A Duck Dynasty Community
Wednesday 9:30 PM on A&E

EVERYONE IS GOING QUACKERS OVER THE DUCK DYNASTY DUSTUP

... As previously News Briefed, Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson has been suspended from the A&E reality series for anti-gay comments he made to GQ. Naturally, everyone is losing their poop over the network's decision. Conservative groups have called for A&E to let him remain on the show, citing free speech (because it favors their argument), and there's an online petition at IStandWithPhil.com that's collected almost 100,000 e-signatures supporting the bearded man who called homosexuality a sin. Meanwhile, the Robertson family has posted an official statement on their website, suggesting that they may be unwilling to continue doing the show without Phil:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.

The scandal has ripped the nation in two, and all over a show about rednecks who make duck callers. This is exactly how the ducks planned it, people! Can't you see!?!? [Deadline Hollywood / Deadline Hollywood / DuckCommander.com]


BUSINESS TIME

... Playwright and cursing aficionado (and father of Girls' Zosiah and The Neighbors' Clara) David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross) is developing a limited-event series about the seven deadly sins for Fox. The seven-episode series would devote one installment to each sin; so let's see, that'd be gluttony, envy, lust, pride, greed, wrath, and not closing up potato chip bags tight enough and letting all my sour cream & onion Ruffles get stale. [Variety]

... ABC has ordered its 20 billionth pilot from Shonda Rhimes, a little ditty called How to Get Away With Murder. The pilot was penned by Scandal writer Peter Nowalk, and centers on some law-school students and their professor who get involved in a murder plot. [The Wrap]

... Katie Couric's talk show Katie has been canceled! But not for a while. She'll finish her second season and wrap things up next June. I hope she goes to work hungover and in pajama bottoms with an "I don't give a shit" attitude until then. [E! Online]

... Good news, people in favor of unequal gender equality! TLC's polygamy special about Brady Williams, his five wives, and 25 children has been picked up for a full series. The cable freakshow will run for nine hour-long episodes beginning March 9. [The Hollywood Reporter]


CASTING NEWS

... Cybill Shepherd (Moonlighting, Cybill) will guest-star on ABC's new comedy Trophy Wife as... Kate's mom. She'll play Cricket, a fun and wild woman who bears a striking resemblance to pre-marriage Kate. Look for her in Episode 17. [E! Online]

... Emmy-winner Judy Davis (Husbands and Wives) has landed a recurring role on the 24: Live Another Day miniseries that Fox has scheduled for next year. She'll play a British national who's the widow of a terrorist. [Deadline Hollywood

... End of Watch's Michael Peña has joined Fox's Broadchurch remake Gracepoint. He'll play Mark Lasseter, the father of the boy whose murder is at the center of the series. [TV Line]

... Rhea Perlman (Cheers) is moving into the gated community of The Neighbors. Perlman will play the vey human mother of Debbie (Jamie Gertz). Look for her to appear in early 2014. Seriously, look for it. The Neighbors is much better than the awful pilot that everyone (including me!) panned. [TV Line]


Previously Aired Episode

AIRED ON 3/19/2014

Season 5 : Episode 9

274 Comments
Comments (274)
Submit
Sort: Latest | Popular
Updated news is that it seems like he's coming back in January. Maybe it should bother me, but he and his show are so far out of my demographic, that watching his show feels equivalent to picking a random city in the South, driving there...and being there. My brain shuts it all down at the thought of any of it.

Watching Mad Men alone would be similar if the show wasn't a giant trolljob.
Reply
Flag
He could've run for public office, but maybe he's really too good and pure for all that. Am I kidding? I'm not sure.
Reply
Flag
I'm gay and honestly I wasn't phased by his interview. I didn't even know the show existed before this week, and frankly I've dealt with harsher words from members of my own family. However given that he probably signed a contract, or contracts, regarding his publicity...I think this whole situation is less about free speech and more about the consequences of what you may sacrifice when signing a dotted line. A bit of research informed me that the Robertsons have been going at their business for longer than I've been alive, so I'm assuming they'll be fine if the whole show does ultimately tank.

3
Reply
Flag
A&E never argued that he was being suspended because of a contract violation. That would seem like the intelligent thing to do if that was the reason they were suspending/firing him. Why claim they were firing him for an illegal reason on their part (violation of the Civil Rights Act) when they had a legal basis to do so?
Reply
Flag
Except A&E also never claimed that they were outright firing him. I used the words "probably", "I think", and "may" for a reason, because I wasn't certain if there actually were solid contractual reasons for his suspension. A suspension that has now been rescinded. Ultimately I was baffled by the gay rage surrounding this guy. A few of my friends posted about him relentlessly even though they had never heard of him prior to the GQ interview.
1
Reply
Flag
The Robertsons were filthy stinking rich long before they ever had a show, and will be long after it's over. A&E needs them more than vice versa.
1
Reply
Flag
A+E Networks, a joint venture between the Hearst Corporation and Disney–ABC Television Group (both of which maintain a 50% ownership interest)
Reply
Flag
Here's my question: Justine Sacco of IAC was just fired for some really horrible comments, but half the country is not up in arms to defend her "free speech" rights and rail against liberals or conservatives in passionate terms of freedom of racism, nor are they boycotting all of IAC's shows until she's reinstated. How is one more important than the other? They're not, but some people think they are.

In today's corporate world, free speech and religious freedom mean nothing, now that everyone boycotts anything they disagree with. It's all the bottom line. They'll never take a rights stand against their income.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/12/barry-dillers-iac-calls-pr-execs-aids-tweet-outrageous/
Reply
Flag
Phil Robertson is famous; Justine Sacco is not -- that's why no one's rallying behind her. And the bottom line ALWAYS wins -- don't bother holding your breath, because it's not going to change anytime soon.

Merry Christmas!!
2
Reply
Flag
I can't believe the news article doesn't touch on the incredibly racist remarks, just the anti-gay ones.
3
Reply
Flag
I define "racist" as saying or implying that one race is better than another. What did Phil Robertson say that was racist?
1
Reply
Flag
I don't think they rise to racism, even in the loosest sense of the word, but A&E had a responsibility to at least comment on his arrogance that he could walk in another culture's shoes accurately.
2
Reply
Flag
The reality is that the country hasn't been "torn asunder." How absurd. The media may have been torn asunder but not the country. If A&E cancels the show, the 15 million viewers will follow the Robertsons to another cable network.
4
Reply
Flag
CMT seems to be the home for these resurrections.
Reply
Flag
Formally requesting that the ability to post comments be closed, for this article, as the comment system is being used for naught more than a gay/anti-gay, democrat/republican war of words.
1
Reply
Flag
Undue hype like this is what threatens unity; those of us who are not at one extreme or the other really do not care that much about what Robertson has to say or how A&E, which used to actually air "Arts and Entertainment" programming reacts.

It is not as if Robertson sets public policy (or is even qualified to make an influential comment on it) or that this basic cable networks has much of a public duty.


Reply
Flag
If the family is having doubts about the decision, give them an ultimatum: keep going without pops or be fired. End of story. I know the show makes the company heaps of money, but you don't negotiate with families like this who try to hold something hostage, especially when it's over a complete bigot like Phil Robertson. Good on the network for firing him.
2
Reply
Flag
Just so you understand: A&E needs the show. The Robertsons do not.
2
Reply
Flag
Like I said, I know A&E would lose money by losing the show, but they shouldn't spare their morals for the sake of the cash. They need to tell the Robertsons to get with it or get out, and stick to their guns, same way Phil is sticking to his LACK of morals.
Reply
Flag
If you're going to argue, do so intelligently. You may not agree with his beliefs, but you show yourself to be logic-blind when you say Phil Robertson has no morals. A&E isn't known for morals; the Robertsons are. The popularity of DD is due as much to the moral integrity of the family as to the craziness of their Louisiana culture. And to clarify my statement above: the Robertsons don't need the money, but not because they're rich. It's because they'd rather have their family and their beliefs. Money is simply convenient.
1
Reply
Flag
I respect their strong family bond (from what I've read) and their desire to stick together, but if them staying on the show means a bigot like Phil is welcomed back, let them go. And if those are their beliefs (towards homosexuality and other 'sinful' things), good riddance.
Flag
Glad to here about 24: Live Another Day, I'm not familiar with Judy Davis, but her IMDB profile suggests that she's an accomplished actress.
Reply
Flag
Robertson?! Pretty much any The 60+ white dude from the South with the long beard and the guns? Oh, no, say it ain't so! My god, what were the odds? Next thing they'll tell us is that Dog the Bounty Hunter--and scene.

I'm just surprised it took GQ to 'catch' him thinking what nearly half of all republican politicians officially think (who knows or cares what a politician actually thinks, after all..). Maybe he'll have to wait for FOX news to branch off into reality television, that, or he'll just take the easier route and run for public office.

In related news, Obama's former pastor found saying controversial statements in Bait & Tackle..
3
Reply
Flag
I think I should amend my comments to add that I'd be slightly surprised and saddened if any of the ZZ Top guys had said any of that. Just because I expect more coolness from them. The worst I could imagine one of them saying is "Let 'em do, man. Let 'em do."
Reply
Flag
They are no different than any other rich white conservation over religious media whores that pimp out ugly trashy merch to walmart

. I don't know why so many like this fake reality tv garbage.
6
Reply
Flag
I thought Katie is starting a news show on Yahoo or something to that affect? Sybill definitely works as Kate's mom on Trophy Wife, and The Neighbors is such a great show. Can we now stop talking about A&E?
1
Reply
Flag
Who cares what that guy says, to think that ghastly series is still on and Happy Endings is not, a sad commentary on the absurdity of the times. People would rather watch scripted reality with unevolved people rather than a brilliant masterpiece of creativity and art. *Sigh*.
11
Reply
Flag
I don't think smug superiority about a Friends clone is warranted...
9
Reply
Flag
I don't think a comparison to Friends is warranted... They're both great and brilliant in their own way.
2
Reply
Flag
I love the words that Americans throw around in arguments like this, people are liberals or conservatives, free speech this free speech that. It ends up with the idea that a person can say whatever made up stuff they want, justify it by religion and free speech and it's OK. People can say what they want sure, they then have to deal with the reaction and be told they are wrong and maybe even that they are a hick homophobic a-hole worshipping a made up sky god. Y'all use the right to free speech to give any idiot a soapbox, whereas surely it's purpose is to stop torture and persecution against reasonable arguments.
17
Reply
Flag
You hit it on the head. What this man said is "free speech" so everyone has to shut up about it apparently. :-) People are just as free to comment on what he said, something the reactionaries don't understand.
Reply
Flag
The whole point is that everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes a reasonable argument. While you might call a person a homophobe or a hick for having religious beliefs they choose to follow, that same person might see you as a religious bigot for mocking those beliefs. This is what makes free speech so important. People can choose to agree or disagree with what a person says, but they have to let them say it.
7
Reply
Flag
You're missing the point - the old guy has not had his freedom of speech taken away from him. He's not in prison. He's allowed to continue believing whatever he wants. But A&E are under no obligation to continue paying him if he embarrasses them publicly. It's contract violation, plain and simple. Robertson can continue to hate the gays as long as he lives, he's just not going to do it on TV.
2
Reply
Flag
I was actually just responding to the previous poster who seemed to think freedom of speech in general only applied when he or she agreed with the person speaking. Regarding this situation more specifically, I wonder if you would feel the same way were it a company that disagreed with homosexuality firing an employee for supporting it. Everyone has their own set of morals. Mr Robertson spoke to his own and although I have not seen Mr Robertson's contract with A&E, I doubt anything he said violated it. As to your comment that he can "hate the gays as long as he lives", I think you should be careful not to make assumtions about other people. Mr. Robertson obviously disagrees with that lifestyle but I' m not aware of any instance where he indicated or was shown to have felt hatred for gay people. Also, based on his show's ratings, if Mr. Robertson wants to move to another channel and come back on television once his current contract is over, I'm pretty sure he would have people falling all over themselves to sign him.
1
Reply
Flag
>...I doubt anything he said violated it.

Bringing unwanted, negative attention to the show and by extension the network violates the common clause usually referred to as "the morality clause". This could be anything that leads to unflattering press - drugs, spouse abuse, saying offensive things in public, etc.

>I think you should be careful not to make assumtions
>about other people.

It's not an assumption. We have his own words to rely on.

>Mr. Robertson obviously disagrees with that lifestyle

It's not a "lifestyle". Retirement is a lifestyle. Homosexuality is a fundamental innate same-sex attraction.

>but I' m not aware of any instance where he indicated or
>was shown to have felt hatred for gay people.

Have you read the comments where he compares homosexuality to bestiality, among others? You can't "hate the sin, love the sinner" when the "sin" is a fundamental component of one's identity.


Flag
Duck Dynasty is a hit for A&E, so they're idiots for doing this. They deserve to lose the show, so another network can pick it up. I've never seen the show before, but really, it's about rednecks right? Why would A&E expect them to be politically correct...
4
Reply
Flag
>Duck Dynasty is a hit for A&E, so they're idiots for doing this.

So following the rules is only for when you don't make a lot of money? As long as he brings in enough money he could shoot up heroin on YouTube or beat his wife in public?

Reply
Flag
Haha I feel like exercising his freedom of speech is different from those examples you gave.
Reply
Flag
I hate most reality based shows, and while extremely formula based, Ive watched all of Duck Dynasty and actually kind of enjoy it. Its just one of those filler-shows i watch when I dont want my brain to do any actual work, but I like it and the cast, and always knew they were right-wingers. And as the most liberal person in the world, thats fine with me. Maybe its because I'm a rural-Texan and they remind me of relatives, who knows...

That being said, Phil should be savvy enough to keep such views to himself, and just said.. judge not lest ye be judged... and left it at that. Its a mess of his own making. The media has nothing better to do (because hey we're not in the middle of a war still, having our every communication logged by the NSA, etcetc) so they will drive this cycle after cycle until they Miley decides to twerk again or something equally not-outrageous.

8
Reply
Flag
You're in the middle of a war against YOU. And to some part, DD is an asset in this war. Or was, thankfully was.
Reply
Flag
Really? The Duck Dynasty guy? THIS is going to be the polarizing figure about tolerance and acceptance that people on both sides rally around, a grimier, bearded version of Jed Clampett? Gay, straight, and everyone in between....we're doomed.
5
Reply
Flag
No need to bring Jed into this. He'd look it over and say, "Someday, I'm gonna have to have a talk with that boy."
1
Reply
Flag
Better than Kim Kardashian. Though, not by a lot.
3
Reply
Flag
I'd rather wake up next to Kim than that bearded git, by miles.
3
Reply
Flag
You're a lot less likely to wake up with a disease next to Phil.
3
Reply
Flag
Kanye West is no disease just a man who thinks he is much more than he can actually ever deliver.
2
Flag
I vote neither.
2
Reply
Flag
It's interesting that your news brief about a man causing a controversy by quoting the Bible is followed, with no controversy, by blurbs about the seven deadly sins, murder, polygomy and Katie Couric.
10
Reply
Flag
I'm a bit intrigued by the Fox project. That could definitely work in the limited run format.
Reply
Flag
So,, Rhea Perman on Neighbors, awesome. It really is a good show and hopefully it is a better guest starring that Harry Winslow and APKs mom as Jackie's parents which felt off. Great show though. Probably the second funniest show on ABC after Trophy Wife.
1
Reply
Flag
Its people like Phil and everyone that supports that our country is the way it is.
Reply
Flag
Love Neighbors, one of the funniest shows on TV right now.
5
Reply
Flag
I know!!! After the episode where Jackie acted like a "Jersey housewife" after watching Real Housewives of New Jersey, I was hooked. People should really give this show a chance. I think its funnier than 100% of new comedies this year (maybe equal to Trophy Wife).
Reply
Flag
Right..? I've shamelessly defended this show since the episode after the pilot. Jackie as the Jersey Housewife showed me how talented she is. I like everyone, even the boring human parents.
Reply
Flag
Agreed. I don't know why the viewership is so low. It's not like they have a laugh track or anything!
Reply
Flag
Ehh, it was mostly the first episode. There's no defense against that, but people should give it another chance for the alien parents alone.
Flag
because it favors their argument? Wow, we can tell you have some issues with free speech, sad really... i believe both sides have the right to speak freely and any, on either side, who says speaking freely is wrong, should be ashamed. People do not understand what hate speech is and that is sad. He spoke of his faith and what he views sins, he did not call for anything to be done and said he loves all his neighbors. You want to know what hate speech is, try looking at those who are attacking him, calling for him to be fired, causing verbal attacks on his family, that is hate speech.
13
Reply
Flag
I'm not going to take it bad if you say you are a male and want to marry a female. Good for you, express yourself freely about it! And if you tell me you are a male that wants to marry another male, I'll be fine with it too, have a it! Express yourself! Finally, if you come and tell me that I cannot marry the person I love, for whatever reason, then it is not about your freedom anymore, it is about MY FREEDOM. And you are the one supressing rights, NOT ME. I think that is where the line is when it comes to freedom of speach.
3
Reply
Flag
except at no point did he say that any person could not do anything they wanted. He expressed his beliefs and also said he would never disrespect anyone else for their beliefs. He believes in loving thy neighbor, just because you think they sinned, does not mean they really treat you differently, especially knowing all people sin. And someone saying you cannot marry someone else cannot even effect you in a free society, only if they take action to stop you from marrying a person are they infringing on your rights. Words are just words, if you do not agree, that is your right, but you have no right to tell him he cannot speak then he has a right to stop you from marrying whomever you want. One can speak freely always, it is actions to stop freedom that are illegal. He took no actions, only spoke words when asked what he thought were sins. Merely his opinion, and that they attack him and want him fired is infringing upon his right.
3
Reply
Flag
well then, free speech should cover my rights to call him a bigot right? cos, you know, words are just words.. and btw, A&E has the right to work with anyone they want, you know.. talking about freedom..
Reply
Flag
Having a difference in an opinion does NOT make somebody a bigot. Phil was't being a bigot. He simply expressed his own personal beliefs. He is allowed to do that. It doesn't make him a bigot. If he were being a bigot, he would have judged gays, been hateful, and etc, etc.

Again, difference of opinion is not bigotry. That's not the definition.
1
Flag
call him that if you want, no one is stopping you. As for A&E, they can do what they want, its being pressured by an outside group that makes them wrong. Read everything the man said instead of the edited down version, you are not required to believe any of his beliefs, but he did not once call for something to be done and in fact stated very specifically he would treat no one different because they were different from him. It is others like you who are prejudice against differences and instead of speaking to the man, you attack him and call for something to be done to him like he is not allowed any freedom. If i am wrong about you, so be it, but consider what you think, what you say and the actions you call for.
1
Flag
Totally agree. The guy didn't come out saying he will never work with gay people or hates them. He just stated that homosexuality was a sin in his religion.

This would be like a Jew who said eating Pork was against his religion, then suddenly everbody said he is anti pig and is a pig hater.
11
Reply
Flag
except of course saying that homosexuality is a sin is a completely stupid point of view. history will look at this duck dynasty guy the way we look at supporters of segregation from the 60s nowadays
Reply
Flag
"except of course saying that homosexuality is a sin is a completely stupid point of view."
Why except ? Never eating pork because some bloke from the past who claimed to hear God said so isn't a stupid point of view?
I would say BOTH are, but only the one view hurts people.
1
Reply
Flag
Well historically speaking. Homosexuality predated it being deemed a sin by a newer religious book and was widely accepted as just a norm, Greece, Egypt, Rome etc all civilizations that were relatively accepting homosexuality. Some book saying it is a sin holds no more weight than Harry Potter calling us non magic folk, Muggles.

History won't look at the Duck Dynasty guy, he isn't even a footnote even in this debate. It has just been a slow week for the media.
4
Reply
Flag

The guy is not a homophobe. That is his religious belief.

If you ask Phil if a man and a woman should have sex outside of marriage, he will say its a sin. Or if heterosexual Adultry is a sin, he will say it is. Does that make him a heterophobe too?
10
Reply
Flag
The things he said were not worded nice, however, he did finish it up with that it didn't matter, he would love and respect them anyway and not treat anyone differently. I think my problem is the reality show is focused on a family of Christian people and when one actually says what he believes (though intolerant) they aren't happy that he believes it?
7
Reply
Flag
It's also stated in the Bible that you can marry your sister, should slaughter animals in the name of God, being lefthanded is the sign of being evil, and that throwing your son off of a cliff to prove your love to the Almighty is all okay. That doesn't make it right. If he started to do any of that and cited his Bible, I'd call him crazy, and I don't think I'd be alone. Using a Book (that was written by man, by the way) as the only reason to hate someone is ignorant at best, and this sort of ignorant information needs to stop from being spread. That's why people of influence need to be punished for trying to spout it off.
12
Reply
Flag
The bible does not say you can marry your sister. The bible says you can marry your brothers wife if he dies, mainly because widows back then were destitute and had little chance of making it on there own. So marrying your brothers widow was a kind thing to do (she isn't blood related). It is very much against incest and states that explicitly.

Lefthanded was not a sin in the bible nor condemned, it was a superstition back then and a story in the bible proves the superstition wrong (Ehud the Judge).

We still slaughter animals all the time in the name of God today. It is called being Kosher and Halal. Nobody seems to have a problem today with it. There is a Kosher deli by my house, and a halal restaurant 3 miles away. Also, you could say praying before a meal is a form animal sacrifice.

Try to read a religious text before you bash it. There are a lot of misconceptions about them, most of them false.


10
Reply
Flag
Abraham in Genesis 20:12 says, "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." Abraham's wife is therefore, quite clearly, his half-sister.

There are 25 unfavorable references throughout the Bible about the left hand, which is where the superstition came from. One of the most famous is from Matthew 25:31-41 in which Jesus talks about how Man will be separated onto the right and left, and all those on the left shall be cursed: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'"

Kosher is the specific type of animal and preparation of food. It has nothing to do with sacrificing them to God. I wasn't clear, so I will give you that, but I meant slaughtering animals without any intent of using them. Both Halal and Kosher is for feasting, as is prayer before a meal. The Bible, on the other hand, speaks of many different sacrifices that were performed simply to waste the animal on an altar. The one I can think of most clearly is Genesis 8:20: "And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar."

I do read the Bible.
More +
1
Reply
Flag
Actually, from how I understood it, the Pharaoh's family got the plague because the Pharaoh married a woman that was already married. Men could be married multiple times, but women could not, therefore the plague came upon them. That's why he let Abraham and his sister go. In fact, this is even more to be believed as the reason that God sent the plague, because when Abraham and his sister came across Abimelek who wished to take Sarah as his bride, God came to him in a dream and said: "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman." As you can see, God said nothing about her being Abraham's sister.

As for Kosher and Halal, I am not, you just didn't read what I said clearly. I said that these are the type of animal and the type of preparation. Which is exactly what you said. As for the sacrifice, I'm not talking about back in the day. There are plenty of things that from back in the day are totally okay, stoning premarital sex offenders among them. I'm talking about in terms of today. In terms of today, we as a mostly civilized nation no longer participate in animal sacrifices that waste the meat. And priests, as far as my family goes, are no longer also butchers. In fact, the religious practitioners in my family are hairdressers on top of giving their sermons.

The superstition that you pointed out came from the Bible. I said that. I also said that the quote I made was one of the 25 different unfavorable references made to the left hand, not about the lefthanded. When I made the blanket statement saying that being lefthanded was a sign of evil, that was how people interpreted the Bible back in the day. And wouldn't you know it? That interpretation that was considered law is now simply a silly superstition that people in today's society frown down upon.
More +
Flag
That story is not accepting incest, it is condemning it. In fact, Pharaoh's house got a plague from it because of Sarah being Abraham's wife. Abrhaman was perpetually punished because of marrying Sarah.

As for Kosher and Halal, you are dead wrong. They prepare the meat in certain ways. Like killing an animal facing mecca. That is animal sacrifice. The sacrifices you are referring to where 99/100 not wasteful. It was very rare for a complete burnt offering in a religious text. Most of the burnt offerings where just for the fat of the animal (the tastiest part). The animal was almost always still eaten. Basically like slaughtering a cow and burning the Ribeye to God but eating the rest. In fact, most of the meat you ate in that day was an an animal sacrifice (the priest were de-facto butchers in that day).

That passage you quoted has nothing to do with being left handed, but was a since of direction or sorting. Saying that he will divide people into two groups, not right handed and left handed people. There was no such thing as saying "Group A and Group B " 2000 years ago. Read the very next passage. Its stating people who did not accept Jesus. They used right and left as variables back then, since math/directions/naming convention would not be invented for another good 500 years.
More +
3
Flag
What you're citing is Old Testament. You seem to have a problem with Judaism.

Christianity is primarily covered in the New Testament. Such as Corinthians.
1
Reply
Flag
Many fundamentalist Christians often quote the Old Testament when justifying their beliefs, especially in the southern US. Guess they like their version of god to be more hardcore.
1
Reply
Flag
I think you misunderstood the point of my post, which is fine, maybe I wasn't clear. I was pointing out what a fallacy it is to base your beliefs off of something written in a book by man. Man is a biased creature by nature, and more than likely, the original authors were biased, too. That's why there's contradicting information to be found in the Bible. It's possible that God made mistakes or changed his mind or any number of things, but more than likely, it's because the Bible is a book written by numerous authors.

Were they being inspired by the word of God? I can't answer that. I just know that when people use the Bible as a backing, they seem to forget all of the other ugliness that can be found in that Book. That was my point.
8
Reply
Flag
I understand your point... up to a point. :) However, my understanding is that Jesus said that: as part of following him, to disregard much of what came before (i.e., the Old Testament). And you were talking abut those who follow Jesus (i.e., "Christians"). So if you want to examine fallacies in Christianity, you would need to look only at the New Testament.

Otherwise you're just pointing out fallacies in Judaism. Robertson isn't claiming to be Jewish. Jesus and the disciples didn't follow many Old Testament rituals.

There are of course a variety of sources that disagree with that. But to get the gist of it, might I recommend this one for starters?
Flag
It's not a fallacy to believe in a religious text. Most people who believe in religious texts believe that they were written by God or the writer(s) was inspired and his hand was guided by God when writing it. So the bias is taken out. Also, most religions believe God to be infallible and mistakes don't happen on God's Part.

If you don't believe that it is fine. But you can't make that argument to a person who believes that to be true. There is absolutely no way to prove it one way or another.

Also, I don't think that people forget the ugliness in a religious text. Its just that some people don't agree with it. Nobody said religion had to be a bed of white roses or everything in a religion had to be liked.
2
Flag
Ah yes, the classic argument “you’re intolerant if you don’t tolerate my intolerance”. In most civilised countries people would start a petition to get this dude fired not reinstated, free to spread his religious non sense. I hope A&E holds its ground and does not give into pressure even if there are a lot of money at stake.
10
Reply
Flag
A&E already gave into pressure by giving into GLAAD. As Wilson Cruz, spokesman for the organization noted, "Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families." Subsequently, "GLAAD has also reached out to the network regarding Robertson's comments."

Whether GLAAD started a petition as well, I couldn't determine.

The question isn't tolerance: it's whether someone should be fired by a TV network (even if the contract generally allows it, which appears to be the case here) because they expressed their beliefs outside of the show. If A&E had fired someone because they were supporting gays in an interview that had nothing to do with the show, would folks be okay with it?

What if they fired someone because they expressed support for Islam outside of the show they were on?
7
Reply
Flag
It all comes down to what kind of company A&E wants to be. If they want to be known for supporting vile and extreme stereotypes, they will sweep this under the rug and pretend it never happened.
A company has the right to fire anyone who does damage to their image. That is in my opinion just common sense.
5
Reply
Flag
To me it comes down to whether it is right for a company to fire someone based on their expressed beliefs. Not "do they have the right" but "is it right"?

I'm an atheist. I wouldn't want to be fired if my employer heard me say Christians are idiots. If Robertson were an atheist, I wouldn't think it was right for A&E to fire him if he said Christians were stupid. How can I believe it's okay for A&E to fire him if he's something else?
6
Reply
Flag
Is deferring to a large corporation the definitions of "civilized" and "hateful" really a good idea?

That's why I'm wondering what you personally think, if you were the one being affected. It's great when a big corporation agrees with you or me about what is hateful. What happens when they don't? Once you start doing that, nobody is safe, IMO.
3
Flag
Again, you're arguing right from the company's point of view and what it can legally do. I'm asking if you, personally were fired for talking about religion or sexuality or creed (talking being an action that you have a choice in), and they believed you said it in a hateful way, would you believe it was "okay"? You wouldn't be happy with it, but would you agree it was the right thing for them to treat you like A&E treated Robertson?

Whether the organization is pro- or anti- the belief or sexuality or creed you're talking about is irrelevant. And they can define "hateful" and "civilized" however they want. What if your employer disagrees with you and thinks you were hateful? Are you still personally okay with it?

What if you are employed by a non-Christian organization, but a Christian organization brings pressure to bear on them if you say Christianity is stupid? Would you personally be okay with that if the organization fired you?
2
Flag
It is absolutely right. A company has to protect its image no matter the cost. Every action has consequences. Phil could have expressed his beliefs about homosexuality in a civilized manner, maybe without doing much damage to A&E. However his interview was deeply insulting and filled with hateful remarks which as Wilson Cruz said stains the network.

If you were employed by a Christian organization and you go about saying ''Christians are stupid'' you should be fired. Likewise if a company tolerates the gay minority and you go around insulting them you again should be fired. Again this is about protecting the image and interests of A&E. If someone harms your company in any way they should be fired.
3
Flag
The question isn't if they have the right. They presumably do. The question is if it is right. In your opinion, do you feel that it is "right" for a network to fire someone based on their professed beliefs and actions? And if you do, does that apply to all professed beliefs and actions including ones that you agree with, or only ones you disagree with?

If they wanted to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened, that plan failed pretty miserably... :)
2
Reply
Flag
Gislef, I feel for ya, I understand what you've been trying to say...some ppl just can't stop pushing their own agenda long enough to try and see things from another perspective..
Flag
Yes, people should be fired if they express hate outside of their line of work and it works it's way back to the company. That's called consequences. If you call your boss a dumbass, you are going to be fired, freedom of speech or not. If you insult an entire group of people, you are going to be punished (or should be anyway). The reverse argument doesn't work because the situations aren't the same. In the future, I hope they do end up on the same playing field, but you're missing the big point here.

If Phil had been gay, there would have been hundred of groups rallying to get him fired on that basis alone. There would have been funding into anti-gay groups; there would have been hate mail sent; there would have been entire groups of people who he now supports supporting his sacking. He wouldn't have even had to open his mouth. The simple fact of his sexuality, which would not be his choice, would be the whole reason for his hate.

In this case, it was his actions (not who he is as a person) by speaking out that has led to this outcry. Actions have consequences, as they should, and they were actions that he clearly had control over.
More +
3
Reply
Flag
seems like its going to come down to A&E loosing the "support" of the gays which probably don't watch DD anyway or loosing the support of the huge numbers of people who do and agree with Phil. DD will get picked up by some one else who doesn't really care about the supposedly "hurt" feelings of a small handful of clowns
Reply
Flag
it is a religious belief, not hate. he never once said he hated someone. In fact he has said he loves all his niehgbors as his belief tells him he should. He merely said it was a sin, something that is true of many faiths, like it or not. Attacking faith of npeople does not win you points and makes you the hater.
6
Reply
Flag
"The simple fact of his sexuality, which would not be his choice, would be the whole reason for his hate."

That's not what I was talking about. Like you, I was talking about actions and words.

"because they were supporting gays in an interview that had nothing to do with the show"

Presumably you have a choice about supporting gays in an interview and other public conversations. I've done so myself, and I'm not gay.

So if I speak in favor of gays, do you believe that it is "okay" for my employer to fire me because of it? Not "does my employer have the legal right," but "are you okay with it?"
1
Reply
Flag
For instance, if I spoke in favor of homosexuality outside of the workplace, and my employer fired me because they considered me hateful and uncivilized and was ruining their image, I would be unhappy about it and would believe it was wrong. I wouldn't say, "Oh, yeah, they can do anything they want." That may be legally true, but I sure as heck wouldn't defend them.

Therefore I'm unhappy about it and believe it's wrong when it happens to someone else. It doesn't matter what the belief or the person is even if that belief is repellant to me. Or repellant to a small group rushing in to pressure an employer into firing someone.

Robertson is hardly suffering from being fired. But if I have to take sides here, it's not going to be with the big corporation and the small pressure group. A&E can cancel the show if they want. But firing an employee (if that's what Robertson is) for stating a belief outside of the workplace, that would seem to be a really bad precedent.
1
Flag
"But like I pointed out, it's not the same thing, so I'm not sure where you were going with that. "

Imagine how you would feel in a situation where it is the same thing. If an employer fired you for you stating your beliefs outside of the workplace, and your employer considered your beliefs hateful and uncivilized, when you believed they weren't.

Once we know how you would feel in the same situation, you'll see where I'm going. :)
1
Flag
I never mentioned anything about hiring and firing based on skin color--only statements of belief and support

Robertson and your brother's employer didn't do the same thing, that's correct. That's why I'm asking folks here about something that is the same thing.

If you or a relative were fired for your belief, would you be okay with it? Your brother's fiancee being black isn't a belief. But let's run with that. Would you be okay if A&E fired you for speaking in favor of interracial marriages, in a private interview not affiliated with A&E?

If you're not okay with being fired in that case, why are you okay with Robertson being fired for the same thing: speaking a belief unpopular with his employer?

If you are okay with being fired in that case, then why condemn Robertson for doing it?
1
Flag
I'm not sure what you're getting at... Can you be a bit more clear? Because spreading hate and spreading tolerance is not the same thing... I think everybody can agree on that. And in the past, yes, you could be fired for showing support in favor of less than popular group. Hell, my brother just recently got fired for marrying his fiancee who happened to be black, and it pissed us all off. Spreading hate is never okay. I think the employer should have gotten in trouble, lost his entire business; I don't care if it's his belief.

Spreading hate is wrong. Whether it's Phil or my brother's employer. So, I guess the answer to your question is no, I am definitely not okay with it. But like I pointed out, it's not the same thing, so I'm not sure where you were going with that.
Flag
So if someone spoke against Christians, on or off a show, it would be okay in your opinion for a network to fire them?
1
Reply
Flag
I don't buy the argument that we should treat the same hate directed at different groups differently. If you do that, that "future" will never come. You don't eliminate hate from Group A toward Group B by giving Group B a pass on hating Group A.

My understanding was that Robertson was talking about homosexuals that haven't asked forgiveness for their sins. Which homosexual Christians haven't done that?
Flag
Well, TV.com ate my post (I think or it's taking a while to show), so I'll go ahead and reply again.

Yes, in the future, but not today. It's the same reason why white people jokes aren't nearly as offensive as jokes about minorities. It's not because they're not both wrong; it's because you have to start with the extremes to get the equality rolling before you can get total tolerance on both sides. It's the same thing with misogyny verses misandry. Both are wrong on every level, but we know as people that misogyny is the big problem in the world right now. We have to focus on that first, get that worked out, get people to change their perceptions, before you can then go back and work on the other problem.

When you do it this way, you're hitting the Major group first and drilling it into their heads that hate is wrong. Eventually, the thought process that lead to that hate will just disappear. That's why someone with racist relatives can be completely not-racist, because they group up in a society that shaped them that way. We have to focus on the main problem, which is hate against homosexuals, first... and then we can turn around and remind people that hate, period, is wrong.

But is hate against Christians wrong? Yes! Absolutely. Hate against any religious group is wrong. Stereotyping, group hating... All of it. It's wrong on so many levels. But what you have to realize is that Phil insulted homosexuals as a blanket statement... and there are plenty of homosexual Christians out there, so he was insulting people from his own religion!
More +
2
Flag
I didn't say anything about "Freedom of speech."

I've seen plenty of atheists who say that they "hate" Christianity (and also plenty who haven't). I've seen plenty of Muslims who express hate for infidels (and plenty who don't.) I wouldn't expect the ones expressing "hate" to be fired because of it, under the circumstances we're talking about.

Since it's their actions I'm talking about, are you saying it would be right for a network to fire them?
2
Reply
Flag
If I were going to talk about any right or freedom, it wouldn't be freedom of speech. It'd be Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right Act.
1
Flag
I'm not talking about whether they can or can't do it. Contracts permitting, they can. I'm asking if in anyone's opinion it would be right to do so.
2
Flag
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
"Conservative groups have called for A&E to let him remain on the show, citing free speech (because it favors their argument),"

Since "they" (i.e., conservatives who share Robertson's viewpoint), that's hardly surprising.

If GLAAD, the people that demanded A&E fire Robertson, learned of a network firing someone because they were gay, or spoke out in favor of gays, they'd called for the network to let that person remain on the show, citing free speech (because it favors their argument).

If Muslims learned of a network firing someone because they were a Muslim, or spoke out in favor of Islam, they'd call for the network to let that person remain on the show citing free speech (because it favors their argument).

If atheists learned of a network firing someone because they were an atheist, or spoke out in favor of atheism, they'd call for the network to let that person remain on the show citing free speech (because it favors their argument).

If everyone has the same argument, then it's just a matter of whose axe is being gored.
7
Reply
Flag
Or "ox" was being gored. Or you can assume I was making a satirical mixed metaphor. :)
1
Reply
Flag
Dear AE TV, you take Duck Dynasty off the air I am sure your ratings will go down. There are a millions of people that watch this show, It has been one of the cleanliness shows that have aired on TV since Andy Griffin. It is a great family show. The whole family sticks together and helps each other out, You know the saying the family that Prays together sticks together. Until this show back on TV, there will be no watching your channel. My clothes are most of Duck Dynasty, I will support them all the way, I am sure you don't have opinions on what he said, and what he said is the truth. These people he is taking about will not get to Heaven, It is Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve. I would let my children watch them, before some other shows you put on your channel, I would not let my children watch the Pawn shows. Not the way Ashley and her brother and dad act. Put them back on TV or lose your Ratings. Word gets around. Marge
2
Reply
Flag
"Conservative groups have called for A&E to let him remain on the show, citing free speech (because it favors their argument),"

I haven't been following either side, but what are liberal groups doing? Calling for A&E to let him remain on the show, or supporting the network?

And whatever they do, do they do it because it favors their argument? (Whatever argument either side is making here.)
1
Reply
Flag
Is Gracepoint going to be EXACTLY like Broadchurch?? Even the same story, same homicide? Are they going to change the dialogue at all or at least change "trousers" for "pants", "toilet" for "bathroom" and "mobile" for "cell"?

If anyone wants to know who the murderer is, just message me.
Reply
Flag
Staff
I still have a few episodes left of Broadchurch on my DVR so don't tell me who it is, but I have a feeling some of the facts will have to be changed in order to make people want to tune in. (But then again, what I think will happen, rarely ever happens in these instances.)
1
Reply
Flag
I figured some people might not have watched it yet and I hate spoilers and find them the work of meanies.
Reply
Flag
The Neighbours is a great show, the characters are likeable and fun and Toks Olagundoye is gorgeous. I didn't care much for the pilot but after the four episode test the show firmly established on my list, unfortunately I'm expecting it to be cancelled after this season, but hopefully I'm wrong!
3
Reply
Flag
Let's all put the bigotry business to the side for just a moment. That show is mind-bendingly retarded.

America's love affair with people whose parents had the same last name before they were married needs to stop. Between this show and the one about that melted lump of shit in a pink dress, it's too much.
13
Reply
Flag
I'm actually impressed how eloquent and reasonable the response from the Robertson family was. Still, wouldn't it be amazing if by some fluke this leads to the end of the show.
Reply
Flag
Yeah, cause they wrote the answer themself and not some high payed christian spin doctor.
5
Reply
Flag
I like people who call themselves Christians but fail to recognize discrepancies between the two testaments. a Christian's goal should be to emulate Christ. the old testament would condemn homosexuals, Jesus would not.

I think you're really effing late on retracting your The Neighbors remarks. I can see being blinded by Gertz' and her husband's character initially, but the aliens and writing were pretty solid from the get-go. I'd say the show has even grown steadily in quality. this second season has had some strong laughs. the British black chick's character is a bit of a prop despite the actresses' talents though unfortunately.
Reply
Flag
Those on the other side of the issue get to use this all the time, so I'm kind of glad to be able to use it now. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. It is true that a Christian should strive to emulate Jesus, but I think that your view, and the opposite as well, would be an oversimplification. While Jesus did not talk about homosexuality, he did fairly universally affirm the Old Testament scriptures, and the few notable cases where he did not, he did not overturn what was written but deepen it. If Jesus didn't overturn the commandment against murder but extended it to include harboring anger in your heart toward someone what implications might teachings like that have on the issues of today? Jesus was not negating scripture but showing the self righteous just how short they fall. Would Jesus affirm homosexuality as an act and a lifestyle? I kind of doubt that he would, but to those who ride under the anti-gay banner I think he would have some harsh words for them as well. Frankly they might be harsher.
3
Reply
Flag
The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with. Some people think some things we don't agree with, I feel like we're being just as bigoted by condemning someone solely for the fact they think something's a sin. If you read what he said he clearly didn't understand how homosexuality works and I think that's the case for alot of people that aren't okay with it. Perhaps instead of being equally dickish to them we should try to teach them the error of their ways. Or we call all just continue to hate each other and be cunts, just as long as we don't say anything that's offensive right? Because that's the important thing. God forbid someone be offended. Just fucking speak your mind, have conversations, understand each other, people that profess to be tolerant are quick to demonize anyone that has different ideas. I find that there are alot of people out there that are just misinformed or the product of a bad experience, they might be willing to talk and be respectful to differing views but we'll never know that if we just brand them an asshole the second they say something we don't agree with. A few decades ago black people couldn't even go to the same hospital as white people, now one's president. We didn't get here by saying every racist was a douche, we got here by making the racists understand the error of their ways. These days whenever someone says something homophobic we attack them and go on about how terrible they are but we're being no better, you can't expect a child to know how to read if nobody's taught them, and being cruel to them for not being able to read's not going to make them learn. P.S. And get the fuck out of here with that "citing free speech (because it favors their argument)" bullshit, that's the only time some cites anything, that's the fucking idea, to support their argument. You may as well say he read so he could know what the page said, why the fuck else would anybody read something?
More+
10
Reply
Flag
Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance, it's consent for oppression through silence. The right will never convince the left to be silent while they oppress people. That's literally how the holocaust happened. If you don't want to be associated all of the horrific human rights violations throughout history you'll stop trying to use that argument. It makes you look so bad that the rest of what you write doesn't even matter.

Also, true political correctness is not saying anything that will offend anyone on the left or the right. Dunno why the right thinks it only pertains to the things they can't say around the left. Egocentrism I guess. People should walk a mile in my facebook profile. Between the people on the right and the people on the left, I can say basically nothing without offending someone's political sensibilities.
14
Reply
Flag
I thought Katie Couric went to Yahoo news... or was that someone else?
1
Reply
Flag
She left ABC news for Yahoo. Different thing entirely from her talk show.
1
Reply
Flag
ahhh...gotcha
Reply
Flag
I'm jumping on the How to Get Away With Murder bandwagon just in case it turns into another Scandal so I can say I watched it from the beginning. I just hope I don't end up with another Off The Map instead.
1
Reply
Flag
Lets hope that this so called controvesy means the end of the show, there is no controversy the man is a bigot and defending it with the so-called right to free speech is no defense for being a bigot.
That said the company making the show decided to used their right to free speech by telling the man that he can say whatever he wants but they will not be a platform for his bigotry. And I prefer their choice over one bigot with a message of hatred towards other people, as Jesus liked to do all the time.
And for those 100.000 signatures they probably represent the minority that dislike other living being for not being as they are themselves. No respect whatsoever for other ways of living.
2
Reply
Flag
Yes and your Bigotry stands right out in front as well. You live the life you live, you believe what you believe. He believes in God, In the Bible as His Word and he only shared what he feels, based on what he Believes. Did anywhere in the article state that He Hates Gays? no he did not. He said he believes whats in the Bible and that homosexuality is a sin, But guess what? it says that right in the Bible. You and your GLAAD minions need to Chill the F*** out. not EVERYONE in the WORLD agrees with you and your lifestyle choices. and for your information Jesus Never spoke hatred of anyone, but you GLAAD or LGBT or whatever acronym you go by these days will twist anything into your Hateful, Vengeful, Spiteful way to get what you want AND are JUST as guilty of bigotry, moreso even than anyone who talks against gays.

And no, I Dont care if everyone hates my post because I agree with Phil, If People read the article fully before they start bitching, they would see that there is nothing of hate in what he says. as with the statement the family made, it may have been course, but there was no hatred or volatility in his words, Nope that stuff came from GLAAD and its minions, blowing this whole thing up.

More +
4
Reply
Flag
The bible is a lifechoice too and the book is full of ancint believes that are used to be hatefull to other folks. They tend to ignore the message of love and how Jesus preached that.

You seem to believe in the freedom of speech when it suits you and your believes, expect that the opposition has a similar right of speech and believe. And it seems that these days any idiot who preaches bigotry gets called out on that, which is a good thing.

I do hope that they will not let the guy get back on the show and that the other folks in that show side with him. I am sure tat they'll find another group of strange or outragious people with lifechoices that will make a large group watch their antics on tv.

And JohnKlepic you have the right to believe whatever you want even agree with swampboy and his interpretation of the bible. But expect people to recognise that kind of behaviour for what it is.............
Reply
Flag
What? And all gays dont hate and arent bigots themselves? lets say it was a gay man stating that Heterosexual behavior was a sin, "I mean come on guys a mans Anus has so much more to offer...." then if the hetero association of whatever comes along you would be sitting right there defending his words as well, but thats not bigotry thats belief... see my point? no matter how you look at it or what, our two sides are NEVER going to agree. I believe he was responding to what was asked of him and he gave his opinion. Period! did he do it spitefully, call you names and such, no he did not! he stated matter of factly what he interpreted His bible says about the lifestyle, thats it. your groups the one who all got your panties in a bunch over it. so check him off your christmas card list... OH wait, am I allowed to say Christmas? it is after all the Time when Christ was born, as we believe it, its only been known as Christmas for the last how many hundreds of years? you know same as Marriage was between a man and a woman since the beginning of time! And then to sit there and tell us that we are wrong and our bible is wrong and that its how'd you put it? oh ya full of ancient beliefs used to be hateful to other folks, Ya, that doesnt sound anything like Bigotry to me!
More +
Reply
Flag
Merry Christmas JohnKlepic to you and your loved ones even if Christmas has about as much to do with the birth of Christ as the bible and its content from over two thousend years ago should dictate our times. Being gay is not a sin, telling people that they are wrong because your faith says so should make you pause and wonder why they are wrong in their life choices anymore than you are in yours.
Flag
So a certain "reality" show star says something controversial. There is probably a lot of his targeted fan base that agree with the statements. But his network suspends (doesn't fire) him from the show. All of a sudden this show is all over social networks. And despite the network suspending him, my directv guide shows 121 reruns to be shown before the first of the year. If the network was so concerned with what he said, i would think they would not want to show him on their network anymore. 121 episodes in less than 2 weeks is not simply re-airing shows, that is a marathon (almost 25% of their time on the air) This makes me wonder if this controversy was scripted just the same way the show is. Sounds like another publicity stunt to me...
5
Reply
Flag
The Food Network was worse with Paula Deen and drop her like a hot potato.
There are to many reality shows on anyway. Let this one go in peace, and give Paula Deen another chance.
Reply
Flag
Some bearded bigot said something offensive, what a surprise!
3
Reply
Flag
im not going to comment on the Duck Dynasty thing seeing that everyone is going to.
But Sister Wives has managed to get another season?????!?!?!??!? AHHH WHY TLC! My brain is hurting just thinking that that show has been able to stay on the air for so long. Man do I wish they picked up Geek Love (a show about comic-con speed dating) a couple of years ago instead on having this.
3
Reply
Flag
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”


15
Reply
Flag
Oh no, an old white redneck has politically-incorrect opinions, heaven forfend, this has never happened before every single time all the time with every single old white guy. A&E would be wise to cut bait on the show entirely, or license it off to Spike where opinions just get in the way of more stupid now.

Sour cream & onion Ruffles, like saying "I love dip and chips, but you know what really chaps my ass? The wateriness of dip!" Sour cream & onion belongs on only Lays or GTFO.

ABC is going whole-hog investing in Shonda Rhimes despite her relatively small resume, she could be a twice-lucky flash in the pan for all they know. So weird, but murrrrrder is all the rage, so we'll see.

No, not Katie Couric's talkshow that nobody watches! Whatever will its loyal audience of nobody do without Katie's bland, unthreatening daytime chat now? Those poor non-existent audience-members.

A show with 5 husbands for 1 wife, that'd be man-bites-dog! Another polygamist idiot and his suckers? No thanks. And you know he has to be a cult leader, because keeping that many women from nagging him 24 hours a day solid without brainwashing is clearly impossible.

Rhea Perlman isn't all that human. And is "vey human" slang?
More+
5
Reply
Flag
Staff
Don't take the chip choice out on Tim; it was an edit made simply to avoid an echo of the word "chip." And now this comment has an echo of the word "chip." *Goes back to bed.*
1
Reply
Flag
Tim can stand by his questionable choices or face the wrath of the "sour cream & onion only on Lays!" lobby, and a powerful lobby it is. Chips: take them seriously, or they'll take YOU seriously. This message brought to you by the council to properly flavor potato chips.
Reply
Flag
Private Practice wasn't a great success, but successful enough to last 4 or 5 seasons, so that's 3.
Reply
Flag
Spinoffs don't count because they coast on another's success and use their originator's formula generally.
Reply
Flag
Staff
Damn you, Frasier!!!
2
Reply
Flag
Frasier and The Jeffersons buck the trend.
Flag
I love how liberals always say conservatives only "cit[e] free speech (because it favors their argument)", yet when liberals cite free speech it's because they are some kind of moral crusaders fighting for justice. Pathetic hypocrites.

But Duck Dynasty still sucks.
5
Reply
Flag
I think you're missing the implication. The point is not that they are citing free speech, it is that they are usually against it, so it is ironic that they are on the same side as free speech for once. Conservatives generally only pay lip service to free speech the rest of the time. They are the people who invented "free speech zones" as a way to limit free speech.
8
Reply
Flag
The beauty of this is that this is an exercise in both free speech and the free market. This guy exercised his right to say the dumb stuff that's in his head in a public venue, and A&E has exercised its right to limit its own speech by removing him from their channel - Phil can keep saying whatever he wants, but A&E doesn't have to publish it because that's THEIR right. And they're most likely exercising that right not because it interferes with their own beliefs, but because it would be financially disadvantageous for them to continue promoting hate speech. This seems to be lost on the conservative outpouring of complaints, there's nothing hypocritical about calling Phil Robertson on his hate speech and there's nothing hypocritical about A&E choosing to remove him from the content they produce. The only hypocrites are the ones who believe A&E should continue producing and airing the series with this guy on the show, violating both the network's right to free speech and to exercise free market choice - hopefully the majority of those signing the petition to keep him on know the difference, though clearly not all do.
1
Reply
Flag
Well put.
1
Reply
Flag
No doubt a lot of what you're saying is true, but do you really think the conservative groups would be supporting Phil on the grounds of free speech if he was advocating anything other than a conservative agenda?
2
Reply
Flag
This comment has been removed.
Reply
Flag
is there that much citing of "free speech" going on? I just take it for granted and say whatever the fuck I want.
1
Reply
Flag
6
Reply
Flag
Phil was taken out of context, period, they baited him, knowing full well his beliefs and they act surprised, then made it sound like he was a homophobic assh*le. Odds are the ratings will increase because almost everyone loves controversy (people still worship idiots like Kim and Kanye, I'd never waste my time watching any show they're on, even if nothing else is on), and A&E will act like like they won the lottery and probably take credit for the ratings hike for the show. On the other side of the coin, if ratings drop and another network will take over the show, bring back Phil, and A&E will look like goats for dropping the ball.
2
Reply
Flag
I don't know who you mean by "they", but it wasn't A&E who engendered this brouhaha. That was solely of Robertson's doing.
Reply
Flag
While I agree with nearly everything you said, Phil is still a homophobic assh*le.
3
Reply
Flag
I don't think Phil fears homosexuals any more than he hates them. He just believes that what they do is wrong.
Reply
Flag
The Neighbors really did improve a lot during its first season. Too bad it got relegated to the Friday Night Death Slot in its second. And somehow Super Fun Night continues to draw breath and be a stain on ABC's Wednesday night lineup.
4
Reply
Flag
Those Duck Dynasty Chia Pets are never gonna sell now.

I'm not making them up, by the way.

3
Reply
Flag
I bet I will buy one. I own a lot of Duck Dynasty Stuff.
Reply
Flag
Seems appropriate at this time to remind you of how the market responded to Chick-Fil-A (sp?). Yes, they lost half their customers, but the other half mobbed the place.
2
Reply
Flag
I visited Chick-Fil- A one time and that is because we did not know our way around WS and that is what we ran into. They are not that good. And just like any other Chicken place. I will never go back to one.
Reply
Flag
I have no doubt that that is the case. I don't believe that any of the people who flocked there where really in it for the food. Just to show support for oppression or something.
1
Reply
Flag
Or to show support for someone who was being oppressed.
Flag
Nah, it's bound to be Ch-Ch-Ch-China that's making them up. ;-)

1
Reply
Flag
Dude, those things are flying off the shelves and you know it.
2
Reply
Flag
Oh well, at least Katie has Yahoo News HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
1
Reply
Flag
Honestly the passion people are displaying over this is ridiculous its a reality tv show. If people had this much passion and were this organized we could change something ACTUALLY important like world hunger,homelessness, aid for cancer research ,helping veterans things people who read the bible are supposed to care about .Honestly I think this energy is being funneled and channeled in the wrong place and it make me sad
23
Reply
Flag
Tolerance for homosexual IS one of the issues that's actually important. The reality show is just something that got people talking about it again. The country is deeply divided on this issue. Of the 40% of the nation whose ideologies are driven by the 15% of them who identify as Christian Conservatives, you've got a huge chunk of the nation that's super offended by homosexuality, then you've got a probably larger portion of the 40% on the left (all of them?) who are super offended by people who are super offended by homosexuality. So, if double digit percentages of the nation are ready to throttle each other over the topic, perhaps the passion is warranted. Duck Dynasty is just a proxy for an existing national division.
6
Reply
Flag
Your right being tolerant of those that are different is important but a lot of people were focused on making get his job back and not the bigger issue
Reply
Flag
Follow this Show
Members
790
  • 8:00 pm
    Caught on Camera With Nick Cannon High Jinx
    NEW
    NBC
  •  
    500 Questions
    NEW
    ABC
  • 10:00 pm
    20/20
    NEW
    ABC