Duck Dynasty Debate
Comments
-
Jason P wrote:Crackerbarrel did an about-face two days after stating they were going to stop selling Duck Dynasty items.
Wal-mart is sold-out of all D.D. items. The Robertson family has a merchandise empire that is estimated by Forbes to be worth about $400million - and their deal with Walmart makes up around half of this.
Of course they did. Because money to the bottom line trumps everything.0 -
Jason P wrote:Crackerbarrel did an about-face two days after stating they were going to stop selling Duck Dynasty items.
Wal-mart is sold-out of all D.D. items. The Robertson family has a merchandise empire that is estimated by Forbes to be worth about $400million - and their deal with Walmart makes up around half of this.
I stoped at wal-mart (first time years) and that place if FULL of DD stuff...clothing-dinner plates-toys-games....you can't hardly go down an isle without seeing DD something ...now that's genious marketing.
Godfather.0 -
0 -
I'm happy happy happy to report that I have seen the same hardcover, like new $2.00 copy of Phil Robertson's book, Happy Happy Happy, sitting on the same shelf in the same thrift store for about 10 days and no one has touched it- not even booksellers like myself who could turn it over for a quick profit.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
unsung wrote:I don't have tv so I've never seen the show, my only comment is that I find it extremely disturbing that this is what it takes to get people in an uproar. A comment from a reality tv guy.
Don't let the real stuff like NDAA, the federal reserve, NSA, patriot act, TSA, politicians not upholding their oaths, runaway spending, and reckless monetary policy bother you. That stuff would make people actually think, and I firmly believe most people want to be dumb.
Absolutely and 100% true.Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
It's really not that complicated. A&E obviously wants to make it clear to their viewers that they do not support his views, hence the suspension. Had they not, they would have been highly criticized in the media for "supporting" them. Because lets face it, in the eyes of society, if you aren't vocal in your disdain for someone, that means you agree with them. They had a duty to let their shareholders and advertisers know that they don't support his views.
It has nothing to do with people "listening to celebrities". This guy has a platform of 12 million people, so when people have heard what he said, it creates an immediate dialog, whether you like it or not. Had this happened on live tv with an anonymous nobody being interviewed, the backlash would be the same. The difference is, he gets paid to entertain people, and some think he shouldn't get paid nor be given that platform (or increase the viewership and profits) of the network who employs him) because of bigoted comments in an interview.and it won't go away until he pays a public price, since he reaps his living off the public.
Ignoring the idiocy of celebrities won't make them go away. Public embarrassment and shaming usually does. Unless you are in that elite group of stupid known as "socialite".Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:It's really not that complicated. A&E obviously wants to make it clear to their viewers that they do not support his views, hence the suspension. Had they not, they would have been highly criticized in the media for "supporting" them. Because lets face it, in the eyes of society, if you aren't vocal in your disdain for someone, that means you agree with them. They had a duty to let their shareholders and advertisers know that they don't support his views.
It has nothing to do with people "listening to celebrities". This guy has a platform of 12 million people, so when people have heard what he said, it creates an immediate dialog, whether you like it or not. Had this happened on live tv with an anonymous nobody being interviewed, the backlash would be the same. The difference is, he gets paid to entertain people, and some think he shouldn't get paid nor be given that platform (or increase the viewership and profits) of the network who employs him) because of bigoted comments in an interview.and it won't go away until he pays a public price, since he reaps his living off the public.
Ignoring the idiocy of celebrities won't make them go away. Public embarrassment and shaming usually does. Unless you are in that elite group of stupid known as "socialite".
and this is how they take care of business at A&E.
yes it's a Fox artical but I have been watching(Christmas with the Robertson's) and "Papa Phil" is still there so this story must have some straight info to it.
Godfather.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... p=features
A&E may have given “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson the heave-ho when they suspended him from future episodes of the show last week, but the network is still welcoming him home for holidays.
The channel is celebrating Christmas with a staggering 25 consecutive episodes of their No. 1 show, beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Christmas Day and running until the wee hours of Dec. 26.
According to the schedule on A&E’s website, the Robertsons will take over the channel until 4 a.m., and then paid programming —meaning infomercials—will kick in.
And don’t think controversial papa Phil will be left out of the Christmas Day airings. He is a key character in plenty of the episodes scheduled to air, including “Quack-O-Lantern” and “Drag me to Glory.”
For Christmas, A&E is just giving the fans what they want, said Cate Meighan, senior writer for Celeb Dirty Laundry.
