5
0

Is it all that obvious?


 invite response                
2013 Dec 20, 5:07am   21,422 views  96 comments

by Tenpoundbass   ➕follow (9)   💰tip   ignore  

And the network execs couldn’t stand it, bowing instantly to the gay agenda as practiced by GLAAD. Free markets have nothing to do with TV. It’s all now about not offending some victim group.

And it’s not about free speech either. TV networks want nothing to do with that archaic concept. They only support free speech they agree with and that most diehard lefties approve.

The conflict was inevitable. Television used to love people from what the media call flyover country. TV scored with hits such as “The Beverly Hillbillies,” “Green Acres,” “Hee-Haw,” and “Mayberry RFD.” Those were celebrations where Americans were reminded of their roots. And when country met city, it was always country that won out with homespun wisdom triumphing over big-city egos and fancy degrees.

But “Duck Dynasty” comes from another era where TV doesn’t celebrate ordinary people, it mocks them. This is the time of “Honey Boo Boo,” and “Buckwild,” the “Jersey Shore” style shows about rural people. These programs were designed so coastal liberals could watch and mock and feel better about themselves while reading their New York Times. That’s likely what A&E bosses thought they had with “Duck Dynasty.”

Boy, were they wrong.

A&E created a show that tried to make fun of rustic rubes and discovered it had inadvertently created the opposite. Instead of Hollywood values triumphing as we watched the stars’ backward ways, traditional values won out every time. They weren’t Obama’s bitter clingers. They cared for each other and kept their faith close. Each episode even ended in a family prayer. Before network execs could try to figure out what John 3:16 meant, they had created a program where faith, family and freedom ruled.

And it became wildly popular.

The bearded stars soon were everywhere, with promotions seemingly in every store. That success didn’t matter. The network still wanted to rein in its stars. Back in April, Phil Robertson said the network had even wanted to delete mentions of “Jesus” from the family prayer, trying to bleep the Savior like He was a four-letter word.

A&E didn’t want its high-profile stars mentioning Jesus. And it sure didn’t want them saying anything else out of the Bible. When Phil did, GLAAD cried foul and that was it.

Before anyone calls FOX talking points, Almost all of the above what this article stated about DD, I posted last year as my exact thoughts on the show.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/19/ae-goes-duck-hunting-shoots-self-in-foot/?intcmp=obnetwork

#politics

« First        Comments 93 - 96 of 96        Search these comments

93   Tenpoundbass   2013 Dec 26, 2:46am  

Hey it's the modern consumer culture that will accelerate the global destruction of resources. Don't kid your self.

Who do you think knows what's best to conserve Louisiana swamp ecosystem?
The Twitterverse or the dumb ole Rednecks living there?

Who do you think is more responsible for overfishing the gulf.
Captain Marcel Bouchette or Tom Hank's international notoriety as Forest Gump?

I'm not a right winger, but I am conservative when it comes to pro family issues, and people's rights to tradition, and preserving their heritage and culture.
Where that doesn't include getting rid of anyone who is not just like them.

Yes people would get along if we respected each others differences rather than trying to homogenize everyone into this hypoallergenic socially sterile species.

And I don't know if you noticed, but we're not getting along. "Too Well".

We're going to run out of Big Macs eventually and then all hell's going to break lose, when the effects of Globalization wears off.

94   marcus   2013 Dec 26, 3:09am  

CaptainShuddup says

Who do you think is more responsible for overfishing the gulf.

Captain Marcel Bouchette or Tom Hank's international notoriety as Forest Gump?

Neither, it's the free market, our high population, and demand for shrimp. I'm not blaming people for wanting to eat fish, and I'm not really blaming the fisherman. There is no nice solution. We could limit the size of nets or the size of fishing enterprises. Regulations are necessary, but they would raise the price of fish. If we cause the price of fish to go up enough to lower demand, then it's government interfearance and its unfair to the poor who can't afford to pay more for fish. But it might be the only way we make the fish population ssustainable.

Of course it gives the whining haters such as yourself another thing to complain about. Like I said. THere is no nice solution.

Most of what you say has no reasoning or logic behind it. You're very creative at connecting disjoint phrases to these random feelings you have, but most of it doesn't make much sense.

95   Tenpoundbass   2013 Dec 26, 3:17am  

marcus says

Neither, it's the free market, our high population, and demand for shrimp.

I take it you've never been to one of the Hundreds of Buba Gump seafood restaurants? These just are your average quaint out of the way simple eateries. These places are strategically placed, anywhere there is a Theme park, large busy upscale shopping mall or waterfront.

They have over 1200 seats, and have a line out the door from the time the open to the time they close. Oh sure you can cop out and say "Free market" and all that if you want too.

96   marcus   2013 Dec 26, 8:27am  

In 2010 the shrimp harvest from the gulf was 177 million pounds valued at $340 million dockside (meaning discounted wholesale value).

It looks like there are about 40 of those Bubba Gump restaurants. I doubt they account for more than about 3 million pounds of that shrimp harvest. Probably way less, because even though their name is bubba gump, everyone is not eating shrimp there.

« First        Comments 93 - 96 of 96        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions