"Duck Dynasty" star banned from show for anti-gay comments

smallgirl said:

I was thinking about the Dixie Chicks last night. One comment and their career was toast. I didn't agree with it then, and I don't now. To me she didn't say anything most people have felt.. good God look what everyone says about Obama.
But I get what people are saying about your employer basically owning you. Hubby's does. For example, say he gets into legal trouble off the clock and is thrown in jail over night? His employer finds out? He's terminated. Yes, I get he is in management, Fortune 500 company and has an image to unhold.....but I firmly believe your time off the clock is yours, not your employers.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's just the way it is. Think about how many people can't post pics to Lit in fear of what would happen at work.

SgtSpiderMan said:

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's just the way it is. Think about how many people can't post pics to Lit in fear of what would happen at work.

Click to expand...

well, I'd never post a face pic anyway..

SgtSpiderMan said:

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's just the way it is. Think about how many people can't post pics to Lit in fear of what would happen at work.

Click to expand...

Really? That stops people?

smallgirl said:

well, I'd never post a face pic anyway..

Click to expand...

Yeah. The nakedness & face picture would get lots of people fired.

smallgirl said:

What the hell are you talking about?
I'm for freedom, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

This is a clear cut case of Republican/conservative's crying victim after they stepped on their own dicks. They wanted and staunchly advocate at will labor laws....THEY GOT THEM!! YOUR FIRED PHIL!! GTFO BITCH!! Suck A&E's freedom loving capitalist dick mother fuckers!!

Also what about A&E's freedom to fire people off their shows? You some kinda pro union Marxist commie??? The folks writing the pay checks get to hire and fire god damn it...not the folks asking if you want fries with your meal.

It's not the duck guy's show, it's A&E's....his freedoms have not been touched b/c NOTHING is stopping him from getting his own TV network and having all the gay hatred on his channel that christian america demands!! His freedoms are 100% unmolested.

What don't you get about that??

They shouldn't even need a reason to fire him.

"Because the boss said so that's the fuck why" is all anyone needs.

Still unhappy?

All this publicity...Phil Robertson is probably one of the smartest men in America!!

julybaby04 said:

Still unhappy?

All this publicity...Phil Robertson is probably one of the smartest men in America!!

Click to expand...

Why would I be unhappy?

I think employers should be able to hire and fire WHOEVER the fuck they want for WHATEVER the fuck they want...it's their money/business.

A&E....right the fuck on.

Phil...sure he pulled a good one, but his 1A rights were NOT violated.

julybaby04 said:

Still unhappy?

All this publicity...Phil Robertson is probably one of the smartest men in America!!

Click to expand...

I agree with you about ole phil. I can see where he's an inspiration to you...perhaps someday you'll follow in his footsteps and monetize your intense loathing and contempt for people who don't follow your particular moral code...just like him!

Looks like a duck...walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...is a duck.

julybaby04 said:

Still unhappy?

All this publicity...Phil Robertson is probably one of the smartest men in America!!

Click to expand...

In certain areas, sure....

BotanyBoy said:

Why would I be unhappy?

I think employers should be able to hire and fire WHOEVER the fuck they want for WHATEVER the fuck they want...it's their money/business.

A&E....right the fuck on.

Phil...sure he pulled a good one, but his 1A rights were NOT violated.

Click to expand...

I think you're being an agent provocateur. I think you are fundamentally right, but this wouldn't be a great way to run a society or an economy for that matter. This attitude is prevalent and that is one of our problems. Powerful business people will do ANYTHING for a buck. No loyalty to the people who made them successful. You're just saying these things because you like seeing people with a different attitude from you "get a taste of their own medicine". We have to accept people for all their different attitudes and beliefs. I tend to keep my beliefs private. My relationship with other people is more important than ideology. Most of my friends are VERY liberal and I fear that they would not be accepting of me if they knew that I tended toward conservative values. My beliefs don't affect the way I interact with other PEOPLE. I think homosexual acts are immoral, but I don't hate homosexual people. In my real life, I keep my beliefs to myself.

Ramone45 said:

I think you're being an agent provocateur. I think you are fundamentally right, but this wouldn't be a great way to run a society or an economy for that matter.

Click to expand...

Yea you support it but you still want to be hurt about ol Phil.

Ramone45 said:

This attitude is prevalent and that is one of our problems. Powerful business people will do ANYTHING for a buck.

Click to expand...

Problems? YOU VOTED FOR IT!!!

Ramone45 said:

No loyalty to the people who made them successful. You're just saying these things because you like seeing people with a different attitude from you "get a taste of their own medicine".

Click to expand...

They don't believe different than me, they behave differently. I don't try to martyr myself the civil rights victim when someone get's canned for popping off at the mouth with shit they shouldn't be saying if they want to keep their fucking job.

