I don't want to get into any political garbage regarding this story, but since it doesn't seem to want to go away I was wondering what some of you thought of this mess.

Personally, I've never watched it and have zero desire to do so (hey, I grew up in The South, and "know" these guys too well already :-) ), and thus truly do not care about the status of this show. Yet one of my initial thoughts was this: Why in the world was GQ interested in an interview with Paul Robertson in the first place? The last time I checked, Ermenegildo Zegna did not make camo bib overalls. :-)

Have never seen the show so I can't comment, only issue I have is how basically no one can have their own opinions anymore, everything is so PC, don't say or do anything that may offend anyone...F that!!

This!

Mayor Bloomberg is not the only one who imposed a ban on smoking cigars even outside in NYC in order to enforce his opinion on others. Just sayin'. There are opinions, and then there are opinions. Can we be selective which are acceptable and which are not, and still have some integrity?

Plus, how does Paul's right to an opinion differ from A&E's opinion that they didn't care to have him represent their network any longer? Again, just sayin'.

As for being PC . . . well, to me, "political correctness" is an oxymoron, like "legal ethics". :-)

Not taking a stance, only pointing out the other side.

I'll believe it's not a publicity stunt when the cast decides not to take network money anymore so that they can say what they want and not give a rat's fart about their EMPLOYER.

Thomas I think for the most part you are right. Freedom of speech does not mean only if it appeases one side or the other. Yes I agree you cannot put yelling fire in a crowded building under the protection of freedom of speech. I have seen a few episodes and find it entertaining but not a must see. However; I place all television under the "not a must see" label. A&E needs to decide if they want to support free speech and say that the view expressed by the show may not accurately reflect the views of the network. This could allow them to keep the money bag this show has become.

The first amendment only applies to the government vs the People. In the case here it's between Phil and A&E. I can be banned from this forum for speaking my open mind. Someone might get offended. No first amendment here either.

I have to say, Roger, that your post made me chuckle. We've had some former members of our community who when presented with the request to refrain from religious and/or political posts, replied with "This is a free country. I can say whatever I want".

This is a private forum, this is not a public area, you are a guest here, there are certain rules that apply just as if you were in someone else's house.


That being said.


As far as A&E, it would seem the network head had him removed after some of her gay and lesbian staff were upset with what he said, so it wasn't about advertisers and marketing it was more personal at that point.

Cracker Barrel was going to remove Duck Commander (?) items from their stores and the petitions started right away NOT to remove the items, so they reversed their plans and kept the items.

I don't agree with what everyone thinks but I respect their right to think it, it appears the gay and lesbian community doesn't respect others rights if they disagree with them.

I think this is the most blatantly ignorant thing I have ever heard uttered here. But I respect your right to be amazingly ignorant.

To clarify.

Roger - You or anyone else will not be banned for speaking your mind and possibly offending someone. My point had to do with others blatantly defying our clearly defined rules and staunchly defending their right to post whatever they wish. Personal insults are not permitted here but they occasionally happen and we try to warn before taking permanent action.

Adam's point and analogy about being a "guest" is spot on.

I think the big issue with those subjects here are people are so passionate they become rude and/or worse. The freedom of speech as read is to protect the rights of people's opinions. As interpreted for as long as I can remember it also supports a people's rights to no be forced to hear that particular opinion. Personally I think we should all sit down enjoy a nice smoke and ponder how to fix New York.

Thank you.

It's not uncommon for these kind of acting contracts to include catch-all sections about not doing anything that discredits or embarrasses the employer/production company/studio etc. Unless you're a serious A-lister, pulling Sheen-esque commentary out of your ass when on record isn't going to fly.

That being said, I still think it's a publicity stunt. If they were so embarrassed by him and wanted to bury this, why did A&E, after they had suspended him, decide to schedule and run a Duck Dynasty marathon of episodes featuring him. That decision wasn't made until after he was suspended. Ratings are through the roof now. It's all about the money.

I'm going to guess they couldn't be happier with how it played out, it's headline news and people who have never seen the show are now discussing it, you can't buy advertising like that.

In my own moronic opinion if people were more tolerant of each other, on both sides, we would have many of these issues.

The rules of this forum are less strict than some other forums I go to. You fellas BS a lot and are not smacked down for being "off subject" or "not a forum topic".
I was just throwing out an example, using myself. I'm new here and still getting a feel for the place, I'm not going to start finding how far I can go with anything anyway. I try not to offend people unless they need it.

I do not know much about Duck Dynasty. Watched it a couple times, wasn't really impressed with it.

If I might interject, the issue is tolerance.

Tolerance is: we agree to disagree and part friends, each respecting the others right to have and voice their own opinion - even if I do not like it.

Today, there are all sorts of people who scream about others whom they claim are "intolerant." They to want everybody to tolerate their opinion. But, their idea of tolerance is to shut down anybody who has an opposing opinion about a particular subject and silence them - or force them to cater to them in their belief and opinion.


AS AN EXAMPLE: I have a friend (couple) who are vegetarians. When they come to our place, they demand that we must prepare a special dish just for them. When we go to their house, they do not return the favor - there is no meat dish, anywhere. When I asked him to make a special dish for us when we come over, they refused, "We will not even cook meat in our home." When they came over the next time I had a help yourself meal. You grab a plate and could choose any or all of the following: cheesy potatoes, greens salad, beer cheese soup, broccoli w/cheese sauce, cheese & crackers, nuts, and finally some NY Strip steaks. They complained we didn't make them anything vegetarian. What?

Tolerance is not about forcing the other side to live according to your lifestyle, or even forcing someone to cater to your lifestyle. Tolerance is allowing people to live their way, even if you have an opposing viewpoint - but tolerance also allows both viewpoints full and free expression.

Of course, that's just my view.

Well said Todd. I tired to bump you but I couldn't.

Nevermind.

:-)

:-)