Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Duck Dynasty, The Tea Party and Martyrs

YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 1:36:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's something interesting going on with the Duck Dynasty lot. Republican politicians are flocking to support them, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty people are demonstrating a considerable degree of solidarity to one another. The cast has essentially presented their network with an ultimatum: either bring back Phil Robertson or the cast walks. My assumption is that the people at A&E didn't anticipate that, because the Duck family certainly has the negotiating upper hand. They are at once incredibly wealthy, and don't seem to care very much whether they make any more money or not. Their celebrity speaks for itself -and they are the highest rated cable show in history.

Even though it irritates me to acknowledge it, I think that when Ted Cruz said something to the effect that Duck Dynasty represents a part of America that is often shrugged off by "liberal elitists" and the like, he wasn't entirely mistaken. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have both come to Robertson's support, and it would be a mistake to write this off as nothing more than an attempt by politicians to ride on the coattails of the Duck Dynasty's popularity. There's something deeper going on; something more unsettling and less within our power to affect -and it's astounding how the A&E network's decision has played out, and what impact it's had.

No longer is this about making homophobic remarks, but to listen to Ted Cruz this is about freedom of religion and first amendment rights. The stupidity of superimposing that framework aside, because it is wholly irrelevant to the situation at hand, the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about. It's also the reason that I can never respect them -they make themselves out to be victims rather than taking positive action to achieve the goals they have for themselves. Rather than saying "It is wrong to sever a business relationship over contrasting political beliefs, and therefore A&E shouldn't have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus" what people like Cruz want to communicate the argument that 'Phil Robertson has a first amendment right to speak his mind and believe what he wants'.

A&E's actions are wholly distinct of Robertson's rights, which would only come into jeopardy if the US government had taken legal measures against him for talking about his beliefs regarding homosexuality, and other issues. And yet, the people who watch Duck Dynasty and the politicians who try to appeal to that same group of people are rallying around Robertson as if he is some sort of martyr, fallen victim to liberal moral progressivism. It's disgraceful to watch, because what the Tea Bagging lot are trying to do is take the moral high ground and use that cultural tension to shift the framework from "Phil Robertson is a homophobe" to "Phil Robertson's rights were violated by liberal elitists."

I think that A&E could not have done nothing, but should not have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus. As I mentioned in another forum post, being upset at white trash for being homophobic is like being upset with a monkey for throwing its own sh!t -and the people at A&E should have had a plan in place for how they would deal with this if something like that had happened. It should also be noted that Robertson's agent should have had the good sense to require final review rights for any interview that Robertson gave. What A&E should have done was to release a public statement distancing themselves from Robertson and condemning his remarks, which would have indicated that they were "reconsidering the relationship" they had with Robertson -but no more. The ambiguity there would have sent the necessary message, and wouldn't have enabled slime-ball politicians to rally around the Tea Party's new martyr and make this into a great political show.

What's even more astounding is that this has become a pattern for the Tea Party. They make martyrs in support of their cause. The same thing happened with George Zimmerman, Paula Dean, and now Phil Robertson. The same thing will continue to happen until the Tea Party is brought into check. This tendency that faction -and I use the word faction purposefully- has to create victims in support of their cause is something that uniquely illustrates the new place that poor, uneducated white people have in the United States. They are the new forgotten men (if you're not familiar with that term, here it is explained in brevity http://en.wikipedia.org...). There is a very real cultural war going on here and it's fought in the battlefield of political rhetoric. But their once strong moral majority armies of popular support have precipitously eroded over the years -and that lot knows it. I think that the reason they make martyrs now is because consciously or subconsciously, they recognize that the future of these United States is not theirs. It belongs to the progressives and the libertarians.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 1:53:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All in all, it's just sad now to watch the Tea Party become what it has. It's sad to see what they've done to the GOP. It's sad to see everything and nothing that they've accomplished. The strategy for dealing with them now is nothing more than waiting for them to exhaust themselves, for their constituency to grow old and not vote, for them to fade into the pages of history where they will be judged even more harshly than they are now.

I think in 25 years, the public figures who backed them (the Rush, Beck, Hannity, and the rest of the puppets of the Murdoch empire, and the princesses of the movement including but not limited to Palin, Bachman, etc.) will be among the most harshly condemned public figures in American history. I think it's going to get worse before it gets better -meaning that a tea party figure will almost invariably get the GOP nomination in 2016- but I also think that this pattern of behavior is the strongest indication that the tea party is approaching the zenith of their prominence, but which will also be followed by a fall even more rapid than their rise to influence.

But that's what the Tea Party lot doesn't see... what they're doing is catering to the worst in their constituency. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and the rest of their lot are playing on their constituents cultural prejudices, their anger, their fear, their hate and their weakness -and that is not a sustainable political message; it's a race to the bottom and no more. Once the bottom is reached, there is no where left to go and all the people who followed the pied pipers into the abyss of rage and frustration -rather than finding the promise land of a forgotten American ideal, they will have reached the end of their relevance and they will have crippled the GOP for the next generation unless a truly great leader is able to overcome the challenges this present lot of charlatans presents.
Tsar of DDO
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:14:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
tl;dr... yet, so I apologize if my point is off topic.