I fully support a bidnizz's freedom to hire/fire whoever for whatever and I'm not going to back off that just because some pop culture icon that I'm enchanted with get's bit on the ass by it.

The lot of the RW on this board? What a bunch of spineless drama fucking queens....seriously LOL

"YEA FUCK UNIONS AND LABOR LAWS...WAIT WAIT THATS NOT FAIR!! I'M A VICTIM!! WAHHHHHHH 1A 1A!!! VICTIM!!! PHIL IS OWED A PAYCHECK!! WAAAAAHHHH!!!" un-fucking-real.....LMFAO

Ramone45 said:

We have to accept people for all their different attitudes and beliefs. I tend to keep my beliefs private. My relationship with other people is more important than ideology.

Click to expand...

No we don't...I don't have to accept shit and can tell whoever to fuck right off.

Ramone45 said:

Most of my friends are VERY liberal and I fear that they would not be accepting of me if they knew that I tended toward conservative values. My beliefs don't affect the way I interact with other PEOPLE. I think homosexual acts are immoral, but I don't hate homosexual people. In my real life, I keep my beliefs to myself.

Click to expand...

I'm a die hard capitalist living NorCal....you ain't the only black sheep on lit bubba.

BotanyBoy said:

Why would I be unhappy?

I think employers should be able to hire and fire WHOEVER the fuck they want for WHATEVER the fuck they want...it's their money/business.

A&E....right the fuck on.

Phil...sure he pulled a good one, but his 1A rights were NOT violated.

Click to expand...

A&E and do what they want. Phil Roberston can do the same.

The support behind the Robertson's has probably increased 10-fold. People are choosing sides and lining up behind what/who they feel is important to them.

Perhaps this is a win/win for everyone.

If your friends wouldn't accept you if they knew who you were were you need new friends and if nobody would like you if they knew who you were kill yourself.

That said I'm not the capitalist that Bot is. . .well lassiez-faire capitalist that Bot is. I do think the government has a role to play in the economy and an important one at that. It always has and always will and currently we have a lot of people trying to get away from that, trying to prove we don't need government. Which is pure insanity.

Sean Renaud said:

If your friends wouldn't accept you if they knew who you were were you need new friends and if nobody would like you if they knew who you were kill yourself.

That said I'm not the capitalist that Bot is. . .well lassiez-faire capitalist that Bot is. I do think the government has a role to play in the economy and an important one at that. It always has and always will and currently we have a lot of people trying to get away from that, trying to prove we don't need government. Which is pure insanity.

Click to expand...

The role government has (or should have) was set forth in the Constitution and written about in the Federalist Papers....as follows:

James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

- Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9.

The Constitution clearly says that the Feds’ role is only to provide for the common defense, manage foreign relations, protect citizens’ constitutional rights, establish federal courts; apply and explain federal law (in the judiciary’s case); and a few other minor issues. No branch of the Federal Government is authorized to handle any other issues. So the federal establishment should be strictly limited to these tasks; all others should be reassigned to the states, local governments, and individual Americans.

Our current government has far exceeded those limits. "Is this Constitutional" should be the VERY first thing looked at by the government before anything is considered or moved upon.

Welfare, Education, etc are NOT Federal Government issues!

julybaby04 said:

The role government has (or should have) was set forth in the Constitution and written about in the Federalist Papers....as follows:

James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

- Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9.

The Constitution clearly says that the Feds’ role is only to provide for the common defense, manage foreign relations, protect citizens’ constitutional rights, establish federal courts; apply and explain federal law (in the judiciary’s case); and a few other minor issues. No branch of the Federal Government is authorized to handle any other issues. So the federal establishment should be strictly limited to these tasks; all others should be reassigned to the states, local governments, and individual Americans.

Our current government has far exceeded those limits. "Is this Constitutional" should be the VERY first thing looked at by the government before anything is considered or moved upon.

Welfare, Education, etc are NOT Federal Government issues!

Click to expand...

This is a case of a company based in California, doing business with another company based in Louisiana, and aired out to all 50 states, every state should handle it differently?

If only the Federalist Papers carried any weight whatsoever instead of us having to adhere to what was and has been agreed to in the Constitution and it's Amendments.

In other words, the Federalist Papers mean jack squat legally as far as the Constitution is concerned.

julybaby04 said:

The role government has (or should have) was set forth in the Constitution and written about in the Federalist Papers....as follows:

James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

- Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9.

The Constitution clearly says that the Feds’ role is only to provide for the common defense, manage foreign relations, protect citizens’ constitutional rights, establish federal courts; apply and explain federal law (in the judiciary’s case); and a few other minor issues. No branch of the Federal Government is authorized to handle any other issues. So the federal establishment should be strictly limited to these tasks; all others should be reassigned to the states, local governments, and individual Americans.

