Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson and Race: Blacks Were Happier Before Civil Rights

On issues such as child abuse (sexual and otherwise), rape, domestic violence, and racism, TWW can get very, very touchy.

We believe that things said in public get to be critiqued in public. While many "gospel" conservatives are jumping up and down about A&E's response to Phil Robertson's views on homosexuality, they seem to be quite silent on some other views expressed by Robertson in GQ link.

In the January issue of GQ, the Duck Dynasty star also comments on growing up in a pre-civil-rights-era Louisiana.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson claims. "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."

He adds, "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."

Yep. They were real happy with substandard schools, different water coolers and swimming pools, lynchings… Yep-real happy… In case you want to see how "happy" they were, please go to this photo on Wikicommons. Warning, it is graphic. They never criticized doggone white people?

Comments

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson and Race: Blacks Were Happier Before Civil Rights — 562 Comments

  1. Alan wrote:

    Deb and Dee, I’ve really liked this site in the past. What you two have done to expose the shenanigans of “pastors” is a valuable service to the Church in my opinion. I know you won’t care what I think, but lately, I see this site jumping the shark. Who cares what a person from a reality show think about anything? I’ve never watched DD. Not even one time. For the record, I don’t even know what Miley Cyrus did that made everyone so made, becuase again, who cares what a person like that does or thinks about anything? You two seem to be opposed to the celebrity pastor sub-culture and that’s why I have always liked this site. But I’m also opposed to the celebrity culture in general. Who cares what Miley Cyrus or the guy from DD thinks about anything?
    For the record though, I’m, bothered that a person can espouse any and all liberal positions and/or political views and they’d never have to worry about being kicked off of their show. But take a position that the elites don’t like and watch out. Since you two are investigative types, you must know of course that there were other quotes of Phil’s from this same conversation that were not picked up by the MSM, becuase they don’t fit with the narrative that’s trying to be told here. But aside from that, I’m more concerned by the propensity of those on the left to try to silence all opposing opinions. That’s the very definition of fascism and it ought to be opposed by all of those who care about freedom and liberty. If this guys is really the evil, vile, despicable person that all of the commenters here have made him out to be, then just let his show fade away into oblivion.

  2. Patrice wrote:

    And with that, I would be grateful to crawl under the bed with the rest of you, if you will have me. I can bring 70% chocolate with sea salt.

    I was hoping you’d say that Patrice…it’s a super kingsize bed, lots of room underneath :)

  3. Rob Smith wrote:

    Let’s not destroy Robertson because he has a point of view, especially when we are analyzing five sentences of his entire life, chosen out of an interview.

    I agree. However, with his public fame and lots of money linked to that public fame, he has to be aware that everything he says will be parsed. Especially if he is sitting down for a formal interview with GQ which is not known for its conservative bent.

    There are far better ways to get one’s point across than the way that he did it. In fact, I am considering doing a post in which our readers answer the question that was posed to Robertson: “What do you mean by sin?”

    As for Robertson being destroyed, well….from what I am reading, he is raking in the money and is now wealthy. He is now the face of many conservative Christians. More people signed the petition to put Robertson back on DD than signed the petition to protest child sex abuse in the church. I think he came out just fine in this conflict.

  4. @ Rob Smith: I replied to you. There’s a difference between that and how you referred to me up thread, and I hope you can comprehend the distinction.

    You were, imo, being quite patronizing to Patrice, partly by holding me up as some kind of paragon of civility. I dislike both things and said so.

    That’s *not* the same thing as “singling you out.”

  5. @ dee:

    I am not sure that is possible. Most of your commenters want homosexuality embraced. There is a distinction and I am not sure they can even see it. There is a difference between acceptance and embracing or promoting. So one is a long way from sin on that one.

    What about the blacklisting going on by GLAAD? Why aren’t people concerned about how intolerant they are? This is becoming Orwellian. I went back and read what he said and was shocked at how badly people have overreacted and gone along with the Orwellian censorship thinking.

  6. numo wrote:

    @ TedS.: I wasn’t the one who made that comment, btw.

    Just stop trolling, dude.

    How rude. He has commented here for a while.

  7. Rob Smith wrote:

    Numo… you singled me out too That is partly the nature of this type of forum. In fact, you single a lot of people out on many forums, so I do not feel awkward having singled you out.

    Thought policing

  8. Anon 1 wrote:

    Most of your commenters want homosexuality embraced.

    I would have to disagree with you. if they want it embraced, they would have rejected my series on homosexuality in which I made my viewpoints known on the matter.

  9. @ dee: you are polite and do not make crude or slighting statements about gay people.

    Therein lies one of many difference between you and Phil R.

  10. numo wrote:

    @ Eagle: The KKK has historically claimed that it’s a “Christian” organization. And it’s always had plenty of evangelicals in its ranks.

    It was a Democrat party organization originally.

  11. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: indeed it does. I disagreed, that’s all.

    By calling someone a troll? That is not simple disagreement

  12. @ Anon 1:
    Oh geeze, Anon 1. The guy said this to numo over a civil disagreement and then about something she didn’t even say:

    “That’s a nice way of describing your mean-spirited, political-correctness tinged rant. And your sophomoric put-down, “Ayn Rand is the Fourth Person of the Trinity”? It was an uncalled for, below-the-belt potshot good only for stifling reasoned commentary. Give us all a break.”

    It was a venting of spleen over several comments. And now you’re doing a milder version. What’s up with that? The last spate is clearly intended to drive wedges between believers. Why would you try to do that, especially here where we are trying to find a meeting of the minds?

    Maybe it’s just that Christmas is stressful. Perhaps moving to another post will clear the air.

  13. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: not to mention all the Duggar merch …

    I’ve not seen nor heard of Duggar merch or Kate+ merch. DD stuff I’ve heard of, but not seen. interesting

  14. Trotsky’s daughter reincarnated (that’s me) feels compelled to say “Schastlivogo Rozhdestva!” to you and yours. ;)

  15. Bridget wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: not to mention all the Duggar merch …

    I’ve not seen nor heard of Duggar merch or Kate+ merch. DD stuff I’ve heard of, but not seen. interesting

    Though morning drive-time radio was reporting that Duck Dynasty merch is flying off the shelves this Xmas. Including Duck Dynasty candles with portraits of the Beards on their sides (to make them official DD), scented with names like “Road Kill” and “Duck Fart”.

    On a lighter note, morning drive-time was using Klezmer-arranged Christmas Carols as bumper music; they were credited to an album titled “Oy to the World”. (Imagine carols done by “Fiddler on the Roof” and you get the idea.)

  16. TedS. wrote:

    numo wrote:

    i was replying to Rob.

    Really? That’s a nice way of describing your mean-spirited, political-correctness tinged rant. And your sophomoric put-down, “Ayn Rand is the Fourth Person of the Trinity”? It was an uncalled for, below-the-belt potshot good only for stifling reasoned commentary. Give us all a break.

    TedS. does comment here quite often, but I thought the above was rude. Numo didn’t even make the Ayn Rand comment. It’s just not helpful to name call and demean others, outright or by inuendo, when commenting IMO.

  17. dee wrote:

    In fact, I am considering doing a post in which our readers answer the question that was posed to Robertson: “What do you mean by sin?”

    I wish you would Dee, it would make for a lively exchange indeed! I think that here at TWW it would be possible without violence and warfare. We are a community of divergent viewpoints much like Al Andalus of old and yet we are able to live with each other in peace, even though our discussions can get quite heated.

  18. I have not read through most posts since I was last here.

    Anon 1 wrote:

    Most of your commenters want homosexuality embraced. There is a distinction and I am not sure they can even see it. There is a difference between acceptance and embracing or promoting. So one is a long way from sin on that one.

    What about the blacklisting going on by GLAAD? Why aren’t people concerned about how intolerant they are? This is becoming Orwellian.

    I share some of your sentiments.

    I do not hate homosexuals but see that the Bible does not give a stamp of approval to homosexuality.

    I dislike the severe tactics used by some homosexual activist groups and their (straight) supporters who tend to demonize opponents or intimidate into silence anyone and everyone who does not completely celebrate homosexuality. (One cannot “tolerate” it, one must celebrate it.)

    Particularly chilling to me are the news stories of Christians who are harassed in America or Britain (they sometimes receive death threats), they get fired from jobs, or tossed into jail for…

    Not allowing unmarried (hetero or homosexual) couples to stay in their bed and breakfasts; for politely declining to make wedding cakes for homosexual marrying couples; preachers who speak in public (and who do so politely, not even in a ‘Fred Phelps, Westboro’ kind of way) against homosexuality.

    (Phelps was originally a Democrat, btw. Try a google search for “fred phelps democrat” for more about that).

    There have been one or two news stories in the past few years about hetero people, who, on their own time, stated a mild disagreement on their private, personal Facebook pages that they do not believe in the legalization of homosexual marriage.

    AS a result, they were reported for these comments to their employers by someone on their Facebook feed, and their employer either did fire them for it, or tried to. (I think one guy who this happened to was a school teacher?)

    This is not a subject I post about much, because it’s so politically incorrect, even on some Christian sites.

    You will be mercilessly flamed on some sites for simply not agreeing with homosexuality, or with the approaches of homosexual groups.
    (Maybe not so much on this particular blog; you might get a minor flogging by some participants) :)

    The amount of rancor you will get for publicly saying you don’t dig homosexuality, or aren’t cool with how the “rights” groups behave towards dissenters, is enough to keep me fairly quiet on the topic.

    I’m not too into the homosexuality subject in and of itself too much.

    The thing that disturbs me about it is the chilling effect on freedom of speech, and that people are getting fired, or harassed to an ungodly degree, merely for holding or expressing an opinion on something.

    Remember when that Carrie Prejean beauty contestant was asked for her opinion on homosexual marriage during a show a few years ago, and she gave a polite response saying she does not support the legalization of homosexual marriage? She was flogged online and in media for weeks over it afterwards. That is terribly creepy.

    GLAAD: Lethal Enforcers of the Left’s Tolerance Mob

  19. numo wrote:

    @ Bridget: Oh yeah – start here: http://store.discovery.com/19-kids-and-counting/index.php?v=tlc_shows_18-kids-and-counting

    Good grief! I suppose it does make sense for the promoting channel to promote (all TV shows sell their past episodes and pastors sell their tapes and books, just like TV celebs). I guess I’m just not a shopping junkie and the only advertising I promote on clothes, or anywhere, is the brand name that might be attached . . . never even put a sticker on a bumper, but that’s just me. The problem for me is the pastors (used loosely) who do the same as entertainment celebs.

  20. @ Bridget:

    The History Channel does the same thing.

    First of all, they hardly every show history related programming. How can they call themselves “History Channel” when about less than ten percent of their shows are about history?

    I do enjoy the “American Pickers” show and the Pawn Shop show, and you do get a small dose of history with both, since if, someone brings in say, a World War 2 uniform, the shop Pawn shop owner will give you a brief WW2 lesson.

    But the other shows on History Channel have little to nothing to do with history, such as Ice Road Truckers and all the swamp shows.

    Anyway, they sell a ton of merchandise off those shows. There are bobblehead dolls of the Pawn guys on the History Channel’s online store, and a bunch of other stuff.

    That ancient aliens show on History Channel. I don’t care if I never see another one of those, but they run them non stop around the holidays.

  21. dee wrote:

    I agree. However, with his public fame and lots of money linked to that public fame, he has to be aware that everything he says will be parsed.

    As I was just saying in a post above this one, it’s not just famous and wealthy types being harassed for stating or holding opinions about homosexuality; it’s also “average joe’s” who are being harassed for not agreeing with homosexuality, some even for stating their opinions in a private venue on their own time.

    I have been flamed horribly and very rudely (with profanity and such) by other people on other blogs/sites for merely oh- so- politely and tepidly saying I don’t think the Bible supports homosexuality, and I’m not wealthy or famous.

    There is a climate of intimidation where you can’t just hold a differing opinion on something anymore, or mention that opinion to friends, or on the internet, and mobs will come after you with flaming, or if they know your name, they will try to get you fired.

  22. magnum 300 wrote:

    Sin is sin in gods eyes. Homosexuality, drugs, cheating in all ways, etc is doomed to hell unless repentance takes place. I’m glad phil changed his ways but i don’t care for his brand of preaching.

    He did not mention just homosexuality, though.

    Robertson mentioned greed, idolatry, hetero fornication, and other sins.

    People are over-analyzing his word choice and the order of words because our culture is so hyper- sensitive about homosexuality, and they go looking for offense, even if there is little to none there.

    If you look at the quote carefully, Robertson was actually comparing hetero pre marital sex to bestiality, but I see rabid homosexuality supporters in the media keep inaccurately characterizing his remarks as him comparing homosexuality to bestiality, which is not what he did.

    He simply listed a bunch of behaviors that the Bible names as sinful.

