I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[Irish Houstonian]

How can you be so tone deaf when you work in PR?

She did have some other tweet about being really drunk.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

She did have some other tweet about being really drunk.

Ah. Maybe turn off the twitter machine when drunk.

 

[wizards8507]

I love the threads where we have two sides convinced of their righteousness. Fuck me I hate the two party system.

You only see two sides here? Maybe you should evaluate politicians based on their individual merits, not the the "two party system." A Rand Paul Republican, for example, is much different than a John McCain Republican. In this argument alone, I see several different points of view.

1. I agree with Phil and A&E was way off base in firing him.
2. I agree with Phil but A&E has the right to protect their brand.
3. I don't agree with Phil, but he has the right to speak his mind.
4. I don't agree with Phil and I'm glad that A&E fired him.
5. A&E had every right to fire Phil, but probably shouldn't have.
6. Phil is a homophobe and/or a racist.

I don't think the problem is a lack of diversity of thought. I think the problem is people who frame issues as one side versus the other without considering that individuals within the different groups might have nuanced views on the issue.

 

[phgreek]

I can't figure out the attempted humor angle

...was she saying she couldn't get laid in Africa because she was white

...was she saying she was pure, and not sexually active...(prolly not)

...does she think white people don't get aids

...does she think white people are magically cured in Africa?

...its like she wanted to get fired so she sent out a tweet with White being some exalted status over African or something...was this like suicide by cop...WTF

 

[wizards8507]

I can't figure out the attempted humor angle

...was she saying she couldn't get laid in Africa because she was white

...was she saying she was pure, and not sexually active...(prolly not)

...does she think white people don't get aids

...does she think white people are magically cured in Africa?

...its like she wanted to get fired so she sent out a tweet with White being some exalted status over African or something...was this like suicide by cop...WTF

That's my best guess. It reads like she honestly doesn't think white people can get AIDS.

 

[phgreek]

I love the threads where we have two sides convinced of their righteousness. Fuck me I hate the two party system.

BTW...thanks for the animated gif...

always looking for new ways to get my kids to run sprints with urgency...

how much do Gila monsters cost?

 

[wizards8507]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=azoWedQH8zQ

...but Phil Robertson is the one promoting harmful and stereotypical treatment of homosexuals. This video was produced by Out2Enroll, an LGBT Obamacare outreach group.

 

[ickythump1225]

I support Phil Robertson being able to say whatever the hell he wants. I don't agree with gay marriage and it's refreshing to have one voice out there with some platform voice disagreement with the issue. It's amazing how quickly these "loving" and "tolerant" liberals turn into vicious hate-mongers themselves when someone voices an opinion contrary to their narrative.

I do think A&E had every right to fire him but I do believe A&E will find they made a mistake as the number of Christian conservative types who love Duck Dynasty still far outnumber the number of gays in America no matter the MSM portrayal to the contrary.

For what it is worth...I don't even watch Duck Dynasty. I've never watched an episode nor have I bought any Duck Commander gear ever in my life.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It's amazing how quickly these "loving" and "tolerant" liberals turn into vicious hate-mongers themselves when someone voices an opinion contrary to their narrative.

I really believe this is a false equivalency. It is not a vice to be intolerant of people being intolerant. As I've said, Phil didn't comment on the legal rights and benefits of same-sex couples. His comments may give away what he thinks though (again, I admit that it's just an assumption).

That said, I do not endorse name calling from the left either.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This thread is amazing. People absolutely in love with their own intellects. Massive mental masturbation. It is like the faux-theology brought into the argument.

Here is my problem with faux-theology. If we are to accept the devil as a real creature, an absolute entity, why? Just look at this thread; we don't need one. We can visit all the evil on each other that we will ever need. If there were a devil, we would put him out of business!

People worrying about what some meaningless person says, and all the iterations, of meaningless gyrations of meaningless thought, while people are really surffering. Kind of like Rome burning and Nero fiddling. The argument remains when intelligent facts about the subject are exhausted . . . The end.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1b26BD5KjH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JSUIQgEVDM4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GoIrish41]

I support Phil Robertson being able to say whatever the hell he wants. I don't agree with gay marriage and it's refreshing to have one voice out there with some platform voice disagreement with the issue. It's amazing how quickly these "loving" and "tolerant" liberals turn into vicious hate-mongers themselves when someone voices an opinion contrary to their narrative.

I do think A&E had every right to fire him but I do believe A&E will find they made a mistake as the number of Christian conservative types who love Duck Dynasty still far outnumber the number of gays in America no matter the MSM portrayal to the contrary.

For what it is worth...I don't even watch Duck Dynasty. I've never watched an episode nor have I bought any Duck Commander gear ever in my life.

