Forum Groups

 

Forums / Talking it Over / Duck Dynasty Guy

Duck Dynasty Guy

28 posts
  1. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    12/19/2013 9:12 AM
    I have never watched the show so I don't no Grandpa from Grandma but I have to wonder about the action taken against this guy by A&E. It may no longer be considered acceptable in today's world but can't someone voice their own opinion without being fired? It was a magazine interview and of course now magazine sales will jump while he is basically fired. Should any group have so much power that it can shut down free speech? What ever happened to just not agreeing with the guy. He has personal religious beliefs but is being fired for holding and stating those beliefs. Isn't that just as much intolerance as the ignorance they profess he stands for? I don't know what the audience consists of so I am not really sure how this will go over. You know it is more of a financial decision but it will be interesting to see what happens to the ratings due to their actions.



  2. Kenneth Rue
    Kenneth Rue avatar
    3 posts
    12/19/2013 9:12 AM
    Sandy;

    Si ? what happened



  3. Canedo Alberto J
    Canedo Alberto J avatar
    12/19/2013 10:12 AM
    Sucks what A&E did to Phil. If that is what he believes in, then let it be. I watch the show all the time and it will not be the same without him until his suspension is over with. Personally, I think his kids will pull out of the show if there dad is fired.



  4. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    12/19/2013 10:12 AM
    I don't agree with all of what Phil said, but it is his right to say it. I am a casual watcher of the show, it won't change my viewing habits. What I do agree with Phil and why he should be given a pass is, he stated his belief, and then he said it is not up to him or anyone else to judge, it is up to God.

    I don't think A&E should fire him, or suspend him as they have done so now, but I also say that is A&E's right as well. If they let it the controversy die down, I don't think it will hurt them financially, the sponsors of the show, if they don't like to be associated with Duck Dynesty because of Phil's comments then I'm sure other sponsors will step up.

    I don't think it should create the uproar that it has.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  5. Nowakowski Michael J
    Nowakowski Michael J avatar
    12/19/2013 12:12 PM
    It will not be the same without Phil. I consider him the Yoda of the show, he says a few words and leaves it at that.



  6. Trevor Monreal
    Trevor Monreal avatar
    5 posts
    12/19/2013 12:12 PM
    1 Peter 4:14-19
    I'm sure Phil knows this scripture and he is not one bit surprised by the storm created with what he said.



  7. Steven Huffstutler
    Steven Huffstutler avatar
    11 posts
    12/19/2013 1:12 PM
    I dont think his remarks are accurate, but they are just one mans opinion and the right to free speech means you get to be wrong and still have your say.

    In our polarized political world neither end of the spectrum wants the other end to be able to speak freely.

    Nobody should be in favor of stifling what he has to say just because they dont agree with him or because it's politically incorrect.


    Regards,

    Steve



  8. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    12/19/2013 5:12 PM
    I'm highly offended by Steve calling my very well thought out and placed tattoo a tramp stamp. Therefore I'm calling for Steve's immediate dismissal.



  9. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    12/19/2013 6:12 PM
    What is funny is I'm seeing post about what Gov. Palin is calling intolerance by the left for what he said. I thought some of what he said showed some intolerance too. So both sides need to allow the ability to voice their opinions.

    I agree also what Phil said is we all need to love one another and not discriminate if I read it correctly.

    What bugs me is the right like Gov. Palin and others that are not looking at both sides.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  10. Steven Huffstutler
    Steven Huffstutler avatar
    11 posts
    12/19/2013 6:12 PM
    by Clay Putnam, CGCS » Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:55 pm

    'I'm highly offended by Steve calling my very well thought out and placed tattoo a tramp stamp. Therefore I'm calling for Steve's immediate dismissal.'

    Me too, that bastard needs to go.



  11. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    12/19/2013 6:12 PM
    Here's the article if you care to read it for yourself, http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson?currentPage=1

    Though I believe equal rights for all, this is a clear case of PC run amuck by parsing a persons statements. Phil is merely stating his religious beliefs. Nowhere does he gay bash or state that homosexuals should be discriminated against, etc, etc.

    According to the ABC Nightly News, and I am paraphrasing, Phil believes black people were happier before the civil rights movement. Nowhere does he state such a thing. I would suggest slander by ABC but that's me. Here's all he had to say about life as young man when he worked along side black co-workers:

    Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
    "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field.... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people'—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

    That's Phil's entire opine on the subject of race. Decide for yourself.

    In the end this is the same as the White/Black/Asian Santa, much to do about nothing and stupid waste of time.



  12. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    12/19/2013 7:12 PM
    He does prefer women, though.



  13. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    12/19/2013 7:12 PM
    And shooting stuff.



  14. Kenneth Rue
    Kenneth Rue avatar
    3 posts
    12/20/2013 7:12 AM
    Okay so GQ poses a question to Phil about his beliefs (morals, scrupals) and he answers candidly - so what -freedom of speech unless Barry O tries to change that too. I believe Phil whom I admire, isn't going to try to be politically correct because he doesn't have to-again, freedom of speech. And if A&E wants to "suspend" Phil, then America will decide A&E's fate to view their programs.

    A&E has been editing Phil throughout the series and he has taken issue w/their deletions of mentioning God, Jesus, etc. So on the cutting room floor are probably some very interesting scripts. I don't take Phil as being a guy who will be managed - go Phil.

    More and more our world is becoming more secular - that's a choice - again, freedom of speech and beliefs. So if A&E wants to take the stand - I'll stand w/Phil on his beliefs in God, Family and Country and tuff &%# if the secular media doesn't concur. and dats dat and that's my freedom of speech........know what I mean Vern.

    Kenneth Rue
    K E N T U C K Y



  15. Steve Nelson
    Steve Nelson avatar
    0 posts
    12/20/2013 7:12 AM
    I'm going to choose to be consistent on this even though I probably agree with some of what the man said. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Too many people confuse the issue. Our constitutional freedom of speech means he will not face any legal issues from our gov't, it does not mean that private parties, including his employer, cannot take exception to what is said and pursue some action. His employer, A&E, whether correct or not believes the statements are damaging to their brand and they have taken action to disassociate him and his statements from their brand. Simple as that. Sandy, you started this thread and I pose this example to you: If you had been quoted in some turf magazine making a statement that might be perceived as even mildly insulting to native americans, gamblers, or casinos etc, your employers (native american casino operators) would can you quicker than you can say John Jacob Finkenheimerschmidt. This is no different.



  16. Stephen Ravenkamp
    Stephen Ravenkamp avatar
    1 posts
    12/20/2013 8:12 AM
    While I totally support Phil's right to freedom of speech I also must support A&E's right to suspend or fire him. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech. Further, no one has a right to a job with a specific company. I would bet his contract with A&E has some sort of clause in it that he represents A&E and it's values. Remember, this is a reality TV show and, as such, is scripted and censored. What will be interesting is to see whether A&E returns him to the show. I'm sure Phil's views will not change. A&E's decision will show whether their action was based on principles or economics.



  17. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    12/20/2013 8:12 AM
    Judging by the overall response I would have to say A&E jumped the gun and issued a statement and sentence to Phil without weighing the consequences. Clearly with the size of the audience and demographics it will make a difference in sponsorship and revenue for A&E if this series is cancelled.
    Considering the LBGT accounts for roughly 4% in the US they sure have managed to lobby and get their agenda thru in the last 20 years. A&E by their own admission has championed the cause. On the other hand! What does it say for a show where it is about a large family that became wealthy thru hard work, references this great country, has no swearing, refers to God and Jesus and is # 1 in cable. I think now you might be able to see that there still is a very large group that has been quiet up to now that believes in traditional family and understands where he is coming from!



  18. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    12/20/2013 9:12 AM
    Based on news reports, it sounds as if the family is seriously considering leaving the show if A&E continues with the suspension of Phil. Good for them and I hope they do. Playing the PC game has consequences too. This would be a big loss for the A&E.



  19. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    12/20/2013 9:12 AM
    I think GQ knew they were setting him up for trouble based on the questions they asked. Personally, I would have referred to murder, rape, theft, violence etc. as sins and avoided the hot button issues. You have to be careful every time someone gets in front of you with a microphone, camera or note pad. It seems to be the nature of journalism, rather it is a hard news story or a personal interest piece. Given the opportunity, the interviewer will twist it to fit their agenda. It is a shame you have to do that because it makes you feel like you are speaking like a politician!



  20. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    12/20/2013 9:12 AM
    Time magazine still has time to take back the Person of the Year awarded to Pope Francis.



  21. Ashton Alan W
    Ashton Alan W avatar
    12/20/2013 11:12 AM
    Freedom of speech is not absolute...

    ... and watching Fast n' Loud is as Redneck as my TV viewing gets...



  22. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    12/20/2013 11:12 AM
    After they tell us all about how their decision has to do with morals/justice/blah blah blah, somebody at A&E is gettin' fired if Duck Dynasty jumps ship.



  23. Steven Huffstutler
    Steven Huffstutler avatar
    11 posts
    12/20/2013 1:12 PM
    Phil has a right to say whatever he wants, but he doesn't necessarily have a right to a tv show, especially if his advertisers disagree with him. It's all about money.
    I have watched the show a few times and if it was more about duck hunting and less about goofing off at work all day, I would find it more interesting.
    I appreciate the fact that they focus on family and even though I don't share their faith, if it gives them comfort than I've got no beef with them.
    Phil is something of a pompous pious ass though and I found what I thought was a pretty funny open letter to the Duck Commander........

    An open letter to Phil Robertson

    Dear Mr. Robertson,
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
    d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
    g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
    i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
    - Billy P



  24. Stephen Ravenkamp
    Stephen Ravenkamp avatar
    1 posts
    12/21/2013 3:12 PM
    Good one, Steve.
    One more thing to think about. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, as defined, is strictly regarding freedom from government interference and censorship. It has nothing to do with censorship by a private entity. Think of it this way...would you have your job if you were very publically berating your employers or espousing values that contradict theirs? You may not like what A&E did and you have every right to say so and, if you so desire, not to patronize their network. But you are dead wrong if you believe this is a freedom of speech issue.



  25. James Geiger
    James Geiger avatar
    1 posts
    12/22/2013 7:12 AM
    Stephen Ravenkamp, CGCS said: Good one, Steve.
    One more thing to think about. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, as defined, is strictly regarding freedom from government interference and censorship. It has nothing to do with censorship by a private entity. Think of it this way...would you have your job if you were very publically berating your employers or espousing values that contradict theirs? You may not like what A&E did and you have every right to say so and, if you so desire, not to patronize their network. But you are dead wrong if you believe this is a freedom of speech issue.


    All that being true, you would then have to believe that A&E are guilty of discrimination against Phil and his religious views. Views that he expressed through a venue other than theirs in response to a direct question by the writer.

    Many people may disagree with his take on the Bible but repercussions from expressing ones views should not be permitted in a tolerant and accepting society. A&E knew the views of this family and chose to put them on the air. Don't be shocked when they state their beliefs because that is what drew in the viewers in the first place



  26. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
  27. Ashton Alan W
    Ashton Alan W avatar
    12/24/2013 7:12 AM
    Clay, I agree... nice find.

    Steve, I can hear it now: "But that's the Old Testament..."



  28. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    12/27/2013 9:12 AM
    I was thinking back over the years about some of the so-called art that ended up in top museums over the years. In the 80's a guy named Maplethorpe had some very near pornographic material mocking Christianity. Christians complained and were told to shut up, you are being intolerant of his fine art and if you don't like it, don't go to the museum. In the 90's, another guy did the Christ Piss piece of so-called art with Christ on a cross stuck in a container of urine. Christians complained and were told to shut up, you are intolerant and if you don't like it, don't go. In the late 90's, some artist made a picture that was pornographic of The Virgin Mary as well as made out of elephant dung. Christians complained and again were told to shut up, stop being intolerant and don't go if you don't like it. Anything Christian seems to be fair game and the intolerant left makes no bones about it. Now this same crowd is having heart failure over what some back woods guy from the bayou has to say about his life experience and his biblical beliefs. How about if those complaining just shut up, stop being intolerant and if you don't like it, don't read the interview or watch the program. Wouldn't that be the proper response when considering what those of Christian faith have been told about so-ca;;ed intolerance in the past? Shouldn't things be equal?



View or change your forums profile here.