Rev. Jackson: Phil Robertson 'More Offensive' Than Rosa Parks Bus Driver

[Max Rockatansky]

It appears Rev. Jackson hasn't seen himself enough in the newspapers lately so he's injected himself into the news.

Demand? Who the fuck does he think he is? Why does he think he has a right to interfere in a business decision?

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/jesse-jackson-phil-robertson-39-more-offensive-39-161659097--abc-news-celebrities.html

Jesse Jackson has decided to weigh in on the inflammatory comments that Phil Robertson made to GQ about gays and African Americans.

In an interview with Drew Magary, the "Duck Dynasty" star said the Nazis needed Jesus, that he never saw the mistreatment of African Americans while growing up in Louisiana before the civil rights era and that homosexuality was a sin.


A&E has already suspended Robertson, but Reverend Jackson, his Rainbow PUSH Coalition and GLAAD are demanding to meet with network execs, along with Cracker Barrel's CEO, to discuss the future of all "Duck Dynasty" memorabilia or content.


Read: Phil Robertson Defends Anti-Gay Comments: 'All I Did Was Quote From The Scriptures' (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2013/12/phil-robertson-defends-anti-gay-comments-all-i-did-was-quote-from-the-scriptures/)


"These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago," Jackson said in a statement obtained by ABC News.


"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was 'white privilege.'"

[Mainecoons]

Without cover of the law?

It's called the First Amendment, Jesse, you idiot.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think he's just looking to get himself in the news. The man is a media whore.

[Mister D]

It appears Rev. Jackson hasn't seen himself enough in the newspapers lately so he's injected himself into the news.

Demand? Who the fuck does he think he is? Why does he think he has a right to interfere in a business decision?

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/jesse-jackson-phil-robertson-39-more-offensive-39-161659097--abc-news-celebrities.html

I was thiking the same thing when I saw this on Yahoo earlier. He looks so desperate.

[Mister D]

Frankly, what Jackson said is a lot more offensive and socially divisive than anything Robertson said about gays. It's telling that Jackson targets some a reality TV star instead of the rampant "homophobia"... no that's a made up political term...let's just say the strong aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals in the black community.

[Max Rockatansky]

Frankly, what Jackson said is a lot more offensive and socially divisive than anything Robertson said about gays. It's telling that Jackson targets some a reality TV star instead of the rampant "homophobia"... no that's a made up political term...let's just say the strong aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals in the black community.

Agreed. Jackson is attacking a fellow Christian for his Biblical beliefs in order to put his own name in the headlines. That's the sin of pride.

[iustitia]

This is what happens when activism is turned into a business. Everyone from government to business needs to justify their own existence. If there's no real prejudice then there's no money to be made by race-mongers.

[jillian]

This is what happens when activism is turned into a business. Everyone from government to business needs to justify their own existence. If there's no real prejudice then there's no money to be made by race-mongers.

what are you talking about. there absolutely is prejudice on phil robertson's part.

are you trying to pretend there isn't?

the difference is that in this day and age, people should know better.

shouldn't they? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

[ptif219]

Jackson is showing what everyone already knew. Jackson is no minister and he does not care what the Bible says he only cares about his liberal democrat politics and how much publicity he can get out of this.

[iustitia]

Right over your head.

[jillian]

Right over your head.

nothing you say is over anyone's head.

i support your right to defend a bigot.

[Mister D]

nothing you say is over anyone's head.

i support your right to defend a bigot.

^^^ Supports a racist theocracy in the Middle East. Accuses others of defending bigots.

[Mister D]

Right over your head.

Yes, it did escape her.

[Mister D]

nothing you say is over anyone's head.

i support your right to defend a bigot.

Yes, it sailed right over your head.

[Agravan]

jillian's simple definitions for the following words ; racist, bigot, rightwingnut, extremist, hater - "Anyone that disagrees with jillian's warped view of the world"

[jillian]

jillian's simple definitions for the following words ; racist, bigot, rightwingnut, extremist, hater - "Anyone that disagrees with jillian's warped view of the world"

you keep saying that and i keep pointing out how deceptive that is.

you just wish it were so.

too bad.

[Agravan]

you keep saying that and i keep pointing out how deceptive that is.

you just wish it were so.

too bad.

Own it. The truth shall set you free.

[Mister D]

jillian's simple definitions for the following words ; racist, bigot, rightwingnut, extremist, hater - "Anyone that disagrees with jillian's warped view of the world"

Frivolous, huh?

[zelmo1234]

nothing you say is over anyone's head.

i support your right to defend a bigot.

Can you post his remarks that show that he really hates the people? It seems to be he has issues with people actions, not their color!

[jillian]

Can you post his remarks that show that he really hates the people? It seems to be he has issues with people actions, not their color!

if he just had "issues", he would keep his opinion to himself and his friends and family and wouldn't be broadcasting that opinion in every medium in which he has the opportunity to do so.

[roadmaster]

Jackson is not a Rev at least not a Christian one.

[Green Arrow]

what are you talking about. there absolutely is prejudice on phil robertson's part.

are you trying to pretend there isn't?

the difference is that in this day and age, people should know better.

shouldn't they? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

There's no evidence that Phil Robertson is prejudiced or a bigot other than faulty renderings of his words.

[Max Rockatansky]

This is what happens when activism is turned into a business. Everyone from government to business needs to justify their own existence. If there's no real prejudice then there's no money to be made by race-mongers.

Agreed. Rev. Jackson is obviously wants his name in headlines, but also wants to cash in. His Rainbow PUSH Coalition could use the money to pay the staff.

http://rainbowpush.org/

I've often joked with my GF that what we need to do is set up a non-profit for some good cause like "Save the Puppies and Kittens" with me as President and her as VP where we are paid salaries, given a corporate car, a corporate house and all expenses paid from the non-profit as we travel around seeking donations for our cause. At least $1 out of every $100 donated would go to save a puppy or kitten. Donate now!!!

Our cause would be puppies and kittens, a problem certain to be with us for decades. Rev. Jackson's is racism. It's to his benefit to fan the flames of racism in order to continue having a cause.

http://onwardstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/sp5.jpg

[jillian]

Agreed. Rev. Jackson is obviously wants his name in headlines, but also wants to cash in. His Rainbow PUSH Coalition could use the money to pay the staff.

http://rainbowpush.org/

I've often joked with my GF that what we need to do is set up a non-profit for some good cause like "Save the Puppies and Kittens" with me as President and her as VP where we are paid salaries, given a corporate car, a corporate house and all expenses paid from the non-profit as we travel around seeking donations for our cause. At least $1 out of every $100 donated would go to save a puppy or kitten. Donate now!!!

Our cause would be puppies and kittens, a problem certain to be with us for decades. Rev. Jackson's is racism. It's to his benefit to fan the flames of racism in order to continue having a cause.

http://onwardstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/sp5.jpg


you might be joking. but there are a lot of people who use the charitable nature of others to enrich themselves. there are actually sites to check what percentage of your donation goes to actual charitable work and what percentage goes to "administrative costs".

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=400#.UrwcY6Uw1hA
http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/blog--the-10-worst-charities

[zelmo1234]

if he just had "issues", he would keep his opinion to himself and his friends and family and wouldn't be broadcasting that opinion in every medium in which he has the opportunity to do so.

Why? That is like saying that if black people had issues before the civil rights act, that they should just have kept that to themselves.

There are those that want the GLBT lifestyle to be accepted as normal and not sinful.

For those religions that have it written in their scriptures that it is a sin? The fact remains that it is sin!

So the GLBT community is offended by this? And they want this silenced, Are you saying that those that do not agree should be silenced.

[Green Arrow]

Why? That is like saying that if black people had issues before the civil rights act, that they should just have kept that to themselves.

There are those that want the GLBT lifestyle to be accepted as normal and not sinful.

For those religions that have it written in their scriptures that it is a sin? The fact remains that it is sin!

So the GLBT community is offended by this? And they want this silenced, Are you saying that those that do not agree should be silenced.

I don't want it silenced. I don't feel threatened or offended by their rhetoric at all. I understand what their scriptures mean when it says "sin." I understand that their scriptures teach that everybody "sins" and nobody is perfect, Christians included. Honestly, I find it more amusing than anything else that they act like same sex attraction is somehow the biggest and most important sin out there and they should all avoid their sins, when the Christians are sinners as well.

Human nature, simple as that.

[patrickt]

And I find Al Sharpton more offensive than Phil Robertson. So what?

[Max Rockatansky]

you might be joking. but there are a lot of people who use the charitable nature of others to enrich themselves. there are actually sites to check what percentage of your donation goes to actual charitable work and what percentage goes to "administrative costs".

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=400#.UrwcY6Uw1hA
http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/blog--the-10-worst-charities

Exactly and I think Rev. Jackson is one of them. This incident where he is manufacturing news is clearly him seeking to enrich himself with both publicity and donations for his "non-profit".

[jillian]

Exactly and I think Rev. Jackson is one of them. This incident where he is manufacturing news is clearly him seeking to enrich himself with both publicity and donations for his "non-profit".

i can't stand jackson. i don't believe you saw me defend him.

[zelmo1234]

I don't want it silenced. I don't feel threatened or offended by their rhetoric at all. I understand what their scriptures mean when it says "sin." I understand that their scriptures teach that everybody "sins" and nobody is perfect, Christians included. Honestly, I find it more amusing than anything else that they act like same sex attraction is somehow the biggest and most important sin out there and they should all avoid their sins, when the Christians are sinners as well.

Human nature, simple as that.

I agree in large, and there are those even in my home Church that really piss me off, when the play the game of my sin is better than your sin!

There are really three things that stand out to me about my faith.

#1 All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

#2 Guilty of one sin, Guilty of them all

#3 If we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness he is faithful and just to forgive them So we all need forgiveness!

[Ravi]

It appears Rev. Jackson hasn't seen himself enough in the newspapers lately so he's injected himself into the news.

Demand? Who the fuck does he think he is? Why does he think he has a right to interfere in a business decision?

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/jesse-jackson-phil-robertson-39-more-offensive-39-161659097--abc-news-celebrities.html
Don't know who came up with the word demand but later in the article it says he requests a meeting.

[Green Arrow]

I agree in large, and there are those even in my home Church that really piss me off, when the play the game of my sin is better than your sin!

There are really three things that stand out to me about my faith.

#1 All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

#2 Guilty of one sin, Guilty of them all

#3 If we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness he is faithful and just to forgive them So we all need forgiveness!

I agree. You, zelmo, are the type of Christian that kept me from hating the Church when I left it ten years ago, and you are the type of Christian that keeps me interested in attending church on Sundays, even though I don't follow your religion.

[Ravi]

I think he's just looking to get himself in the news. The man is a media whore.
And the duck dude isn't?

[Green Arrow]

And the duck dude isn't?

