Un-ducking-believable

In an article about how Phil Robertson isn’t going to go on any apology tour soon … or ever … Yahoo TV explained that “the duck hunter” had “sparked controversy last week after he made several homophobic and racially-charged remarks in an interview published in the Janurary 2014 issue of GQ.”

“Homophobic and racially-charged”? Un-ducking-believable. Whew … you gotta wonder if the writer actually read the interview.

Author Larry Correia pointed out in a very readable blog (link below) that “most of the people who have their panties in a twist about Robertson’s hatemongery have not read the actual article in question. Even with a totally unbiased GQ reporter, it isn’t that bad, but you wouldn’t know it from all the caring liberal* outrage today.” [Note from CtH: Add a /sarc tag to that “totally unbiased” thing.]

At the bottom, he has a note for the starred word liberal:

*One quick note for all you whiny No-Labels types. I’m going to use the word LIBERAL to describe liberals acting like liberals. You’ll live. Obviously, not all liberals are in favor of squashing dissenting opinions or disallowing someone from holding personal religious beliefs, but everybody trying to squash dissenting beliefs about today’s topic is either a liberal, statist, communist, socialist, or just being a dick. So yes I know that YOU personally are a special snowflake different from said stereotype, but I’m too lazy to keep typing that out, and to use some helpful stereotypes to explain, I’m a greedy, right-wing capitalist 1%er who needs to get back to work writing more bestselling novels that promote violence against the differently-living. Save the hate mail. It gets really repetitive. And when I use the term “caring liberal” it is for the special ones who keep threatening to murder me, because irony amuses me.

So, about these deep thinkers who have opinions about what they haven’t actually read … let’s be real clear that the quote/unquote totally unbiased GQ reporter is a Pansy Leftard. I mean … his FIRST point was about the “huge” crossbow Phil had “cocked and loaded, just in case a deer stumbles in front of us and we need to do a redneck drive-by on the poor bastard, but the safety is on. SAFETY FIRST.”

In amongst that “OMG where is gun control when you need it” introduction, Pansy Man also mentions the unused seat belts in their vehicle, the fly in Phil’s beard, and how “Phil is telling me all about the land around us and how the animals are a glorious gift from God and how blowing their heads off is part of His plan for us.”

Then he goes on to explain that “Phil calls himself a Bible-thumper, and holy shit, he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.

I include these quotations in order to give context to the rest of the article, which allegedly contains such steaming piles of HOMOPHOBIA that as soon as GLAAD members awoke from their swoons, they immediately tweeted their outrage to A&E demanding the removal of this horrible man they have never met from a television show they have never watched.

In the article, Phil Robertson says he believes that homosexuality is a sin. 

Were Leftards expecting something different from this out-spoken Christian? Good grief.

I admit I was surprised by the Yahoo TV author’s claim about “racially-charged” remarks, so I went back and looked at the interview again. All I could find was a Phil quote:

“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.”

So he worked side by side with blacks who weren’t bitter. Right. I can totally see the RAAAAAAAAAAACISM in that. Or rather, I could if I were a Leftard. But I digress.

The GQ interview also mentioned that Phil has a biracial grandson who is named for his adoptive dad, Will. Do RAAAAAAAACISTS adopt biracial kids? And if they do, do they then give them the primo paternal moniker? I think not.

But what the hey. Leftards are not called tards for nothing, know what I’m saying? Speaking of which, here’s another prime quote from the ass who interviewed Phil for GQ:

“For what it’s worth—and since I actually looked it up—the violent-crime rate here in America has plummeted since 1990, even as church attendance has stayed the same. And, of course, Phil is conveniently ignoring centuries upon centuries of war, bloodshed, and human enslavement committed in the name of Christ. But I doubt any of that would sway Phil. And anyway, I’m a guest in his house and he is my welcoming host, so I smile politely and nod like the milquetoast suburban WASP that I am. If you can’t reconcile some of the things Phil says with his otherwise friendly demeanor—perhaps because you are gay, or a duck—I don’t blame you. And I don’t blame Duck Dynasty for keeping the show safely apolitical, ensuring smooth digestion for a mass audience.”

Could he be any MORE condescending? Is adding some self-deprecating remarks supposed to make his raging Redneckist Christianophobia palatable? What. A. Jerk.

So, yeah, Phil said (shockeroo), the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and Phil believes it. He also said,

“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?”

Racist homophobe? ::snort:: I don’t think so. And fershure, Phil is a lot less judgmental than Pansy Man and the “Fire Phil-istines.”

I’ve often suspected that what A&E originally intended is not what they got. Pat Archbold wrote:

The whole idea of the show was to parade these nouveau riche Christian hillbillies around so that we could laugh at them. … When the producers saw the way the show was shaping up, different than they envisioned it, they tried to change course.

They tried to get the Robertson’s to tone down their Christianity, but to their eternal credit they refused. They tried to add fake cussin’ to the show by inserting bleeps where no cussword was uttered. At best, they wanted to make the Robertson’s look like crass buffoons. At worst they wanted them to look like hypocrites.

They desperately wanted us to laugh at the Robertsons. Instead, we loved them. … A&E had a conundrum. They knew who the Robertsons were and what they believe and they still held it in disdain. But they really liked the money. Really liked the money. So they lived with it. But the progressives whose bank accounts were not growing fatter because of these backward rubes were never inclined to look the other way.

They hate the show and they really hate the response to the show. They want it destroyed. Many magazines and interviewers have tried to get the Robertsons to trip up so they could pounce. When Phil backed the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality and added some personal asides about how he just couldn’t understand it, they had their moment.

But you know what? God had a plan too. And my guess is that the plan included this controversy which, from my reading, is costing the Left some support, because there really are liberals out there who are not Leftards, who believe in goofy things like not punishing people for saying stuff right out loud.

As for A&E, UK’s Daily Mail reports that the network is planning to air the umpteen episodes of Duck Dynasty they’ve already shot … episodes with Phil in them. And maybe by the next season, they’ll just keep on filming and making money while the anti-Christian H8Rs shift their sights to new targets.

Sources:

Comments Off on Un-ducking-believable

Filed under Christianity, Media Bias, Phil Robertson

Comments are closed.