It's amazing how everything becomes a political argument with some people. Nobody is arguing that Phil Robertson doesn't have the right to say whatever the hell he wants to. The issue is about the consequences that he faces for saying it and if the backlash is appropriate. I believe A&E took appropriate action, and it may come back to bite them, and we'll see how strongly they feel about the position that they took. But when folks who don't agree with you and agree with A&E, you refer to them as vicious hate mongerers. The fact of the matter is that all of this could have been avoided if Phil Robertson would have moderated his public comments instead of choosing to say something that was going to be offensive to people. He chose not to. Its about civility.

 

[EddytoNow]

You only see two sides here? Maybe you should evaluate politicians based on their individual merits, not the the "two party system." A Rand Paul Republican, for example, is much different than a John McCain Republican. In this argument alone, I see several different points of view.

1. I agree with Phil and A&E was way off base in firing him.
2. I agree with Phil but A&E has the right to protect their brand.
3. I don't agree with Phil, but he has the right to speak his mind.
4. I don't agree with Phil and I'm glad that A&E fired him.
5. A&E had every right to fire Phil, but probably shouldn't have.
6. Phil is a homophobe and/or a racist.

I don't think the problem is a lack of diversity of thought. I think the problem is people who frame issues as one side versus the other without considering that individuals within the different groups might have nuanced views on the issue.

Number 3 pretty much sums up my position with this addition ...I have the right to disagree and to watch something else when Duck Dynasty is on TV.

 

[Rack Em]

Number 3 pretty much sums up my position with this addition ...I have the right to disagree and to watch something else when Duck Dynasty is on TV.

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is off the air though...

 

[gkIrish]

I think it's funny that OP only has 4 of the 500 + posts in this thread.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Number 3 pretty much sums up my position with this addition ...I have the right to disagree and to watch something else when Duck Dynasty is on TV.

Especially since the show sucks -- it's always a manufactured competition. Willie and Sy try to catch the most fish. Willie and his brother race lawnmowers. Willie and his brother play flag football. Willie and his brother drag race. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[BobD]

That list didn't include my POV.

1. I don't care what Phil Robertson thinks. I've always known there are people who think differently than me and accept that as an American, he has that right. He probably doesn't care what I think of him either. Anyone shocked by his opinion might also be shocked that there is probably a gay man who doesn't like camouflage clothing.

 

[phgreek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=azoWedQH8zQ

...but Phil Robertson is the one promoting harmful and stereotypical treatment of homosexuals. This video was produced by Out2Enroll, an LGBT Obamacare outreach group.

LGBT folks frolic around in strip-club garb all the time...or just at Christmas...errr sorry the "Holidays"....or just when considering health care choices...come on man everybody knows that...

I did laugh, and I normally would shrug, and say hey if that works for your immediate goal (signups), cool, there was a time when self effacing humor was cool...but yea that was some OUTRAGEOUS shit right there in light of the "sensitivity" projected by LGBT folks...Typical.

 

[phgreek]

That list didn't include my POV.

1. I don't care what Phil Robertson thinks. I've always known there are people who think differently than me and accept that as an American, he has that right. He probably doesn't care what I think of him either. Anyone shocked by his opinion might also be shocked that there is probably a gay man who doesn't like camouflage clothing.

YES...YES...YES...and that's some funny sh!t.

 

[tussin]

Isn't saying that homosexuals are sinners doing the same thing?

I was away and couldn't respond to this sooner.

My point was that Phil was stating his belief set when saying homosexual acts are sinful. He never specifically judged an individual or called someone else a bigot. Judge the sin, not the sinner. You can believe what you believe in, but you can never judge another person. The pope said as much recently.

 

[tussin]

Well you should get a refund.


So when he asked what he thinks is sinful and listed more than one (because there is more than 1 thing) he was in the wrong? Yeah ok.


Within Christianity all sins are equal. In God's eyes, heterosexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and something we see has petty as lying to your mom and dad about something small are all sins.

Agree with the general direction of this post as it relates to the DD controversy... but the bolded is not true.

 

[NDPhilly]

Agree with the general direction of this post as it relates to the DD controversy... but the bolded is not true.

Yup. If 13 years of catholic school has taught me anything it's the difference between Mortal and Venial sins.

 

[phgreek]

I was away and couldn't respond to this sooner.

My point was that Phil was stating his belief set when saying homosexual acts are sinful. He never specifically judged an individual or called someone else a bigot. Judge the sin, not the sinner. You can believe what you believe in, but you can never judge another person. The pope said as much recently.

YUP! This about sums up how we should a) perform missionary work b) interpret the vast majority of efforts to "save" us from those performing missionary work.

"sin" does not equal judgment/condemnation...that job is taken. And it is SERIOUSLY discouraging to me that the Pope needed to say that...it was ALWAYS supposed to be that way...ALWAYS.

