Cajun seasoning?

I believe Phil would refer to you as a "yuppie"...

I hope you're not offended...

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Not at all. He's never been confronted on the topic. He was specifically asked what he believed were sins. He answered the question.

The slimy "journalist" peppered him with a bunch of these questions until he got a bite.

He's never be interviewed by GQ before. He's been very open about his faith in numerous interviews.

So he was "tricked" into saying this?

My whole argument on this is he knew what he was doing. There is a reason such a deeply religious Christian waited 4/5 years to let his thoughts out on gays out the bag.


And for the race and entitlements things. Yeah it was about race that was the whole damn paragraph... He basically says He never saw a black person angry or angry at whites... then entitlements and welfare came along. SO black people were happy and then they got fucked up by welfare and entitlements. Correct me if Im wrong here.

Here it's

never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," he told GQ. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. 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," GQ quoted Robertson as saying.

 

[ACamp1900]

It offends me that all of those goof balls seem to have hot wives... at least by the pictures... good lord, the Beatles were full of shit.

 

[magogian]

It offends me that all of those goof balls seem to have hot wives... at least by the pictures... good lord, the Beatles were full of shit.

Calls your whole life into question, huh?

 

[magogian]

I believe Phil would refer to you as a "yuppie"...

Probably would, lol.

 

[nlroma1o]

It offends me that all of those goof balls seem to have hot wives... at least by the pictures... good lord, the Beatles were full of shit.

I know DUDE!!!! It must be the beards...

 

[tussin]

Really? There are 3 really big cable news channels that people watch. Here are their average daily viewership for 2013
Fox: 1,770,000
MSNBC: 645,000
CNN: 578,000
If you want we can include Headline news : 403,000

Shockingly Fox has a higher daily average than the next 3 combined. So before you start whining about one side controlling the narrative, why don't you look at the hard numbers.

CNN Ratings, 11 Months Into the Year It's Still Fox and the Fogies | Reese Schonfeld

I don't think ratings numbers for three channels are indicative of the overall narrative of American media. American television and newspapers are driven by execs and media members that are overwhelming to the left. I don't see how you can honestly argue that there is equal coverage for both sides of the aisle.

Old article, but still applies:
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters UPDATED! | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[wizards8507]

I believe Phil would refer to you as a "yuppie"...

I hope you're not offended...

So he was "tricked" into saying this?

Not what I meant. If he were asked the same question 10 years ago, I think he would have given the same answer. He just wasn't asked. That's the other thing. It's not like he's going out of his way to stuff this down our throats. He was asked a point-blank question and he answered it. GQ brought this up and he answered honestly.

My whole argument on this is he knew what he was doing. There is a reason such a deeply religious Christian waited 4/5 years to let his thoughts out on gays out the bag.

If you mean he was looking for a bigger "mountain" to shout from, I agree. If you mean he wanted to wait until he was "invincible" so he could get away with it, I disagree.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

And for the race and entitlements things. Yeah it was about race that was the whole damn paragraph... He basically says He never saw a black person angry or angry at whites... then entitlements and welfare came along. SO black people were happy and then they got fucked up by welfare and entitlements. Correct me if Im wrong here.

He wasn't talking about "black people" generally. He was talking about the specific black people he knew. Again, liberals view people in groups. Phil views people as individuals. Those people, who happened to be black, were pretty happy. After all the entitlement programs and whatnot, there are malcontent black people and malcontent white people. The entitlement programs didn't fix what they were supposed to fix. "Getting fucked up by welfare and entitlements" might be pretty close to the mark, but that doesnt mean "fucked up by eliminating Jim Crow laws and desegregating schools." He's obviously against entitlement programs, but eliminating Jim Crow is not an entitlement program.

EDIT: Phil also called them "godly," which is about the biggest sign of respect a guy like him can give.

 

[wizards8507]

It offends me that all of those goof balls seem to have hot wives... at least by the pictures... good lord, the Beatles were full of shit.

Yeah they're all hot.

But the guys are pretty normal / good looking without the janky beards.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

There's a difference between what you HAVE A RIGHT to do and what IS RIGHT to do. Yes, an employer CAN fire an employee over comments made in public. I don't believe an employer SHOULD fire an employee over comments made in public, these comments in particular. No one is saying A&E should be sued over this. But they might be making the (equally free) decision that the network's values do not allign with their own.

