Quackers

We all know how concerned Connie Chastain is about sex with minors …

… and we all know how much she worships Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty …

and what does the great man tell us?

… that’s Connie Chastain’s kind of man.

 

58 thoughts on “Quackers

  1. Jefferson Moon December 30, 2013 / 8:27 pm

    He was said marriage.My mother was 16 my father 25 when they married, but that was 1934.You went to work, got married, had kids.Now it often seems you have kids,maybe get married,maybe go to work.

    • Lyle Smith December 30, 2013 / 10:37 pm

      This is probably the point Phil Robertson is trying to make. Some people just have to hate though.

      • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2013 / 11:29 pm

        Fans of Phil can’t have it both ways. After all, first comes love, then comes marriage, right? So it isn’t as if there’s not something going on before the ceremony. We’re talking about someone advising men to hunt for minors to marry because they are easier to control.

        But, hey, I’m just pointing out what this fellow says. If people agree with the message, that’s their choice … and it’s their choice to disagree with the message as well.

        Connie’s kind of guy. You can’t go after one person by saying that soliciting sex with a minor is wrong and then say that it’s okay so long as it’s a right wing celebrity advising men to seek out minors to marry. That would make one a hypocrite.

        But some people just have to hate, right?

        • Lyle Smith December 30, 2013 / 11:47 pm

          If that’s what he actually means… or he’s trying to make a point about finding love young and sticking with it, which may mean sticking with your first love or high school sweet heart. Could it not? Men or boys today don’t need such advice, do they? We all know he didn’t follow the path he’s preaching in his youth, right?

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 1:08 am

            You tell me what you think he meant. Others will read what he said differently.

          • Lyle Smith December 31, 2013 / 10:11 am

            I think he’s talking about (which he apparently often talks about) is sticking with the person you find love with. He’s saying it’s okay to find love young and to stick with it. Which is what he and his wife did. They’ve written about this and they talk openly about it.

            We need the whole speech, I think, to put his words into context. Taking this blurb out and attacking him is kind of akin to some of the Confederate heritage attacks on Lincoln. Find something that seems ugly and tar him with it. You playing that game now?😉

            He was clearly making a joke as well, which is to say he can’t possibly have been advocating what you say he’s advocating, since it was a joke. Not to mention the fact that he’s not marrying off his godchildren.

            I’m just more concerned with what people mean, than how they say it. To each their own though.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 10:18 am

            Reread the post. Tell me what I said. Then tell me how the original post attacks the head quacker by sharing what he’d said. The fact is that this is what the fellow said, and Connie thinks he’s wonderful. Let her explain why.

            People who make blanket statements then find themselves backtracking all the time.

            You can tell a lot about what a person believes by what they joke about and how they joke about it.

          • Lyle Smith December 31, 2013 / 10:57 am

            Ah… “the head quacker”. You’re attacking him by calling him a name there. The title of the post is “Quackers”, which is clearly a reference to Phil Robertson. You seem to also snidely refer to him as a “great man”. Not a put down?

            Lastly, you write, “You can tell a lot about what a person believes by what they joke about and how they joke about it.” Are you not attacking Phil Robertson with this very statement? You seem to be certain you know what he means. Do you really know what he means?

          • Thelibertylamp December 31, 2013 / 12:27 pm

            There is no joke in sexualizing and objectifying 15 yr old girls.

            How old is that DyNASTY goat? 70?

            Years back there was a documentary done about the Nazi singing teen twins “Prussian Blue”.

            There was a scene in the documentary where they were on speaker phone with the dangerous terrorist David Lane who was speaking to them while he was in prison for the murder of Radio host Allen Berg.

            The twins were about 14 yrs old at the time and Lane was a good friend of their mother; April Gaede.

            During the conversation Lane brings up that he finds the girls sexually appealing and how much he thinks about them in a sexual way while he is in prison.

            Lane was in his 40’s at the time and while he was doing this, April, the mother of the twins, was grinning from ear to ear that her demented hero finds her young girls sexually appealing.

            I believe we are dealing with parallel type worlds here, while women like Connie are grinning like April Gaede did when inappropriate sexual comments are being directed at minors.

            They see this as “normal”.

  2. Thelibertylamp December 30, 2013 / 9:59 pm

    These people are disgusting sexualizing 15 yr old girls for the objectification of gross filthy old men.
    No thought at all to the fact that 15 yr old girls need an education and a life of their own.

      • Brooks D. Simpson December 30, 2013 / 11:32 pm

        “15 year old girls are having sex and having children by their own choices.”

        I’m not sure what you are getting at with this declaration. Are you saying that the state has no business protecting minors from solicitation by adults (meaning 18 years of age or older)? Are you saying that so long as the minor consents, that’s okay by you? Are you thus also suggesting that various sting operations designed to arrest adults who seek to have sex with minors are an illegal abuse of power and a form of entrapment that should have no basis because minors act on their free will, and it’s legally reasonable for adults seeking to have relations with them to believe that?

        If so, you should have said that before. Otherwise, state what you mean so that there’s no confusing what you mean.

        Seems to me some people can’t have it both ways on this issue. Connie Chastain took a stand on this matter: now let’s see how she rants her way around this one.

        Let’s put it this way: some time ago I was given information about a Flagger favorite that would have been quite embarrassing to the Flaggers (and the favorite) had it been revealed. I saw no purpose in sharing it. The incident involved a minor, and it is worse than the case Ms. Chastain circulated about a person who was until very recently a commenter on this blog. I wonder whether the Flaggers know about this matter, and are covering it up, or if they are ignorant of the matter.

        This issue appears in this blog because of Chastain’s gloating about her hero. Chastain wants to talk about sex with minors? Let her talk her way out of supporting a guy who suggests that it’s better to marry a fifteen year old because it’s easier to control her. After all, she’s enamored with another Flagger’s prose practices.

        And hey, if that’s what you believe, then say it. Don’t try to speculate on what you think he might have meant: tell us what you make of what he said. I note that his “defenders” here can’t address directly what’s on the video.

        Enjoy watching this fellow on A&E. It’s all part of cultural diversity, right?

        • Jefferson Moon December 30, 2013 / 11:57 pm

          The duck claims to be christian wouldn’t that rule out premarital sex at least in theory.Is this your strawman professor …

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 1:06 am

            You can make of the fellow’s comments what you will. It’s interesting that you would support his view of the world and of marriage. To each his own.

          • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 1:57 am

            Support ? No, I do understand, I have my mother and father as a example, they were happy with each other.I also believe the duck married a 16 year old, at least he practices what he preached, a rarity among clegry I have found.In regards to filthy old men, the reason we still have sons and daughters of civil war veterans, real sons and daughters they are often called, is because some “filthy old” veteran married a very young women and yes even a teenage girl, but I don’ t believe at all that Phil’s advice was for older men to marry young girls.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 2:10 am

            And yet that’s what the video clearly shows. All depends on what one means by the word “older.” The men are clearly older than the girls.

            The fellow in question turned 18 the same year he started dating a 14 year old girl whom he married two years later.

            More interesting is why he advises marrying women while they are in the middle of their teenage years … the better to control them. Judging from some of the support I’ve seen for him here, maybe folks agree that such is the nature and purpose of marriage … to establish control over someone else. I didn’t see romance as the reason mentioned in the tape.

            Again, if that’s how y’all want to live your lives and select your wives, that’s your business. Just try to understand that not everyone agrees. It’s certainly not a southern (or a Louisiana) thing: by marriage I have family not all that far from West Monroe, and I can tell you that not everyone thinks the same way.

            Thanks much for sharing.

          • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 3:35 am

            Seems you have gone from sex to control, which then negates the original intent of your post, comparing Phil to a sexual predator…

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 10:01 am

            Not at all. But I note that you have no problem with what he said, period. You’re Connie’s kind of man, too.

          • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 10:58 am

            I’m no ones man.And no I would not compare the ducks views on marriage with soliciting sex from a minor over the internet.

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 12:28 pm

            Seems to me you assume facts not in your possession.

        • Lyle Smith December 31, 2013 / 9:53 am

          “I’m not sure what you are getting at with this declaration. Are you saying that the state has no business protecting minors from solicitation by adults (meaning 18 years of age or older)? Are you saying that so long as the minor consents, that’s okay by you? Are you thus also suggesting that various sting operations designed to arrest adults who seek to have sex with minors are an illegal abuse of power and a form of entrapment that should have no basis because minors act on their free will, and it’s legally reasonable for adults seeking to have relations with them to believe that?”

          Ah, no. Clearly the state has an interest in protecting minors. That’s why in most states a 15 year old not only needs the consent of their parents, but the consent of a court. That’s why I wrote that. You’re saying the man is a quack. Yet, it’s not quack enough for it to be the law pretty much everywhere (there are some exceptions) for a 15 year old to be legally married, if its not a situation where the minor is being taken advantage of. This apparently was the case with Phil and his wife.

          I’m not defending Connie Chastain or her views. I want no part of y’all’s family feud. I’ve told you before that I think she and others are tilting at windmills. I will defend Phil Robertson, whose show I don’t even watch, from malicious assertions though.

          Here’s a another academic writing on this video blurb that’s much ado about nothing, in my opinion.

          http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/12/look-you-wait-until-they-get-to-be-20.html#more

          • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 10:10 am

            If people want to defend this person’s views, they are free to do so.

      • Thelibertylamp December 30, 2013 / 11:41 pm

        Lyle keep your filthy paws off of 15 yr old girls.

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 1:14 am

          Now, now, no need for that sort of stuff. That’s uncalled for. This isn’t Backsass, after all.

          Mr. Smith has a different point of view about the video, and he’s ducking the issue concerning the outspoken Ms. Chastain.

          You saw what I did there, right?

          If a man thinks it is a better idea to marry a minor because that will give him more control over said person (as opposed to the headstrong and opportunistic twenty year old terror), that’s his advice. No one forced him to say what he said. Everyone’s free to make what they will of the statement … everyone.

          • Thelibertylamp December 31, 2013 / 8:29 am

            Sorry Brooks, but this is a common theme we face with the crowd we deal with, esp those from down south.

            They all seem to be obsessed with the young teenagers and will pull up bogus interpretations of the laws to justify their pedophile leanings.

            There is a lack of consistency in these “values” as Connie is a proof of that.

            But, then again she has gone out of her way to defend rapists from way back, I am sure she will twist and turn some line of BS to back up the DyNASTY old coot and his sick controlling lust for 15yr old children.

            Then enter Mr. Smith who will twist laws around to justify having a child bride for himself.

            Slavery, rape and pedophilia THAT is the bases of what the “Heritage” crowd is really defending…SICKOS!!

    • Jefferson Moon December 30, 2013 / 11:54 pm

      Life of their own, unwed mother with a come and go baby daddy on the liberal welfare plantation. It’s you all liberals make everything about sex…

        • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 1:58 am

          Why shouldn’t I believe it…

      • Thelibertylamp December 31, 2013 / 8:35 am

        Most 15 yr old girls are not having babies, they are in school and many are going to college from there.

        Face it, that is what really bothers you!

        As a “liberal” I believe if a 15 yr old is choosing to have sex with someone THEIR OWN AGE they need to be on birth-control.
        If they do get knocked up they need to have alternatives available such that includes abortion as a choice so they are not stuck in a situation that will prevent them from growing up and becoming the best they can be.

        • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 11:13 am

          Why would that bother me ? Interesting you have no problem with a 15 year ( much better age for you all to argue then 16 I guess) deciding to have a abortion but not to marry.

          • Thelibertylamp December 31, 2013 / 12:29 pm

            Absolutely, abortion gives them a new chance to have a life which is much better than being changed into a bad situation they are not ready for.

            I cannot believe you would find a young girl becoming a childbride as a better alternative.

            You are about enslavement to those who deserve freedom.

          • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 2:24 pm

            I owe my life to a child bride marriage…I think my parents made the right choice for them.

          • Thelibertylamp December 31, 2013 / 3:47 pm

            Moonie- That was a different era, but then again my grandparents got married in the 1920’s and my grandmother worked as a bookkeeper after she graduated from high school school and got married at the age of 21.

            Both my parents got married after college in the 1950’s.

            Nobody in my family, even dating back to the great-grandparents married under the age of 18.

            Forcing girls into being child-brides was not a universal practice in past generational society.

          • Jefferson Moon January 1, 2014 / 6:32 am

            Well Lamp,Is this your elitism showing? I’m just guessing,but I would think your ancestors were Ellis Island immigrants.Most of my folk came here before the revolution,they were settlers,pioneers,farmers,Indian fighters and Indian lovers.My gggrandfather died during our Civil war,fighting to preserve the Union and free the slaves,he left behind a wife and three young daughters.This gggrandfather married my gggrandmother when she was 14 and he was 25,by the accounts I have,my gggrandmother was a take no guff from anyone,pistol of a women,she lived into old age never marrying again doing her own thing.

            “Forcing girls into being child-brides was not a universal pracitice in past generational society.”

            No one is talking about forcing anyone,so much misdirection in this post…

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2014 / 10:02 am

            Part of the misdirection is someone claiming they are more of an American than someone else by speculating about when one’s ancestors came to the United States. Next you’ll be channeling John C. Hall’s seed(y) rants.

            You can’t be held responsible for your ancestors, but it is equally true that they can’t be held responsible for you, as you’ve just reminded us.

            That’s enough. Take it elsewhere. The moon has set.

          • Thelibertylamp January 1, 2014 / 10:42 am

            Jefferson Moon- Having a job instead being forced into marriage is called “progression” not elitism.

            YOUR anti-immigration elitism is showing with your obnoxious “being here first” first BS.

            You think that makes you a better American?

            No, that makes you a white elitist!

            Your greatgreatgrandfather fighting to “preserve the union” is lost when you defend this *uck DyNASTY dirtbag and his lust for 15yr old girls in a controlling child bride situation.

            You are in the same league with Connie!

          • Brooks D. Simpson January 1, 2014 / 10:54 am

            He’s aired his resentments and grievances. Let’s move on.

          • Thelibertylamp January 1, 2014 / 10:55 am

            Yeah, okay, sorry Brooks.

  3. Pat Young December 31, 2013 / 6:08 am

    Boy I did not think there would be people defending adults having sex with 15 year old girls. You attract quite some interesting commenters Professor Simpson. Really creepy.

    By the way, for those of you who might be mislead into a statutory rape conviction, sex by an adult with a girl under 17 is illegal in New York. So stay away from our high school girls Phil Robertson.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 10:08 am

      The argument seems to be that sex with a minor is fine so long as it’s within marriage. However, left unaddressed is the part where the adult meets the minor and indicates a desire for an intimate relationship. Would it be a valid defense simply to declare that one intended to marry the minor?

      And, of course, I don’t see any protest against our hero talking about marring someone as a minor in order to establish control over them. Now there’s an encouraging view of marriage.

      • Lyle Smith December 31, 2013 / 11:00 am

        Whoa whoa… are not teens having sex with one another? Or young people close in age having sex with another?

        And can’t a 15 year old initiate the intimate relationship with the adult or older teen?

  4. rortensie December 31, 2013 / 7:44 am

    Actually, what he was telling them is completely legal in that state. Also, if you listen to any of his preaching/teaching on the subject. He tells the young men no-sex or touching before marriage even to the point that their hands MUST remain above the shoulders. Same with the women.

    Also, I’m not sure he was telling men to go out and find minors to marry. If you watch the full video the guy was 20 and the girl was 15 of 16. That age difference is MUCH closer than the age difference between my wife and I. Did I go out searching for a minor when we were in college? Should I be tarred and feathered because I am much older than my wife, even though she wasn’t a minor at the time but in college?

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 9:54 am

      The answer to your last question is no … but in the minds of a good number of people, that’s because she wasn’t a minor.

      There’s a reason the law establishes an age of consent. And you aren’t the first person to tell us what was legal in Louisiana.Yet the laws in the state where the commenter on this blog lived are quite similar.

      You point out the other parts of the message … but you don’t address what he said on the video.

      • Lyle Smith December 31, 2013 / 11:02 am

        How about we address his whole speech, and not just a blurb from it?

      • rortensie January 1, 2014 / 5:56 pm

        Actually, before I pass judgment, I’d like to see the entire video. Not just 20 or 40 seconds of a 20 minute or so talk. Isn’t it historians who constantly are discussing how quotes are taken out of context all the time? If in fact he is telling old men to find minors for sex then I am sure the Feds would have already arrested him for this a long time ago since the video is dated and I am sure A&E would have done their homework and researched his talks that he was doing all over the country well before the show. As well as the Church of Christ would not be allowing him to serve in a pastoral roll in one of their churches if he was stating these views continually.

        But just as you said, “the minds of a good number of people” will not bother to realize what context this was said in. They will take it as a direct quote and not realize what was said on either side of it.

        For instance, Lincoln stated in December 1859, “it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with” toward Southerners.

  5. Al Mackey December 31, 2013 / 10:19 am

    I think Brooks’ central point is being missed. It’s one thing for a high school senior to meet a high school freshman, for example, and start dating and fall in love and want to get married as soon as possible because they are in love. It’s quite another thing for a man of any age to *specifically try* to seek out younger girls who are minors in order to establish a relationship that will lead to marriage *in order for a husband to be able to control his wife*.

    • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 12:31 pm

      It has become something of a test of what’s really on people’s minds. Try to bring them back to the central point, and they veer away. That’s fine. I just don’t choose to follow.

      • Jefferson Moon December 31, 2013 / 2:27 pm

        What was your point professor, seems to have changed…

        • Brooks D. Simpson December 31, 2013 / 3:36 pm

          I’m sure you think so. I’m also sure you believe you have a point to make. Now that we have that out of the way, I move on.

  6. Jimmy Dick December 31, 2013 / 10:48 am

    Have you ever noticed how conservative groups tend to think that marrying off young girls to older men is the way to go? Consent is also something they don’t care about. Take a look at the conservative crazies who embrace “traditional” “religious” views and you will find a lot of them where young girls don’t get much in the way of choice.

    Just more examples of repression based on gender as espoused by religious fanatics. These people claim to be American, but turn right around and seek to deny freedom to people in order to suit their own religious preferences.

  7. Schroeder December 31, 2013 / 12:41 pm

    Females are not property to be “married off” to the next old perve in waiting. Phil Robertson is a disgusting man who hides behind his religion. Personally, I think that his show will be discontinued sooner than we think due to his irrational views for this day and age.

  8. Buck Buchanan January 2, 2014 / 8:21 am

    Schroeder,

    Sadly, I do not see the same thing happening as you do for the Ducksters.

    Never watched the show, have noe intention to do so as such shows do not interest me in the least.

    I do not need someone on TV to tell me how I need to feel about God and what is right and wrong.

    Unfortunately, there is too much money to be made off these guys so they will last for awhile.

    And Doctor Simpson is correct that this is not wholesale belief in the rural South. But sadly the beliefs espoused are shared by a sgfinificant minority of the Southern rural population.

  9. Joshism January 2, 2014 / 6:43 pm

    The problem here is that anyone cares what the Duck Dynasty rednecks think about anything other than making duck calls. That their opinion is relevant to the masses (and they have their own “reality” TV show to boot) is a sign of the decline of American civilization.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s