-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/26/pruden-youve-got-to-know-the-territory/
The uproar over “Duck Dynasty” should be studied forever in the business schools as a priceless teaching exercise in marketing quackery. Television executives are so highly paid because they’re supposed to be so smart. Rarely have so many smart guys been so out to lunch.
The noisy row over the A&E cable network suspending Phil Robertson, the head duck, was mostly not about free speech — the network had a right to suspend him, depending on what was in the contract — but about how low the network wanted to kowtow to the lavender lobby, disrespect for religious belief, and whether it wanted to put at risk its No. 1 show. This is where the A&E suits made their incredible miscalculation, based on gross ignorance of who and what they were dealing with. An office boy would have known better.
“A&E,” says Lisa de Moraes, the influential television critic for the Deadline/Hollywood website, “has been dazedly dog-paddling since the interview [in GQ magazine] and its hit show suddenly stopped quacking like all those other homespun reality series on TV and began Bible-thumping like the religious parable [the controversy] actually is.”
The network was asking for trouble because no one at the office knows anything about Christians, evangelical and otherwise, or the people they thought they were doing business with. The network was accustomed to dealing with people willing if not eager to slice a little off this point of view, cut a little off principle there, keep quiet about this belief and surrender a little bit of control there, take the money and run to the bank with it. The executives at A&E had never run across anyone like Phil Robertson or his family, the personification of the people Hank Williams Jr. sang about in his country classic “A Country Boy Can Survive.”
“You can’t stomp us out, and you can’t make us run/’Cause we’re them good ol’ boys raised on the gun/We say grace, and we say ma’am/And if you ain’t into that, we don’t give a damn.”
“Duck Dynasty” and the hunting constituency that made the Robertsons rich — $400 million and counting — were in fact a people apart, if the network had wanted to find out who they were. They’re largely Scots-Irish, that oft-overlooked segment of the American ethnic mix who arrived early and challenged the progeny of the English aristocrats, the proper Bostonians and the Virginia cavaliers, to cast the prevailing American character.
The Scots-Irish, more Scots than Irish and who took their name from their exile in Ireland, were exiled again to America and brought their populist instincts and fierce Calvinism with them. Jim Webb, the decorated Marine hero, novelist and former U.S. senator from Virginia, describes well his own ancestors and the prevailing culture in northern Louisiana and the South in his book “Born Fighting.”
“These are intensely religious people,” writes Mr. Webb. “Indeed they comprise the very heart of the Christian evangelical movement — and yet they are unapologetically and even devilishly hedonistic. They are probably the most anti-authoritarian culture in America, conditioned from birth to resist any pressure from above, and yet they are known as the most intensely patriotic segment of the country as well. They are naturally rebellious, often impossible to control, and yet their strong military tradition produces generation after generation of perhaps the finest soldiers the world has ever seen. They are filled with wanderlust and are ethnically assimilative, but their love of their own heritage can move them to tears when they hear the bagpipes play, and no matter how far they roam, their passion for family travels with them.”
The executives at A&E could have known this if they were at least as interested in their talent as in the simpering drivel of the professional whiners of GLAAD, GBLTQ and other pressure groups. Now A&E is said to be looking for a way to climb down from the gay hobby horse. Phil Robertson and his duck family are not likely to give an inch because, by their lights, they cannot. Threats of suspension or firing, empty though the threats no doubt are, invite only an ever more stubborn defense of the way they are and what they believe. Threats and intimidation do not move them.
This could be the ultimate teaching moment for the business professors. Marketing has its limits, particularly when the marketing men are dumb and clueless. A country storekeeper, who can’t imagine going to college to learn how to sell tea, turnips or long-handled underwear, could teach them the first and fundamental rule of selling: “You’ve got to know the territory.”
-
Excellent article.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ9U4Cbb4wg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ9U4Cbb4wg)
-
In other words.
Phil Robertson, a man of unyielding conservative moral ideals, has chosen to continue amassing wealth from a relationship with a liberal, secular network, while A&E, a secular liberal network, has opted to ignore the complaints of its liberal clientele in order to continue making money from Phil's show.