This whole thing pisses me off, really.
Painting with a broad brush and assumptions, it seems that the left would support firing an anti-gay public figure, yet cry foul if Chic-fil-A refuses a franchise to a gay couple.

Alternatively, the right are up in arms about Robertson being fired for his comments, yet would agree that a business should be able to hire/fire for any reason.

Both of these groups are hypocritical and annoying as hell.
Either, one's employment status shouldn't be affected due to the beliefs of the employer, or they should. You can't have it both ways.
My work here is, finally, done.
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview, so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:21:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview, so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

He's not a victim. He's a guy with an opinion who said something that other people didn't like, so those other people did something about it. He isn't being persecuted. He isn't a martyr.

I'm also not saying that the gay community are victims here. Realize that.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

This is particularly stupid. No one said that liberals or the gay community are victims. No one implied that, either. Realize that.
Tsar of DDO
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:56:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't understand why some folks think A&E is in the wrong here. Or that Robertson has had his rights to free speech violated. Worse yet is the fact that some of those same folks are blaming the "Gay" community and liberals for causing this!

Whether we agree or disagree with the actions of A&E, this is a business that thrives in the American capitalist system. They can do what they want with their programs and their stars. A&E blow back is that people stop watching their programs and advertisers pull out--Such boycott can happen from those folks on either side, no matter what A&E did! That is the "free" part of Capitalism. In my state, just two days ago--A Assistant V. Principle of a Catholic school was fired because he married his same sex boyfriend. Very popular guy, and many students are upset! But he signed a contract that said he must uphold all catholic beliefs and teachings. This may be a "poser" for Tea party folks--1/3 of the 1st amendment impending on another 1/3 of the 1st amendment! Hmmmm!

Robertson is allowed to offer his opinion. And he did! But everyone opinions may have consequences. And his did! What are the tea party republicans always saying--"You need to take responsibility for yourself!" So should Robertson.

Now if The Federal Justice department came after him for stating his opinion to the free press and then forced A&E to fire him--You folks may have a valid complaint about his 1st amendment rights being violated. FYI--The world is changing and LBGTs are getting their just civil rights. So, might as well practice now: Can't own slaves anymore or violate the civil rights of blacks anymore. That is a constitutionally protected.
Remember the old adage; you can't yell fire in a crowded Theater-can't claim 1st amendment rights in this case--nor shoot a gun in a crowded theater and claim 2nd amendment rights. Supreme court has plenty of rulings on the 1st amendment right of speech that say you right ends when you violate some one else's rights.

This is not a Liberals attempt to get back at conservatives, or a gays attempt to assert their way of life on you good Christian types. Nope! This is akin to you posting something stupid on your face book page that says you company or your boss sucks! Or you posting something on your face book page that is homophobic--and your company has a No tolerance on discrimination.

Always lots of talk from republicans and conservatives about Government staying out of Private Business--Interfering with all you regulations. telling what to do--Socialists!
What? You claiming violation of 1st amendment rights! I think this is shameful, not to mention hypocritical. This is free market capitalism at its best. A business decision. Stop watching A&E if you want--also free market capitalism at its best!

Stop whining about liberals and gays and do something constructive if you feel A&E is wrong. Contact all the advertisers of that show and say you wont but from them till A&E brings him back! But take responsibility and stop blaming everyone but Robertson himself!

Robertson needs to take responsibility for flapping his opinion--it had consequences. Be a big boy and take your medicine
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:01:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:22:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

This is particularly stupid. No one said that liberals or the gay community are victims. No one implied that, either. Realize that.
I disagree. That is my opinion and others, too. Why would you call our opinions stupid? They are opinions...right?
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:08:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:22:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

This is particularly stupid. No one said that liberals or the gay community are victims. No one implied that, either. Realize that.

Actually I correct myself. Gays and liberals are not being called victims in posts above. But they are being blamed! And Robertson is considered the victim. Well he isn't a victim either. He had choices and a responsibility as a public star on TV and probably to his contract. He spoke his opinion and it had a consequence. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what ever you want and not have to face backlash!
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:11:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:08:14 PM, MyCatzMom wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:22:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

This is particularly stupid. No one said that liberals or the gay community are victims. No one implied that, either. Realize that.

Actually I correct myself. Gays and liberals are not being called victims in posts above. But they are being blamed! And Robertson is considered the victim. Well he isn't a victim either. He had choices and a responsibility as a public star on TV and probably to his contract. He spoke his opinion and it had a consequence. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what ever you want and not have to face backlash!

It's as if people think that their opinions should just be accepted as valid on the basis that they are opinions... a shocking change these days. Btw. are you related to another DDO member? I'm just curious...
Tsar of DDO
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 8:07:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
People are jumping up and down like the freedom of speech is being attacked. It is not being attacked. The fact of the matter is just because you have free speech does not mean you won't have to pay the consequences or accept responsibility for free speech. It seems many people want to spout what they want and no consequences or repercussions.

