And yet thousands of straight men do everything in their power to get a girl to have anal/oral sex with them. And then there are some girls who actually prefer it to regular sex.

 

Cant argue taste.

 

Yep. Thousands. Out of how many tens of millions? But I get your point, and I agree. To each his own.

I think every person who has ever interviewed them has basically concluded that they're 100% real. They're smart business people and so they definitely project an image, but I think their beliefs are absolutely genuine.

 

At a minimum, their image is manufactured. There are a lot pictures on the internet of them with clean-shaven faces and yuppie clothes. Once they get a tv show, it's giant beards and camo everything.

 

I'd bet their beliefs and comments and personalities are at the very least exaggerated as well.

At a minimum, their image is manufactured. There are a lot pictures on the internet of them with clean-shaven faces and yuppie clothes. Once they get a tv show, it's giant beards and camo everything.

 

I'd bet their beliefs and comments and personalities are at the very least exaggerated as well.

 

I mean for sure they're playing up the redneck card. But the beards and all that started well before the TV show. I think it all started when they came out with their first hunting DVD.

 

 

I mean for sure they're playing up the redneck card. But the beards and all that started well before the TV show. I think it all started when they came out with their first hunting DVD.

 

Fair enough. In any event, it's a manufacturer image, just like Larry the Cable Guy.

Fair enough. In any event, it's a manufacturer image, just like Larry the Cable Guy.

 

Yeah that's a good comparison. Hey, whatever works. They became millionaires because of it. I'd grow a beard and dress in camo all day too if I got 200k per episode.

Yeah that's a good comparison. Hey, whatever works. They became millionaires because of it. I'd grow a beard and dress in camo all day too if I got 200k per episode.

 

That's show business

he was suspended from the show:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbiz/duck...sty-suspension/

 

I guess it's A&E's brand image to manage, but I dunno about kicking him off of the air over this. Supposedly he sort of hates doing the show and wanted out anyway, so maybe it's ultimately what he wanted.

he was suspended from the show:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbiz/duck...sty-suspension/

 

I guess it's A&E's brand image to manage, but I dunno about kicking him off of the air over this. Supposedly he sort of hates doing the show and wanted out anyway, so maybe it's ultimately what he wanted.

They're probably in the "no such thing as bad publicity" area. A "suspension" might well just make viewers more focused/interested since it's the evil media unfairly coming down on him for his deeply held beliefs.

Kinda funny the level of outrage GLADD and other groups are having over this, when they give their pal Baldwin a complete pass for worse. I guess since he donates money he gets a few 'get out of gay-outrage free' cards each year.

Kinda funny the level of outrage GLADD and other groups are having over this, when they give their pal Baldwin a complete pass for worse. I guess since he donates money he gets a few 'get out of gay-outrage free' cards each year.

 

I've seen Baldwin get trashed pretty heavily on liberal blogs over the past month or so, and deservedly so.

They're probably in the "no such thing as bad publicity" area. A "suspension" might well just make viewers more focused/interested since it's the evil media unfairly coming down on him for his deeply held beliefs.

That's true. Some of the stuff he said about race is more ridiculous than his pretty boilerplate conservative christian "homosexuality is a sin, also gross" comment.

I've seen Baldwin get trashed pretty heavily on liberal blogs over the past month or so, and deservedly so.

He did get suspended by MSNBC and then had his show canceled. Also apparently he had a show on MSNBC.

He did get suspended by MSNBC and then had his show canceled. Also apparently he had a show on MSNBC.

That was more of a case that his show sucked and it was a convenient excuse to cancel it. They gave it to him to begin with even with all his previous documented incidents, so I can't see where one more made a difference.

he was suspended from the show:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/18/showbiz/duck...sty-suspension/

 

I guess it's A&E's brand image to manage, but I dunno about kicking him off of the air over this. Supposedly he sort of hates doing the show and wanted out anyway, so maybe it's ultimately what he wanted.

 

Whats the point of reality tv if the people cant be real? Suspending someone for this is stupid.

 

 

Kinda funny the level of outrage GLADD and other groups are having over this, when they give their pal Baldwin a complete pass for worse. I guess since he donates money he gets a few 'get out of gay-outrage free' cards each year.

 

 

That was more of a case that his show sucked and it was a convenient excuse to cancel it. They gave it to him to begin with even with all his previous documented incidents, so I can't see where one more made a difference.

 

You, like the groups you dislike so much, just whine way to much. Its hard to take it seriously when it sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher.

 

Whats the point of reality tv if the people cant be real? Suspending someone for this is stupid.

 

Calling this "reality tv" is a bit of a stretch. Everything I've read is that it's heavily scripted.

 

edit: google for some pics of them before the show started. Clean-cut guys in white linen suddenly become backwoods hicks with huge beards. Just selling an image like Larry the Cable Guy. Nothing wrong with that, and apparently a lot of people are entertained.

Edited December 19, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

Can someone explain how what Roberston said was any different than the Pope, who was praised by gay groups and selected as Time's person of the year (for that reason among others)?

there was the usual silly linkage to bestiality in there, I don't think Pope Francis did that.

there was the usual silly linkage to bestiality in there, I don't think Pope Francis did that.

 

He listed various sins, also including adultery, alcoholism, etc.

 

But still, his point was the exact same - I don't get it. I don't agree with it. I think it's a sin. But treat people with kindness and love and don't judge them. Let God deal with it.

 

As a pseudo Christian, that's been my belief for a long time.

He listed various sins, also including adultery, alcoholism, etc.

 

But still, his point was the exact same - I don't get it. I don't agree with it. I think it's a sin. But treat people with kindness and love and don't judge them. Let God deal with it.

 

As a pseudo Christian, that's been my belief for a long time.

 

Look at what Robertson actually said. His comments and his tone were not remotely like the Pope's.

 

"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," he's quoted as saying.

Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

 

Honestly, just pretty much standard retrograde homophobia there. I think this is really what got him in trouble:

 

 

He also made comments regarding race and growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word!

"Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues," GQ quotes Robertson as saying.

Look at what Robertson actually said. His comments and his tone were not remotely like the Pope's.

 

 

 

Honestly, just pretty much standard retrograde homophobia there. I think this is really what got him in trouble:

 

Right and he also said this:

 

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

 

And that second quote I seriously don't understand what's wrong with it. It's entirely personal and based on his experiences. If anything he's being disrespectful for equating himself as a poor redneck to a southern black person in the 70's. I can't imagine both lived a great life even if a black person was obviously in a worse position socially.

 

 

Edited December 19, 201312 yr by Jenksismybitch

His portrayal of poor rural African Americans in Louisiana as happy-go-lucky people without a care in the world until that damned welfare came along is...problematic at best. It's basically Uncle Remus. Saying that they weren't singing the blues is just straight-up dumb because Louisiana blues music really started developing in the post-war period.

 

 

His portrayal of poor rural African Americans in Louisiana as happy-go-lucky people without a care in the world until that damned welfare came along is...problematic at best. It's basically Uncle Remus. Saying that they weren't singing the blues is just straight-up dumb because Louisiana blues music really started developing in the post-war period.

 

It might be dumb, but he wasn't trying to make a bigger point like "black people should stop complaining, i knew a few back in the day and they seemed fine."

It seems to me he was (people used to be more godly; being godly makes you happy; welfare destroyed godliness? I dunno I didn't say it's a coherent one).

 

But it doesn't matter if he was trying to make a broader point or not. The thing about the blues was just straight-up dumb, but the other part is offensive in the same way that Uncle Remus from Song of the South was offensive. He's literally dismissing that blacks in rural Louisiana in the 40's and 50's were racially oppressed and saying that they seemed happy enough to him. If you don't get why it's offensive, I don't know that I could explain it.

 

edit: maybe the NAACP/HRC letter can explain it better

http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/...tter_121813.pdf

Edited December 19, 201312 yr by StrangeSox

It seems to me he was (people used to be more godly; being godly makes you happy; welfare destroyed godliness? I dunno I didn't say it's a coherent one).

 

But it doesn't matter if he was trying to make a broader point or not. The thing about the blues was just straight-up dumb, but the other part is offensive in the same way that Uncle Remus from Song of the South was offensive. He's literally dismissing that blacks in rural Louisiana in the 40's and 50's were racially oppressed and saying that they seemed happy enough to him. If you don't get why it's offensive, I don't know that I could explain it.

 

 

Well I really don't. I don't expect people to have 100% perfect quotes that sufficiently cover every issue any time a question is asked. He's giving a quote about his experiences in rural Louisiana. It's entirely possible that he is color blind in a sense and being a "white trash" redneck he never had a problem/experienced a problem with whites and poor blacks. He shouldn't have to follow up that statement with "but you know i recognize other people didn't have it so good!!!!"

Well I really don't. I don't expect people to have 100% perfect quotes that sufficiently cover every issue any time a question is asked. He's giving a quote about his experiences in rural Louisiana. It's entirely possible that he is color blind in a sense and being a "white trash" redneck he never had a problem/experienced a problem with whites and poor blacks. He shouldn't have to follow up that statement with "but you know i recognize other people didn't have it so good!!!!"

He's giving a quote that essentially dismisses the widespread and systemic racial oppression African Americans faced in this country, particularly in states like Louisiana, in the 50's and 60's. He then follows it with a statement that implies that 'entitlements' and 'welfare' have made it worse for African Americans, and that this is the cause of whatever their current unhappiness is. He is literally saying that they were happier under Jim Crow than they were post-Great Society.

 

If anything, it's a great example of why "color blind" is such a stupid thing. It lets someone who isn't the target of systemic racial oppression be completely and comfortably ignorant of what's happening to everyone around them.

 

edit: more bluntly, every single day Jim Crow America mistreated African Americans. He claims to have not seen direct, immediate racial oppression (I am skeptical!) and from there talks about how happy everyone was. His "color blindness" is just another word for "deep ignorance"

Edited December 19, 201312 yr by StrangeSox