You have to love the free market.
-
It's not out of the realm of possibility that this was a mutually agreed upon, staged, wag-the-dog event. After all, it garnered substantially more interest in the show than before and will most likely run up the ratings, and therefore the advertising rates, for the show. It's a win-win for A&E, Gurney Productions, and Mr. Robertson. No doubt he'll have a book coming out shortly that will leverage off of this bit of theater.
-
It's not out of the realm of possibility that this was a mutually agreed upon, staged, wag-the-dog event. After all, it garnered substantially more interest in the show than before and will most likely run up the ratings, and therefore the advertising rates, for the show. It's a win-win for A&E, Gurney Productions, and Mr. Robertson. No doubt he'll have a book coming out shortly that will leverage off of this bit of theater.
That presumes a lack of authenticity on the part of the Robertsons, and from every thing I've read and seen, it's highly unlikely that they are that disingenuous.
I believe it's just what it seemed to be. Phil went on GQ, they asked a loaded question which he answered with crude honesty, the pressure from GLAAD bullies ensued, A&E buckled, and then re-buckled when they realized they would be losing a load of cash for no good reason.
Had A&E just stated that they didn't agree with Phil, but that he had the right to believe what he wanted from the get-go, this so-called kerfuffle would never have happened.
I do think that A&E will benefit from restoring DD, as will the Robertsons.
But there is no way that a devout Christian would have staged this to fleece his audience.
-
Their average ratings were 14 million viewers with a high of 17 million, highest ratings of any television program on cable TV. They already had controversy (if you want to call it that) over praying at the end of the show - A&E insisted they stop and they said no - and A&E adding in bleeps where there was nothing foul to bleep. Nope this was a case of A&E acting without thinking about the audience of the program - which is not the Lesbian and Gay community.
-
Their average ratings were 14 million viewers with a high of 17 million, highest ratings of any television program on cable TV. They already had controversy (if you want to call it that) over praying at the end of the show - A&E insisted they stop and they said no - and A&E adding in bleeps where there was nothing foul to bleep. Nope this was a case of A&E acting without thinking about the audience of the program - which is not the Lesbian and Gay community.
Yep.
-
In other words.
Phil Robertson, a man of unyielding conservative moral ideals, has chosen to continue amassing wealth from a relationship with a liberal, secular network, while A&E, a secular liberal network, has opted to ignore the complaints of its liberal clientele in order to continue making money from Phil's show.
You have to love the free market.
Perhaps you prefer socialism? How has that worked throughout the world, in the socialist cesspools of Africa? Communism is simply the most extreme form of socialism, practiced in North Korea.
And YOU called ME a "moron." Pretty funny, Louie, Louie.
-
Perhaps you prefer socialism? How has that worked throughout the world, in the socialist cesspools of Africa? Communism is simply the most extreme form of socialism, practiced in North Korea.
And YOU called ME a "moron." Pretty funny, Louie, Louie.
Uhh, it may not be entirely clear, but Luis is, in fact, celebrating the benefits and machinations of the free market, not denigrating them. There was, perhaps, a little sarcasm in the post because Luis is not as convinced of the purity of Mr. Robertson's motivations as some others are.
-
That presumes a lack of authenticity on the part of the Robertsons, and from every thing I've read and seen, it's highly unlikely that they are that disingenuous.
I believe it's just what it seemed to be. Phil went on GQ, they asked a loaded question which he answered with crude honesty, the pressure from GLAAD bullies ensued, A&E buckled, and then re-buckled when they realized they would be losing a load of cash for no good reason.
Had A&E just stated that they didn't agree with Phil, but that he had the right to believe what he wanted from the get-go, this so-called kerfuffle would never have happened.
I do think that A&E will benefit from restoring DD, as will the Robertsons.
But there is no way that a devout Christian would have staged this to fleece his audience.
Depends on what you mean by "fleece."
Phil didn't lie about his beliefs. Is he above staging a little controversy to boost ratings and DD product sales during the prime buying season? Who knows?
However it happened, it was a brilliant marketing move. DD didn't lose any of its audience and probably increased interest in the show, driving up ad rates and market share.
-
Depends on what you mean by "fleece."
Phil didn't lie about his beliefs. Is he above staging a little controversy to boost ratings and DD product sales during the prime buying season? Who knows?
However it happened, it was a brilliant marketing move. DD didn't lose any of its audience and probably increased interest in the show, driving up ad rates and market share.
Precisely.
-
But there is no way that a devout Christian would have staged this to fleece his audience.
Not to fleece them, unless paying the cable bill is fleecing. More like serve their audience.
-
Depends on what you mean by "fleece."
Phil didn't lie about his beliefs. Is he above staging a little controversy to boost ratings and DD product sales during the prime buying season? Who knows?
However it happened, it was a brilliant marketing move. DD didn't lose any of its audience and probably increased interest in the show, driving up ad rates and market share.
Phil's staging the controversy in cahoots with A&E seems a bit far fetched, but I suppose anything is possible, given enough cynicism.
-
Not to fleece them, unless paying the cable bill is fleecing. More like serve their audience.
I doubt that most of their audience would have even known about the GQ interview had A&E not buckled under the bullying techniques of GLAAD and fired Phil.
I think it's extremely unlikely that this was a wag the dog thing with both the Robertsons and A&E working together to boost ratings.
But I suppose black helicopters and conspiracy theories are all the rage these days, so why not indulge in a little fantasy, eh?
-
I doubt that most of their audience would have even known about the GQ interview had A&E not buckled under the bullying techniques of GLAAD and fired Phil.
I think it's extremely unlikely that this was a wag the dog thing with both the Robertsons and A&E working together to boost ratings.
But I suppose black helicopters and conspiracy theories are all the rage these days, so why not indulge in a little fantasy, eh?
You don't need black helicopters, you simply need to know that GLAAD is a bunch of ravening dogs who respond in classic pavlovian fashion to everything that's similar to what Robertson said. All it took was an educated bet on what GLAAD would do, nothing more.
-
A&E quickly came to their senses, based on "enlightened self interest."
Or perhaps this was an expression of the "invisible hand."
Maybe we are at a point in history for the end of "community organizers" and special interest advocates to get their way, since ultimately they don't have much economic clout.
With black yutes rampaging, assaulting, murdering, there is and should be no sympathy left.
Gays already have their marriages, military service, Boy Scouts, so what's left? That doesn't mean everybody has to like all of it, or be silent.
For A&E it was not a moral question, but instead a purely economic question.
-
You don't need black helicopters, you simply need to know that GLAAD is a bunch of ravening dogs who respond in classic pavlovian fashion to everything that's similar to what Robertson said. All it took was an educated bet on what GLAAD would do, nothing more.
The comments I've read here have implied that Phil Robertson was in on some kind of conspiracy with A&E to make them all more money.
I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous.
Anyone suggesting a 'wag the dog' scenario is indulging in some sort of conspiratorial fantasy.
-
The comments I've read here have implied that Phil Robertson was in on some kind of conspiracy with A&E to make them all more money.
I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous.
Anyone suggesting a 'wag the dog' scenario is indulging in some sort of conspiratorial fantasy.
It's a sign of the times, my Lady. When you can't trust your leaders, you get cynical. Personally, I think he said what he means and A&E got the optics wrong for their initial response. They may well have taken advantage of the controversy for boosting their brand, but that is making the best of a bad situation.
-
Phil's staging the controversy in cahoots with A&E seems a bit far fetched, but I suppose anything is possible, given enough cynicism.
I wonder if the same approach can be applied to the "publicity stunt" cabal on here? Perhaps we can conclude that everything they post is insincere and they do it just to provoke controversy or for some other deep seated psychological need.
Yes, I am beginning to suspect that. They don't mean a word of what they say about Phil or any other topic for that matter.
-
It's a sign of the times, my Lady. When you can't trust your leaders, you get cynical. Personally, I think he said what he means and A&E got the optics wrong for their initial response. They may well have taken advantage of the controversy for boosting their brand, but that is making the best of a bad situation.
Neither Phil Robertson nor A&E are our 'leaders,' and the cynicism we all have for politicians is irrelevant to the conversation.
I'm sorry, but it's really reaching to imagine that the Robertson family and A&E plotted together to make more money for DD.
Sometimes it just is what it is......
Phil told the truth in an interview, GLAAD acted typically like bullies, A&E caved like scared rabbits, but when they realized they were killing their own cash cow, relented.
-
Phil's staging the controversy in cahoots with A&E seems a bit far fetched, but I suppose anything is possible, given enough cynicism.
I wonder if the same approach can be applied to the "publicity stunt" cabal on here? Perhaps we can conclude that everything they post is insincere and they do it just to provoke controversy or for some other deep seated psychological need.
Yes, I am beginning to suspect that. They don't mean a word of what they say about Phil or any other topic for that matter.
Hmmmmmm...................... an interesting thought, Cincinnatus.
One thing for sure, there are some who are contrarians and (transparent) pot-stirrers, so knowing what they actually believe is practically impossible.
-
One thing for sure, there are some who are contrarians and (transparent) pot-stirrers, so knowing what they actually believe is practically impossible.
Well, ML, I am just applying their world view to themselves, have concluded they don't mean a word of what they say, and are motivated instead by some personal needs.
-
One thing for sure, there are some who are contrarians and (transparent) pot-stirrers, so knowing what they actually believe is practically impossible.
Well, ML, I am just applying their world view to themselves, have concluded they don't mean a word of what they say, and are motivated instead by some personal needs.
No doubt there are a select few on this forum that are transparently duplicitous and disingenuous.
Their motive???...the word troll comes to mind, at least for one of them.
-
Phil told the truth in an interview, GLAAD acted typically like bullies, A&E caved like scared rabbits, but when they realized they were killing their own cash cow, relented.
Agreed. That is reality, and why they call it "reality TV."
-
Agreed. That is reality, and why they call it "reality TV."
The GQ interview was not part of "reality TV."
What is and is not reality TV is a separate discussion from what happened to Phil Robertson as a result of his GQ interview.
-
One thing for sure, there are some who are contrarians and (transparent) pot-stirrers, so knowing what they actually believe is practically impossible.
Well, ML, I am just applying their world view to themselves, have concluded they don't mean a word of what they say, and are motivated instead by some personal needs.
I don't know what the motivation is, but it is obvious that they don't mean what they say and are merely pot-stirrers.
Whatever personal satisfaction they get out of being obnoxious remains to be seen, but it's pretty clear that they get something out of it.
I'm not an analyst, so I can only guess as to what that might be, but no matter what it is, it's bizarre, and I always wonder if they're this obnoxious in real life, or just play jerks on the internet.....
-
Phil's staging the controversy in cahoots with A&E seems a bit far fetched, but I suppose anything is possible, given enough cynicism.
Given the scandal up the road when they can point to the Christian bible-quoter and prove it was a marketing ploy....I doubt it was staged.
Hope there's not a tape laying around somewhere.
That would knock down the image of social conservatism a peg or three.
-
Given the scandal up the road when they can point to the Christian bible-quoter and prove it was a marketing ploy....I doubt it was staged.
Hope there's not a tape laying around somewhere.
That would knock down the image of social conservatism a peg or three.
I think it was nearly impossible that it was staged.
If some day it's proven I was wrong, I will freely admit it, but knowing even as little as I do about the Robertson family, I think the only blows to social conservatism in the future will be the same bogus arguments we hear on a daily basis from those who hang around on the left, or agree with those who do.
-
I think it was nearly impossible that it was staged.
If some day it's proven I was wrong, I will freely admit it, but knowing even as little as I do about the Robertson family, I think the only blows to social conservatism in the future will be the same bogus arguments we hear on a daily basis from those who hang around on the left, or agree with those who do.
Yeah....my point was that the Robertson family...while staging a reality show...are genuine in their moral base. That's not faked. It's them.