“I think, honestly, it’s A&E trying to play both sides of the coin,” she said. “They’ve come out and not supported Phil’s statements… however they’re also looking at the backlash from the fans, and they have a huge amount of backlash from the fans.”0 -
Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:It's really not that complicated. A&E obviously wants to make it clear to their viewers that they do not support his views, hence the suspension. Had they not, they would have been highly criticized in the media for "supporting" them. Because lets face it, in the eyes of society, if you aren't vocal in your disdain for someone, that means you agree with them. They had a duty to let their shareholders and advertisers know that they don't support his views.
It has nothing to do with people "listening to celebrities". This guy has a platform of 12 million people, so when people have heard what he said, it creates an immediate dialog, whether you like it or not. Had this happened on live tv with an anonymous nobody being interviewed, the backlash would be the same. The difference is, he gets paid to entertain people, and some think he shouldn't get paid nor be given that platform (or increase the viewership and profits) of the network who employs him) because of bigoted comments in an interview.and it won't go away until he pays a public price, since he reaps his living off the public.
Ignoring the idiocy of celebrities won't make them go away. Public embarrassment and shaming usually does. Unless you are in that elite group of stupid known as "socialite".
Good point. Public embarrassment and shaming though? That only equates to "bad publicity is still publicity". There's no such thing as public embarrassment anymore, unless you get called out publicly by Eddie Vedder at a show, and you happen to idolize the man.0 -
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
backseatLover12 wrote:Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:It's really not that complicated. A&E obviously wants to make it clear to their viewers that they do not support his views, hence the suspension. Had they not, they would have been highly criticized in the media for "supporting" them. Because lets face it, in the eyes of society, if you aren't vocal in your disdain for someone, that means you agree with them. They had a duty to let their shareholders and advertisers know that they don't support his views.
It has nothing to do with people "listening to celebrities". This guy has a platform of 12 million people, so when people have heard what he said, it creates an immediate dialog, whether you like it or not. Had this happened on live tv with an anonymous nobody being interviewed, the backlash would be the same. The difference is, he gets paid to entertain people, and some think he shouldn't get paid nor be given that platform (or increase the viewership and profits) of the network who employs him) because of bigoted comments in an interview.and it won't go away until he pays a public price, since he reaps his living off the public.
Ignoring the idiocy of celebrities won't make them go away. Public embarrassment and shaming usually does. Unless you are in that elite group of stupid known as "socialite".
Good point. Public embarrassment and shaming though? That only equates to "bad publicity is still publicity". There's no such thing as public embarrassment anymore, unless you get called out publicly by Eddie Vedder at a show, and you happen to idolize the man.
All I meant by shaming was by doing what a and e already did, which was distancing themselves from him.Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
this has nothing at all to do with abortion. not even close. this situation is a company punishing one of its employees for embarrassing the company. this is not a free speech issue because the constitution only protects you from the government throwing your ass in jail for what you say. it does not prevent a company from punishing you or firing you for what you say.bootlegger10 wrote:Before the liberals get too high and mighty in this thread, they should check out pictures of late term abortions that they support. Talk about barbaric.
but since you brought up abortion, i will speak on behalf of all liberals when i say that we do not like abortion. we do not like the procedure. we do not like how it is done. we do not like the fact that a fetus dies as a result. it is a terrible, unfortunate, thing. but we support a woman's right to choose what happens within her own body. it is a rights issue. the government can not force a woman to carry a fetus to term. and that is why i will always fight for women's reproductive rights. if men could carry a baby, abortion would have never, ever, been illegal in the first place. anybody that thinks liberals "like" abortion is an idiot.
I know this thread wasn't about abortion, but Republicans were getting trashed in it so I just wanted to clarify that each side has problems. I understand the liberal belief of freedom of choice, but at the end of the day liberals protect laws that kill innocent babies in brutal fashion. Yes, liberals have their reasons, but facts are facts and you can't deny that millions of babies have been killed legally due to liberals' votes. I'm just stating facts here. I never said liberals like abortion, but they certainly support it and it is a record/history that they cannot run from or try to justify away. Legalized brutality - not a legacy I would want to leave behind and that is what the liberals have chosen. I hope the freedom of choice is worth it. Did not realize choice/options trumped life (unless safety of the mother is involved).0 -
bootlegger10 wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:
this has nothing at all to do with abortion. not even close. this situation is a company punishing one of its employees for embarrassing the company. this is not a free speech issue because the constitution only protects you from the government throwing your ass in jail for what you say. it does not prevent a company from punishing you or firing you for what you say.bootlegger10 wrote:Before the liberals get too high and mighty in this thread, they should check out pictures of late term abortions that they support. Talk about barbaric.