    The Bible says lying, stealing, murder, and fornication are all sins, as well.

    It would be like me saying, “Well, let’s start with lying and go down the list, there’s also stealing, fraud, tax evasion, and then there’s murder, adultery….”

    If you are personally guilty of lying, let’s say, it makes no sense to assume I just automatically or necessarily lumped you in with murderers.

  23. Daisy–excellent, very brave post!

    Amazing how the most sensitive to “their” issue people are often also the snarkiest and meanest.

  24. @ Daisy: If you’re referring to internetmonk.com, I haven’t seen any flaming directed at you, Daisy. Of course, I’ve no doubt that it can/does happen elsewhere, but I think the pushback is to be expected when controversial issues are being discussed – no matter *what* one’s opinion is.

  25. @ Daisy: also, imonk has its share of irascible commenters who are still allowed to post – as with some here, and very much unlike many other “xtian” sites.

    I think that as long as people keep it civil, it’s good to have a diversity of opinion. If all commenters agree with each other, things get boring fast.

    another thing to keep in mind is that some people have a habit of picking fights.

  26. @ numo:

    No, I didn’t really have Intermonk Monk’s site in mind when making those comments (though yes, some of the people there can get teed off if you don’t support homosexuality).

    I was talking about other sites I’ve visited, lurked on, or participated on.

    Many people who support homosexuality on other sites are too sensitive about it, making even polite dialog an impossibility.

    The “secular” sites are especially bad.

    And you’re talking to someone who was incredibly civil about stating her views about it, still got flamed ’til I was burnt to a crisp.

    You get ganged up on, too (especially on the Non Christian sites).

    I’ll be the only (or one of the only) person who does not support homosexuality, being ganged up on by ten or more people at once, all of them wanting a piece, all of them demanding I reply to their arguments.

    It bothers me to see that some Christians who support homosexuality depict Christians who do not as being backwoods, knuckle-dragging, uneducated, hickified, hate filled doofi (plural of doofus?).

    I remember seeing one site by Christians – ones who abandoned stricter, conservative Christianity and who are now more left wing or emergent- who cheered with glee when…
    I can’t recall the exact details, it was something like a judge ordered some Christian bakers to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, or drove them out of business or something – but the now-left/emergent Christians who were discussing the story cheered and thought, “it serves those Christian homosexual haters right, ha ha ha.”

    (A post I made for a magnum 300 is sitting in moderation about four posts above this one.)

  27. @ Daisy: Yeah, the internet is not for the faint of heart, and there are MANY people who thrive on being nasty, no matter their beliefs/ideas.

    which is why I only comment here and at imonk, and, occasionally, at RHE’s blog. I don’t even read comments on most of the news (newspaper, online mags) sites that I browse. it’s not worth the time and aggravation and resulting stress. We all have enough on our plates already, no?

  28. @ Daisy: all that said, some of the most heartless comments I’ve ever seen (including some that have been directed at me) have been made by other xtians – not speaking of anyone here, either.

    It’s as if all the filters shut down when people site at a computer keyboard, because we can’t actually the the people we’re communicating with. We all end up saying things we’d likely never say to another individual in face-to-face convos.

  29. @ Daisy:

    I usually don’t touch homosexual debates with a 10 foot pole for this very reason.

    I also avoid places where many ex-fundy/new atheists gather.

    I’ve been burnt to a crisp over the way I phrased things… IN AGREEMENT with the majority. Why did I say it that what? What did I mean by that? What was I hoping to gain by phrasing it that way?

    It can get pretty hairy.

    I chalk it up to the possibility that those mercilessly drilling me are acting out of raw pain from previous experiences that I could never imagine.
    I also came to the conclusion that, though I have a heart for the deeply wounded, there are some deeply wounded that I need to back away from and pray that others that are more skilled in these areas (homosexuals, new atheists) would enter the conversation.

    My conclusions may be wrong. But they are the ones I have so far until I find better explanations.

  30. @ Mara: I hear you. It’s not for everybody, and I think you’re wise to keep your distance.

    fwiw, I’ve seen – and been the target of – the same kinds of behavior on specialized music sites (jazz in particular). some of the worst flaming – and it was truly horrible – that I’ve seen was on a classical site, back in the day, when the internet was a relatively new thing and heavily populated by computer geeks. A lot of them didn’t really have social skills.