It would be catastrophic if definitive proof came out that they were all in on it from the start.
-
The comments I've read here have implied that Phil Robertson was in on some kind of conspiracy with A&E to make them all more money.
I'm sorry, but I find that ridiculous.
Anyone suggesting a 'wag the dog' scenario is indulging in some sort of conspiratorial fantasy.
Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it didn't happen. I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm just saying that it could have happened and that from our perspective, standing on the outside looking in, there is no real way to tell which scenario actually happened; the most we can do is argue probabilities.
You also damn Mr. Robertson with faint praise because you're essentially saying that he's a naif, an innocent who simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be crafty or ingenious; I don't think you get to Mr. Robertson's position without being a lot more sophisticated than he lets on. And that doesn't mean that I'm saying he lied - I don't think he did - the beauty of this set of events is that Mr. Robertson told the truth, and that doesn't change if A&E and Robertson agreed that it might prove profitable if he really let it all hang out in that interview. That's the real sophistication in this sort of wag-the-dog - and I am just assuming wag-the-dog for the sake of argument here - it was precisely by being as real as possible that he managed to get such a knee-jerk reaction out of GLAAD - more real than he is on the show itself, which necessarily contains a lot of scripted content. And that's the thing about it: there is no need to ascribe any sordid motive to Mr. Robertson in order for things to have played out this way. In fact, you could even cast this as a form of testifying by Mr. Robertson: telling the truth of God the way it is; the fact that it might have also provided him and A&E some material benefit as well is not necessarily relevant because it wouldn't have been 100% certain that GLAAD would in fact react the way they did.
To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane: "reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Let's give Mr. Robertson his due.
-
Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it didn't happen. I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm just saying that it could have happened and that from our perspective, standing on the outside looking in, there is no real way to tell which scenario actually happened; the most we can do is argue probabilities.
You also damn Mr. Robertson with faint praise because you're essentially saying that he's a naif, an innocent who simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be crafty or ingenious; I don't think you get to Mr. Robertson's position without being a lot more sophisticated than he lets on. And that doesn't mean that I'm saying he lied - I don't think he did - the beauty of this set of events is that Mr. Robertson told the truth, and that doesn't change if A&E and Robertson agreed that it might prove profitable if he really let it all hang out in that interview. That's the real sophistication in this sort of wag-the-dog - and I am just assuming wag-the-dog for the sake of argument here - it was precisely by being as real as possible that he managed to get such a knee-jerk reaction out of GLAAD - more real than he is on the show itself, which necessarily contains a lot of scripted content. And that's the thing about it: there is no need to ascribe any sordid motive to Mr. Robertson in order for things to have played out this way. In fact, you could even cast this as a form of testifying by Mr. Robertson: telling the truth of God the way it is; the fact that it might have also provided him and A&E some material benefit as well is not necessarily relevant because it wouldn't have been 100% certain that GLAAD would in fact react the way they did.
To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane: "reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Let's give Mr. Robertson his due.
Actually, what I believe is that Phil has no reason to be "crafty" and do such a lame thing to bring about greater profits. But I certainly don't think the man is naïve. Not at all.
I don't doubt for a moment that he uses his new found fame as a platform to proclaim his faith in God, through Jesus Christ, nor do I doubt that the rest of his family does as well (Jase makes public speaking appearances frequently on behalf of Biblical morality and the sanctity of life).
What I am saying is not even remotely likely, given the nature of the Robertson family, is that they were in cahoots with A&E in this gigantic publicity stunt to garner more profits for DD.
-
Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean that it didn't happen. I'm not saying that it did happen, I'm just saying that it could have happened and that from our perspective, standing on the outside looking in, there is no real way to tell which scenario actually happened; the most we can do is argue probabilities.
