View Poll Results: Select what represents your view?

Voters
138. You may not vote on this poll
  • I don't agree with Phil's comments and he had no right saying it.

    5 3.62%
  • I don't agree with Phil's comment's but defend his right to say it.

    54 39.13%
  • I agree with Phil's comments and defend his right to say it.

    41 29.71%
  • A&E had no right to suspend Phil.

    3 2.17%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil but I don't agree with it.

    51 36.96%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil and I agree with it.

    32 23.19%
  • It's a question of "freedom of speech" and very important.

    22 15.94%
  • Phil's beard is too weird, which makes him a slave to fame.

    12 8.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 274

Thread: Duck Dynasty

  1. #151
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why? Its not like he is ashamed of the truth or the Word. Question asked, answered...and the faux outrage that came out because of the comments has given the family and his comments more visibility than could possibly be imagined. The only people looking really foolish in all this is GLAAD, A&E, and the Cracker Barrel.
    Myself, I find humor in the hypocrisy of it all. The GLAAD people are whining about the lack of tolerance as if tolerance was a one way street.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  2. #152
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sorry for the day's delay, but I did want to make sure I got back to this.



    I do. If you can find me video of Phil out there talking about how he is better than sinners, that would absolutely be the pride that Jesus excoriated. But that doesn't seem to be what the man says - instead he seems to emphasize that he is saved from his sin by Christ. Which is precisely what Christians are supposed to say.



    you think it puffs you up to have people insanely accuse you of mindless hatred and bigotry because you believe in a traditional definition of marriage?

    Nor am I (or Phil) telling you what is wrong. We are both of us pointing to what the one who created sexuality is wrong and right about it's expression.

    Phil was asked his opinion, and he gave it, basing it on Christian teachings. Just because you don't like his answer or wish that he hadn't been willing to honestly discuss sin doesn't mean that he should have done so.



    No. I am using pedophilia as a vehicle to demonstrate the foolishness of the "well if you haven't done it you can't condemn it" test that you set up.

    But nice attempt at a strawman .



    That is incorrect - masterbation is not a homosexual act, unless you choose to fantasize about a member of the same sex. As for lusting in your heart, if you masterbate while fantasizing about someone other than your spouse, then, well, yes, you are lusting in your mind, and (Jesus says) therefore in your heart.



    Not at all - I am also a sinner, and have absolutely struggled with lust. I'm no better than any hetero or homo or a or any other sexual out there.
    There's no problem with someone quoting the bible, but in the proper venue and when solicited. Someone asking you your opinion at an interview is no different than making a public proclamation. If Phil and you want to exclaim "we're devout Christians that personally don't like homosexually", then most people probably wouldn't have a problem with that. There's a difference of repeating the positive aspects of scripture about "love thy neighbor" and the "thou shalt not" parts. And telling the general public about how the bible says to behave is a little self serving.

    No, you're being disingenuous when you make a comparative statement about a criminal act (pedophilia), then try to excuse yourself out by saying it's my fault. I'd let the law do the condemning.

    Masturbation is definitely a same sex act. It's not the definition of sexual coupling but it is a male performing on a male.

    You don't know what Jesus really says, unless you've talked to him? All you're going by is some book written in 1400 that was transcribed from parchments, that were in turn written from mouth to mouth stories. That's a whole lot of he said, she said.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  3. #153
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,674

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    Uhhh.....

    Dixie Chicks are an American country music band which has also crossed over into other genres. The band is composed of founding members (and sisters) Martie Erwin Maguire and Emily Erwin Robison, and lead singer Natalie Maines. The band formed in 1989 in Dallas, Texas, and was originally composed of four women performing bluegrass and country music, busking and touring the bluegrass festival circuits and small venues for six years without attracting a major label. After the departure of one bandmate, the replacement of their lead singer, and a slight change in their repertoire, Dixie Chicks soon achieved commercial success, beginning in 1998 with hit songs "There's Your Trouble" and "Wide Open Spaces".