A&E made their decision after the malcontents started complaining. A&E should be able to do what they want with their company. But since they are listening to people who are upset. They should also consider listening to the flood of people demanding for the return of Phil Robertson.

To change the law to protect Phil Robertson and other people in similar situations would be scatterbrained. Employees would be able to spout what they want without getting reprimanded or fired. That is dangerous, the floodgates of litigation would be opened. Many employee protection laws are abused as is.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 9:15:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview, so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

http://www.heavy.com...

Why don't you view this, and see if this changes your view?

I mean, it's not offensive or slanderous at all to say that gays "invent ways of doing evil". </sarcasm> There's a fine line between stating one's opinion, and just saying things to agitate people on purpose. These statements leap over that line.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 10:57:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To counter the other side. A&E (just gonna call AE) has every right to be pissed at Phil. And the people that watch have every right to be pissed at AE.

From a marketing stand point, AE should have allowed Phil to come back just before the wave got massive. If AE caves (and I think they will), the fans that are both Anti-AE and Pro-Phil will still turn the TV on to AE to watch Duck Dynasty. This has the potential to make the show even bigger, resulting in more profits for both parties.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 11:09:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 9:15:25 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview, so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

http://www.heavy.com...

Why don't you view this, and see if this changes your view?

I mean, it's not offensive or slanderous at all to say that gays "invent ways of doing evil". </sarcasm> There's a fine line between stating one's opinion, and just saying things to agitate people on purpose. These statements leap over that line.

Thanks drhead for providing that link. Read the GQ article too. The guy is a homophobic bigot and he has no issue in saying some very offensive comments about LBGTs and Blacks. His idea of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus are really out of whack---very simply, the New Testament was filled with stories of Jesus hanging out with societies undesirable. No judgement on his part, because the only one to judge is his Father God. Hey but he has to answer for his own behavior.

What has me so fascinated with this story is the fact that it is a "partisan/political" wedge. I mean really who cares if some TV family who has made a 400 million dollar empire from duck call whistles and a TV show provided by A&E--who cares if this guy sticks his bigoted foot in mouth and loses his place behind the camera?

But, to read that Palin, Republican Gov of Louisiana, and republican/ tea party viewers are using this event to call out "liberals" and LGBTs for running afoul of the 1st amendment, calling them "Godless", a moral-- it just is fascinating to me!

It almost makes me speechless! Robertson, his family and their duck call whistles, got a platform provided by A&E and all these viewers out there in TV land--you helped this family make a 400million empire. And now you viewers are allowing the Tea party leaders and Conservative republican politicians to pull you by the nose into furthering their divisive un democratic political agenda! Fascinating and incredulous all at the same time!
This isn't a political issue folks! It is a TV star, a member of a family who didn't think before he opened his mouth. Hey we all probably have had a family member, or even ourselves, who opened mouth and didn't filter. Maybe caused a family fight! Well, think about it folks; did you have this happen in your family? Did you call it free speech and refuse to have them be accountable?
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 11:11:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 1:36:06 PM, YYW wrote:
There's something interesting going on with the Duck Dynasty lot. Republican politicians are flocking to support them, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty people are demonstrating a considerable degree of solidarity to one another. The cast has essentially presented their network with an ultimatum: either bring back Phil Robertson or the cast walks. My assumption is that the people at A&E didn't anticipate that, because the Duck family certainly has the negotiating upper hand. They are at once incredibly wealthy, and don't seem to care very much whether they make any more money or not. Their celebrity speaks for itself -and they are the highest rated cable show in history.

Even though it irritates me to acknowledge it, I think that when Ted Cruz said something to the effect that Duck Dynasty represents a part of America that is often shrugged off by "liberal elitists" and the like, he wasn't entirely mistaken. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have both come to Robertson's support, and it would be a mistake to write this off as nothing more than an attempt by politicians to ride on the coattails of the Duck Dynasty's popularity. There's something deeper going on; something more unsettling and less within our power to affect -and it's astounding how the A&E network's decision has played out, and what impact it's had.

No longer is this about making homophobic remarks, but to listen to Ted Cruz this is about freedom of religion and first amendment rights. The stupidity of superimposing that framework aside, because it is wholly irrelevant to the situation at hand, the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about. It's also the reason that I can never respect them -they make themselves out to be victims rather than taking positive action to achieve the goals they have for themselves. Rather than saying "It is wrong to sever a business relationship over contrasting political beliefs, and therefore A&E shouldn't have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus" what people like Cruz want to communicate the argument that 'Phil Robertson has a first amendment right to speak his mind and believe what he wants'.

A&E's actions are wholly distinct of Robertson's rights, which would only come into jeopardy if the US government had taken legal measures against him for talking about his beliefs regarding homosexuality, and other issues. And yet, the people who watch Duck Dynasty and the politicians who try to appeal to that same group of people are rallying around Robertson as if he is some sort of martyr, fallen victim to liberal moral progressivism. It's disgraceful to watch, because what the Tea Bagging lot are trying to do is take the moral high ground and use that cultural tension to shift the framework from "Phil Robertson is a homophobe" to "Phil Robertson's rights were violated by liberal elitists."