I don't see any reason to believe he is.

[Max Rockatansky]

i can't stand jackson. i don't believe you saw me defend him.

No, I didn't see you defend him. I was just reiterating my opinion that he is enriching himself with the money of others by fanning flames of racism.

[Max Rockatansky]

And the duck dude isn't?

No, he isn't.

[jillian]

No, I didn't see you defend him. I was just reiterating my opinion that he is enriching himself with the money of others by fanning flames of racism.

yes. he is.

[jillian]

No, he isn't.

and yet how much publicity has he gotten?

[Green Arrow]

and yet how much publicity has he gotten?

I'd blame stupid people that wear their feelings on their shoulders for that. If people who disagreed with him hadn't made so much of a stink out of what he said, he wouldn't be getting much.

[jillian]

I'd blame stupid people that wear their feelings on their shoulders for that. If people who disagreed with him hadn't made so much of a stink out of what he said, he wouldn't be getting much.

funny… i think it's the people who agreed with him who clearly made the noise.

go figure.

[zelmo1234]

I agree. You, zelmo, are the type of Christian that kept me from hating the Church when I left it ten years ago, and you are the type of Christian that keeps me interested in attending church on Sundays, even though I don't follow your religion.

Thank You!

[Green Arrow]

funny… i think it's the people who agreed with him who clearly made the noise.

go figure.

No, actually, it wasn't. They made a noise after those who disagreed with his comments started a controversy over nothing.

After that, it all got ridiculous on both sides.

[Max Rockatansky]

Don't know who came up with the word demand but later in the article it says he requests a meeting.

It was in the OP article. Here are more. Also, Jackson's comparison of Robertson to Rosa Park's bus driver is obviously both over-the-top and an attempt to paint Robertson as a racist on par with 1950s Southern Whites.

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00066965.html

"At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law," Jackson said, comparing Robertson's comments to comments made by the driver of Rosa Parks' bus. "Robertson's statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was 'white privilege.' "

Jackson's human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, also demands a meeting within 72 hours with A&E and Cracker Barrel regarding their treatment of Robertson.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-25/news/chi-jesse-jackson-duck-dynasty-20131224_1_duck-dynasty-jesse-jackson-sr-anti-gay-comments

Jackson’s human rights group, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, has demanded meetings with A&E and with Cracker Barrel regarding the two companies’ treatment of Robertson, who stars in the show as the head of a Louisiana family that makes duck calls.

Jackson’s group, along with LGBT group GLAAD and the National Organization for Women, urged A&E to keep Robertson on an indefinite hiatus from the show, which the network started following Robertson’s comments criticizing homosexuality in an interview with GQ magazine.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Jesse-Jackson-Sr-Takes-Aim-At-Duck-Dynasty-237203351.html

Jackson, along with GLAAD and NOW are demanding a meeting within 72 hours with the CEOs of Cracker Barrel and the A&E Networks.

[Max Rockatansky]

and yet how much publicity has he gotten?

A lot. Now you using a backdoor to defend Jackson? :p


Here's the difference; Robertson isn't looking to be in the news, Jackson is. That's the difference between a media personality and media whore.

Another example; Sarah Palin. Media personality or media whore? I say media whore. YMMV.

[Green Arrow]

A lot. Now you using a backdoor to defend Jackson? :p


Here's the difference; Robertson isn't looking to be in the news, Jackson is. That's the difference between a media personality and media whore.

Another example; Sarah Palin. Media personality or media whore? I say media whore. YMMV.

What is "YMMV"?

[jillian]

A lot. Now you using a backdoor to defend Jackson? :p


Here's the difference; Robertson isn't looking to be in the news, Jackson is. That's the difference between a media personality and media whore.

Another example; Sarah Palin. Media personality or media whore? I say media whore. YMMV.

i didn't defend jackson at all. don't use your disagreement with me about phi to claim that.

why is robertson giving interviews to GQ if he doesn't want to be in the news?

[Green Arrow]

i didn't defend jackson at all. don't use your disagreement with me about phi to claim that.

why is robertson giving interviews to GQ if he doesn't want to be in the news?

Because GQ came to him and asked to interview him?

[Max Rockatansky]

Because GQ came to him and asked to interview him?

True. Another possibility is that it was set up by either A&E or Gurney Productions and Robertson was contractually obligated to do it.

Either way, the difference being that Jackson, Palin and other media whores go out of their way to get their name in the news. Robertson does not. Example? Why isn't he on the news responding to all of this hoopla? If he was a media whore, he'd be making the rounds at all the talk shows and news shows giving his views. We know Jackson and Palin would be doing exactly that.

[Mister D]

i didn't defend jackson at all. don't use your disagreement with me about phi to claim that.

why is robertson giving interviews to GQ if he doesn't want to be in the news?

You employ a tu toque fallacy to defend virtually anyone on the left that comes up for public ridicule (e.g. the pervert Weiner and now the racialist Jackson).

[Codename Section]

funny… i think it's the people who agreed with him who clearly made the noise.

go figure.

I don't agree with him. I think if two dudes want to sword fight or go up the dirt road, that's their business. I think lesbian sex is hotter than regular sex.

I don't like people stifling opinions of others regardless of where our speech laws go. Unpopular opinions are just words and rather than cater to the hyper-offended we'd all be better off if we just blew shit off that we didn't like hearing and go about our business instead of trying to ruin things other people enjoy.

People think I'm an asshole and call me one. Unless I believe I'm an asshole or worry that I might be an asshole, I don't care who calls me one. Words mean nothing unless you choose to place importance on them.

[Chris]

I don't agree with him. I think if two dudes want to sword fight or go up the dirt road, that's their business. I think lesbian sex is hotter than regular sex.

I don't like people stifling opinions of others regardless of where our speech laws go. Unpopular opinions are just words and rather than cater to the hyper-offended we'd all be better off if we just blew shit off that we didn't like hearing and go about our business instead of trying to ruin things other people enjoy.

People think I'm an asshole and call me one. Unless I believe I'm an asshole or worry that I might be an asshole, I don't care who calls me one. Words mean nothing unless you choose to place importance on them.



This is true, mostly what people who call names and insult are doing is inventing straw men in their own image, misattributing their own faults to others. Pointing it out seems to infuriate them.

I think worse though is the deliberate, repetitious distortion of what others say. Robinson gave his anti-gay behavior opinion but added he is not anti-gay person but too many want to distort that into he is anti-gay person and then engage in criticizing and castigating him for it. This sort of straw man requires more than merely turning the other cheek.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sorta like pro-lifers who accuse people who support limited abortion to being "baby-killers", committing genocide or favoring euthanasia of children, eh?

[patrickt]

Sorta like pro-lifers who accuse people who support limited abortion to being "baby-killers", committing genocide or favoring euthanasia of children, eh?

No, sort of like pro-abortion folks who say everyone who disagrees with them are engaged in a War on Women. I support a woman's right to choose, absolutely. Use birth control. Stay celibate.

[Chris]

Sorta like pro-lifers who accuse people who support limited abortion to being "baby-killers", committing genocide or favoring euthanasia of children, eh?

No, closer to those who deliberately conflate attacking a message with attacking a messenger rather than responding to the criticism of ideas and opinions rationally.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, sort of like pro-abortion folks who say everyone who disagrees with them are engaged in a War on Women. I support a woman's right to choose, absolutely. Use birth control. Stay celibate.

Great! Likewise, we should tell all those men bitching about alimony and child support to either not get married and never have children or to STFU. Easy peasy!

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't agree with him. I think if two dudes want to sword fight or go up the dirt road, that's their business. I think lesbian sex is hotter than regular sex.

I don't like people stifling opinions of others regardless of where our speech laws go. Unpopular opinions are just words and rather than cater to the hyper-offended we'd all be better off if we just blew shit off that we didn't like hearing and go about our business instead of trying to ruin things other people enjoy.

People think I'm an asshole and call me one. Unless I believe I'm an asshole or worry that I might be an asshole, I don't care who calls me one. Words mean nothing unless you choose to place importance on them.

Agreed. I get that occasionally at work too. Most often because I upset some idiot's little apple cart by pointing out they need to do their job.

[peoshi]

I think lesbian sex is hotter than regular sex.Apparently the lesbians where you live look alot better than the ones where I do.:vomit:

[Ravi]

No, he isn't.
Seriously? He is on a freaking reality tv show.

[Ravi]

It was in the OP article. Here are more. Also, Jackson's comparison of Robertson to Rosa Park's bus driver is obviously both over-the-top and an attempt to paint Robertson as a racist on par with 1950s Southern Whites.

http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00066965.html


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-25/news/chi-jesse-jackson-duck-dynasty-20131224_1_duck-dynasty-jesse-jackson-sr-anti-gay-comments


http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Jesse-Jackson-Sr-Takes-Aim-At-Duck-Dynasty-237203351.htmlyes it's being reported that he is demanding but I think that is hyperbole as it states he actually requested. As to the Parks comment, some right wing nut made that claim originally and he is merely addressing it.

[Agravan]

Seriously? He is on a freaking reality tv show.

And he rarely makes an appearance. But it's not like you'd know that because a family oriented show is not what liberals want on TV unless there's swearing and homosexual lifestyles being promoted, right, Ravi.

[Ravi]

And he rarely makes an appearance. But it's not like you'd know that because a family oriented show is not what liberals want on TV unless there's swearing and homosexual lifestyles being promoted, right, Ravi.
Are you kidding me??? I love shows about white trash swamp dwelling bigoted Christian males. They should be loud and proud.

[Max Rockatansky]

yes it's being reported that he is demanding but I think that is hyperbole as it states he actually requested. As to the Parks comment, some right wing nut made that claim originally and he is merely addressing it.
With a time limit of 72 hours it sounds more like a demand.

Why is Jackson involved in this anyway? Does he think Robertson is lying about working in the fields side-by-side with blacks?

[jillian]

And he rarely makes an appearance. But it's not like you'd know that because a family oriented show is not what liberals want on TV unless there's swearing and homosexual lifestyles being promoted, right, Ravi.

funny… my son has a si cup.

anything else you want to make up?

[Max Rockatansky]

Are you kidding me??? I love shows about white trash swamp dwelling bigoted Christian males. They should be loud and proud.

Which ones do you watch and what do you love about them?

[Ravi]

With a time limit of 72 hours it sounds more like a demand.

Why is Jackson involved in this anyway? Does he think Robertson is lying about working in the fields side-by-side with blacks?
Prolly more offended that duck claimed the darkies were happy and singing before Jim Crowe laws were repealed.

If I ask someone to meet in the next three days I'm demanding? I don't think so.

[Ravi]

Which ones do you watch and what do you love about them?i think they are a fine example of modern Christians.

[Agravan]

funny… my son has a si cup.

anything else you want to make up?
What's the matter, you don't like the competition?