    During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States [George W. Bush] is from Texas".[1] The positive reaction to this statement from the British audience contrasted with the boycotts that ensued in the U.S., where the band was assaulted by talk-show conservatives,[2] while their albums were discarded in public protest.[2]

    As of 2012, Dixie Chicks had won 13 Grammy Awards, including five in 2007 for Taking the Long Way—which received the Grammy Award for Album of the Year—and "Not Ready to Make Nice", a single from that album. By May 2013, with 30.5 million certified albums sold,[3] and sales of 27.2 million albums in the U.S. alone, they had become the top selling all-female band and biggest selling country group in the U.S. during the Nielsen SoundScan era (1991–present).[4][5] <snip> Dixie Chicks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And if you read that again you will see it said EXACTLY what I said. They had CRITICAL ACCLAIM, but not commercial success. Those 30.5 million CD sales are cumulative throughout their career from 1991 til current.

    That same wikipedia cites low CD sales for Both "Not Ready to Make Nice" and second single "Everybody Knows" were largely ignored by U.S. country radio[79] and failed to penetrate the top 35 of the Hot Country Songs chart. In June 2006, Emily Robison noted the lack of support from other country music performers"

    And since then?

    Thats AFTER she first tried to kiss ass with an apology. Then, when their former fan base proved THEY werent ready to make nice, she got all angry and edgy, retracted her apology, and yes...they tried to branch out to other genres. Didnt work in the US at all. "Ticket sales were strong in Canada and in some Northeastern markets, but notably weak in other areas. A number of shows were canceled or relocated to smaller venues due to poor sales, and in Houston, Texas, tickets never even went on sale when local radio stations refused to accept advertising for the event"

    Thanks God for Canada. Otherwise...they would have been dead in the water. As it was...Following Shut Up and Sing, the band went on hiatus for several years while the members spent time with their families. A few years later, the other two band members went on without Natalie. In 2013 they announced a new tour...in...yep...Canada. But even there...paying good money for music you dont really like but are keen to the protest...well...eventually that gets tired too.

    OK...much more effort than I ever wanted to give to the Dixie Chicks. Sad thing is...I kinda liked their music.

  4. #154
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    There's no problem with someone quoting the bible, but in the proper venue and when solicited
    What, you mean like when someone asks you a question (say, for example, in an interview), and your answer is based on the Bible?

    Someone asking you your opinion at an interview is no different than making a public proclamation. If Phil and you want to exclaim "we're devout Christians that personally don't like homosexually", then most people probably wouldn't have a problem with that.
    Yeah... See: Chik-fil-A: Comments of CEO: Insane Hyperbolic Response To.

    There's a difference of repeating the positive aspects of scripture about "love thy neighbor" and the "thou shalt not" parts.
    No there isn't. In fact, one of the best ways you can love your neighbor in this day and age is to be honest with him or her about the thou shalt not parts - few need reminding in this day and age that God calls on us to show love and decency to each other; it is the flip side of that coin that people forget.

    And telling the general public about how the bible says to behave is a little self serving.
    Not really. In fact, it leaves one vulnerable because the immediate return question - which you yourself asked - is "so do you always do as you are supposed to according to the Bible?" and the honest answer for the Christian is "no". In order to speak on how we are supposed to live, one has to be willing to admit that one fails at it. That is sort of the opposite of self-serving.

    No, you're being disingenuous when you make a comparative statement about a criminal act (pedophilia), then try to excuse yourself out by saying it's my fault. I'd let the law do the condemning.
    No one said that homosexuality should be illegal, nor did anyone compare the effects of homosexuality with pedophilia. You are (again) creating a strawman. And clinging desperately to it, apparently, in at least the implicit realization that your standard of "you can't condemn something unless you have engaged in it" is remarkably short-sighted.

    Masturbation is definitely a same sex act.
    ...no. Masturbation is not a homosexual act. It can be (it does not have to be) a Lust act, but it is not a homosexual one, especially given that it often takes place in a heterosexual context.