Our forefathers had enough wisdom for just this. What is "right" for you, beyond what is codified in the legal system may be different than what is "right" for me. And if one of us has personal proclivities that drive us to side with the majority, it is no more or less right than that of the other; not even when the ratio is 99:1, unless that right thing is codified into law.

True, I can fire you for having blonde hair. And I can fire you for poor job performance. It is easier for fire someone for hair color. Because the law does not make you specify a reason for firing someone. At will employment has become the custom and for all intents the law of the land. But you cannot fire someone for being black (African American) or Hispanic, or Native American. That is illegal. Forces have been trying to gut that legislation for years. But not yet. What I think most people in America (at least the majority in every respectable poll) have been trying to accomplish is adding the LGC to this group, so it would be illegal for gay job discrimination.

Some of the opinions here have me absolutely flummoxed. Some of the facts quoted are further askew :

First to save bickering, Good Christians (whatever that means) and Gays are not diametrically opposed groups, so addition of their respective actual percentages do not equal 100, they could be more or less, so percentages are meaningless. As far as actual homosexuals in the population, everything I have read is that 14% is a good number. Now if you want to add gender misidentification, all physiological and psychological issues, I think that comprises about 1% of the population. Now we face a question; do we add all the latent homosexuals that repress their true feelings and channel them into anti-gay sentiment and rage? If so we probably add nearly another five percent, to get a total of close to 20% of the population. That is one out of five people. Which is why A&E puts so much emphasis on the feelings of this group.

And by the way, again, show me where real Christianity sanctioned us against homosexuality, let alone where Jesus behaved like some of you are acting. This is what I got, and I went back to an early source for it.


Q 6:20-21 The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning
20 <…> And •rais‚ing his •eyes to‚ his disciples he said: Blessed are •«you»‚ poor, for God's reign is for •you‚. 21 Blessed are •«you»‚ who hunger, for •you‚ will eat •your‚ fill. Blessed are •«you»‚ who •mourn‚, for •<you> will be consoled‚.

Q 6:22-23 The Beatitude for the Persecuted
22 Blessed are you when they insult and •persecute‚ you, and •say every kind of‚ evil •against‚ you because of the son of humanity. 23 Be glad and •exult‚, for vast is your reward in heaven. For this is how they •persecuted‚ the prophets who «were» before you.

Q 6: 27-28, 35c-d Love Your Enemies
27 Love your enemies 28 •and‚ pray for those •persecuting‚ you, 35c-d so that you may become sons of your Father, for he raises his sun on bad and •good and rains on the just and unjust‚.

Q 6:29-30 Renouncing One's Own Rights
29 •The one who slaps‚ you on the cheek, offer •him‚ the other as well; and •to the person wanting to take you to court and get‚ your shirt, •turn over to him‚ the coat as well. •29?30/Matt 5:41‚ •«And the one who conscripts you for one mile, go with him a second.»‚ 30 To the one who asks of you, give; and •from the one who borrows, do not •ask‚ back •«what is»‚ yours.

Q 6:31 The Golden Rule
31 And the way you want people to treat you, that is how you treat them.

Q 6:32, 34 Impartial Love
32 .. If you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Do not even tax collectors do the same? 34 And if you •lend «to those» from whom you hope to receive, what <reward do> you < have>?‚??? Do not even •the Gentiles‚ do the same?

Q 6:36 Being Full of Pity like Your Father
36 Be full of pity, just as your Father .. is full of pity.

Q 6:37-38 Not Judging
37 .. Do not pass judgment, «so» you are not judged. •For with what judgment you pass judgment, you will be judged.‚ 38 •And‚ with the measurement you use to measure out, it will be measured out to you.

The English Translation of the Sayings Gospel Q

And by the way, don't quote Paul and call him, "Not a socialist." That works for and is humorous when referring to Jesus, but, not so much when talking about anyone else. And when you do, quote them in context. Looking at Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, beyond some scholarly doubt of their authenticity, the first part is a sales job by Paul of himself, and the second is an exhortation to get preaching. Little if anything from the letters is directly referenced in anything Jesus said.

 

[IrishLax]

Calling it "entitlement" makes it sound like he means black people think they are "entitled" to free things, which is a race issue.