 

[drayer54]

Robertson's defenders should read his comments again, because their defenses are off-point. If you're defending Robertson, here's what you're defending:

Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. 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."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus. "All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, 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 ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
This last one is key. My inbox is full of "love the sinner, hate the sin" defenses of Robertson's 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn't love gay people. He thinks they're, well, "full of murder." His views on gays are hateful, inasmuch as they are full of hate.

As a side note, it's remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson's sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It's almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.

You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then they're scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican "maker-vs.-taker" metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be "makers."

Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don't care for them. The "Duck Dynasty" episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson's honor, is just another example of why.



Read more: When You Defend Phil Robertson, Here's What You're Really Defending - Business Insider

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Robertson's defenders should read his comments again, because their defenses are off-point. If you're defending Robertson, here's what you're defending:

Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. 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."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus. "All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, 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 ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
This last one is key. My inbox is full of "love the sinner, hate the sin" defenses of Robertson's 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn't love gay people. He thinks they're, well, "full of murder." His views on gays are hateful, inasmuch as they are full of hate.

As a side note, it's remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson's sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It's almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.

You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then they're scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican "maker-vs.-taker" metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be "makers."

Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don't care for them. The "Duck Dynasty" episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson's honor, is just another example of why.



Read more: When You Defend Phil Robertson, Here's What You're Really Defending - Business Insider

Best post on Christmas award!

First, Islamists do hold a place of regard for Jesus, and are supposed to reflect his teachings and ways within the overall Islamic faith. (Their assholes appear to be in charge, too!)

Speaking of assholes. And I am not speaking of one single person that posted here. It springboards off the absolute judgment of all homosexuals Phil rendered. And how okay that is.

I heard five fundamentalist ministers, including one on CNN claim that homosexuals were more likely to be molesters. This is a trick tried and true by all kind of anti-gay groups including the American Conference of Bishops and many of its members. Spokes persons for many of the Dioceses involved in the abuse scandals tried to deflect and divert attention from the Church in this manner. That is all a lie. The guy I saw had his feet held to the fire for about a minute by the anchor, and then he started to throw a temper tantrum and then he was let off the hook. When asked what his proof was that gays were more likely to molest than straights, he mentioned something about how he had quoted that in one of his (own) books!

The truth is multiple studies, and quoted and State of Illinois study earlier, there is no significant difference in the rate of gay and straight pedophiles. This is a purposeful lie perpetrated by anti-gay forces to scare any non-gay individuals into supporting their otherwise untenable position. In fact, not only are gays no more likely molesters, the men that molest boys are highly more likely to identify themselves as heterosexual!

Just more of the hypocrisy this issue engenders.

 

[Rack Em]

I heard five fundamentalist ministers, including one on CNN claim that homosexuals were more likely to be molesters. This is a trick tried and true by all kind of anti-gay groups including the American Conference of Bishops and many of its members. Spokes persons for many of the Dioceses involved in the abuse scandals tried to deflect and divert attention from the Church in this manner. That is all a lie.

What?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

What?

Anti-gay groups (deflect attention or raise membership) claim gay=pedophile. People have been saying that all week. People equate all kinds of mental illness with homosexuality, when there is no evidence to prove it. (Just like back in the day bigoted whites claimed there were contagious diseases associated with African Americans. [Don't drink the same water.] And that African Americans were lazy, couldn't be smart enough to play quarterback, couldn't swim. Doesn't matter what. All have been said about both as smears.) By otherwise reputable groups, too!


Same principle -

How about this for the Irish : Drunk - Irish are stereotypically drunks.

Fumblin' Dublin - Known as a slur for drunk, unemployed, Irish men. They are usually found under the influence outside of Dublin's bars.


Donkey - It was cheaper to hire an Irishman than a donkey in the Pennsylvania coal mining days of the 1800s.

Mackerel Snapper - It can be applied to any Catholic, Irish or otherwise. In the past, Catholics were forbidden from eating meat on Fridays. They got around this the same way some vegetarians do, by eating fish (although technically this is not vegetarian, but "pescetarian"). Still observed in heavily-Catholic areas (they even have school/church fish-fry Fridays).

Mucker - Used in Boston because Irish immigrants could mostly only find employment helping to fill in the Back Bay which was at the time, marsh and water.

Nina – “No Irish Need Apply” (from the days of the potato famine and they immigrated to the US and nobody wanted to hire them)

See if it weren't for this backlash, the English and Waspish Americans may have looked like they were ducking responsibility for, oh say, genocide; see how it works?

And yes, American Bishops fueled the same "Gay=pedophile" conversation that evangelical brethren did.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I can't figure out the attempted humor angle

...was she saying she couldn't get laid in Africa because she was white

...was she saying she was pure, and not sexually active...(prolly not)

...does she think white people don't get aids

...does she think white people are magically cured in Africa?

