A&E takes him back... Well thank goodness!

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/television/article/A-E-reverses-decision-on-Duck-Dynasty-patriarch-5096830.php

Quote:

---

...A&E's move against Robertson provoked a flood of support from those who share his views and others who defended his freedom of speech. ... Robertson's well-known supporters included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who complained that his free-speech rights were being trampled.

---

Apparently when you know nothing about our Constitution you become an AP television writer.

BearyWhite;842251648 said:

---

A&E takes him back... Well thank goodness!

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/television/article/A-E-reverses-decision-on-Duck-Dynasty-patriarch-5096830.php



Apparently when you know nothing about our Constitution you become an AP television writer.

---

You seem to be obsessed with this guy. Let it go, already.

God always wins out in the end, don't you know that?

YuSeeBerkeley;842251657 said:

---

You seem to be obsessed with this guy. Let it go, already.

---

Thank you. Enough with this on a FOOTBALL board.

1979bear;842251662 said:

---

Thank you. Enough with this on a FOOTBALL board.

---

Come on, it's a Cal football site - we root for a team that went...anything is better.

In before, Fire Buh.

This whole incident has literally nothing to do with the first amendment.

BearyWhite;842251648 said:

---

A&E takes him back... Well thank goodness!

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/television/article/A-E-reverses-decision-on-Duck-Dynasty-patriarch-5096830.php



Apparently when you know nothing about our Constitution you become an AP television writer.

---

.......or even a member of Congress....:rollinglaugh:

Quote:

---

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) confused the 14th and 11th Amendments when suggesting the president could bypass Congress and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, saying, “Whatever it is, I’m with the constitution.”

During her weekly press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Pelosi was asked about the need for two separate deals in Congress to both raise the approaching debt ceiling and address the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts.

“I would hope not,” Pelosi said. “I would hope that by now—well, me, I’m with the 11th Amendment, so.”

“Is it the 11th Amendment?” she asked. “That—14th is it?”

“Whatever it is, I’m with the Constitution of the United States,” said the Minority Leader.

---

Nancy Pelosi making speech at Center for American Progress:

Quote:

---

And so, it was 165 years ago, 165 years ago. Imagine the courage it took for those women to go to Seneca Falls and do what they did there, to even leave home without their husbands’ permission, or fathers’, or whoever it was.

To go to Seneca Falls, and to paraphrase what our founders said in the Constitution of the United States: they said the truths that are self-evident, that every man and woman, that men and women were created equal and that we must go forward in recognition of that.”

---

Oops. It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution that contains the reference to self-evident truths:

In other words, enough "dumb" on both sides to go around. I'm not in a habit of political bashing, I'm usually trying to stop it, but I could fill 50 threads by morning of morons on both sides of the aisle, not just the side you disagree with...

Not sure why certain folk keep beating the drum..........:beer:

Cal_Fan2;842251685 said:

---

.......or even a member of Congress....:rollinglaugh:

---

Or governor of Louisiana, the current one of whom apparently believes that the first amendment guarantees us the right to a TV reality show.

MoragaBear;842251690 said:

---

This was a thought-provoking blog post I saw posted on a Cal player's facebook wall: http://therestlessreformed.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/a-gay-mans-take-on-phil-robertson-and-the-ae-controversy/

---

Nice to see he's tolerant and all, but he's completely wrong when he says that, without proof, all explanations for homosexuality are faith based. That's what people of faith say when they don't understand science.

As a joke Christmas gift, my 8-year-old got me the first season of Duck Dynasty on DVD. I plan to watch it, never.

MoragaBear;842251690 said:

---

This was a thought-provoking blog post I saw posted on a Cal player's facebook wall: http://therestlessreformed.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/a-gay-mans-take-on-phil-robertson-and-the-ae-controversy/

---

Nice reasoned post by the gay man. I actually think the black community has more reason to be upset about Phil's GQ quotes than the gay community. His comments about entitlement and welfare were offensive.

MoragaBear;842251690 said:

---

This was a thought-provoking blog post I saw posted on a Cal player's facebook wall: http://therestlessreformed.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/a-gay-mans-take-on-phil-robertson-and-the-ae-controversy/

---

Wow, what a politically manipulative, politically loaded piece -- and it even quotes the politically manipulative and politically loaded Tammy Bruce.

By the way, many people on the left, including Jon Stewart and several MSNBC hosts, have called what A&E did wrong.

okaydo;842251714 said:

---

Wow, what a politically manipulative, politically loaded piece -- and it even quotes the politically manipulative and politically loaded Tammy Bruce.

By the way, many people on the left, including Jon Stewart and several MSNBC hosts, have called what A&E did wrong.

---

Are there articles or blog posts on the Phil Robertson issue that aren't politically manipulative, politically loaded? If you can find one, I'll bet I can find you people on the other side of the political spectrum that would think it is.

YuSeeBerkeley;842251657 said:

---

You seem to be obsessed with this guy. Let it go, already.