THEY ARE CALLED ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!

That is their name! It isn't a race issue.

Good grief. . .

That's the technical word for the category of mostly means-tested government programs designed to provide a social safety net, like food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, and the like.

In fact, his use of the word "entitlement" in that instance was not only 100% factually correct, but also rhetorically and stylistically correct was well. Completely "politically correct", if you want to go down that road.

I'd advise you lay off the criticism unless you can ground it in something real.

I'm pretty sure he was just being sarcastic and/or trolling.

Either that, or this this is simply hilarious.

 

[woolybug25]

So he was "tricked" into saying this?

My whole argument on this is he knew what he was doing. There is a reason such a deeply religious Christian waited 4/5 years to let his thoughts out on gays out the bag.


And for the race and entitlements things. Yeah it was about race that was the whole damn paragraph... He basically says He never saw a black person angry or angry at whites... then entitlements and welfare came along. SO black people were happy and then they got fucked up by welfare and entitlements. Correct me if Im wrong here.

Here it's

The interview was very "off the cuff" and conversational. The author asked him about his faith several times until he finally asked, "what do you consider sinful". Now... Phil could have not said anything, but he answered the question. Probably assuming that his comments wouldn't be spun in a contraversial angle for the article. This was suppose to be a puff piece.

On the second note, he was referencing the poor state that he and the black folks around him lived in. That they were all in it together, before entitlements/welfare. He wasn't insuiniating anything regarding any connections between the african american race and welfare.

That... and the belief that he compared homosexuality to beastiality are completely off base. Both are taken out of context, but are being spread rampantly by ALL news outlets. It's a shame because it shows that most people are making these absurd connections without knowing the first thing about the man or reading the article.

 

[Wild Bill]

Phil and Alec Baldwin would clean house if they did a realty show with some gay dudes on Bravo.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think his son Willie was actually on O'Reily a few months back.

I randomly remembered that.

I know that Joe, his brother, and his son. They were beaten badly with the stupid stick. It is an awful shame.

 

[Woneone]

So he was "tricked" into saying this?

My whole argument on this is he knew what he was doing. There is a reason such a deeply religious Christian waited 4/5 years to let his thoughts out on gays out the bag.


And for the race and entitlements things. Yeah it was about race that was the whole damn paragraph... He basically says He never saw a black person angry or angry at whites... then entitlements and welfare came along. SO black people were happy and then they got fucked up by welfare and entitlements. Correct me if Im wrong here.

Here it's

Based on the question (Did you see any racism pre-Civil Rights Movement), I took the use of Pre-Entitlements as a reference of time (almost substituting it instead of pre-Civil Rights), not using the Entitlements themselves as a "Before-After" effect.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Not what I meant. If he were asked the same question 10 years ago, I think he would have given the same answer. He just wasn't asked. That's the other thing. It's not like he's going out of his way to stuff this down our throats. He was asked a point-blank question and he answered it. GQ brought this up and he answered honestly.


If you mean he was looking for a bigger "mountain" to shout from, I agree. If you mean he wanted to wait until he was "invincible" so he could get away with it, I disagree.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

I don't think he plotted it out from the beginning to get to this point, but he had to know what was going to happen and he is now in position where his brand will last last past AE. so saying it wont destroy the show

He wasn't talking about "black people" generally. He was talking about the specific black people he knew. Again, liberals view people in groups. Phil views people as individuals. Those people, who happened to be black, were pretty happy. After all the entitlement programs and whatnot, there are malcontent black people and malcontent white people. The entitlement programs didn't fix what they were supposed to fix. "Getting fucked up by welfare and entitlements" might be pretty close to the mark, but that doesnt mean "fucked up by eliminating Jim Crow laws and desegregating schools." He's obviously against entitlement programs, but eliminating Jim Crow is not an entitlement program.

EDIT: Phil also called them "godly," which is about the biggest sign of respect a guy like him can give.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that a guy born in 1949 in Louisiana never met a black person who wasn't happy with how blacks were treated. And that all the black people *he knew* were happy and then welfare/entitlements ruined their lives....

.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't think ratings numbers for three channels are indicative of the overall narrative of American media. American television and newspapers are driven by execs and media members that are overwhelming to the left. I don't see how you can honestly argue that there is equal coverage for both sides of the aisle.