    Things have gotten exponentially better over the past 10+ years, given the flood of ordinary folks who comment and read at all kinds of sites, but there are still large parts of it all that I never, ever approach. Can’t see why anyone would want to, really!

  31. numo wrote:

    when the internet was a relatively new thing and heavily populated by computer geeks

    Remember in the internet’s earliest, days, people would get into PC vs Mac wars? :roll:

    I’m kind of a gamer, or was for a while, and X-box, Playstation and Nintendo fans would clash with each other online and sometimes still do.

    I’ve worked on both PCs and Macs and don’t see a big deal either way with that, and I’ve played on Xboxes, PSs, and Nintendos, and they all seem okay to me.

    Anyway, people can get ruthless on the internet, or very mean.

    I’m not saying I’m agreeing with all the comments or jokes that got these following people into trouble, but it’s kind of alarming to me at how people will gang up on other people over online comments they don’t like.

    Here are some headlines:

    Steve Martin apologizes, offers explanation for ‘unfortunate’ tweet

    ‘Ashamed': Ex-PR exec Justine Sacco apologizes for AIDS in Africa tweet

    Justine Sacco: Sympathy for This Twitter Devil

  32. @ Daisy: Hah! I was a hardcore DOS fan, and remember the arguing over Windows (often referred to as “Windoze” by the DOS people) and DOS.

    I didn’t even have a decent Windows computer til 1999, when I bought my 1st laptop.

    I still miss DOS sometimes, even though I’ve embraced touchscreen tech and Android and goodness knows what all else.

    but I’ve never had a Apple box – they just cost too blamed much. I do have an ipod, and love it, but I *don’t* use iTunes, because it’s a pain to run on Windows and doesn’t have the options I want for tag editing, music management, etc.

  33. @ Daisy: I’ve never been a gamer, although I got my 1st smartphone in Sept. and have since become totally addicted to Angry Birds! (All versions, though i dislike the Star Wars series – Seasons, Space and Rio are my faves, plus the latest update to the original AB game, “Short Fuse.”)

  34. numo wrote:

    @ Daisy: If you’re referring to internetmonk.com, I haven’t seen any flaming directed at you, Daisy. Of course, I’ve no doubt that it can/does happen elsewhere, but I think the pushback is to be expected when controversial issues are being discussed – no matter *what* one’s opinion is.

    At least Daisy’s allowed to comment. My comments never see the light of day and usually get $hit-canned on sight. It’s almost as if by some loosely-warped-quasi-metaphor Chaplain Mike doesn’t allow Jews into his country club. Oh well as they say, it’s his blog and he can do what he likes, I just fold space and go elsewhere. I am a firm believer in private property rights. How’s that for a liberal like myself who is not in lock-step with other liberals?

  35. @ Anon 1:
    And all of those Democrats would be Republicans now. The reversal took place in the time after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1960s. And the former conservative Democrats became Republicans, and the national political alignment of the old South, inc. Texas, became R rather than D. And the evangelicals and other groups shifted as well. The SBC was primarily Democrat until the 1960s as well. BTW the resurgence or takeover in the SBC (the choice depends on your political viewpoint) was funded by a major R supporter to the tune of several million dollars as part of a plan to shift the political allegiance of the South to the R party.

  36. @ An Attorney: Please – let’s not get into another political wrangle.

    Dee asked people to avoid it a few days ago, when an argument was starting (check a bit upthread).

  37. Mara wrote:

    I also came to the conclusion that, though I have a heart for the deeply wounded, there are some deeply wounded that I need to back away from and pray that others that are more skilled in these areas

    A hearty “Amen” on that! As much as some of us are good at working with the injured, their crazy-making is sometimes over the top. Some people are so wounded they cannot find True North or even make good decisions, making it doubly frustrating to be friends on any level.

  38. @ numo:
    I was responding to a comment that made a political point that was true years ago and is now not, in fact reversed.

  39. @ numo: From the info. on the vid I just posted –

    During World War I the song was sung on both sides of the trenches, when German, British and French soldiers climbed over the barbwire and joined together in No-Man’s-Land on Christmas Eve. It was the only song all the different nationalities knew, and was sung by all the groups simultaneously in their own language. That exceptional winter night and the remarkable days that followed – when peace reigned on the battlefield of war through a collective belief in Jesus Christ and the celebration of Christmas – later became known as the “Christmas truce” of 1914.

    In a similar way, it was also again sung by enemies – both German and American soldiers during World War II – on Christmas Eve of 1944. This occurred when small groups from the two opposing sides became lost in the winter snow in the midst of the Hurtgen Forest near the German-Belgian border, and were both given shelter in the same cottage by a Christian German woman and her son (represented in the film “Truce in the Forest”, and also retold by the German boy, Fritz Vincken, in 1973). Following the joint celebration of the birth of Christ, the German medic medically treated the wounded American soldier, and after passing Christmas night together, both groups parted ways in peace each to rejoin their own lines the following day.

    Perhaps we can observe our own truce, complete with carol-singing and chocolate…

  40. On a slightly more secular note, here’s Brazilian cavaquinhoM/i> (it’s not a uke!) player Jonatan Francisco playing “Boas festas,” a Brazilian Christmas standard ….

    http://youtu.be/koUdoSqrecY

    Put on your samba shoes, everyone! And if you’re so inclined, Jonatan teaches you how to play it in the second part of the video…

  41. One last carol, from the Philippines – the beautiful stars you see at the beginning are called “parol” (star) and *everyone* in the Philippines hangs them. Most are more elaborate, but I like the paper ones best…

    http://youtu.be/T1nNUOMS14g

  42. Patrice wrote:

    It was a venting of spleen over several comments. And now you’re doing a milder version. What’s up with that? The last spate is clearly intended to drive wedges between believers. Why would you try to do that, especially here where we are trying to find a meeting of the minds?

    Sometimes there isn’t a meeting of the minds. Then what? Lets go back to the issue being discussed. The Duck guy with bad hair and clothes said homosexuality was sin along with a lot of other sins and said we are all sinners. The problem seems to be that some are really upset that others think homosexuality in practice is sin. The way this is handled is Orwellian. Political correctness. People behave in passive aggressive ways that is called out and since most commenters are left leaning then we are mean for “responding”.

    Notice, the Duck guy NEVER said ONE WORD concerning WHAT TO DO about homosexuals. This is key. You would think he said to kill them all in the public square considering the media response and response on this blog to anyone who disagrees with the left religious legalistic Orwellian thinking here.

    A&E knew his views when they hired him. The only problem is he said it out loud. But wait, GLAAD and others here say their views out loud. It is all becoming very one sided. I maintain the left is just as bad as the right when it comes to thought reform, legalism, control of speech, etc. And they think they are more pious because they think they are right thinking. Both sides wear me out. Both sides espouse revisionist history to fit their narrative. When, in fact, history is often more complex and nuanced.

    I don’t do the fake unity deal agreeing with political correctness or stifled speech. The only wedge drawn here is when it is not accepted to agree to disagree. When people are painted as mean because they do not agree with GLAAD blacklisting methods. And that is what this is all about.

    BTW: Just so you know, We (my whole family) spent a weekend in Sept in a mountain chalet with a MARRIED (In Boston) homosexual couple who are not only dear friends but one of them is related to me. We had a blast. So retract the claws please, all my lefty friends. You don’t understand at all. I am all about free speech, freedom of opinion, etc. I cannot stand what is happening to our country with BOTH sides and thought reform.

  43. Personally, I’m more alarmed by him telling people they needed to marry women when they’re only 15 or 16 years old, so they’ll do as they’re told.

    I don’t think he meant the race thing as bad as it sounded.

  44. @ linda:
    WELL SAID linda ! People have no peace without knowing God. The race card has bee *played* and stirred up anger and hatred. Each individual has to chose how they will react.

  45. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy: not to mention all the Duggar merch …

    Just this morning, Mossberg announced a special Duck Dynasty line of shotguns. What makes them Duck Dynasty shotguns is they’re finished overall in the same camo used in the show (instead of the normal walnut and bluing) and have a Duck Dynasty logo on them. Did not say whether they include a strap-on ZZ Top beard with each shotgun.

    Did we go crazy or did everybody else?

  46. Daisy wrote:

    That ancient aliens show on History Channel. I don’t care if I never see another one of those, but they run them non stop around the holidays.

    Do they include “Eyebrow Boy”, the big-name UFOlogist with the squared-off face and wild eyebrows who’s shown up on every UFO show I’ve seen?

    Some friends of mine hoaxed him during an appearance in Tucson years ago; they reported that while he’s able to maintain an air of respectability when the cameras are rolling, offstage he’s a total Conspiracy Theory wack job. Secret alien-technology government bases on the far side of the moon and the like.