but since you brought up abortion, i will speak on behalf of all liberals when i say that we do not like abortion. we do not like the procedure. we do not like how it is done. we do not like the fact that a fetus dies as a result. it is a terrible, unfortunate, thing. but we support a woman's right to choose what happens within her own body. it is a rights issue. the government can not force a woman to carry a fetus to term. and that is why i will always fight for women's reproductive rights. if men could carry a baby, abortion would have never, ever, been illegal in the first place. anybody that thinks liberals "like" abortion is an idiot.
I know this thread wasn't about abortion, but Republicans were getting trashed in it so I just wanted to clarify that each side has problems. I understand the liberal belief of freedom of choice, but at the end of the day liberals protect laws that kill innocent babies in brutal fashion. Yes, liberals have their reasons, but facts are facts and you can't deny that millions of babies have been killed legally due to liberals' votes. I'm just stating facts here. I never said liberals like abortion, but they certainly support it and it is a record/history that they cannot run from or try to justify away. Legalized brutality - not a legacy I would want to leave behind and that is what the liberals have chosen. I hope the freedom of choice is worth it. Did not realize choice/options trumped life (unless safety of the mother is involved).
Awesome attempt to derail the thread with your regressive way of thinking.
Bet you think homosexuality is a liberal choice as well0 -
Bentleyspop wrote:bootlegger10 wrote:
I know this thread wasn't about abortion, but Republicans were getting trashed in it so I just wanted to clarify that each side has problems. I understand the liberal belief of freedom of choice, but at the end of the day liberals protect laws that kill innocent babies in brutal fashion. Yes, liberals have their reasons, but facts are facts and you can't deny that millions of babies have been killed legally due to liberals' votes. I'm just stating facts here. I never said liberals like abortion, but they certainly support it and it is a record/history that they cannot run from or try to justify away. Legalized brutality - not a legacy I would want to leave behind and that is what the liberals have chosen. I hope the freedom of choice is worth it. Did not realize choice/options trumped life (unless safety of the mother is involved).
Awesome attempt to derail the thread with your regressive way of thinking.
Bet you think homosexuality is a liberal choice as well
Wasn't trying to derail the thread. I don't post much on the Train so itsn't like I'm out here trying to push an agenda. The point of my post was clear in that liberals are bashing Republicans in this thread for their "backward thinking" and it seemed ironic to me considering that liberals support legalized killing of babies. That is the truth and even you can't disagree with it because there is a law on the books that liberals got on the books for abortion.
If you can't recognize that a legacy of dead babies is fucked up, then I don't know what to say. Just like you can't understand a Christians views based on the Bible, some of us can't understand supporting abortion.
Anyway, we all deserve a little criticism when we get to high and might, holier than thou, etc... so I just wanted to send the liberals a reminder that they still support baby killin' so nobody is perfect.0 -
cut and paste ...but interesting....
Godfather.
http://therestlessreformed.files.wordpr ... /photo.jpg0 -
bootlegger10 wrote:
Wasn't trying to derail the thread. I don't post much on the Train so itsn't like I'm out here trying to push an agenda. The point of my post was clear in that liberals are bashing Republicans in this thread for their "backward thinking" and it seemed ironic to me considering that liberals support legalized killing of babies. That is the truth and even you can't disagree with it because there is a law on the books that liberals got on the books for abortion.
If you can't recognize that a legacy of dead babies is fucked up, then I don't know what to say. Just like you can't understand a Christians views based on the Bible, some of us can't understand supporting abortion.
Anyway, we all deserve a little criticism when we get to high and might, holier than thou, etc... so I just wanted to send the liberals a reminder that they still support baby killin' so nobody is perfect.
We'll I guess since you are a paying member of a website of an organization that supports a woman's right to choose, you are also supporting the cause.better go to confession and let the child molester know you have sinned.Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 20140 -
That entire post shows the same ignorance that got that piece of trash duck fucker in trouble in the first place.bootlegger10 wrote:Bentleyspop wrote:bootlegger10 wrote:
I know this thread wasn't about abortion, but Republicans were getting trashed in it so I just wanted to clarify that each side has problems. I understand the liberal belief of freedom of choice, but at the end of the day liberals protect laws that kill innocent babies in brutal fashion. Yes, liberals have their reasons, but facts are facts and you can't deny that millions of babies have been killed legally due to liberals' votes. I'm just stating facts here. I never said liberals like abortion, but they certainly support it and it is a record/history that they cannot run from or try to justify away. Legalized brutality - not a legacy I would want to leave behind and that is what the liberals have chosen. I hope the freedom of choice is worth it. Did not realize choice/options trumped life (unless safety of the mother is involved).
Awesome attempt to derail the thread with your regressive way of thinking.
Bet you think homosexuality is a liberal choice as well
Wasn't trying to derail the thread. I don't post much on the Train so itsn't like I'm out here trying to push an agenda. The point of my post was clear in that liberals are bashing Republicans in this thread for their "backward thinking" and it seemed ironic to me considering that liberals support legalized killing of babies. That is the truth and even you can't disagree with it because there is a law on the books that liberals got on the books for abortion.
If you can't recognize that a legacy of dead babies is fucked up, then I don't know what to say. Just like you can't understand a Christians views based on the Bible, some of us can't understand supporting abortion.
Anyway, we all deserve a little criticism when we get to high and might, holier than thou, etc... so I just wanted to send the liberals a reminder that they still support baby killin' so nobody is perfect.0 -
bootlegger10 wrote:Bentleyspop wrote:bootlegger10 wrote:
I know this thread wasn't about abortion, but Republicans were getting trashed in it so I just wanted to clarify that each side has problems. I understand the liberal belief of freedom of choice, but at the end of the day liberals protect laws that kill innocent babies in brutal fashion. Yes, liberals have their reasons, but facts are facts and you can't deny that millions of babies have been killed legally due to liberals' votes. I'm just stating facts here. I never said liberals like abortion, but they certainly support it and it is a record/history that they cannot run from or try to justify away. Legalized brutality - not a legacy I would want to leave behind and that is what the liberals have chosen. I hope the freedom of choice is worth it. Did not realize choice/options trumped life (unless safety of the mother is involved).
Awesome attempt to derail the thread with your regressive way of thinking.
Bet you think homosexuality is a liberal choice as well
Wasn't trying to derail the thread. I don't post much on the Train so itsn't like I'm out here trying to push an agenda. The point of my post was clear in that liberals are bashing Republicans in this thread for their "backward thinking" and it seemed ironic to me considering that liberals support legalized killing of babies. That is the truth and even you can't disagree with it because there is a law on the books that liberals got on the books for abortion.
If you can't recognize that a legacy of dead babies is fucked up, then I don't know what to say. Just like you can't understand a Christians views based on the Bible, some of us can't understand supporting abortion.
Anyway, we all deserve a little criticism when we get to high and might, holier than thou, etc... so I just wanted to send the liberals a reminder that they still support baby killin' so nobody is perfect.
Not trying to derail the thread? ?? SERIOUSLY?
Not trying to push an agenda?? REALLY?
And yes by paying to be on the site of an organization that openly and vigorously supports a woman's right to choose you are also supporting that stance.
You are also supporting a group that supports gay marriage as well as other liberal issues and agendas.0 -
Taken from The Australian Tea Party FB page.0 -
brianlux wrote:-The fact that Roberson has so many followers is yet again another reason for concern about the falling levels of intelligence in people (at least in this case, Americans), and the persistence of sexism, racism and bigotry in this society. I must have been very naive to once have thought we might become more enlightened and more aware, and more accepting and embracing of diversity- it seems just the opposite is happening.
Please, tell me I'm wrong!
I can't tell you that you are wrong! But I think as a whole we are more enlightened as a society, but there is an element fighting tooth and nail for the "old ways". There are many "Christian'" whites who identify with Robertson, i.e. the Republican base of rural, poor white voters. (Yes I know there are rich Republicans, but there aren't enough of them to be a base). They share his views. There is still a lot of bigotry, sexism in this group. But I think it is less about stupidity than fear, stoked by the right wing idiots at Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and the like. These people are threatened by the loss of their favored status as white Christians and threatened by a pluralistic society where they are not the privileged ones. Thus the worry about the so-called war on Christmas, their disdain for the phrase "Happy Holidays", and their insistence that Robertson' hate speech is fine, because that's what their bible says.
And to respond to the earlier post about whether all Christians are bigots, I'd say that they certainly are not. Some of my more liberal friends are fairly religious Christians who actually are quite progressive in their views. But the modern day hypocritical christians who are most vocal about their faith while they rob you blind, yes, most of them are failry bigoted.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help