I think that A&E could not have done nothing, but should not have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus. As I mentioned in another forum post, being upset at white trash for being homophobic is like being upset with a monkey for throwing its own sh!t -and the people at A&E should have had a plan in place for how they would deal with this if something like that had happened. It should also be noted that Robertson's agent should have had the good sense to require final review rights for any interview that Robertson gave. What A&E should have done was to release a public statement distancing themselves from Robertson and condemning his remarks, which would have indicated that they were "reconsidering the relationship" they had with Robertson -but no more. The ambiguity there would have sent the necessary message, and wouldn't have enabled slime-ball politicians to rally around the Tea Party's new martyr and make this into a great political show.

What's even more astounding is that this has become a pattern for the Tea Party. They make martyrs in support of their cause. The same thing happened with George Zimmerman, Paula Dean, and now Phil Robertson. The same thing will continue to happen until the Tea Party is brought into check. This tendency that faction -and I use the word faction purposefully- has to create victims in support of their cause is something that uniquely illustrates the new place that poor, uneducated white people have in the United States. They are the new forgotten men (if you're not familiar with that term, here it is explained in brevity http://en.wikipedia.org...). There is a very real cultural war going on here and it's fought in the battlefield of political rhetoric. But their once strong moral majority armies of popular support have precipitously eroded over the years -and that lot knows it. I think that the reason they make martyrs now is because consciously or subconsciously, they recognize that the future of these United States is not theirs. It belongs to the progressives and the libertarians.
Great analysis! Love your post and agree totally! Thanks for very thought provoking post!
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 11:12:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:11:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/20/2013 7:08:14 PM, MyCatzMom wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:22:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

This is particularly stupid. No one said that liberals or the gay community are victims. No one implied that, either. Realize that.

Actually I correct myself. Gays and liberals are not being called victims in posts above. But they are being blamed! And Robertson is considered the victim. Well he isn't a victim either. He had choices and a responsibility as a public star on TV and probably to his contract. He spoke his opinion and it had a consequence. Free speech doesn't mean you can say what ever you want and not have to face backlash!

It's as if people think that their opinions should just be accepted as valid on the basis that they are opinions... a shocking change these days. Btw. are you related to another DDO member? I'm just curious...
Not sure? Just signed up today. Have to check it out. Thanks for pointing it out!
MyCatzMom
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 11:24:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 10:57:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
To counter the other side. A&E (just gonna call AE) has every right to be pissed at Phil. And the people that watch have every right to be pissed at AE.

From a marketing stand point, AE should have allowed Phil to come back just before the wave got massive. If AE caves (and I think they will), the fans that are both Anti-AE and Pro-Phil will still turn the TV on to AE to watch Duck Dynasty. This has the potential to make the show even bigger, resulting in more profits for both parties.

Interesting! And I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case! Still just baffles and fascinates how this is this has become a divisive us against them , liberals verses conservatives political football! I admire the republicans for being able to take anything-- even a reality show- and get their sheeples to make it a political issue! Jesus! Why aren't the Democrats able to do this? I have my opinions on why Democrats are unsuccessful...best not to exercise my freedom of speech on that subject...
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 1:57:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 11:24:59 PM, MyCatzMom wrote:
At 12/20/2013 10:57:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
To counter the other side. A&E (just gonna call AE) has every right to be pissed at Phil. And the people that watch have every right to be pissed at AE.

From a marketing stand point, AE should have allowed Phil to come back just before the wave got massive. If AE caves (and I think they will), the fans that are both Anti-AE and Pro-Phil will still turn the TV on to AE to watch Duck Dynasty. This has the potential to make the show even bigger, resulting in more profits for both parties.

Interesting! And I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case! Still just baffles and fascinates how this is this has become a divisive us against them , liberals verses conservatives political football! I admire the republicans for being able to take anything-- even a reality show- and get their sheeples to make it a political issue! Jesus! Why aren't the Democrats able to do this? I have my opinions on why Democrats are unsuccessful...best not to exercise my freedom of speech on that subject...

It is important that you mention the Republican skill at this. Their party is a confederation of natural enemies. The poor whites and the wealthy banking interests. The religious zealots and the libertarians. The pro-gun activists and the anti-terrorists. That these people do not hate one another is remarkable enough. That they are in the same political party is astounding.

I suspect that these groups are held in place with the help of a small group of common enemies. These "enemies" include Negroes, Gays and Muslims. It often seems as if the GOP hatred of these people borders on the pathological. How can we make poor tornado-bait white people in Kansas hate their own food stamps? Tell them the Negroes are using food stamps, as well. How can we make the churchmen hate the pretty lesbians on their late-night internets? Tell them they may be gay.

Without common devils, the rightward coalition would tear one another apart.

