'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson

reply to post by antonia

Yet when I asked you before how they are portraying themselves , all I heard were crickets.
If you do not know them personally, how can you say which portion of their show ia fiction?
All you can do is guess, but you seem sure of yourself when you state that their religious nature is fiction.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Which is more likely? That the whole thing is a sham, or that a Christian family from the south who made their fortune before they ever got involved with A&E stood by their principles? You'd have to stretch logic quite a bit to assert the former.

Oh, no worries there. Pretzel logic is not a problem when it comes to denying that some folks have principles that are more important to them than money.

When this thing first broke, I saw an article with a crisis consultant and I thought, this guy just doesn't get it.

"Duck Dynasty" is on hiatus until Jan. 15, and a network spokesman said Thursday that nine of next season's 10 episodes have already been filmed. That means Robertson likely isn't needed in front of the camera before next March, by which time this whole crisis may have blown over. And blow over it will, eventually, says veteran Hollywood crisis publicist Howard Bragman, who added that Robertson will likely return to the show as well, perhaps after making a heartfelt apology.

"There's too much money at stake," said Bragman, vice president of reputation.com. "Although he plays kind of a hick on TV, I don't think he's dumb. I think he gets what's at stake here. And I hope people on his team, the network and his producers get the message that what he did was wrong. "
www.breitbart.com...

Well, he may not be dumb, but he didn't apologize and he didn't back down and has shown no indication that he believes he was wrong in any way.

That is going to rub many people the wrong way because such a strong show of principles doesn't wash well, so it's only natural that the narrative shift to pr stunt because otherwise, this cracker that doesn't crumble under the usual pr hammering sets a bad precedent.

Better to make him out to be just another greedy faux xtian into the bargain, eh?

reply to post by butcherguy


I've already thoroughly explained why I think that. You can go back to page 1 and see it, you aren't entitled to anything more from me.

You just want me to tell you that you are right. Well, let me oblige you: You are right.

reply to post by antonia

You just want me to tell you that you are right.

No.
I wanted to hear an answer.
I got a cop out.

Double post.

reply to post by antonia

Oh and Glaad is probably going to get a ton of donations from this one, they win from this mess too.

I suppose you could be right, but I have to admit I didn't know much about them before this (and I had no clue who Phil Robertson was), but after all I've learned about glaad since, they seem like bullies and tyrants and I hope this little dust up brings as much backlash against their org as it can because their methods are slimy.

If I were gay, I would want nothing at all to do with these folks and would not want them speaking for me in any way.

www.lifesitenews.com...

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Well, he may not be dumb, but he didn't apologize and he didn't back down and has shown no indication that he believes he was wrong in any way.

That is going to rub many people the wrong way because such a strong show of principles doesn't wash well, so it's only natural that the narrative shift to pr stunt because otherwise, this cracker that doesn't crumble under the usual pr hammering sets a bad precedent.

Better to make him out to be just another greedy faux xtian into the bargain, eh?

Principles are not intrinsically good and so holding steadfast to them isn't necessarily laudable. Behavior you obviously view as estimable appears to others as an ignorant man who is sadly clinging to outmoded moral principles.

BlueMoonJoe
reply to post by antonia

 

Oh and Glaad is probably going to get a ton of donations from this one, they win from this mess too.

I suppose you could be right, but I have to admit I didn't know much about them before this (and I had no clue who Phil Robertson was), but after all I've learned about glaad since, they seem like bullies and tyrants and I hope this little dust up brings as much backlash against their org as it can because their methods are slimy.

If I were gay, I would want nothing at all to do with these folks and would not want them speaking for me in any way.

www.lifesitenews.com...

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at what you're citing in your example might be that Legatus is an activist group known for virulently espousing their own anti-gay (and anti-muslim, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, etc) agenda that perhaps Bob Newhart might not have been aware of?

theantediluvian
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

Well, he may not be dumb, but he didn't apologize and he didn't back down and has shown no indication that he believes he was wrong in any way.

That is going to rub many people the wrong way because such a strong show of principles doesn't wash well, so it's only natural that the narrative shift to pr stunt because otherwise, this cracker that doesn't crumble under the usual pr hammering sets a bad precedent.

Better to make him out to be just another greedy faux xtian into the bargain, eh?

Principles are not intrinsically good and so holding steadfast to them isn't necessarily laudable. Behavior you obviously view as estimable appears to others as a ignorant man who is sadly clinging to outmoded moral principles.

That wasn't the argument I was trying to make. Obviously, people differ on the issue of homosexuality and whether or not it's "moral". My point was that it is far more likely that this "backwards hillbilly" stood by his own personal convictions than it is he was some how in on a money making conspiracy with A&E.

As soon as the standoff began and it looked like one side wasn't going to blink, the "PR stunt" angle was played, and it's only being played by one side of the greater argument.

reply to post by Helious

I don't think you're totally on base with stating that Phil's comments were "homophobic". I'm sure you know what that word means and so do I so I'm confused why you would label what he said as such unless you believe that he is somehow afraid or threatened by homosexuals.

Seems that he is.


"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's what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country. So what are you gonna do, Pennsylvania? Just run with them? You're going to die. Don't forget that."

Them gays is out to get all us good Christians. Yep. They are going to tear down 'merica. Yep.

Ignorant homophobe. In the flesh.

reply to post by theantediluvian

Principles are not intrinsically good and so holding steadfast to them isn't necessarily laudable. Behavior you obviously view as estimable appears to others as a ignorant man who is sadly clinging to outmoded moral principles.

Right you are. And that's the sad part or the happy part, depending on one's perspective.

Standing for one's beliefs in the face of great pressure is certainly outmoded to many, but I do indeed find it estimable.

What can I say? I'm old school, hence a fool. I have lines I will not cross for any amount of money or any amount of pressure. Admittedly, this has not served me well, quite the contrary, truth to tell. So be it.

But I am who I am and in that regard I resonate with Phil, even though I know nothing of the man beyond that article, the fallout thereof and how he has handled it.

Looking around and watching this culture disintegration, it is clear that my kind will soon be selected out to make way for the new order. These little bursts of anti-PC backlash are nice to see, but the rot has set in so thoroughly that there's probably no way to eradicate it at this point. Crafty bastards, those cultural marxists and their allies. All else aside, you have to give them that.

Still, it is better to go down fighting. I'd rather lose the right way than win the wrong way. And that is as outmoded as ya can get, isn't it?

Phage
reply to post by Helious

 

"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's what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country. So what are you gonna do, Pennsylvania? Just run with them? You're going to die. Don't forget that."

Them gays is out to get all us good Christians. Yep. They are going to tear down 'merica. Yep.

Ignorant homophobe. In the flesh.

edit on 12/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Don't be to hard on him, He just confused politicians with gays.

reply to post by Phage


You do realize he is paraphrasing Paul in Romans I, don't you?

If you are going to throw the spear, throw it at the right target, not just the convenient one.

As for tearing down 'merica, no, it won't be the gays per se. But the folks that exploited them for that purpose sure do mean to get the job done. It's in the business plan, it's happening all around you, and it shows no signs of slowing down, especially since there is no shortage of useful idiots to do the eye-rolling and snickering on cue.

We will crush you. But softly, ever so softly.

reply to post by Phage


Looks like phage just put your conspiracy to rest.

reply to post by Phage


This just makes my BS meter go off even more. A&E knew exactly what they were dealing with the entire time. There is no way he hasn't said homophobic crap prior to this incident. Yet, they send him to GQ (the male equivalent to Vogue, not exactly a friendly audience), with one of their people sitting right there in the room and let him spew his crap, then they let GQ publish it. Cue the outrage. I just don't buy the idea this was all spontaneous. It might have been spontaneous on Robertson's part, but not A&E's.

“Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage.”
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

After the Chick-fil-a dust up, I have no doubt most intelligent observers saw the opportunity to make money. People went out of their way to support Chick-fil-a over the gay issue. This is no different. They knew exactly what would happen if they fired Phil. The day they fired him he became the number one most searched term on Google. Conveniently, they fire him during the holiday season-DD garbage flies off the shelves. The Duck Commander wine is sold out all over town (and really guys, that stuff isn't even good). Their most expensive duck call is sold out. They are profiting madly off this obstacle.

All I can do is laugh. People love a good fight and intelligent people make money off of that.

As for him being a homophobe, I believe that. I just think he said it publicaly for monetary gain not to make some principled stand.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

You do realize he is paraphrasing Paul in Romans I, don't you?

His interpretation perhaps. So what? Homophobia is homophobia. An attempt to spread homophobia is an attempt to spread homophobia.

As for tearing down 'merica, no, it won't be the gays per se.

That's not what he said.

He is an ignorant homophobe. Casting his net of fear. Casting his stereotypes.

His right, of course. Because this is 'merica. But "free speech" doesn't mean you can't be called out for acting a fool.

reply to post by theantediluvian

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at what you're citing in your example might be that Legatus is an activist group known for virulently espousing their own anti-gay (and anti-muslim, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, etc) agenda that perhaps Bob Newhart might not have been aware of?

From what I can glean, they are a Catholic org promulgating a traditional Catholic stance. As a lifelong Catholic, I'm guessing Newhart knew that and is able to make his own choices of where he wants to perform.

If glaad wants to draw attention to that, fine. But the way they phrase their doings is oily and, ironically enough, has something of the Jesuit to it, that end justifies the means modus that they are so famous for historically.

reply to post by Phage


Is everone who sees homosexuality a wrong homophobic?

So what about other sins, like lies or murder, sins gays would agree are wrong, should phobia be attached there somewhere?

I think he is speaking of the other sins as well, not cherry picking so to speak.

I personally don't like to cast stones or pass judgment, but we all do it.

You judge him as homophobic, he judges others for homosexuality.

what's the difference,

Do you love him even with his shortcomings?

He said he loved regardless of a persons faults or sins.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Is everone who sees homosexuality a wrong a homophobic?

No. Just those who are afraid of homosexuality. Or those who prey on the fears of others.

I think he is speaking of the other sins as well, not cherry picking so to speak.

You think wrong. It's homosexuals. They are evil. Not the "sin". The people.
"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. "

You judge him as homophobic, he judges others for homosexuality.

Sort of but if he doesn't actually fear homosexuals and their affect on society, he puts on a good act. He has a perfect right to be a homophobe. He has a right to judge others based on his stereotypes. I have a right to call him a fool. Which one of us is spreading ignorance, fear, and hate?

He said he loved regardless of a persons faults or sins.

Right. He's a saint. Words are cheap.

No, I don't love him. I do like watching him blow stuff up though.

Phage
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

You do realize he is paraphrasing Paul in Romans I, don't you?

His interpretation perhaps. So what? Homophobia is homophobia. An attempt to spread homophobia is an attempt to spread homophobia.

No, not interpreting it. Paraphrasing it. Look it up. If it's homophobia, it's from Paul. You can shoot the messenger if you wish, just don't pretend you are doing anything but.

That's not what he said.

It's what you said. It was your commentary.

He is an ignorant homophobe. Casting his net of fear. Casting his stereotypes.

Could be he's ignorant, but it doesn't seem so. He just doesn't agree with the way the country's going. Many folks don't. Many of those who don't base that disagreement on the "stereoptypes" he is spreading based on what's in the Bible. Others do so based upon what's in the Quran. You don't hear much about that, and especially from the glaadiators, because, well, not only is it not PC, it's kinda dangerous to be taking shots at the Quran.

His right, of course. Because this is 'merica. But "free speech" doesn't mean you can't be called out for acting a fool.

Yes, this is America, at least for a bit longer. His right, your right, and my right. If you think he is a fool scream it loud and proud. I'll do the same. It's your fellow PC travelers who want to shut people up.

Just remember that there's no way to turn that train around once it hits maximum speed. History is quite clear on how these totalitarian bids go.