---

1979bear;842251662 said:

---

Thank you. Enough with this on a FOOTBALL board.

---

This is the only thread on the topic currently on the FOOTBALL board, in the offseason. Lighten up.

Cal_Fan2;842251685 said:

---

.......or even a member of Congress....:rollinglaugh:

Nancy Pelosi making speech at Center for American Progress:

Oops. It is, of course, the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution that contains the reference to self-evident truths:

In other words, enough "dumb" on both sides to go around. I'm not in a habit of political bashing, I'm usually trying to stop it, but I could fill 50 threads by morning of morons on both sides of the aisle, not just the side you disagree with...

Not sure why certain folk keep beating the drum..........:beer:

---

You're actually the one bringing partisan politics into play -- I don't know which way the AP writer leans yet called them out for noting the free speech "concerns" without pointing out that they're false. If you think not understanding the First Amendment is partisan, it's not -- I call it out whenever I see people getting it wrong, and it happens a lot.

btw I know you can come up with better counter-examples than Pelosi correcting herself about an Article number, right?

MoragaBear;842251690 said:

---

This was a thought-provoking blog post I saw posted on a Cal player's facebook wall: http://therestlessreformed.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/a-gay-mans-take-on-phil-robertson-and-the-ae-controversy/

---

Hm.. take away the words "I'm gay" and it's no longer really thought-provoking, is it? I'm not usually swayed by "a Hatfield agrees with McCoys so must be right" posts, but this one has other issues. The text isn't found on the claimed source (and the style is different) and Google can't find the source either. It's also very odd language for a gay man, like saying that nobody knows what "causes" homosexuality. So I'm thinking it's not actually real.

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;842251707 said:

---

Nice reasoned post by the gay man. I actually think the black community has more reason to be upset about Phil's GQ quotes than the gay community. His comments about entitlement and welfare were offensive.

---

... or Muslims or Japanese people, all of whom he said were murderous because they had no Jesus in their lives. He really gave lots of people something to talk about

Play nice.

I can shut this thread down with three simple words.

A and E stepped into it. Good to see him back.

1979bear;842251662 said:

---

Thank you. Enough with this on a FOOTBALL board.

---

It's because Duck Dynasty and "Fire the AD" are inextricably linked.

MoragaBear;842251690 said:

---

This was a thought-provoking blog post I saw posted on a Cal player's facebook wall: http://therestlessreformed.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/a-gay-mans-take-on-phil-robertson-and-the-ae-controversy/

---

Sorry moraga but that was the dumbest point by a "gay" person to say. "We should respect others who call us sinners because no one knows what causes our sin except religion." In other words, let's let a bunch of people curse us to hell and treat us horribly because their 2000 year old book says a few lines about how sleeping with another guy is sinful.

I agree with the poster above attacking the source. Just because the author claims to be gay doesn't mean he or she actually is. In fact it seems like the person who wrote the email or whatever is regretful of being gay.

But I regress - FIRE SANDY! FIRE DYKES!

Cal Panda Bear;842251747 said:

---

Sorry moraga but that was the dumbest point by a "gay" person to say. "We should respect others who call us sinners because no one knows what causes our sin except religion." In other words, let's let a bunch of people curse us to hell and treat us horribly because their 2000 year old book says a few lines about how sleeping with another guy is sinful.

I agree with the poster above attacking the source. Just because the author claims to be gay doesn't mean he or she actually is. In fact it seems like the person who wrote the email or whatever is regretful of being gay.

But I regress - FIRE SANDY! FIRE DYKES!

---

Just curious, if all Christians didn't treat gays horribly like you say, but were still loving, respectful, and tolerant while still thinking homosexuality is a sin, would that still irk you?

What I don't understand is if a religion which you don't believe in condemns a group for sin, why the commotion? If a guy claimed that according to his religion I'm going to hell because my hair color is black and that is a sin in his religion, I would care less. I would be confident in what I believe in and not care what his religion claims. Now I would stop supporting them, but not go against them.

BearyWhite;842251718 said:

---

You're actually the one bringing partisan politics into play -- I don't know which way the AP writer leans yet called them out for noting the free speech "concerns" without pointing out that they're false. If you think not understanding the First Amendment is partisan, it's not -- I call it out whenever I see people getting it wrong, and it happens a lot.

btw I know you can come up with better counter-examples than Pelosi correcting herself about an Article number, right?

---

I can come up with many many examples and I came up with 2 examples, not one...plus you have ulterior motives bringing this up my friend....I've posted here as long as many and know the behavioral motives of most posters here. You have never cared about Duck Dynasty BW, just the political and moral ramifications behind what happened ...otherwise, you'd post more about the show which I'm sure you have never seen or just glanced at.

By the way, if let's say Sarah Palin (who I don't care for at all), confused the Constitution with the Dec. of Ind, or couldn't recite proper amendment #'s, you'd call her a dumb bitch or something similar, at least some posters here would. You are smarter than most and know threads like this have inherent political or religious firefights at hand......

ferCALgm2;842251754 said:

---

Just curious, if all Christians didn't treat gays horribly like you say, but were still loving, respectful, and tolerant while still thinking homosexuality is a sin, would that still irk you?

What I don't understand is if a religion which you don't believe in condemns a group for sin, why the commotion? If a guy claimed that according to his religion I'm going to hell because my hair color is black and that is a sin in his religion, I would care less. I would be confident in what I believe in and not care what his religion claims. Now I would stop supporting them, but not go against them.

---

Because religious beliefs have political ramifications. If a person sees homosexuality as sinful behavior instead of immutable sexual orientation, then it's easier to deny homosexuals equal protection.

ferCALgm2;842251754 said:

---

What I don't understand is if a religion which you don't believe in condemns a group for sin, why the commotion?

---

Because there is a long history of people using that religion as a reason to actively persecute gay people. Not just saying mean things about them, but throwing them in jail, firing them from jobs, actively hunting them down and killing them, etc. That's why.

That's not to say that Phil Robertson would ever do anything like that, but when that history is there then you're bound to be more sensitive about this kind of talk.

Lesson learned from this firestorm: If you are generating enough cash for The Man, forgiveness is just around the corner . If you're not , it's a one way ticket to Goner Junction.

bearister;842251778 said:

---

Lesson learned from this firestorm: If you are generating enough cash for The Man, forgiveness is just around the corner . If you're not , it's a one way ticket to Goner Junction.

---

LOL....all the way around. Pun intended, oh the irony.....:rollinglaugh:

bearister;842251778 said:

---

Lesson learned from this firestorm: If you are generating enough cash for The Man, forgiveness is just around the corner . If you're not , it's a one way ticket to Goner Junction.

---

Indeed or you could buy forgiveness through the ministry of Al Sharpton depending on the number of zeroes

GB54;842251784 said:

---

Indeed or you could buy forgiveness through the ministry of Al Sharpton depending on the number of zeroes

---

....and the Kennedy clan has been known to "purchase" marriage annulments from time to time. Always follow the money trail--it goes a long way to explaining why things happen--including wars.

MoragaBear;842251817 said:

---

He offered a perspective you don't see a lot on either side of the fence. That's what made it thought-provoking to me.

You don't see enough respect offered or given for one's personal beliefs very often in the world today. Just the very fact that a person believes something one way or the other makes them evil in many people's eyes. Just the fact that someone is gay makes that person evil in many religious people's minds and the mere fact that a religious person has a moral code that doesn't coincide with theirs automatically makes the religious person evil to many because more implications are automatically extrapolated and assumed about that person.

---

I think you do actually hear that perspective a lot -- by people in the religious right. That's why I find the post suspect -- it's impossible to find the original, and it just tacks "I'm gay" onto some boilerplate debate points. I've also never met a gay man who thinks there's any question about whether people are born gay. (The idea that they're "made" is crucial only to those who want to lump it in with other sins, which are all matters of choice.) It's also tough to find a gay man who hears talk of "homosexuals, drunks [and] terrorists" as the words of a peaceful, tolerant person. Tolerance accompanied by condemnation doesn't feel like tolerance.

I agree about respecting personal beliefs, but too many people these days don't seem to see faith as a "personal" thing. If a person wants to believe in God, fine; in the divinity of Jesus, fine; that they shouldn't eat shellfish every 2nd Tuesday, fine. And if one believes that God wants them not to be gay, they can feel free to not be gay. But personal beliefs should govern personal behavior. They don't leave one free to force those beliefs on others.

Regarding forcing those beliefs on others -- I think these battles, like the Duck Dynasty one, are fought with an eye on other battles. Who cares what Robertson thinks about attraction to boy vs. girl parts? Probably someone who had a caterer back out of a wedding once they found out it was for a same-sex couple. "Religious freedom" ties the discussions together, and if that becomes an accepted excuse for discrimination in any form, discrimination will be harder to fight. So a few clumsy remarks by a reality TV character ignite a national debate.

BearyWhite;842251827 said:

---

So a few clumsy remarks by a reality TV character ignite a national debate.

---

It only creates what you call a "national debate" because there are not enough sensible people to pay it no attention. Cal grads particularly should know better than to be concerned with a TV character's statements. The Kardashians mean nothing to me and this guy is the same. On the other hand, you have started posts on this subject multiple times. There is no moral high ground here. It's a hillbilly TV character you are making points about. You said lighten up. I say quit being a raw nerve on a football board.

Reading his statements in GQ left me of the opinion that they were spoken by a well meaning Good Old Boy, nothing more. The network over reacted to the situation. They did not consider the reaction of the viewers who, as it turns out, were not the originally intended audience. Expect Fox to swoop in and take the property.

Anyway, I blame Buh.