...its like she wanted to get fired so she sent out a tweet with White being some exalted status over African or something...was this like suicide by cop...WTF

Not to defend her, but I think you're missing the obvious on this one: The rate of AIDs amongst black South Africans is many times higher than the rate of AIDs with white South Africans (HIV/AIDS in South African townships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

The humor (which was obviously in extremely poor taste) was taking that fact and then misconstruing the reason for that fact (white people are less likely to have AIDs turns into she's white, can't get AIDs.)

 

[phgreek]

Not to defend her, but I think you're missing the obvious on this one: The rate of AIDs amongst black South Africans is many times higher than the rate of AIDs with white South Africans (HIV/AIDS in South African townships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

The humor (which was obviously in extremely poor taste) was taking that fact and then misconstruing the reason for that fact (white people are less likely to have AIDs turns into she's white, can't get AIDs.)

...I can see that

context always helps...where she came from, and her involvement...

its kinda sad in that a word or two more/different and she wouldn't be in a career death spiral...

not so sad because she is a PR person...how do you screw that up?

 

[Kak7304]

Robertson's defenders should read his comments again, because their defenses are off-point. If you're defending Robertson, here's what you're defending:

Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. 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."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus. "All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, 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 ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
This last one is key. My inbox is full of "love the sinner, hate the sin" defenses of Robertson's 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn't love gay people. He thinks they're, well, "full of murder." His views on gays are hateful, inasmuch as they are full of hate.

As a side note, it's remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson's sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It's almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.

You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then they're scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican "maker-vs.-taker" metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be "makers."

Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don't care for them. The "Duck Dynasty" episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson's honor, is just another example of why.



Read more: When You Defend Phil Robertson, Here's What You're Really Defending - Business Insider

This argument always cracks me up. With the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc, many have been killed in the name of Jesus. I am a firm believer in Christ but it is ignorant to forget the violent past of our religion while criticizing others.

 

[phgreek]

Robertson's defenders should read his comments again, because their defenses are off-point. If you're defending Robertson, here's what you're defending:

Robertson thinks black Americans were treated just fine in the Jim Crow-era South, and that they were happy there. "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. 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."
Robertson thinks the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they didn't believe in Jesus. "All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups."
Robertson hates gay people. Robertson in 2010: "Women with women, men with men, 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 ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
This last one is key. My inbox is full of "love the sinner, hate the sin" defenses of Robertson's 2013 remarks. But Robertson doesn't love gay people. He thinks they're, well, "full of murder." His views on gays are hateful, inasmuch as they are full of hate.

As a side note, it's remarkable how often these things come as a package. Robertson's sincere doctrinal view about the sinfulness of homosexuality comes packaged with animus toward gays and retrograde views about blacks and non-Christians. It's almost as though social conservatism is primarily fueled by a desire to protect the privileges of what was once a straight, white Christian in-group, rather than by sincere religious convictions.

You might recall that conservatives are currently trying to figure out what to do about the fact that the Republican Party performs quite poorly with the growing share of voters who are not white, straight Christians. They think some of it has to do with economic issues. But then they're scratching their heads, trying to figure out how Mitt Romney lost the Asian American vote 3-to-1 even though, by Republican "maker-vs.-taker" metrics, Asian Americans are disproportionately likely to be "makers."

Non-whites and non-Christians and gays keep getting the sense that, even setting aside policy, conservatives and Republicans just don't care for them. The "Duck Dynasty" episode, with Ted Cruz and others rushing out to defend Robertson's honor, is just another example of why.



Read more: When You Defend Phil Robertson, Here's What You're Really Defending - Business Insider

Thanks for the article...

I think a lot of the "content" has been covered here pretty well.

In summary the quotes and references are MSNBC-like edited to narrow focus/context or forward things the man simply did not say or intend. This is a hit piece in an attempt to double down on "Kill Phil" largely to justify overreaction and save face on a previous response from the LGBT community...sad, but pretty predictable tactic. Instead of maybe walking away from the tire fire...its clear LGBT folks are throwing more tires on...This same author did a follow-up piece claiming to be the victim of threats, then proceeded to list the dumbest responses to represent the larger religious right...all of these considerations and tactics lead me to believe this was a hit piece.

In a previous article I included, Camille Paglia addressed the initial Robertson issue...her first words indicated she had an interest in the topic beyond simply covering a hot story...she is gay. I will wager v-bucks this author is gay too...yet didn't allow the reader a chance to evaluate his interest with the piece...which I think is an issue of integrity...that kind of omission leads me to believe this was a hit piece.

My verdict: Hit Piece with little to help discourse...