• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Duck Dynasty

Select what represents your view?

  • I don't agree with Phil's comments and he had no right saying it.

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • I don't agree with Phil's comment's but defend his right to say it.

    Votes: 41 39.4%
  • I agree with Phil's comments and defend his right to say it.

    Votes: 26 25.0%
  • A&E had no right to suspend Phil.

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil but I don't agree with it.

    Votes: 44 42.3%
  • A&E has a right to suspend Phil and I agree with it.

    Votes: 26 25.0%
  • It's a question of "freedom of speech" and very important.

    Votes: 13 12.5%
  • Phil's beard is too weird, which makes him a slave to fame.

    Votes: 12 11.5%

  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
Phil Robertson doesn't agree with homosexuality? Shocker!
I agree with ALL of his comments. Not just the one's cherry picked by the media. If you read the whole article, you can see that homosexuals are not the only group of people he comments on. He comments on himself being a sinner as well.
A&E can do whatever they want. I don't agree with it, but they can. I just wonder where the left is in their criticism of A&E for doing this. If a channel suspended someone for saying they agree with homosexuality, there would be an uproar over not only the topic, but that person's rights as well.
 
Don't agree at all. He could've said something else a 100 different ways without much of a peep.

If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention over the past years.

Anything this religious man would have said about gays would have picked up on just like this was.

Groups like GLAAD use situations like this to earn money, so not saying anything costs them money.
 
He had a right to say it, and A&E, being a private company, had the right to fire him for it. It's not a question of rights.

Should A&E have fired him for it? I don't think so. People get way too up in arms about crap like that. Did anyone who watches that show really think those people were a model of political correctness?
 
A&E has a right to suspend Phil - employers have the right to fire employees, and media companies have the right to control their content. This wouldn't even be a discussion if he had gone off on a rant about how much he hated Japanese people and wish we would have wiped them all out in WWII, or something of similar violation of our social codes.

That being said, for A&E to suspend him for this is stupefyingly stupid. Who the hell do they think is watching this show, anyway? Upscale social liberals in New York? If you are a television show, don't piss off your base, especially by positioning yourself as attacking their values.

I get that SSM activists are pretty aggressive, and that A&E wanted to avoid having to deal with them; but they threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Agreed man. The angle that really pisses me off is the NAACP's view. He didn't say anything that reflected negatively upon black people IMO.
 
Nothing. He spoke God's word. [in his own special way]

That is your personal opinion based on your beliefs.

And A&E is not denying him his free right of speech, but A&E has the freedom of choice not to transmit a show of someone they disagree with on this important issue (to A&E).
 
A&E has a right to suspend Phil - employers have the right to fire employees, and media companies have the right to control their content. This wouldn't even be a discussion if he had gone off on a rant about how much he hated Japanese people and wish we would have wiped them all out in WWII, or something of similar violation of our social codes.

That being said, for A&E to suspend him for this is stupefyingly stupid. Who the hell do they think is watching this show, anyway? Upscale social liberals in New York? If you are a television show, don't piss off your base, especially by positioning yourself as attacking their values.

I get that SSM activists are pretty aggressive, and that A&E wanted to avoid having to deal with them; but they threw out the baby with the bathwater.

A&E gets its money through advertisements. This involves a bunch of different companies, and recent history shows more than a few advertisers are willing to abandon shows where the star does something they don't want to be associated with. Further complicating things, A&E is owned by Hearst and Disney, so this could theoretically domino all the way back through those companies.

I think Disney has a number of liberals in their customer base.
 
From what I understand of the family, they've had this issue come up before, and been very upfront about the fact that they are not willing to abandon their faith, or cease or in any way dilute the expression of their faith, for the Show. Given that their reaction was to all walk off rather than try to work around the "hiatus" of Phil, it seems they meant it. I would bet they are plenty willing, and I think there are people at A&E who are now much less at peace about this than they are.

Who's asking anyone to abandon their faith?

And what about Matthew 6 where Jesus basically gives a whole sermon on not practicing your religion in public view?

