Duck Dynasty!

[Rob's House]

If A&E had a bang-up hit show that featured a Muslim Family that said in an episode that said Christians were against Allah therefore heathens (Stupid example because I think of one specifically, but you get the point I am making) for example... but were otherwise peaceful tax paying Americans.. and A&E pulled the father of that show for his anti-religious comments.... would conservatives be stepping in for the free speech, freedome of associaion defense they have set behind Mr. Robertson? Would Mr. Jindhal come out and speak on thier behalf?

 

Yes, I think most conservatives would support the muslim in that scenario. Now if he went the extra mile and said Christians should be slaughtered for being heathens that might be different, but we don't have that in either scenario.

 

If you recall, after 9-11 when Bill Maher had the audacity to say people willing to die for their cause weren't cowards it was the liberals who turned on him and called for his head and got him fired from his job for saying something that was at odds with the pre-approved narrative. It was people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly who said they didn't think he should be fired and invited him on their shows to talk about it.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

 

If A&E had a bang-up hit show that featured a Muslim Family that said in an episode that said Christians were against Allah therefore heathens (Stupid example because I think of one specifically, but you get the point I am making) for example... but were otherwise peaceful tax paying Americans.. and A&E pulled the father of that show for his anti-religious comments.... would conservatives be stepping in for the free speech, freedome of associaion defense they have set behind Mr. Robertson? Would Mr. Jindhal come out and speak on thier behalf?

Different situations.

 

Let me rephrase the scenario. ..

 

Everything is exactly the same except the Robertson family are proud Muslims. Every single spoken word remains the ssme but instead they are Muslims talking about Allah and the Koran.

 

Does Phil still get banned? Does gladd still protest?

[B-Large]

Different situations.

 

Let me rephrase the scenario. ..

 

Everything is exactly the same except the Robertson family are proud Muslims. Every single spoken word remains the ssme but instead they are Muslims talking about Allah and the Koran.

 

Does Phil still get banned? Does gladd still protest?

 

Its an interesting scenario testing bias, that is why I posted it. I assume anti-gay rhetoric is seen the same whether it from a Creole or Muslim. Both see Homosexuals is less that positive terms based on their religious dogma... maybe Muslims and their treatmnt of them is even worse.,, but I assume that both parties, being the network and right group would react the same.

Edited December 20, 2013 by B-Large

[Tiberius]

If A&E had a bang-up hit show that featured a Muslim Family that said in an episode that said Christians were against Allah therefore heathens (Stupid example because I think of one specifically, but you get the point I am making) for example... but were otherwise peaceful tax paying Americans.. and A&E pulled the father of that show for his anti-religious comments.... would conservatives be stepping in for the free speech, freedome of associaion defense they have set behind Mr. Robertson? Would Mr. Jindhal come out and speak on thier behalf?

 

Hi, I'm DC Tom and A&E shouldn't be putting Muslims on tv

 

I'm also a sociopath

 

I'm also an expert on everything

[B-Large]

Hi, I'm DC Tom and A&E shouldn't be putting Muslims on tv

 

I'm also a sociopath

 

I'm also an expert on everything

 

...made me laugh....

[Dante]

This is simply about money. A capitalist business is worried about losing money over a bigoted comment. That dude should have kept his mouth shut if he wanted to stay on as a tv start. He can say whatever he wants, doesn't mean people still have to give him a platform to spew hate

They will have no problem getting on some other channel. And what was hateful about what he said? As far as I could tell he was basically saying he think thats shoving his weenie up another mans ahole was distasteful. He preferred a woman. Apparently, as twisted as the current climate in this country is, he's the freak. Today in article I looked at.

"We are in Alice's Wonderland and descending into a dystopian society where wrong is right and down is up ...."

He may have been slightly crass in the way he worded it but turn on almost any show on Comedy Central and you will get much worse. That said he said nothing threatening. Nothing inciting violence against gay people. His crime was stating his christian beliefs.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Dante

[IDBillzFan]

They will have no problem getting on some other channel. And what was hateful about what he said? As far as I could tell he was basically saying he think thats shoving his weenie up another mans ahole was distasteful. He preferred a woman. Apparently, as twisted as the current climate in this country is, he's the freak. Today in article I looked at.

"We are in Alice's Wonderland and descending into a dystopian society where wrong is right and down is up ...."

He may have been slightly crass in the way he worded it but turn on almost any show on Comedy Central and you will get much worse. That said he said nothing threatening. Nothing inciting violence against gay people. His crime was stating his christian beliefs.

 

The number of people truly offended by what he said can be counted on the hand of a bad woodshop teacher.

 

The bottom line is that the progressive left is running out of ways to successfully distract people from Obamacare's unbelievable failure, launched from the lips of a lying president who has lost the trust and confidence of the American people. They need a Trayvon Martin-like story to really take hold and fire up the takers because the DD thing will be over by next week, if not sooner, when the entire Robertson family walks out on the only reason anyone even watches A&E.

Edited December 20, 2013 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

If A&E had a bang-up hit show that featured a Muslim Family that said in an episode that said Christians were against Allah therefore heathens (Stupid example because I think of one specifically, but you get the point I am making) for example... but were otherwise peaceful tax paying Americans.. and A&E pulled the father of that show for his anti-religious comments.... would conservatives be stepping in for the free speech, freedome of associaion defense they have set behind Mr. Robertson? Would Mr. Jindhal come out and speak on thier behalf?

 

I would be just as vocal in saying that A&E executives were hypocrites lacking in foresight...because what did they think would happen?

 

This whole story amounts to "A&E upset that dumbass backwoods hick acts like dumbass backwoods hick."

[B-Man]

The Age of Intolerance :The forces of “tolerance” are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

By Mark Steyn

 

Last week, following the public apology of an English comedian and the arrest of a fellow British subject both for making somewhat feeble Mandela gags, I noted that supposedly free societies were increasingly perilous places for those who make an infelicitous remark. So let’s pick up where we left off:

 

Here are two jokes one can no longer tell on American television. But you can still find them in the archives, out on the edge of town, in Sub-Basement Level 12 of the ever-expanding Smithsonian Mausoleum of the Unsayable. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

 

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

 

For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.

 

Second joke from the archives: Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra kept this one in the act for a quarter-century. On stage, Dino used to have a bit of business where he’d refill his tumbler and ask Frank, “How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Sinatra would respond, “I dunno. How do you make a fruit cordial?” And Dean would say, “Be nice to him.”

 

But no matter how nice you are, it’s never enough. Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, in his career-detonating interview with GQ, gave a rather thoughtful vernacular exegesis of the Bible’s line on sin, while carefully insisting that he and other Christians are obligated to love all sinners and leave it to the Almighty to adjudicate the competing charms of drunkards, fornicators, and homosexuals. Nevertheless, GLAAD — “the gatekeepers of politically correct gayness” as the (gay) novelist Bret Easton Ellis sneered — saw their opportunity and seized it. By taking out TV’s leading cable star, they would teach an important lesson pour encourager les autres — that espousing conventional Christian morality, even off-air, is incompatible with American celebrity.

 

 

Some of my comrades, who really should know better, wonder why, instead of insisting Robertson be defenestrated, GLAAD wouldn’t rather “start a conversation.” But, if you don’t need to, why bother? Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.

 

More at link:

Edited December 21, 2013 by B-Man

[....lybob]

Maybe Phil Roberson could have a TV show with Phil Donahue called " We'll Phil you in" first show guests Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, and Alex Baldwin musical guest The Dixie Chicks.

[Nanker]

[4merper4mer]

Its an interesting scenario testing bias, that is why I posted it. I assume anti-gay rhetoric is seen the same whether it from a Creole or Muslim. Both see Homosexuals is less that positive terms based on their religious dogma... maybe Muslims and their treatmnt of them is even worse.,, but I assume that both parties, being the network and right group would react the same.

 

They had a Iranian spinoff called Pomegranate Dynasty and this exact thing happened in MQ magazine. The producer suspended the patriarch too. You know when he found out that was a bad idea?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When his head was rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when.

[IDBillzFan]

Maybe Phil Roberson could have a TV show with Phil Donahue called " We'll Phil you in" first show guests Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, and Alex Baldwin musical guest The Dixie Chicks.

 

And you point is...what exactly?

[B-Man]

From Prof. Ann Althouse:

 

 

Widely held religious beliefs that you can't talk about openly in America.

 

I've been thinking about the "Duck Dynasty" controversy and what it means for religious people in America, most of whom — or at least very many of whom — adhere to a scheme of beliefs that includes forbidding homosexual behavior. They're seeing how badly it can hurt your career and your social standing to express this belief.

 

How can there be a norm against the expression of something that so many people believe on a profound level?

 

But it is not unusual at all. There are many things that religious people believe that they also know they can't go around saying. You're not going to do very well in American society, for example, if you come right out and declare that people who don't follow your religion are going to hell. You'll be drifting toward Westboro Church territory if you talk like that. You sound like a crazy hate-monger. The fact that you truly believe it and that it's religious won't help your standing in the community.

 

So it's not unusual that some widely held religious beliefs aren't fit for expression to the general audience, only a bit surprising when something new crosses the line from fit to unfit. How did that happen? It happens! The culture changes. Think about how that happens.

 

 

 

Jesus said: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

[B-Man]

Why Duck Dynasty Threatens The Left.

“The surprise should be how liberals dismissed the rise of Duck Dynasty until this fall, when it was too late to stem the show’s popularity. Once it became evident that this family held so much influence, the left suddenly realized they faced the first threat to their decades-long monopoly on popular culture.”

 

UPDATE: From the comments: “When Phil Robertson was 50 years old, the Congress and President of the United States signed a law in Defense of Marriage that refused to recognize gay marriage. Now A&E thinks that point of view is so awful that it cannot air someone who agreed with Bill Clinton.” Or Barack Obama, before 2012.

 

 

 

 

Re-Education Camp

by Mark Steyn

 

Having leaned on A&E to suspend their biggest star, GLAAD has now moved on to Stage Two:

“

We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said

.

 

Actually, “the next step” is for you thugs to push off and stop targeting, threatening and making demands of those who happen to disagree with you. Personally, I think this would be a wonderful opportunity for the GLAAD executive board to sit down with half-a-dozen firebreathing imams and learn about their values, but, unlike the Commissars of the Bureau of Conformity Enforcement, I accord even condescending little ticks like the one above the freedom to arrange his own social calendar. Unfortunately, GLAAD has had some success with this strategy, prevailing upon, for example, the Hollywood director Brett Ratner to submit to GLAAD re-education camp until he had eaten sufficient gay crow to be formally rehabilitated with a GLAAD “Ally” award.

 

It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you.

 

In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us – that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in. You’ll recall Paula Deen’s accuser eventually lost in court – but the verdict came too late for Ms Deen’s book deal, and TV show, and endorsement contracts.

[Rob's House]

I wish I knew what corporations support GLAAD so we can boycott them. I'm all for tolerance, but that's a two way street. These in-your-face mother!@#$ers want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not even christian and this irks me. If Christians stood up for themselves the way GLAAD does these corporate execs wouldn't be so quick to acquiesce and cater to their whimsical demands.

[Just Jack]

I wish I knew what corporations support GLAAD so we can boycott them. I'm all for tolerance, but that's a two way street. These in-your-face mother!@#$ers want to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not even christian and this irks me. If Christians stood up for themselves the way GLAAD does these corporate execs wouldn't be so quick to acquiesce and cater to their whimsical demands.

 

Found these two links....

 

http://www.glaad.org/support/partners

 

http://www.glaad.org/support/grants

 

 

[boyst]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/24564387-452/duck-dynasty-vs-the-dixie-chicks.html

In March of 2003, the drumbeat for war in Iraq had reached a fevered pitch. Despite massive protests throughout the world, over 70 percent of Americans supported the invasion. In that month, presidential approval also shot over 70 percent, the highest it would be for the remainder of George W. Bush’s tenure in office. Despite these currents, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks spoke out during a London show on the eve of the war, saying “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.”

This is probably the worst article I have read about the events. How does the Dixie Chicks event compare to Duck Dynasty? Biggest difference: The Dixie Chicks have talent.

[Tiberius]

Speaking of Christian bigots, I stopped at a chick-fil-a today. It was ok, nothing great.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Looks like AE gave in and will allow Phil back on show