    It's not the definition of sexual coupling but it is a male performing on a male.
    If you are having another guy whack you off, then yes. That is seeking sexual satisfaction from another member of the same gender.

    You don't know what Jesus really says, unless you've talked to him?
    Interesting idea. I have never spoken with President Obama, or, in fact, even seen him. Would you suggest that therefore I should retain a healthy skepticism as to whether or not he is the President? What about Abraham Lincoln - not only have I never talked to him, but he's long since dead. Should we agree that we don't know if he gave the Gettysburg Address?

    All you're going by is some book written in 1400 that was transcribed from parchments, that were in turn written from mouth to mouth stories. That's a whole lot of he said, she said.
    The New Testament was largely written in the first century, and some of it was dictated in the early second - which is where we have the oldest surviving documents from (part of the Gospel of John). So not so much he said she said as all that - although there are some discordant details as you would expect from multiple eyewitness accounts. Nor is that all we have to go on, although it is fairly authoritative.

  5. #155
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    What, you mean like when someone asks you a question (say, for example, in an interview), and your answer is based on the Bible?



    Yeah... See: Chik-fil-A: Comments of CEO: Insane Hyperbolic Response To.



    No there isn't. In fact, one of the best ways you can love your neighbor in this day and age is to be honest with him or her about the thou shalt not parts - few need reminding in this day and age that God calls on us to show love and decency to each other; it is the flip side of that coin that people forget.



    Not really. In fact, it leaves one vulnerable because the immediate return question - which you yourself asked - is "so do you always do as you are supposed to according to the Bible?" and the honest answer for the Christian is "no". In order to speak on how we are supposed to live, one has to be willing to admit that one fails at it. That is sort of the opposite of self-serving.



    No one said that homosexuality should be illegal, nor did anyone compare the effects of homosexuality with pedophilia. You are (again) creating a strawman. And clinging desperately to it, apparently, in at least the implicit realization that your standard of "you can't condemn something unless you have engaged in it" is remarkably short-sighted.



    ...no. Masturbation is not a homosexual act. It can be (it does not have to be) a Lust act, but it is not a homosexual one, especially given that it often takes place in a heterosexual context.



    If you are having another guy whack you off, then yes. That is seeking sexual satisfaction from another member of the same gender.



    Interesting idea. I have never spoken with President Obama, or, in fact, even seen him. Would you suggest that therefore I should retain a healthy skepticism as to whether or not he is the President? What about Abraham Lincoln - not only have I never talked to him, but he's long since dead. Should we agree that we don't know if he gave the Gettysburg Address?



    The New Testament was largely written in the first century, and some of it was dictated in the early second - which is where we have the oldest surviving documents from (part of the Gospel of John). So not so much he said she said as all that - although there are some discordant details as you would expect from multiple eyewitness accounts. Nor is that all we have to go on, although it is fairly authoritative.

    You're making this too hard and less concise. And few can even interpret the bible sensibly, more less live by it.

    Phil has a legal right to his public expression of views, opinions and religious beliefs. But the corporate entity he's employed by also has a legal right to respond when his editorial has an impact on their brand. He signed a contract, as do most TV personalities to that effect.

    I think the over reaction by the Media makes Stars personal views too big a deal.

    And the real controversy here goes beyond this incident to a wider conflict between Gay activists promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality and the religious conservatives wanting an equal public viewpoint about how it conflicts with their beliefs. Both are somewhat wrong headed in their approach to the conflict but have undeniable rights to express their beliefs within the bounds of the law.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  6. #156
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    I fail to see how anyone was "provoked."

    Myself, I would just say "no comment," if I thought I was being "provoked." But that's just me, I guess.
    Provoked may be too strong...but it definitely seems that he was invited, encouraged, asked, etc.

    It's not like he just decided in the middle of a public appearance or on his show to suddenly go "Hey, wanna talk about those sinning gays!?"