You also damn Mr. Robertson with faint praise because you're essentially saying that he's a naif, an innocent who simply doesn't have the wherewithal to be crafty or ingenious; I don't think you get to Mr. Robertson's position without being a lot more sophisticated than he lets on. And that doesn't mean that I'm saying he lied - I don't think he did - the beauty of this set of events is that Mr. Robertson told the truth, and that doesn't change if A&E and Robertson agreed that it might prove profitable if he really let it all hang out in that interview. That's the real sophistication in this sort of wag-the-dog - and I am just assuming wag-the-dog for the sake of argument here - it was precisely by being as real as possible that he managed to get such a knee-jerk reaction out of GLAAD - more real than he is on the show itself, which necessarily contains a lot of scripted content. And that's the thing about it: there is no need to ascribe any sordid motive to Mr. Robertson in order for things to have played out this way. In fact, you could even cast this as a form of testifying by Mr. Robertson: telling the truth of God the way it is; the fact that it might have also provided him and A&E some material benefit as well is not necessarily relevant because it wouldn't have been 100% certain that GLAAD would in fact react the way they did.
To paraphrase J.B.S. Haldane: "reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Let's give Mr. Robertson his due.
What's amusing about this whole thing is the air of "Phil Robertson is one of us" that so many people seem to have.
Make no mistake, the Robertsons are crafty and shrewd businessmen who play the part of down home country folk, perpetuating the stereo typical image of southerners as slow talking, squirrel-eating hicks to amuse those who already hold that image of people from the South in their minds, and they do it for money.
Honey Boo Boo is a more realistic show than Duck Dynasty.
If you think they're "one of us", tell me which one of you live in a house like this.
Willie Robertson does.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xytWEpvSUsI/UYCPp8a2zaI/AAAAAAAAA8A/rI1PPdxYouQ/s1600/1400+university+dr+monroe,+la+-+Google+Maps+(1).png)
-
Where's that pic of the rhino in undies? Or was that a RINO in undies?
-
What's amusing about this whole thing is the air of "Phil Robertson is one of us" that so many people seem to have.
Make no mistake, the Robertsons are crafty and shrewd businessmen who play the part of down home country folk, perpetuating the stereo typical image of southerners as slow talking, squirrel-eating hicks to amuse those who already hold that image of people from the South in their minds, and they do it for money.
Honey Boo Boo is a more realistic show than Duck Dynasty.
If you think they're "one of us", tell me which one of you live in a house like this.
Willie Robertson does.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xytWEpvSUsI/UYCPp8a2zaI/AAAAAAAAA8A/rI1PPdxYouQ/s1600/1400+university+dr+monroe,+la+-+Google+Maps+(1).png)
So Willie's not really a toothpick-chewing, backwoods-dwelling dweeb?
-
The GQ interview was not part of "reality TV."
What is and is not reality TV is a separate discussion from what happened to Phil Robertson as a result of his GQ interview.
Everything public figures do in public, is "reality tv."
"All the world's a stage."
-
(http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/huntsmans-daughters-lightbox.jpg?w=628&h=434)
-
The Robertsons don't hide their wealth. Their first show was about how they made millions with their duck calling business. Their homes are shown on the show.
Read this, and you might get a better understanding of them and the show. Or, you might even watch the show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty)
-
Art Frahm, gotta love it!
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fhSp1SkSHZI/Tn2qhK7G_YI/AAAAAAAADnk/zo_9JDOdVAk/s1600/art+frahm.+007.jpg)
-
Who's a naughty bird then?
(http://files.myopera.com/hering23/albums/8801942/Art%20Frahm%20Gallery%2008.jpg)
-
I'm going to start getting more explicit if I have to ......
-
The Robertsons don't hide their wealth. Their first show was about how they made millions with their duck calling business. Their homes are shown on the show.
Read this, and you might get a better understanding of them and the show. Or, you might even watch the show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty)
and they made their money legally. More power to them. Bet they still get the flu like the rest of us.