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."

I bet the people at A&E are too busy counting their millions that they've already made.


If you believe that then you haven't been paying attention over the past years.

Anything this religious man would have said about gays would have picked up on just like this was.

Groups like GLAAD use situations like this to earn money, so not saying anything costs them money.

A religious man, hah! Saying you're religious don't make it so...lol

I bet Phil has never even seen a homosexual act, so he's condemning something he's never even experienced. For all he knows the whole thing was made up by the tooth fairy. Funny how men will condemn homosexual acts but their favorite fantasy is making it with two women. ;)
 
He has EVERY right to speak his mind. Remember the Dixie Chicks? So did they. Where were you guys then? Getting YOUR panties in a wad maybe?

The hypocrisy is evident from all sides of the fence.
Only the females of our world view wear panties. ;) But I agree, there's enough hypocrisy to go around on both sides.
 
Every #1 show that's ever been on has been replaced.

You forget how short the 21st century American attention span is.



Nope, just illustrating the point that the show is simply a replaceable item on a tawdry television line-up.

Average shows yes, top revenue shows no
 
Well, anyone can selectively pick out bible quotes about a subject and say "I'm not judging", when it's obvious they're using the source to back up a personal opinion. Though I can deal better with people who are honest about their ideas than others who're are sneaky and phony about it. Like if someone ever tells you watching a baby being born is the most natural and beautiful thing, RUN! It's like an emerging bloody Spam with a purple worm hanging off of it.
I agree with that. There are a bunch of bible thumpers I've met that can quote passages verbatim about anything but don't take the time to understand the parable behind them. Or my favorite is the inter-faith squabbles of any given major faith, they always "have the answer".



I don't disagree with his right to an opinion or A&E's response. But they're really caricatures of a southerner. My hillbilly uncles from the mountains of Virginia lived in a less modern environment and didn't look as "bumpkin". I'm not overly swayed one way or the other over extreme ideology. It's a sign of simple mindedness to me.
No argument there, my buddy is as "country" as it gets and dresses like a anyone else, unless he is going out to kill something.

Phil is similar to the Dixie Chicks in that they're not being smart about mixing political views with their profession of entertainment. I don't like it when any of those famous people use their notoriety as a platform to express their ideas. Clooney, Penn, Sarandon, Jolie etc are numb-nuts. If there job was op-ed, then fine otherwise their views don't impress me one way or the other.
There are consequences to speech, where they differ in this instance is the nature of the issuances, Phil was asked his opinion, the Dixie Chicks took it upon themselves to volunteer theirs, and at a bad time, place, and manner. In either case it should be a simple disagreement and left at that, though I can say I would be pretty pissed if I paid to hear someone play at a venue and they went into a political rant.
 
He has EVERY right to speak his mind. Remember the Dixie Chicks? So did they. Where were you guys then? Getting YOUR panties in a wad maybe?

The hypocrisy is evident from all sides of the fence.

Same place then as now. He is free to speak his mind. And A&E is free to fire him.
 
Who's asking anyone to abandon their faith?

only A&E, and only to the extent that they push the Duck folks to hide, dilute, or otherwise not express their faith.

And what about Matthew 6 where Jesus basically gives a whole sermon on not practicing your religion in public view?

:shrug: and if you read Matthew 6, you will note that what he is addressing is pride. I'd say it's a pretty good bet that these days you aren't going to get praised by the "right set" for sticking to a Christian view of marriage - you are more likely to be placed on Hiatus :).

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."

Indeed. Don't be a hypocrite. As you will note, is his point:

the rest of Matthew 6 said:
2 “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.[a]

Concerning Prayer

5 “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 “Pray then in this way:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.[c]
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And do not bring us to the time of trial,[d]
but rescue us from the evil one.[e]
14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Concerning Fasting

16 “And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.[f]

Concerning Treasures

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[g] consume and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust[h] consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The Sound Eye

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; 23 but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

Serving Two Masters

24 “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

Do Not Worry

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink,[j] or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?[k] 28 And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32 For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But strive first for the kingdom of God[l] and his[m] righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

34 “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.