    It looks like the interviewer was asking questions down this line of conversation, and so he answered those question.

    Would it probably have been more tactful to present it in a less crude fashion, or more wise in a PR sense to side step the question? Yeah, probably. The thing is it's a relatively unreasonable expectation, and one I highly doubt an interviewer (who I'm sure did his research) held. While I don't think the guy is as DUMB or unintelligent as some make him out to be, he's definitely not a smooth social operator. Part of the appeal of their show is that it's very in you face, honest, and unapologetic about it's members views, thoughts, actions, etc.

    But there's definitely a difference in terms of the situations where ithe offending comments occured. I think it's at least fair to acknowledge that he didn't start making these comments fully by his own random decision, but was directly steered down that path by an interviewer...significantly different than the Dixie Chicks deciding to make a statement mid concert.

    Not saying or passing judgement on whether or not the outrage towards both have hypocritical tendancies, or that A&E was in the wrong to act....but simply stating that to be fair, one must acknowledge that he was asked a question and simply answered honestly in a blunt (But expected given his seeming nature) manner.

  7. #157
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Actually...its not his 'opinion'...its a fact that he quoted the words of God as contained in the Bible. BUT...you and he may choose to agree or disagree that there is such a thing as a God. THAT is an opinion...a belief based on a choice.
    Again, to be fair about the situation...

    Part of it he was clearly paraphrasing the Bible. Part of it though was absolutely not "quoting the bible". Unless I missed the point where the bible declared that a vagina is more desirable to a man than an anus because a woman has more to offer. Perhaps you can offer me up the verse and I can go search out a bible and double check, but pretty sure that wasn't a "quote" of hte bible.

  8. #158
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Colorado mountains
    Last Seen
    01-03-15 @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,729

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    The problem with Phil is that he is an asshole.
    He detracts from the show and the GQ interview brought to a head the plans that A&E likely had for him anyway.
    Phil has every right to say what is on his mind in his usual judgmental, mean-spirited, antagonistic manner.
    A&E have the right to keep their show entertaining and light heartedly amusing.
    The goals of the two were not consistent with each other.
    I believe the brothers, with their families, and uncle Si can keep the show going in the spirit with which it was intended.
    Phill can continue his craved-for fame by guesting on mean-spirited, judgmental religious talk shows and Fux Snooze.

  9. #159
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    You're making this too hard and less concise. And few can even interpret the bible sensibly, more less live by it.
    Not really - the Bible isn't written at a post-graduate level. Although only one guy ever probably managed to live its' live in full obedience to its principles, it's not terribly difficult to figure out.

    Phil has a legal right to his public expression of views, opinions and religious beliefs. But the corporate entity he's employed by also has a legal right to respond when his editorial has an impact on their brand.
    Yup. A&E had every right to do what it did. I think that it was a very stupid move on their part business-wise, but they have every legal right to be stupid.

    I think the over reaction by the Media makes Stars personal views too big a deal.
    I would agree as well. A&E reacted the way they did because they assumed they would be targeted because of Phil's views. Now some conservatives are rushing around pretending that this is some kind of First Amendment violation, when it is nothing of the kind, all of it blown up by the media.

    And the real controversy here goes beyond this incident to a wider conflict between Gay activists promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality and the religious conservatives wanting an equal public viewpoint about how it conflicts with their beliefs. Both are somewhat wrong headed in their approach to the conflict but have undeniable rights to express their beliefs within the bounds of the law.
    True Story. And I would include the right of association (A&E saying it would fire Phil. A couple in Colorado saying they don't want to have their business support Same Sex Marriages) in that freedom.

  10. #160
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,361

    Re: Duck Dynasty

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Not really - the Bible isn't written at a post-graduate level.
    It's written at all levels, that's what makes it great. One can glean the message in a few words, and spend a lifetime exploring the metaphysical wisdom.

Page 16 of 28 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •