Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557446 wrote:according to what you believe.

  I agree, yes.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557445 wrote:I guess that is just the way it is.

  
  It does "seem" that way.
• isadore

  would I be wrong in saying you and I at this point have reached resolution on our dialogue on this subject?
• OSH

  

  isadore;1557366 wrote:lol, gosh a ruddies 21 posts on this topic, you consistently rationalize and excuse the despicable comments by this racist, homophobic bigot.

  Still waiting.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557449 wrote:would I be wrong in saying you and I at this point have reached resolution on our dialogue on this subject?

  Geez, I sure hope not.
• isadore

  OSH;1557525 wrote:Still waiting.

  gosh
  sorry you either can not or refuse to understand your own posts.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1557535 wrote:Geez, I sure hope not.

  I thought we had resolved the dialogue with the understanding that I thought Phil was a lying, homophobic racist and you thought he was just like you and everyone else.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557540 wrote:I thought we had resolved the dialogue with the understanding that I thought Phil was a lying, homophobic racist and you thought he was just like you and everyone else.

  Then you thought incorrectly.
• OSH

  

  isadore;1557539 wrote:gosh
  sorry you either can not or refuse to understand your own posts.

  That's exactly what I thought. You have an agenda and cannot understand simple dialogue or another's input on the matter.
• isadore

  OSH;1557544 wrote:That's exactly what I thought. You have an agenda and cannot understand simple dialogue or another's input on the matter.

  Sorry you did not understand the totality of your actions. gosh there was an extended interchange in which I was critical of a Phil Robertson, a racist homophobe and you rationalized his actions and defended him from criticism.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1557543 wrote:Then you thought incorrectly.

  I guess I was wrong about the resolution, but definitely correct about Phil being a lying, homophobic racist. And then you trying to put us all in the same level as this piece of scum.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557547 wrote:I guess I was wrong about the resolution, but definitely correct about Phil being a lying, homophobic racist. And then you trying to put us all in the same level as this piece of scum.

  I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "same level". What are the levels you are referring to?
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1557548 wrote:I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "same level". What are the levels you are referring to?

  gosh a ruddies, the level you place everyone because of your supposed religious beliefs.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557551 wrote:gosh a ruddies, the level you place everyone because of your supposed religious beliefs.

  ...which is what level? What are the other levels?
• thavoice

  bases_loaded;1554949 wrote:It's not like he came out and announced this either. This wasn't Kanye West at a benefit concert saying "bush hates black people". This is some douche reporter asking a question he knows will get headlines and Phil not being a bitch and answering it honestly.
  
  It's a good show that doesn't use sex and violence or a husband on a coke binge to get ratings. He's right when he says this country is in a moral mess. Look how many people hate the show for being just some rich hicks who like God and have a scripted reality show.

  Phil's wife does manipulate him with sex (and food)...which I think is gross on the show.
  
  And they do blow stuff up and shoot weapons.
  
  UBt I know what you meant. They dont resort to alot of the garbage that most reality shows do. Dont forget about Kanyes declaration that when he goes out on stage that he is risking his life like cops and soldiers in combat......
• Apple

  

  I have been an outsider looking in on this whole situation. I have never seen DD but have observed many articles and listened in on many conversations about the show. I have waited until now to finally open/read the last page of this thread and post a comment.
  
  My observations:
  1. Media is trying to fill space during a slow period, and is some regard, working to get the Obamacare debacle off the front page.
  2. Is Phil a homophobe? I'm not sure except that he is a Bible believing Christian. I highly doubt he fears gays, however, because of his religious beliefs, he seems to have contempt for sins including homosexual acts. This puts him on the same page as many other Christian believers including the Pope. A part of me wants to say that calling him a homophobe is akin to claiming that all religions that disapprove of homosexuality are homophobic. Phil probably wears that Christian scarlet letter with pride, however, it is in regard to the sin, not to the sinner.
  3. Is Phil a racist? I'm not seeing it in what I have read and heard. The racist claim takes on even less believability now that Jesse Jackson put his mug into the fray with another typical race-baiting/corporate Knock-out game claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/jackson-duck-star-white-privilege-101533.html
  4. Is Phil a lier? Again, I haven't seen/heard/read enough to come to that conclusion, though I am guessing he will admit to being a sinner.
  
  In the end, A&E will probably take a big financial hit as DD remains as popular, if not more-so, than ever after moving to another network. The entire situation will go down in the ash-heap of history as yet another failed Liberal attempt at controlling Americans.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1557553 wrote:...which is what level? What are the other levels?

  one level of sinner to you, many to me.
• isadore

  Apple;1557565 wrote:I have been an outsider looking in on this whole situation. I have never seen DD but have observed many articles and listened in on many conversations about the show. I have waited until now to finally open/read the last page of this thread and post a comment.
  
  My observations:
  1. Media is trying to fill space during a slow period, and is some regard, working to get the Obamacare debacle off the front page.
  2. Is Phil a homophobe? I'm not sure except that he is a Bible believing Christian. I highly doubt he fears gays, however, because of his religious beliefs, he seems to have contempt for sins including homosexual acts. This puts him on the same page as many other Christian believers including the Pope. A part of me wants to say that calling him a homophobe is akin to claiming that all religions that disapprove of homosexuality are homophobic. Phil probably wears that Christian scarlet letter with pride, however, it is in regard to the sin, not to the sinner.
  3. Is Phil a racist? I'm not seeing it in what I have read and heard. The racist claim takes on even less believability now that Jesse Jackson put his mug into the fray with another typical race-baiting/corporate Knock-out game claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/jackson-duck-star-white-privilege-101533.html
  4. Is Phil a lier? Again, I haven't seen/heard/read enough to come to that conclusion, though I am guessing he will admit to being a sinner.
  
  In the end, A&E will probably take a big financial hit as DD remains as popular, if not more-so, than ever after moving to another network. The entire situation will go down in the ash-heap of history as yet another failed Liberal attempt at controlling Americans.

  1. When a man that has become a media star makes outrageous homophobic and racist statements they should cover it, his actions should be discussed.
  2. Phobic can mean fear or as in this case it can and does mean a strong dislike or aversion. While the Pope is trying to extend a hand to gays, Phil is equating them with practitioners of bestiality. In a 2010 sermon he spread the word that gays and lesbians were murderers. Now that seems hateful or if you prefer phobic.
  3. Whatever Jesse Jackson says has no bearing on whether Robertson’s statements are racist. Phil’s comments stand on their own. They are an outrageous defense of a despicable system. He lived in Caddo Parish, stronghold of the Klan with an extended history of racial violence. The segregated facilities were all around him. Newspaper accounts show blacks were protesting against the situation. You even have a song by Sam Cooke, a pioneer of Rock Roll, being written by him because of a racist incident in the Parish. And he claims blacks were all contented and happy.
  4. Based on this he is an obvious “lier.”
• Apple

  

  isadore;1557592 wrote:1. When a man that has become a media star makes outrageous homophobic and racist statements they should cover it, his actions should be discussed.
  2. Phobic can mean fear or as in this case it can and does mean a strong dislike or aversion. While the Pope is trying to extend a hand to gays, Phil is equating them with practitioners of bestiality. In a 2010 sermon he spread the word that gays and lesbians were murderers. Now that seems hateful or if you prefer phobic.
  3. Whatever Jesse Jackson says has no bearing on whether Robertson’s statements are racist. Phil’s comments stand on their own. They are an outrageous defense of a despicable system. He lived in Caddo Parish, stronghold of the Klan with an extended history of racial violence. The segregated facilities were all around him. Newspaper accounts show blacks were protesting against the situation. You even have a song by Sam Cooke, a pioneer of Rock Roll, being written by him because of a racist incident in the Parish. And he claims blacks were all contented and happy.
  4. Based on this he is an obvious “lier.”

  ahhh... good pick up on the spelling! Nice.
  
  You have a few things in there that make sense... other things can and are seen differently than your view.
  
  1. Public figures get covered, yes. In America people are allowed, even encouraged, to speak their views, especially in a Q/A for an article. Maybe he should have answered, "No comment" instead of publicly stating his religious beliefs. If I was in that sort of damned if I do/damned if I don't situation, Id probably hold true to my beliefs rather than not.
  2. I'm pretty sure when Phil mentioned bestiality he was listing types of things that people do that can be considered sins by his faith. He mentioned other types of sins as well so its a bit disingenuous to say he was just mentioning one particular sin.
  3. You could be correct about the claims from Caddo Parish. However, if what he stated was his recollection, it doesn't mean he is necessarily lying. You can have 5 different people see a car accident and each will give a different interpretation of what happened. Maybe Phil's comments were exactly what he saw and experienced. Just because others may have seen or did see it differently doesn't mean his recollection is a lie. I also don't recall reading/hearing/seeing that he said blacks were all contented and happy, however I did read where he said the blacks he worked with were. I haven't read the GQ article so I don't know the question he was answering or if the answer I saw he gave was incomplete or taken out of context.
• thavoice

  Usually if Jesse Jackson is on one side of an issue, and you are on the other, you are in the right.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1557590 wrote:one level of sinner to you, many to me.

  My question is what are the levels you refer to?
• sherm03

  

  Just a question somewhat off topic...
  
  Why is it that Christians will rally against gays and gay marriage so hard...but they never bring up divorce and marrying someone who was divorced? According to the Bible, that is committing adultery, which is one of the 10 big no-no's that God wrote on the stone tablets.
  
  So why, if we're concerned about the sanctity of marriage and gays ruining it, aren't we also worried about these people that are getting divorced and re-married?
• thavoice

  sherm03;1557666 wrote:Just a question somewhat off topic...
  
  Why is it that Christians will rally against gays and gay marriage so hard...but they never bring up divorce and marrying someone who was divorced? According to the Bible, that is committing adultery, which is one of the 10 big no-no's that God wrote on the stone tablets.
  
  So why, if we're concerned about the sanctity of marriage and gays ruining it, aren't we also worried about these people that are getting divorced and re-married?

  Good question. Dont forget there are many, many, many christians out there who are OK with it and accept it.
  
  
  The ole slippery slope? Years ago people didnt get divorced. As time went on it became more accepted as OK (still a sin) as more and more people did it. Numbers went up over time, more and more people started to accept it and now at this point people dont bat and eye at it.
  
  Also, I think more people can understand the reason of someone wanting to get divorced, but not the reason as to why you would want to fuck another person of the same sex, and be attracted to someone of the same sex. That just seems so repulsive to so many people.
  
  WIth that said though...it is much more accepting now than ever before, and in 50 years people will look at homosexuals like people look at divorce today. We are always accepting more and more as time goes by.
• isadore

  Apple;1557605 wrote:ahhh... good pick up on the spelling! Nice.
  
  You have a few things in there that make sense... other things can and are seen differently than your view.
  
  1. Public figures get covered, yes. In America people are allowed, even encouraged, to speak their views, especially in a Q/A for an article. Maybe he should have answered, "No comment" instead of publicly stating his religious beliefs. If I was in that sort of damned if I do/damned if I don't situation, Id probably hold true to my beliefs rather than not.
  2. I'm pretty sure when Phil mentioned bestiality he was listing types of things that people do that can be considered sins by his faith. He mentioned other types of sins as well so its a bit disingenuous to say he was just mentioning one particular sin.
  3. You could be correct about the claims from Caddo Parish. However, if what he stated was his recollection, it doesn't mean he is necessarily lying. You can have 5 different people see a car accident and each will give a different interpretation of what happened. Maybe Phil's comments were exactly what he saw and experienced. Just because others may have seen or did see it differently doesn't mean his recollection is a lie. I also don't recall reading/hearing/seeing that he said blacks were all contented and happy, however I did read where he said the blacks he worked with were. I haven't read the GQ article so I don't know the question he was answering or if the answer I saw he gave was incomplete or taken out of context.

  1. Hopefully your views are not homophobic and racist like Mr. Robertson
  2.. Phil was using a list from First Corinthians to which he added Bestiality charge in order to demonstrate his hatred of gays. As can be seen in his 2010 sermon attacking gays and lesbians with outrageous charges including claiming they are murderers. The man is a hater and a homophobe. (both sermon and interview are found on this thread)
  3. Observing a car accident is a momentary experience. Phil grew up in Jim Crow Caddo parish. He is there for decades. Every day the signs of segregation are there. The history of racial violence is there. The Klan is there. The incidents of black resistance are recurring. And he claims only to see happy blacks, never singing the blues. “None are so blind as those who will not see.” He has the selective memory of an arch racist. He is a liar.
• isadore

  thavoice;1557672 wrote:Good question. Dont forget there are many, many, many christians out there who are OK with it and accept it.
  
  
  The ole slippery slope? Years ago people didnt get divorced. As time went on it became more accepted as OK (still a sin) as more and more people did it. Numbers went up over time, more and more people started to accept it and now at this point people dont bat and eye at it.
  
  Also, I think more people can understand the reason of someone wanting to get divorced, but not the reason as to why you would want to fuck another person of the same sex, and be attracted to someone of the same sex. That just seems so repulsive to so many people.
  
  WIth that said though...it is much more accepting now than ever before, and in 50 years people will look at homosexuals like people look at divorce today. We are always accepting more and more as time goes by.

  for the majority of Americans it will happen a lot sooner than 50 years. They accept gay marriage now.