In the case of Phil Robertson, we see a wealthy white man being punished by his boss for ignorant public statements. This wrist-slapping was less than what a poor man would receive for an errant Facebook comment. I feel that it is seen by the right as unjust because Robertson was seen to be standing up against the Negro devil and the gay devil at the same time. This makes him all but a holy martyr in their eyes.

http://www.tmz.com...
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:01:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"My hypocrisy will only go as far as yours"?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:02:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 9:01:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
"My hypocrisy will only go as far as yours"?

Not directed at anyone
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:32:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview,

~~Wasn't he asked his opinion on sin?

so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&amp;E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

~~ Also, I know I could manually add your quote to this but I just want to ask, how did you make your text unquotable?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
1Percenter
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 6:21:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 8:32:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview,

~~Wasn't he asked his opinion on sin?

Not sure, I thought they specifically asked about homosexuality.
so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&amp;amp;E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

~~ Also, I know I could manually add your quote to this but I just want to ask, how did you make your text unquotable?
I have no idea. I wrote it using my smart phone so perhaps that has something to do with it.

YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 10:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Indirectly relevant to various things mentioned:

It is absolute bullsh!t that GLAAD and gay rights organizations are taking any heat at all for Phil Robertson's remark.
Tsar of DDO
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 1:36:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 6:21:25 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 12/24/2013 8:32:37 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 12/20/2013 3:17:50 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"... the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about."

In case you didn't notice, the only person who something bad happened to here was Phil Robertson. He was asked of his opinion on homosexuality in an interview,

~~Wasn't he asked his opinion on sin?

Not sure, I thought they specifically asked about homosexuality.
so he spoke and was essentially fired for it. Nothing hateful was said, so the gay community aren't the victims. The ones dishing the backlash were A&amp;amp;E and GLAAD.

No matter how you try to spin it, Robertson IS the victim because he was the one suspended for his opinion. As usual, the liberals found a way to make themselves the victim. Something politically incorrect was spoken, therefore the gay community is automatically in the right and Phil in the wrong.

~~ Also, I know I could manually add your quote to this but I just want to ask, how did you make your text unquotable?
I have no idea. I wrote it using my smart phone so perhaps that has something to do with it.

I think it has something to do with whenever you type an ampersand. It's showing up as &amp; for us.

Back to the topic, I've viewed the interview, which isn't written as a standard interview at all. However, if anything, the article suggests that very few questions were directly asked. Here's the relevant quote:

"Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He"s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there"s no stopping them from rushing out. Like this one:

'It seems like, to me, a vagina"as a man"would be more desirable than a man"s anus. That"s just me. I"m just thinking: There"s more there! She"s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I"m saying? But hey, sin: It"s not logical, my man. It"s just not logical.'

Perhaps we"ll be needing that seat belt after all."


http://www.gq.com...

The first sentence has quite a fair bit of irony in this context, wouldn't you say? I bolded the wording which suggests that it was just a random comment. However, I think the more important factor in A&E's decision was probably this (which I've already mentioned, but I feel that it is always worth bringing up):

http://www.heavy.com...

with the relevant quote:

"In the sermon, at about the 1:15 mark in the video, Robertson says that men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, will receive the 'due penalty for their perversions.' He goes on to say that they are full of 'murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, god-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.'"

This kind of statement is out of line. I don't think it even falls within Christian teachings to make broad generalizations accusing homosexuals of doing these things. Given this, it wouldn't be unreasonable for A&E to ask for an apology about the statements in the sermon.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
AlyssaDBryant
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 9:49:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was honored to speak at Tulsa's Transgender Day of Remembrance. Every year, around 11/20, a ceremony is held in honor of those who were murdered in the last year. As a transwoman struggling to retain a law practice in a deep red state, I find it shocking that this millionaire celebrity is being hailed as a martyr for having to pay a small very temporary price for statements made which are damaging to a vulnerable community.

No one is advocating governmental censorship. Censorship did not occur by any governmental entity. A&E is entitled to act on principle and, in this case, the principle was valid. These comments were not directed at my community but here is one instance where good men and women did something.

This should be a cause for celebration but the regressive forces in this country really do see us as inventing evil rather than healthy diversity. There is indeed a cultural war ongoing in this country and it directly impacts my life and, indeed, the safety of vulnerable communities.

Allie
Allie
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 7:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 10:09:55 PM, YYW wrote:
Indirectly relevant to various things mentioned:

It is absolute bullsh!t that GLAAD and gay rights organizations are taking any heat at all for Phil Robertson's remark.

They are taking heat for the reactions, not the remarks themselves.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:50:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 7:22:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/25/2013 10:09:55 PM, YYW wrote:
Indirectly relevant to various things mentioned:

It is absolute bullsh!t that GLAAD and gay rights organizations are taking any heat at all for Phil Robertson's remark.

They are taking heat for the reactions, not the remarks themselves.