Old article, but still applies:
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters UPDATED! | WashingtonExaminer.com

Because if everyone is watching Fox it doesn't matter what is on the other networks. You can't control the news when no one is watching you. Sorry.

Also that article you linked only looks at money to Obama (which totaled a little over 1 million). I think it might be different if we looked at all donations to Democrats and Republicans as News Corp donated 1 million to the RGA. Yep that one donation equaled about all the money going to Obama from all the other organizations.

Also these organizations just want to put on what people will watch. These type of blowups get coverage because we the people want to watch them. Stop blaming the media and start blaming the people who want to watch/read this shit.

 

[Bluto]

Kind of hard for me to feel sorry for a media savvy (see the meticulous branding in Duck Dynasty), college educated, multimillionaire, celebrity getting beat up in the media.

Hopefully Kanye West is next. That guy is a walking stupid quote machine.

 

[magogian]

Welfare and entitlements and their affect on African-Americans is a very complicated issue. What I believe is both safe and accurate to say is that the social safety net has done little to improve the African-American situation beyond the guaranteed minimum. There is a significant amount of social science research suggesting that the increasing African-American dependence on such government programs has only further fractured the state of the African-American family, created a cycle of dependency, and failed to otherwise better their condition as proponents promised.

This is a time-consuming and complicated topic. And it isn't my intention to derail the thread onto this issue. But I wanted to point out that Phil is not necessarily wrong.

 

[Emcee77]

As a spokesperson/public figure I know you forfeit a lot of the typical protections typically (whether implicitly, or explicitly written into your contract). He's suspended for making comments that don't give with A&E's values... the comments were, as I understand them, largely based on a philosophical discussion with the interviewer on his "Christian" view of homosexuality and sin.

I think you might be thinking of defamation law? It's true that the law recognizes that we all have a right to talk about public figures and we don't want to chill public discourse by allowing public figures to be able to sue anyone who talks bad about them, so a public figure will have a harder time proving a defamation claim than a JoeSchmo. But I'm not aware of why a public figure would have less of a right to be free from employment discrimination.

It's funny because this is literally the least tolerant and most bigotted post in this thread BY FAR... yet you're calling out others for being bigots. The irony is unbelievable.

Ignore "Jesus freaks" for a second... let's say you have a strict Muslim who makes statements according to his religious beliefs that would be seen by some as anti-women's or anti-gay rights. Is he not allowed to have those beliefs either? Or is just "Jesus freaks" that you're a closed-minded bigot towards?

Well he could probably be fired for publicly making such statements, depending on what they were, what the context was, and what kind of disruption it caused. The fact that your actions are motivated by religion doesn't make you untouchable. If you do things based on your religion which can't be reconciled with a businesslike operation, then you can still be fired.

For instance (again I’m not an expert in this area, so tifwiw) I recall reading a case in which an employee, calling from his work phone, left an anonymous voice mail for a Jewish man in which he told the Jewish man that Jesus loves him and he hopes he finds Jesus or something like that. The Jewish man was able to trace the call back to the employer of the caller and sent an angry letter. The employer fired the caller. The court said there was no employment discrimination because the company was just protecting itself. So if a Muslim employee made anti-gay or anti-women statements in any way that would allow them to be interpreted as endorsed by the company, it could totally fire him. And I think that’s similar to what’s going on with Phil Robertson … A+E just doesn’t want to seem to endorse or agree with Phil Robertson on this. And that’s ok.

 

[phgreek]

I agree....BFD. I am much less tolerant of that behavior because I have multi-ethnic, gay, and other religious family members that I deeply love. Ever seen a Southern Baptist, Catholic and a Bhuddist go at it over the rewards for good deeds?

Southern Baptist, Catholic and a Bhuddist ......mmm probably not since college...

me too on the multireligiculturesexualpreference front. ...and no I won't tolerate finger wagging angry judgment, but I won't get in the middle of a respectful discussion because that can never hurt...

 

[Woneone]

Southern Baptist, Catholic and a Bhuddist ......mmm probably not since college...

me too on the multireligiculturesexualpreference front. ...and no I won't tolerate finger wagging angry judgment, but I won't get in the middle of a respectful discussion because that can never hurt...

There's a good, "Only the 'Front', never the 'Back' according to Phil" joke in there somewhere, I just can't put it together....