Our current government has far exceeded those limits. "Is this Constitutional" should be the VERY first thing looked at by the government before anything is considered or moved upon.

Welfare, Education, etc are NOT Federal Government issues!

Click to expand...

And our current government doesn't do nearly enough because it is too limited in it's scope. The Founding Fathers lived in a different world than I do and to follow their rules blindly would be suicidal.

Welfare, education, etc are federal government issues for there is nobody else equipped to handle them and in a less insane country we wouldn't even HAVE formal state governments. Certainly not the states we have. We are one country, not fifty.

SgtSpiderMan said:

This is a case of a company based in California, doing business with another company based in Louisiana, and aired out to all 50 states, every state should handle it differently?

Click to expand...

I was commenting on Sean R. He was speaking of the role of government and how it needs to be there.

(I was not directing that comment to the Duck Dynasty situation)

julybaby04 said:

The role government has (or should have) was set forth in the Constitution and written about in the Federalist Papers....as follows:

James Madison, the principal original author of that document’s original text who also wrote the first 10 Amendments, wrote in the Federalist Papers that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

- Federalist Paper #45, paragraph #9.

The Constitution clearly says that the Feds’ role is only to provide for the common defense, manage foreign relations, protect citizens’ constitutional rights, establish federal courts; apply and explain federal law (in the judiciary’s case); and a few other minor issues. No branch of the Federal Government is authorized to handle any other issues. So the federal establishment should be strictly limited to these tasks; all others should be reassigned to the states, local governments, and individual Americans.

Our current government has far exceeded those limits. "Is this Constitutional" should be the VERY first thing looked at by the government before anything is considered or moved upon.

Welfare, Education, etc are NOT Federal Government issues!

Click to expand...

Well, I give you points for consistency....you edit the Bible to fit your own perverse view of the world, so we shouldn't be surprised that you edit the US Constitution as well.

Your conjecture that welfare is not a federal government issue is absolutely false. The phrase "promote the general Welfare" is feature prominently in the preamble to the Constitution.

As always, I hope and pray that the pain and suffering you routinely wish on the less fortunate is returned threefold upon your own loved ones, so that you God may show you the error of your ways.

Ulaven_Demorte said:

If only the Federalist Papers carried any weight whatsoever instead of us having to adhere to what was and has been agreed to in the Constitution and it's Amendments.

In other words, the Federalist Papers mean jack squat legally as far as the Constitution is concerned.

Click to expand...

The Constitution sets the extent to which the Federal Government should be involved. What the government does now, for the most part, is not Constitutional (as far as dealing with concerns such as education and welfare and such).

Bert Notorius said:

i have to chuckle when the left tries to defend a country music act.

Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

Sean Renaud said:

And our current government doesn't do nearly enough because it is too limited in it's scope. The Founding Fathers lived in a different world than I do and to follow their rules blindly would be suicidal.

Welfare, education, etc are federal government issues for there is nobody else equipped to handle them and in a less insane country we wouldn't even HAVE formal state governments. Certainly not the states we have. We are one country, not fifty.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, the Constitution was written in the Founding Father's world and not yours.

There are very good reasons to limit the scope of the government. Education is a superb one. Common Core is an EXCELLENT example of having the Federal Government involved in education....they are completely incapable of doing this (Head Start is another example of complete failure of the government to establish a program to "educate" people......it only becomes a quagmire of paperwork and teaching to tests.....has NOTHING to do with actually taking the time to educate children).

Less intrusive government is ALWAYS a good thing.....but even better is a government which abides by the Constitution on which it was established!

RobDownSouth said:

Well, I give you points for consistency....you edit the Bible to fit your own perverse view of the world, so we shouldn't be surprised that you edit the US Constitution as well.

Your conjecture that welfare is not a federal government issue is absolutely false. The phrase "promote the general Welfare" is feature prominently in the preamble to the Constitution.

As always, I hope and pray that the pain and suffering you routinely wish on the less fortunate is returned threefold upon your own loved ones, so that you God may show you the error of your ways.

Click to expand...

Incorrect..... General Welfare does not mean "welfare" as most know it today......for example....


James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

"John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)"


http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

....and as to your last statement.....if God grants answers to prayers that I pray for others, including yourself, and I am blessed with that 3-fold....I will be very very blessed indeed..... so thank you for your prayers/wishes in that respect!

julybaby04 said:

The Constitution sets the extent to which the Federal Government should be involved. What the government does now, for the most part, is not Constitutional (as far as dealing with concerns such as education and welfare and such).

Click to expand...

That's absolutely not true, but then, "truth" has never been a part of your character.