I have had my fill of Duck Dynasty and I have never seen the show.
"real" "housewives" of "where ever" (aka 3 lies for the price of 1) show should be called "fake ex trophy wives of where ever"
i could care less than less about them.
Think you might have hit the nail on the head Webbie. And I will say after reading this entire thread, only in America. And just so you know I really enjoyed this one.......I'm a socialist liberal commie money-grubbing commune-dwelling, new england hippie who came from Philly, so what do I know?"I have more interesting stories right in my family....oops, hope they aren't reading this one........
"Let me tempt you.....so, a former (married in) member of our family offed her BF one night with a single shot to the gut.....spent some time in jail and is now a high placed official somewhere, but along the way she also married my childhood best friend, brought vast amounts of "stuff" in by sailboat and car (was caught, too!).....and that's just the tip of the iceberg of that ONE part of the story......she could write a book just on the "Orange is the new Black" angle of being in the MAX female jail....not club fed like the show and book!
Maybe it's time for our family to get millions for a show?
Are y'all really gonna tell me you have normal families and friends? Most outsiders would say ours is extremely normal, but dig down a bit and there are definitely some dramas! In fact, there is just about every drama ever made.....within just a branch or two of the family tree.
no worries BB....Texas ain't "the south"...it's Texas danggummit.
I agree and i have not seen (nor want to)a single episode. Wood burners usually have more important things to do.I have had my fill of Duck Dynasty and I have never seen the show.
There are several.I live in Canada. Nobody wants to do a reality show here: it gets too cold. ( think about it... There is not a single one filmed where it is cold other than Highway To hell or whatever that towing reality show is called!).
There are several.
here's the thing, the magazine asked the questions , he answered them, the mag was likely clued in that he would likely respond the way he did to the questions. basic "gotcha" moment. is he wrong? probably so in the context of the toppic these days. as for the comments on race , who knows, if he was out there tending to the same crops alongside these folks, he would see the day to day "at work" side of things not necessarily the "national happenings" of the time. notice he didnt generalize he specified the folks he had day to day contact with (who may very well have been happy go lucky types who were working at the same jobs they had been all along) do we know? no we dont.
FWIW, A&E who apparantly have a strict "morality clause" in their contracts with the members of the casts of these shows may have determined these comments violated that clause and they are within their rights to do what they did. well and good. i have no problem with that. also , if this is their stance then maybe just maybe they should have not aired the program to start with. they have known for some time this was likely going to happen (if they didnt theyre idiots).
where i have issues with this is the diference in treatment the rest of the media has when compared to the way these things come up, the "bashir" issue with palin, the perez hilton incident with carrie prejean. the "well, he shouldnt have said that" and thats all there is. these statements are every bit as revolting but when the views of the offenders is looked at, the harshness of the coverage is literaly as benign as it can be made to look, heck in the prejean case (remember , when asked about marriage in the ms america pagent she said that she beleived a marrage should be between a man and a woman, and she got absolutely hammered for that. even after the hilton comments were"old news' the media still hammered her. and she did absolutely nothing wrong. she didnt make disparaging remarks about gays, she just said she believes in traditional marriage and left it at that.
as for Phil, i do not agree with him, i am supportive of same sex marriage (though im straight and married in the traditional manner) i simply believe its a matter of civil law, not religious tenant. remember , supporting doesnt mean participation, just acceptance that different people have diferent beliefs and these beliefs should not be constrained to "seperate but equal"
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.