-
DC mentioned Vargas earlier on. Anyone up for Vargas (so to speak):
(http://www.thepinupfiles.com/vargas/alberto-vargas-pinup-artist_56.jpg)
-
(http://www.jumpingfrog.com/images/ads-artists/72pin003.jpg)
-
(http://a407.idata.over-blog.com/3/79/28/51/CLAUDE/rand/malo/kat/Katyyy/nikita/jason/peet/alberto-vargas-pin-up-19.jpg)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PNTy_p6Pb2M/ThShApRbl3I/AAAAAAAALKY/gitYrKmjvi8/s1600/alberto_vargas.jpg)
-
The Robertsons don't hide their wealth. Their first show was about how they made millions with their duck calling business. Their homes are shown on the show.
Read this, and you might get a better understanding of them and the show. Or, you might even watch the show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty)
The wealth is secondary to their on-air persona.
They're far more than what they portray.
I watch the show, only on occasion (it's not "my thing") but I watch it nevertheless.
-
Where's that pic of the rhino in undies? Or was that a RINO in undies?
Seriously.
-
L O L
-
More, more, more.....
-
More, more, more.....
You got it!
(http://www.hdwallpapers3d.com/wp-content/uploads/Sydney-Leathers-Bikini-15-682x1024.jpg)
Sydney Leathers, Carlos Danger's paramour.
-
Oh, how nice. I see where the Liberal provocateurs on here, the same cabal which refers to the women as "dame(s)" and "toots" are now resorting to sexually provocative cartoons in order to get others to pay attention to them. If I were still a 12 year boy what a delight this Forum would be.
Sadly though for me I am now a man and now find myself in agreement with St Paul, When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
(1 Cor 13:11)
and prefer adult discussions to soft core porn.
-
Oh, how nice. I see where the Liberal provocateurs on here, the same cabal which refers to the women as "dame(s)" and "toots" are now resorting to sexually provocative cartoons in order to get others to pay attention to them. If I were still a 12 year boy what a delight this Forum would be.
Sadly though for me I am now a man and now find myself in agreement with St Paul, (1 Cor 13:11)
and prefer adult discussions to soft core porn.
If they're trying to get others to pay attention to them, they may well be succeeding.
But it's most likely not the attention they really want.
The lack of respect for women of a certain few is duly noted. I knew it was underlying certain posters' comments, but I haven't seen it outright before I came back to this thread this morning.
But perhaps they don't care if the women on this forum see this kind of thing. Perhaps their lack of respect for us leads them to not care at all how offensive they are to all the intelligent, thoughtful, rational women on this forum.....
-
I guess some people forgot this isn't Free Republic.. but a certain cabal is acting like it is.
-
I guess some people forgot this isn't Free Republic.. but a certain cabal is acting like it is.
Yes, they certainly are.
Thanks for noticing it.
-
Yes, they certainly are.
Thanks for noticing it.
Knock it off, Luis.. this isn't one of your sites.
-
Knock it off, Luis.. this isn't one of your sites.
Knock WHAT off Rap?
Posting here?
No.
I've said nothing to insult anyone, not have I attacked anyone.
I've posted opinions that aren't popular with some members, and they have attacked me personally and insulted me in response
What immense hypocrisy it is to support Robertson while acting like A&E.
You're on ignore.
Anyone not interested in my posts can do the same.
-
I've said nothing to insult anyone, not have I attacked anyone.
I've posted opinions that aren't popular with some members, and they have attacked me personally and insulted me in response
Poor, delicate, maligned Luis. Pure in motives, victimized by all those bigoted conservatives. **nononono*
(Dishes out, can't take......)
What immense hypocrisy it is to support Robertson while acting like A&E.
Nobody's stifling your free speech, and no one is firing you, Luis. There's nothing even remotely like A&E behavior going on here.
Stop acting like you're the victim when all that's happening is that people are responding negatively to your words.
No wonder some folks think you're a liberal.
You act exactly like they do. Attack people's thoughts, get negative, reasoned responses from your attacks, and then play victim..........
-
I guess some people forgot this isn't Free Republic.. but a certain cabal is acting like it is.
More than a decade of learned behavior, transferred to a site where it doesn't belong.
Some folks apparently can't shake the old place..........
-
Can someone explain to me why - out of the hundreds of stories posted in the last week - the story of a reality TV show has brought out the worst in the normally sane and polite members here?