Right. I should have been more clear.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:44:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 1:36:06 PM, YYW wrote:
There's something interesting going on with the Duck Dynasty lot. Republican politicians are flocking to support them, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty people are demonstrating a considerable degree of solidarity to one another. The cast has essentially presented their network with an ultimatum: either bring back Phil Robertson or the cast walks. My assumption is that the people at A&E didn't anticipate that, because the Duck family certainly has the negotiating upper hand. They are at once incredibly wealthy, and don't seem to care very much whether they make any more money or not. Their celebrity speaks for itself -and they are the highest rated cable show in history.

Even though it irritates me to acknowledge it, I think that when Ted Cruz said something to the effect that Duck Dynasty represents a part of America that is often shrugged off by "liberal elitists" and the like, he wasn't entirely mistaken. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have both come to Robertson's support, and it would be a mistake to write this off as nothing more than an attempt by politicians to ride on the coattails of the Duck Dynasty's popularity. There's something deeper going on; something more unsettling and less within our power to affect -and it's astounding how the A&E network's decision has played out, and what impact it's had.

No longer is this about making homophobic remarks, but to listen to Ted Cruz this is about freedom of religion and first amendment rights. The stupidity of superimposing that framework aside, because it is wholly irrelevant to the situation at hand, the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about. It's also the reason that I can never respect them -they make themselves out to be victims rather than taking positive action to achieve the goals they have for themselves. Rather than saying "It is wrong to sever a business relationship over contrasting political beliefs, and therefore A&E shouldn't have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus" what people like Cruz want to communicate the argument that 'Phil Robertson has a first amendment right to speak his mind and believe what he wants'.

A&E's actions are wholly distinct of Robertson's rights, which would only come into jeopardy if the US government had taken legal measures against him for talking about his beliefs regarding homosexuality, and other issues. And yet, the people who watch Duck Dynasty and the politicians who try to appeal to that same group of people are rallying around Robertson as if he is some sort of martyr, fallen victim to liberal moral progressivism. It's disgraceful to watch, because what the Tea Bagging lot are trying to do is take the moral high ground and use that cultural tension to shift the framework from "Phil Robertson is a homophobe" to "Phil Robertson's rights were violated by liberal elitists."

I think that A&E could not have done nothing, but should not have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus. As I mentioned in another forum post, being upset at white trash for being homophobic is like being upset with a monkey for throwing its own sh!t -and the people at A&E should have had a plan in place for how they would deal with this if something like that had happened. It should also be noted that Robertson's agent should have had the good sense to require final review rights for any interview that Robertson gave. What A&E should have done was to release a public statement distancing themselves from Robertson and condemning his remarks, which would have indicated that they were "reconsidering the relationship" they had with Robertson -but no more. The ambiguity there would have sent the necessary message, and wouldn't have enabled slime-ball politicians to rally around the Tea Party's new martyr and make this into a great political show.

What's even more astounding is that this has become a pattern for the Tea Party. They make martyrs in support of their cause. The same thing happened with George Zimmerman, Paula Dean, and now Phil Robertson. The same thing will continue to happen until the Tea Party is brought into check. This tendency that faction -and I use the word faction purposefully- has to create victims in support of their cause is something that uniquely illustrates the new place that poor, uneducated white people have in the United States. They are the new forgotten men (if you're not familiar with that term, here it is explained in brevity http://en.wikipedia.org...). There is a very real cultural war going on here and it's fought in the battlefield of political rhetoric. But their once strong moral majority armies of popular support have precipitously eroded over the years -and that lot knows it. I think that the reason they make martyrs now is because consciously or subconsciously, they recognize that the future of these United States is not theirs. It belongs to the progressives and the libertarians.

In a sense, it is very fair to agree with the people who talk about the "Liberal Elite violating the first amendment rights of those who don't agree with them."

Think, Liberals control a huge amount of mass communication among Americans. For example, news papers, new channels, and the entertainment business.

When liberals get so up in arms over those who disagree with them, they have the power to basically destroy their life among the social world. Just look at George Zimmerman. The media twisted the story to make it about race, and to make Trayvon look like some completely innocent kid.

The fact is, as soon as someone does something that the Media doesn't like the media can utterly destroy them. Although I wouldn't call that a legal violation of people's first amendment rights, it is in essence, a social violation. This puts people that disagree with them into a very disadvantageous position.

Let's take Phil Robertson for example. Before any of this ever happened, there must have been some sort of unspoken though in the back of their heads that if they ever said anything that they disagree with, they would lose their job. Even though it is totally legal, it would seem unfair to judge someone not after the revenue they give to your business, not after their work ethic, but after their opinion.

A country that is so soley based on freedom of opinion without punishment sure gets the boot when the media can punish anyone for their opinions or actions.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if there was some balance in the media, but there is so much bias towards the left it isn't even funny.
Nolite Timere
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 2:03:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:44:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/20/2013 1:36:06 PM, YYW wrote:
There's something interesting going on with the Duck Dynasty lot. Republican politicians are flocking to support them, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty people are demonstrating a considerable degree of solidarity to one another. The cast has essentially presented their network with an ultimatum: either bring back Phil Robertson or the cast walks. My assumption is that the people at A&E didn't anticipate that, because the Duck family certainly has the negotiating upper hand. They are at once incredibly wealthy, and don't seem to care very much whether they make any more money or not. Their celebrity speaks for itself -and they are the highest rated cable show in history.

Even though it irritates me to acknowledge it, I think that when Ted Cruz said something to the effect that Duck Dynasty represents a part of America that is often shrugged off by "liberal elitists" and the like, he wasn't entirely mistaken. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have both come to Robertson's support, and it would be a mistake to write this off as nothing more than an attempt by politicians to ride on the coattails of the Duck Dynasty's popularity. There's something deeper going on; something more unsettling and less within our power to affect -and it's astounding how the A&E network's decision has played out, and what impact it's had.

No longer is this about making homophobic remarks, but to listen to Ted Cruz this is about freedom of religion and first amendment rights. The stupidity of superimposing that framework aside, because it is wholly irrelevant to the situation at hand, the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about. It's also the reason that I can never respect them -they make themselves out to be victims rather than taking positive action to achieve the goals they have for themselves. Rather than saying "It is wrong to sever a business relationship over contrasting political beliefs, and therefore A&E shouldn't have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus" what people like Cruz want to communicate the argument that 'Phil Robertson has a first amendment right to speak his mind and believe what he wants'.

A&E's actions are wholly distinct of Robertson's rights, which would only come into jeopardy if the US government had taken legal measures against him for talking about his beliefs regarding homosexuality, and other issues. And yet, the people who watch Duck Dynasty and the politicians who try to appeal to that same group of people are rallying around Robertson as if he is some sort of martyr, fallen victim to liberal moral progressivism. It's disgraceful to watch, because what the Tea Bagging lot are trying to do is take the moral high ground and use that cultural tension to shift the framework from "Phil Robertson is a homophobe" to "Phil Robertson's rights were violated by liberal elitists."

I think that A&E could not have done nothing, but should not have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus. As I mentioned in another forum post, being upset at white trash for being homophobic is like being upset with a monkey for throwing its own sh!t -and the people at A&E should have had a plan in place for how they would deal with this if something like that had happened. It should also be noted that Robertson's agent should have had the good sense to require final review rights for any interview that Robertson gave. What A&E should have done was to release a public statement distancing themselves from Robertson and condemning his remarks, which would have indicated that they were "reconsidering the relationship" they had with Robertson -but no more. The ambiguity there would have sent the necessary message, and wouldn't have enabled slime-ball politicians to rally around the Tea Party's new martyr and make this into a great political show.

What's even more astounding is that this has become a pattern for the Tea Party. They make martyrs in support of their cause. The same thing happened with George Zimmerman, Paula Dean, and now Phil Robertson. The same thing will continue to happen until the Tea Party is brought into check. This tendency that faction -and I use the word faction purposefully- has to create victims in support of their cause is something that uniquely illustrates the new place that poor, uneducated white people have in the United States. They are the new forgotten men (if you're not familiar with that term, here it is explained in brevity http://en.wikipedia.org...). There is a very real cultural war going on here and it's fought in the battlefield of political rhetoric. But their once strong moral majority armies of popular support have precipitously eroded over the years -and that lot knows it. I think that the reason they make martyrs now is because consciously or subconsciously, they recognize that the future of these United States is not theirs. It belongs to the progressives and the libertarians.

In a sense, it is very fair to agree with the people who talk about the "Liberal Elite violating the first amendment rights of those who don't agree with them."

Think, Liberals control a huge amount of mass communication among Americans. For example, news papers, new channels, and the entertainment business.

When liberals get so up in arms over those who disagree with them, they have the power to basically destroy their life among the social world. Just look at George Zimmerman. The media twisted the story to make it about race, and to make Trayvon look like some completely innocent kid.

The fact is, as soon as someone does something that the Media doesn't like the media can utterly destroy them. Although I wouldn't call that a legal violation of people's first amendment rights, it is in essence, a social violation. This puts people that disagree with them into a very disadvantageous position.

Let's take Phil Robertson for example. Before any of this ever happened, there must have been some sort of unspoken though in the back of their heads that if they ever said anything that they disagree with, they would lose their job. Even though it is totally legal, it would seem unfair to judge someone not after the revenue they give to your business, not after their work ethic, but after their opinion.

A country that is so soley based on freedom of opinion without punishment sure gets the boot when the media can punish anyone for their opinions or actions.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if there was some balance in the media, but there is so much bias towards the left it isn't even funny.

Though oddly enough, I am expecting that DD has its highest viewership this year (at least for the opening episodes).

It's not so much that the media has some huge bias. Most news is unbias, but when they are reporting on bias or political topics, it just seems like they are. Now, if you are talking about talking heads and shock jocks, I don't really consider them media as in news. They are more of entertainment, but even then, they are just filling the supply and demand of the market.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 6:44:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:44:06 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/20/2013 1:36:06 PM, YYW wrote:
There's something interesting going on with the Duck Dynasty lot. Republican politicians are flocking to support them, and the rest of the Duck Dynasty people are demonstrating a considerable degree of solidarity to one another. The cast has essentially presented their network with an ultimatum: either bring back Phil Robertson or the cast walks. My assumption is that the people at A&E didn't anticipate that, because the Duck family certainly has the negotiating upper hand. They are at once incredibly wealthy, and don't seem to care very much whether they make any more money or not. Their celebrity speaks for itself -and they are the highest rated cable show in history.

Even though it irritates me to acknowledge it, I think that when Ted Cruz said something to the effect that Duck Dynasty represents a part of America that is often shrugged off by "liberal elitists" and the like, he wasn't entirely mistaken. Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have both come to Robertson's support, and it would be a mistake to write this off as nothing more than an attempt by politicians to ride on the coattails of the Duck Dynasty's popularity. There's something deeper going on; something more unsettling and less within our power to affect -and it's astounding how the A&E network's decision has played out, and what impact it's had.

No longer is this about making homophobic remarks, but to listen to Ted Cruz this is about freedom of religion and first amendment rights. The stupidity of superimposing that framework aside, because it is wholly irrelevant to the situation at hand, the fact that people are "up in arms" over a network's decision to value principle over profit and are recasting Robertson as a victim is emblematic of what the Tea Party is all about. It's also the reason that I can never respect them -they make themselves out to be victims rather than taking positive action to achieve the goals they have for themselves. Rather than saying "It is wrong to sever a business relationship over contrasting political beliefs, and therefore A&E shouldn't have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus" what people like Cruz want to communicate the argument that 'Phil Robertson has a first amendment right to speak his mind and believe what he wants'.

A&E's actions are wholly distinct of Robertson's rights, which would only come into jeopardy if the US government had taken legal measures against him for talking about his beliefs regarding homosexuality, and other issues. And yet, the people who watch Duck Dynasty and the politicians who try to appeal to that same group of people are rallying around Robertson as if he is some sort of martyr, fallen victim to liberal moral progressivism. It's disgraceful to watch, because what the Tea Bagging lot are trying to do is take the moral high ground and use that cultural tension to shift the framework from "Phil Robertson is a homophobe" to "Phil Robertson's rights were violated by liberal elitists."

I think that A&E could not have done nothing, but should not have placed Robertson on indefinite hiatus. As I mentioned in another forum post, being upset at white trash for being homophobic is like being upset with a monkey for throwing its own sh!t -and the people at A&E should have had a plan in place for how they would deal with this if something like that had happened. It should also be noted that Robertson's agent should have had the good sense to require final review rights for any interview that Robertson gave. What A&E should have done was to release a public statement distancing themselves from Robertson and condemning his remarks, which would have indicated that they were "reconsidering the relationship" they had with Robertson -but no more. The ambiguity there would have sent the necessary message, and wouldn't have enabled slime-ball politicians to rally around the Tea Party's new martyr and make this into a great political show.

What's even more astounding is that this has become a pattern for the Tea Party. They make martyrs in support of their cause. The same thing happened with George Zimmerman, Paula Dean, and now Phil Robertson. The same thing will continue to happen until the Tea Party is brought into check. This tendency that faction -and I use the word faction purposefully- has to create victims in support of their cause is something that uniquely illustrates the new place that poor, uneducated white people have in the United States. They are the new forgotten men (if you're not familiar with that term, here it is explained in brevity http://en.wikipedia.org...). There is a very real cultural war going on here and it's fought in the battlefield of political rhetoric. But their once strong moral majority armies of popular support have precipitously eroded over the years -and that lot knows it. I think that the reason they make martyrs now is because consciously or subconsciously, they recognize that the future of these United States is not theirs. It belongs to the progressives and the libertarians.

In a sense, it is very fair to agree with the people who talk about the "Liberal Elite violating the first amendment rights of those who don't agree with them."

Think, Liberals control a huge amount of mass communication among Americans. For example, news papers, new channels, and the entertainment business.

When liberals get so up in arms over those who disagree with them, they have the power to basically destroy their life among the social world. Just look at George Zimmerman. The media twisted the story to make it about race, and to make Trayvon look like some completely innocent kid.

The fact is, as soon as someone does something that the Media doesn't like the media can utterly destroy them. Although I wouldn't call that a legal violation of people's first amendment rights, it is in essence, a social violation. This puts people that disagree with them into a very disadvantageous position.

Let's take Phil Robertson for example. Before any of this ever happened, there must have been some sort of unspoken though in the back of their heads that if they ever said anything that they disagree with, they would lose their job. Even though it is totally legal, it would seem unfair to judge someone not after the revenue they give to your business, not after their work ethic, but after their opinion.

A country that is so soley based on freedom of opinion without punishment sure gets the boot when the media can punish anyone for their opinions or actions.

Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if there was some balance in the media, but there is so much bias towards the left it isn't even funny.

What if I told you that Republicans and Democrats have roughly equal influence in media?
Tsar of DDO