In not publicly denying his faith when doing so would allow him to avoid public censure, Phil did the right thing. :shrug: you are free to disagree if you like with his conclusions or his faith, but there is not a "hey, when you get asked about a part of your faith, make sure you hedge about it if that will make you more popular" clause in the New Testament.

IA religious man, hah! Saying you're religious don't make it so...

I bet Phil has never even seen a homosexual act, so he's condemning something he's never even experienced. For all he knows the whole thing was made up by the tooth fairy. Funny how men will condemn homosexual acts but their favorite fantasy is making it with two women.

:shrug: it's not funny - it's sinful. Jesus said that if you commit adultery in your mind you have done so in your heart; including with two women. It is also, as you allude, hypocrtical.

As for condemning something you haven't personally experienced :shrug: why should it make a difference? I don't have any problem condemning sexual relationships between (for example) children and adults, despite having never been in one as either.
 
only A&E, and only to the extent that they push the Duck folks to hide, dilute, or otherwise not express their faith.



:shrug: and if you read Matthew 6, you will note that what he is addressing is pride. I'd say it's a pretty good bet that these days you aren't going to get praised by the "right set" for sticking to a Christian view of marriage - you are more likely to be placed on Hiatus :).



Indeed. Don't be a hypocrite. As you will note, is his point:



In not publicly denying his faith when doing so would allow him to avoid public censure, Phil did the right thing. :shrug: you are free to disagree if you like with his conclusions or his faith, but there is not a "hey, when you get asked about a part of your faith, make sure you hedge about it if that will make you more popular" clause in the New Testament.

You just pasted a whole sermon on "don't preach in public but lead by example". Be good in your heart, not praise yourself with your mouth or do you not know the difference?

Phil could've easily said "I'm a man of faith or a Christian" and leave it at that without going in to detail about sin. Who is he or even you for that matter to tell us what is wrong in order to puff yourself up?


:shrug: it's not funny - it's sinful. Jesus said that if you commit adultery in your mind you have done so in your heart; including with two women. It is also, as you allude, hypocrtical.

As for condemning something you haven't personally experienced :shrug: why should it make a difference? I don't have any problem condemning sexual relationships between (for example) children and adults, despite having never been in one as either.

Really? You're comparing pedophilia with being gay? One is illegal and a criminal offense, punished by law. You do know if you've ever masturbated you've literally, not only lusted in your mind but performed a homosexual act? But I'm sure you're above such awful deeds and have never slapped the weasel?
 
Average shows yes, top revenue shows no

That is kind of counter to the reality that you don't even remember what wast the #1 show on A&E prior to Duck Dynasty.

Sure it has earned a lot of people a lot of money, but just like any other show, it's only temporary. Even shows like "Home Improvement" have largely vanished into the pages of history.

Is "Deadliest Catch" still playing?

What about "Who want's to be a millionaire?"

M.A.S.H. anyone?
 
:) Sorry for the day's delay, but I did want to make sure I got back to this.

You just pasted a whole sermon on "don't preach in public but lead by example". Be good in your heart, not praise yourself with your mouth or do you not know the difference?

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.

Phil could've easily said "I'm a man of faith or a Christian" and leave it at that without going in to detail about sin. Who is he or even you for that matter to tell us what is wrong in order to puff yourself up?

:lol: 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.

Really? You're comparing pedophilia with being gay?

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 :).

You do know if you've ever masturbated you've literally, not only lusted in your mind but performed a homosexual act?

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.

But I'm sure you're above such awful deeds and have never slapped the weasel?

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.
 
Couple of things.
1) The Dixie Chicks spoke out against an American action on foreign soil
2) Phil Robertson was asked his opinion, so he gave it
3) No one asked the Dixie Chicks to talk politics at the concert, they decided to do that on their own
4) The Dixie Chicks spoke against their core audience, then lost them, and radio stations refused to play them.

In both cases freedom of speech was not violated, in the case of the Dixie Chicks they ruined their own career by pissing off their audience unprovoked. Duck Dynasty may or may not go on(I don't care, I don't watch the show) but the Robertson family is loaded already, Duck Commander is a popular brand.

I think we could say the same about both analogies. The Dixie Chicks AND Phil Robertson. Both spoke their mind unprovoked. Both are filthy rich. And as far as the Dixie Chicks go, their sales went off the charts despite the so called 'boycott."

At the end of the day, people who dislike the Dixie Chicks for utilizing their freedom of speech quit supporting them. People who dislike Phil Robertson for utilizing his freedom of speech will stop supporting him.

The problem with the Dixie Chick example is that a LOT of their base audience, are the same type of hicktards that would LOVE Duck Dynasty. But, fortunately for the Dixie Chicks, their international market happen to agree with them and their sales went through the roof. Now, the hicktards may WANT to support Phil Robertson but if A&E takes them off the air, they have no international market to fall back on. All that's left is to keep making duck calls.

Bottom line is, they are all so filthy rich, none of this will keep them from missing any meals.
 
The problem with the Dixie Chick example is that a LOT of their base audience, are the same type of hicktards that would LOVE Duck Dynasty.

Yep -- The Chicks pissed off their target audience, while Robertson delighted his.
 
Both spoke their mind unprovoked.

To be fair...the Chicks randomly stated it at a concert I believe. Robertson seemingly was asked a question during an interview about what he thought was sinful. That's not exactly "unprovoked".
 
To be fair...the Chicks randomly stated it at a concert I believe. Robertson seemingly was asked a question during an interview about what he thought was sinful. That's not exactly "unprovoked".

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.
 
That is your personal opinion based on your beliefs.

And A&E is not denying him his free right of speech, but A&E has the freedom of choice not to transmit a show of someone they disagree with on this important issue (to A&E).
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.
 
I think we could say the same about both analogies. The Dixie Chicks AND Phil Robertson. Both spoke their mind unprovoked. Both are filthy rich. And as far as the Dixie Chicks go, their sales went off the charts despite the so called 'boycott."

At the end of the day, people who dislike the Dixie Chicks for utilizing their freedom of speech quit supporting them. People who dislike Phil Robertson for utilizing his freedom of speech will stop supporting him.

The problem with the Dixie Chick example is that a LOT of their base audience, are the same type of hicktards that would LOVE Duck Dynasty. But, fortunately for the Dixie Chicks, their international market happen to agree with them and their sales went through the roof. Now, the hicktards may WANT to support Phil Robertson but if A&E takes them off the air, they have no international market to fall back on. All that's left is to keep making duck calls.

Bottom line is, they are all so filthy rich, none of this will keep them from missing any meals.
Not to put too fine a point on things, but the DCs got smoked commercially after their comment. They released their next CD 4 years later and not a song from their CD broke the top 35. They received public high fives from the PC crowd...but commercially? They vanished.

Still their right to say it but no way to avoid consequences. I think A&E has every right to suspend Phil Robertson. Hell...I think they should show some real integrity and pull the series completely INCLUDING reruns. And yet...they 'suspend' the man, and are showing a Duck Dynasty marathon. 8 new shows already in the can and there is little doubt that this will all be happy happy happily resolved come March when they have to make a decision.
 
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.
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.
 
Not to put too fine a point on things, but the DCs got smoked commercially after their comment. They released their next CD 4 years later and not a song from their CD broke the top 35. They received public high fives from the PC crowd...but commercially? They vanished.

Still their right to say it but no way to avoid consequences. I think A&E has every right to suspend Phil Robertson. Hell...I think they should show some real integrity and pull the series completely INCLUDING reruns. And yet...they 'suspend' the man, and are showing a Duck Dynasty marathon. 8 new shows already in the can and there is little doubt that this will all be happy happy happily resolved come March when they have to make a decision.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom