• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

A&E Taking Heat For Suspending 'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson

Y'know what's crazy? I got a Duck Dynasty cup for Christmas (stuffed in my stocking) with Phil Robertson's face on it, from my mom. She loves the show. She is apolitical, bless her heart, and loves my gay best friend and has no religious or social hate of gays. She just thinks the show is funny and it reminds her of her "country" roots.

My dad thought it was hilarious, since he knows I'm a liberal and he and I have already "spoken" about this issue. He also believes that Robertson's Constitutional rights were violated, despite my best efforts in explaining the issue to him. But since he watches Fox News and listens to right wing radio, it's like talking to a wall.

He laughed out loud. I looked at mom, who was completely oblivious.

"Thank you," I mumbled.
 
SantaEddie74 said:
The conservatives up in arms about Phil being "silenced" are many of the same people who thought that the Dixie Chicks should have been tried for treason for saying they didn't like President Bush and agree with the Iraq War. "They're saying it in a time of war! They're emboldening our enemies! They've crossed a line!"
Click to expand...

And conveniently enough, now that it appears we'll be in Afghanistan pretty much indefinitely, it is always a time of war these days.

Trekker4747 said:
How about a hybrid of an elephant and a donkey?
Click to expand...

Chimp-human hybrid could also work. In other words, GWB.

A Christmas Festival said:
What frightens me more is that we're 31 pages in and there are still people whining about Phil's Constitutional Rights being violated by A&E even though it's been explained about a bazillion times.
Click to expand...

You're expecting people to actually read the Constitution which they blather about daily? These days people only read stuff when Oprah tells them to. Reading is for sissies.
 
Maybe we should take a page from the Conservative playbook and start mailing/emailing idiots like this a copy of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Specifically this part (emphasis mine):
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

And ask him to explain how Congress abridged Phil Robertson's freedom of speech.
 
shivkala said:
Maybe we should take a page from the Conservative playbook and start mailing/emailing idiots like this a copy of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Specifically this part (emphasis mine):
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

And ask him to explain how Congress abridged Phil Robertson's freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

I don't know, it seems that there's plenty of potential hypocrisy going around here, including from people who suddenly "rediscovered" that corporations have the same rights as people. ;)
 
shivkala said:
Maybe we should take a page from the Conservative playbook and start mailing/emailing idiots like this a copy of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Specifically this part (emphasis mine):
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

And ask him to explain how Congress abridged Phil Robertson's freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
That bill, which supposedly protects the First Amendment, actually... violates it... :guffaw:
 
Trekker4747 said:
Really, I think Republicans need the donkey as their mascot since their the ass party. But, also, the old, slow, scared of tiny things elephant works for them too. How about a hybrid of an elephant and a donkey?
Click to expand...

Considering that the modern Right reminds me of the Island of Dr. Moreau with much weaker standards, it'd be only fitting for a pachydonk to become the new Republican symbol.

Photoshoppers much better than I - get on this!
 
.... pachydonk...
Click to expand...

I don't know what this is. A Google search brings up several alternative links under "Did you mean...?", twelve total results the #1 of which is this thread and a single image of a donkey wearing a sombrero.
 
BillJ said:
RJDonner&Blitzen said:
BillJ said:
(I like watching people get tazered, so shoot me).
Click to expand...
That's a bad sentence. :(
Click to expand...

While you're critique is emotionally shattering, I'll go on... somehow...
Click to expand...
If watching rednecks and trailer trash (not always the same thing) getting tazed by a pissed off county deputy is wrong, I don't want to be right.

And sometimes you get the see the live show :devil: (about the only thing some of my neighbors are good for..."What!? What!? I thought this was Amer...*ZAAAAAPED*..."Oh god, oh god, I'll stop!")
 
Donkey wearing a sombrero? Screw it, let's go with that just for the intrinsic comedy value and the meme possibilities. We'll worry about introducing elephantine elements into the animal's genetic makeup a little later.
 
Still not defending him, don't watch the show, but he was using himself as a bench mark that when he was a child of 18 his eventual wife was a child of 15, which is only a three year difference, but it's still a question of children dating children which is always icky, and he "probably" didn't mean that a 30 year old or a 40 year old should be able to marry a 15 year old child.

"Probably" but not certainly.

When I was 15, there were no 15 year old girls to spare, because they were all dating 22 year olds.

They had cars and could buy beer, what were they going to be with me?

Build legos and watch cartoons?

Why didn't I go after a 22 year old woman?

Because they wanted the 30 year old men who could buy them houses and cars.
 
babalooey_zpsc309c000.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top