[Agravan]

Prolly more offended that duck claimed the darkies were happy and singing before Jim Crowe laws were repealed.

If I ask someone to meet in the next three days I'm demanding? I don't think so.

link?

[Agravan]

i think they are a fine example of modern Christians.
Maybe in your twisted mind.

[jillian]

What's the matter, you don't like the competition?

feel free to make up anything you'd like.

oh wait….

[Agravan]

feel free to make up anything you'd like.

oh wait….
You're right, I can't compete with you and your fellow travelers in that department...

[Max Rockatansky]

i think they are a fine example of modern Christians.

Which which shows do you watch?

Would I be correct in assuming you are not a Christian, but also that you don't like Christians?

[Agravan]

Which which shows do you watch?

Would I be correct in assuming you are not a Christian, but also that you don't like Christians?
She worships only at the altar of the State.

[Ravi]

Which which shows do you watch?

Would I be correct in assuming you are not a Christian, but also that you don't like Christians?
I don't watch any of them. I love that they exist.

You would be incorrect.

Why would my belief that the duck dude is a fine example of Christianity mean I hate Christians?

[zelmo1234]

I don't watch any of them. I love that they exist.

You would be incorrect.

Why would my belief that the duck dude is a fine example of Christianity mean I hate Christians?

If you don't watch them ?????????? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW???????

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't watch any of them. I love that they exist.

You would be incorrect.

Why would my belief that the duck dude is a fine example of Christianity mean I hate Christians?Thank you for your honesty.

1. The fact you don't watch them yet are passing judgment on both the shows and those who watch them says more about you than the show.

2. Are you a Christian? Which church, if any?

3. You said you loved "hows about white trash swamp dwelling bigoted Christian males" and "hey are a fine example of modern Christians." Obviously both of those comments were meant to slam both rural Christian males and modern Christians. I was trying to understand why you believe this way.

[Mainecoons]

If she actually watched the show, Ravi might notice that the duck folks hardly dwell in swamps. Actually, BEFORE the program they were very successful and live in quite luxurious homes.

It is a lot easier to have a bunch of wrong notions than it is to check them out and discard one's personal fallacies. Right Ravi?

[jillian]

If she actually watched the show, Ravi might notice that the duck folks hardly dwell in swamps. Actually, BEFORE the program they were very successful and live in quite luxurious homes.

It is a lot easier to have a bunch of wrong notions than it is to check them out and discard one's personal fallacies. Right Ravi?

you mean in mansions in the swamps, don't you?

[jillian]

If you don't watch them ?????????? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW???????

his public statements.

[jillian]

She worships only at the altar of the State.

you have zero idea what she believes. she just doesn't thump on her bible all day.

[Mainecoons]

you mean in mansions in the swamps, don't you?

No genius. Watch the show. Or shut up about it and stop displaying your ignorance and bias against folks who aren't leftist snobs from NY like you.

[zelmo1234]

his public statements.

The entire statements or just the sound bites?

[Alyosha]

We don't have a right not to be offended. If we seriously want to go down this path we will end up the shittiest country in the history of the world.

I personally do not agree with Phil. I also don't agree with Libhater. Would I shut them up or petition their place of business for hiring them? No. That means I'm either afraid of Libhater's arguments (I'm not) or I demand rights I don't have.

Life is not always about "the law". Laws cannot make someone love you or like you or even stay with you. Love is a chemical reaction ungoverned by laws. So, too, is what we enjoy viewing and if someone enjoys Phil or even the Kardassians have at it.

When Phil discriminates (refuses service to gays, refuses to hire gays, etc) then I may care. Until then this is merely making hay out of an unkempt fellow with opinions I don't agree with.

[zelmo1234]

you mean in mansions in the swamps, don't you?

Actually one of the Sons is on a golf course and the other in a gated community!

[zelmo1234]

you have zero idea what she believes. she just doesn't thump on her bible all day.

But we do have her public statements to judge her on? would that not be enough?

[jillian]

Actually one of the Sons is on a golf course and the other in a gated community!

in a huge freaking mansion… where they then trow crawfish on top of the formal dining room table and eat them and throw the shells on the floor.


i know exactly how they live, Zelmo.

[jillian]

No genius. Watch the show. Or shut up about it and stop displaying your ignorance and bias against folks who aren't leftist snobs from NY like you.

we do watch the show.

so you were saying? you know, in the midst of your stomping around.

[jillian]

We don't have a right not to be offended. If we seriously want to go down this path we will end up the shittiest country in the history of the world.

I personally do not agree with Phil. I also don't agree with Libhater. Would I shut them up or petition their place of business for hiring them? No. That means I'm either afraid of Libhater's arguments (I'm not) or I demand rights I don't have.

Life is not always about "the law". Laws cannot make someone love you or like you or even stay with you. Love is a chemical reaction ungoverned by laws. So, too, is what we enjoy viewing and if someone enjoys Phil or even the Kardassians have at it.

When Phil discriminates (refuses service to gays, refuses to hire gays, etc) then I may care. Until then this is merely making hay out of an unkempt fellow with opinions I don't agree with.

no there is no right not to be offended.

everyone has the right to call the idiot an idiot.

you think words like his aren't damaging, maybe more so, than if he acted discriminatorily himself?

[Alyosha]

no there is no right not to be offended.

everyone has the right to call the idiot an idiot.

you think words like his aren't damaging, maybe more so, than if he acted discriminatorily himself?

Words are not damaging. If words become damaging then we are raising extremely weak people and that is more damaging.

I'll quite RuPaul: If you have a problem with a word you got bigger problems than that word.

[jillian]

Words are not damaging. If words become damaging then we are raising extremely weak people and that is more damaging.

I'll quite RuPaul: If you have a problem with a word you got bigger problems than that word.

words are not damaging?

of course they are. they spread hatred and bigotry. i'm not saying he can't say it.

but he (and people like him) spread hate with their bigoted statements.

so while i defend his right to say what he did. i absolutely defend the right of every decent person to get up and say he's trash.

but if you don't think words are damaging, perhaps you need to sit down and watch some of hitler's little speeches from WWII or george wallace's or storm thurmond's hate filled spew during the civil rights era.

again, i'm not talking about intervening and stopping the speech by government. but damn right that everyone should be calling it what it is… because THAT IS HOW YOU COMBAT HATE SPEECH.

[Ravi]

Thank you for your honesty.

1. The fact you don't watch them yet are passing judgment on both the shows and those who watch them says more about you than the show.

2. Are you a Christian? Which church, if any?

3. You said you loved "hows about white trash swamp dwelling bigoted Christian males" and "hey are a fine example of modern Christians." Obviously both of those comments were meant to slam both rural Christian males and modern Christians. I was trying to understand why you believe this way.

I don't need to watch a show about bigots. I can form an opinion on his bigotry by reading his interview in GQ and his past you tube comments.

I am a non-practicing agnostic Catholic.

Phil Robertson is to Christians as Sarah Palin is to conservatives. Their comments and attitudes are false representations of both groups and the sooner the greater public realizes this the sooner they (nutters) will be marginalized.

[Ravi]

If she actually watched the show, Ravi might notice that the duck folks hardly dwell in swamps. Actually, BEFORE the program they were very successful and live in quite luxurious homes.

It is a lot easier to have a bunch of wrong notions than it is to check them out and discard one's personal fallacies. Right Ravi?
Have you ever been to LA? It is a swamp. You can take the white trash out of the trailer but you can't take the trash out of the white trash.

[Alyosha]

words are not damaging?

Only if you believe they are true of you (another RuPaul quote) and that can be a wide spectrum of things people uncomfortable with, not just group based slurs. We choose to be offended or not offended. I've been called every single name in the book. None of them bother me because I don't believe they are true. I am more offended by things like where Kabuki Joe said God killed my husband because I'm a bitch. Why? Because it's personal and I'm sensitive about his death.

Call me the c-word and I'm not offended IF I may say what I like back. When my hands are tied and others are not then I grow irritated, but I'm still not injured.




of course they are. they spread hatred and bigotry. i'm not saying he can't say it.


Only if you choose to be offended.



but he (and people like him) spread hate with their bigoted statements.


They don't spread hate. Hate like love is a chemical reaction. Neurology is a complex science and hate is not spread by words alone but by visual acuity and experience.



so while i defend his right to say what he did. i absolutely defend the right of every decent person to get up and say he's trash.


As do I. I just think that this is a ridiculous amount of fauxrage when one could clearly make that guess from his show that he perhaps had these feelings.



but if you don't think words are damaging, perhaps you need to sit down and watch some of hitler's little speeches from WWII or george wallace's or storm thurmond's hate filled spew during the civil rights era.


Words did nothing. Laws did everything. Hitler's words would have fallen on deaf ears had the Treaty of Versailles (after WWI) been written differently. He would have been a madman in a beer hall, not the "fuhrer" of a country.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. We are long past the point of gays being 2nd class citizens, so much of that movement came in the 1990s. As you can see from the outrage that wouldn't have happened in the 1980s, gays are no longer in that same position of hiding and shame--nor are blacks.

This is 2013, almost 2014. This is not the 1960s or even the 1980's during the AIDs crisis peak.



again, i'm not talking about intervening and stopping the speech by government. but damn right that everyone should be calling it what it is… because THAT IS HOW YOU COMBAT HATE SPEECH.

It is not hate speech. It is him having a religious based opinion which traditional/fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, and Jews share based off of the adage "be fruitful and multiply". These are ancient texts of nomadic peoples trying to survive in a frightening world.

I can say I feel he is wrong in saying it, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it because what he has to say has no influence over people who don't believe like him. I'm not going to hear it and suddenly go? Oh, gays won't go to heaven and neither will drunks and terrorists.

If I do then I have big problems.

[Ravi]

We don't have a right not to be offended. If we seriously want to go down this path we will end up the shittiest country in the history of the world.

I personally do not agree with Phil. I also don't agree with Libhater. Would I shut them up or petition their place of business for hiring them? No. That means I'm either afraid of Libhater's arguments (I'm not) or I demand rights I don't have.

Life is not always about "the law". Laws cannot make someone love you or like you or even stay with you. Love is a chemical reaction ungoverned by laws. So, too, is what we enjoy viewing and if someone enjoys Phil or even the Kardassians have at it.

When Phil discriminates (refuses service to gays, refuses to hire gays, etc) then I may care. Until then this is merely making hay out of an unkempt fellow with opinions I don't agree with.
And A&E wants to have a world class network so they are free to "ban" him if his statements make their network look trashy.

[Alyosha]

And A&E wants to have a world class network so they are free to "ban" him if his statements make their network look trashy.

Well, unlike modern faux liberals I do believe private institutions have the liberty to hire and fire at will, so if they choose to do so more power to them. Fire the old dude. I care very little either way since I don't watch the show.

The last time I cared about the death of a TV program was 2005.

[Mainecoons]

Have you ever been to LA? It is a swamp. You can take the white trash out of the trailer but you can't take the trash out of the white trash.

Yes I have but obviously you haven't. Nor do you have any class as this post so vividly illustrates.

[jillian]

Well, unlike modern faux liberals I do believe private institutions have the liberty to hire and fire at will, so if they choose to do so more power to them. Fire the old dude. I care very little either way since I don't watch the show.

The last time I cared about the death of a TV program was 2005.

and believing a network has the right to dump someone who embarrasses them isn't a "liberal* thing, though no doubt you were out and about defending the dixie chicks and natalie manes from the rightwingnut assault on them.

every contract of the nature that A&E would have with people like the robertson's would allow them to terminate based on behavior.

what i don't understand is why you seem to be addressing this from a political, rather than a legal, perspective.

[Ravi]

Yes I have but obviously you haven't. Nor do you have any class as this post so vividly illustrates.
hahaha, I was just there this weekend and have been many times as I have family there. It is a swamp.

[Mainecoons]

"rightwingnut"

Sigh. . . .

5083

[Ravi]

Where does this nonsense that you don't have a right to take offense come from?

[jillian]

"rightwingnut"

Sigh. . . .

truth offends you?

[Mainecoons]

hahaha, I was just there this weekend and have been many times as I have family there. It is a swamp.

Some of it is, some of it isn't. You're simply displaying your ignorance and nastiness by continuing to claim it all is a swamp.

Don't you live in Florida? "People who live in glass houses. . . ."

This isn't about the topography of Louisiana. This is about your intolerance towards people who are obviously your betters.

[Mister D]

Some of it is, some of it isn't. You're simply displaying your ignorance and nastiness by continuing to claim it all is a swamp.

Don't you live in Florida? "People who live in glass houses. . . ."

This isn't about the topography of Louisiana. This is about your intolerance towards people who are obviously your betters.

I first noticed that with Sarah Palin. When "dumb" "right wing nuts" are wildly more successful than they are it drives them nuts.

5084

[Ravi]

Some of it is, some of it isn't. You're simply displaying your ignorance and nastiness by continuing to claim it all is a swamp.

Don't you live in Florida? "People who live in glass houses. . . ."

This isn't about the topography of Louisiana. This is about your intolerance towards people who are obviously your betters.
I live in a swamp. I'm not on the tv making bigoted remarks. There is a difference. btw, you are the one that got bent out of shape over topography.

[Alyosha]

I live in a swamp. I'm not on the tv making bigoted remarks. There is a difference. btw, you are the one that got bent out of shape over topography.

So you're saying you're Shrek?

[Ravi]

So you're saying you're Shrek?

Swamp Thing.

[Alyosha]

and believing a network has the right to dump someone who embarrasses them isn't a "liberal* thing, though no doubt you were out and about defending the dixie chicks and natalie manes from the rightwingnut assault on them.

Yes? Once again, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat for a reason. I want consistency of argument.

Ahem. I defended the Dixie Chicks and the right of people to burn their albums.



every contract of the nature that A&E would have with people like the robertson's would allow them to terminate based on behavior.


Sure. And I'm sure that they had NO IDEA he had these opinions when they gave him a show. ((double eye roll))

Let's get real.



what i don't understand is why you seem to be addressing this from a political, rather than a legal, perspective.

Because legally there is no perspective. We are allowed to say whatever we want legally until that changes. That's what he did. As far as A&E's contract with him I have no idea if it is "at will" if it is governed by what he does on set or if he's allowed to make whatever statements he likes when not on film.

Do you?

I certainly have not seen his contract.

[Ravi]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

[Alyosha]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

Consistency is the bedrock of equality, but you may cling to your fauxliberal equivalent of God and Guns if ya like. I know people need a security blanket.

[Ravi]

Consistency is the bedrock of equality, but you may cling to your fauxliberal equivalent of God and Guns if ya like. I know people need a security blanket.
What's up with the personal attack?

[Alyosha]

What's up with the personal attack?

What's up with hyper-sensitivity that believes that was a personal "attack"? Do you believe someone rushing through the door in front of you at Target is also a personal attack?

Just curious.

[Ravi]

What's up with hyper-sensitivity that believes that was a personal "attack"? Do you believe someone rushing through the door in front of you at Target is also a personal attack?

Just curious.
Que? Calling someone names is an attempt at attacking. Or so I've been told repeatedly here.

[Alyosha]

Que? Calling someone names is an attempt at attacking. Or so I've been told repeatedly here.

What name did I call you?

[Ravi]

Fake

[Alyosha]

Fake

No. I never said "Ravi you are a fake!"

I said "fauxliberal" because the modern liberal is not "liberal". Thomas Jefferson, Locke, Spooner, etc are real liberals. I don't know what to call modern liberalism, so I just say fauxliberal because it is a paper mache version of true liberalism.

It is not directed solely at you, just a means of identifying the difference between someone who says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." and "Let me be clear if you have a business you didn't build that."

That's all.

[Mainecoons]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Post of the day! :grin:

[Ravi]

No. I never said "Ravi you are a fake!"

I said "fauxliberal" because the modern liberal is not "liberal". Thomas Jefferson, Locke, Spooner, etc are real liberals. I don't know what to call modern liberalism, so I just say fauxliberal because it is a paper mache version of true liberalism.

It is not directed solely at you, just a means of identifying the difference between someone who says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." and "Let me be clear if you have a business you didn't build that."

That's all.

Sure, when you lump someone in with a group you consider fake you are attempting to insult.

I believe all are created equal.

Nice work taking Obama's words out of context like a right wing parrot. Consistency of argument is a beautiful thing!

[Alyosha]

Sure, when you lump someone in with a group you consider fake you are attempting to insult.

Drag Queens are fake women and I adore them. You could very well be a drag liberal in my head.




I believe all are created equal.


Oh? Huh.




Nice work taking Obama's words out of context like a right wing parrot. Consistency of argument is a beautiful thing!

You're just stretching now for something snarky to say that will be an appropriate comeback. It's okay. You don't have to, Ravi. Sometimes silence truly is best.

[Ravi]

I take it you adore fake liberals. Funny.

[Alyosha]

I take it you adore fake liberals. Funny.

Fake liberals are funny. Never say they are not!

[Ravi]

Impressive.

[Alyosha]

Impressive.

Speaking of impressive

http://www.landenweb.net/images/imgegypte/4947AACF-0A73-DEA3-FD99E5DB897FC38C.jpg

[junie]

I agree in large, and there are those even in my home Church that really piss me off, when the play the game of my sin is better than your sin!

There are really three things that stand out to me about my faith.

#1 All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

#2 Guilty of one sin, Guilty of them all

#3 If we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness he is faithful and just to forgive them So we all need forgiveness!



that's the thing... so you have to ask yourself what makes this duck dude go out of his way to point fingers like that...?



the other night, i listened to those video clips of his speech to a game hunting crowd in pennsylvania...he came across as egotistical and mean spirited!

in full context of this time and place in our history, on this public stage, this guy thumps his bible as he also slyly thumps our constitution...why??

imo HE is a 'swindler' for pulling such a contrived publicity stunt with GQ, so now like-minded ducky 'idolators' go out of their way to buy his ducky products in order to support this poor victim who purposely breached a network contract...this 'greedy' 'swindler' with an insidious agenda to discriminate against his fellow Americans...in the name of God..?

imo this guy's ego is deceiving himself while spreading fear and loathing AS IF 'freedom' of speech and religion are threatened in America... who falls for this??

( i guess i'll recognize them by their ducky t-shirts... :laugh: )


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/duck-dynasty-family-spreads-christian-message-article-1.1418055



"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."

[Mister D]

^^^ :rofl:He was in cahoots with GQ! He just knew a bunch of progressive brownshirts would flip the fuck out and he was right! Yeah, that's it! Taking advantage of your insanity is a pretty messed up way to make money but whatever works.

[junie]

^^^ :rofl:He was in cahoots with GQ! He just knew a bunch of progressive brownshirts would flip the fuck out and he was right! Yeah, that's it! Taking advantage of your insanity is a pretty messed up way to make money but whatever works.



you got one of those t-shirts for Christmas, didn't you..? :laugh:



'in cahoots with GQ' is not what i said but okeedokee maybe that too! swindlers all of 'em..so..do not be deceived young man! :wink:

[Agravan]

So, I have a couple of serious questions for you lefties brave enought to answer them:
1. What should Phil Roberston have said in answer to the question posed to him?
2. Should he have lied and given a politically correct answer, or should he have been rude and ignored the question?
3. What answer would have satisfied the left and the militant gays?
4. Why should he, or anyone else for that matter, worry about trying to, or being forced to, give answers that would satisfy the left?
5. Ravi whines about obama being taken out of context, but takes Phil Roberston out of context, what's the difference?

[Chloe]

So, I have a couple of serious questions for you lefties brave enought to answer them:
1. What should Phil Roberston have said in answer to the question posed to him?
2. Should he have lied and given a politically correct answer, or should he have been rude and ignored the question?
3. What answer would have satisfied the left and the militant gays?
4. Why should he, or anyone else for that matter, worry about trying to, or being forced to, give answers that would satisfy the left?
5. Ravi whines about obama being taken out of context, but takes Phil Roberston out of context, what's the difference?

1. He shouldn't have said anything beyond what he believes. He answered the question.
2. No he shouldn't have lied, however, I do think he should have perhaps not elaborated so much, if only just to help keep him and his family out of the spotlight for saying something that could generate a lot of publicity. You don't have to lie but you also don't have to go into detail in my opinion.
3. Him saying that he disagrees with the lifestyle but appreciates them as Gods creation probably would have been reasonable to a lot of militant gays and a lot of people on the left.
4. He shouldn't have to worry about that and it was wrong of A&E to censor him like that in spite of how wrong I believe he is.
5. People always take other people out of context if it helps them win political points, supporters of both major sides do it. It's wrong on both ends.

[jillian]

Consistency is the bedrock of equality, but you may cling to your fauxliberal equivalent of God and Guns if ya like. I know people need a security blanket.

consistency is the bedrock of equality…..

except when that consistency is supposed to extend to marriage equality?

[junie]

it is not 'censorship' for a tv network and/or it's commercial sponsors to uphold certain standards of programming.

'free speech' and 'religious expression' are not threatened one iota, that's just a major deception put on by 'greedy' 'swindlers'.

[Alyosha]

consistency is the bedrock of equality…..

except when that consistency is supposed to extend to marriage equality?

How does it not? I want marriage to be privatized so that anyone who wishes it can marry. That's equality.

[Alyosha]

it is not 'censorship' for a tv network and/or it's commercial sponsors to uphold certain standards of programming.

'free speech' and 'religious expression' are not threatened one iota, that's just a major deception put on by 'greedy' 'swindlers'.


Censorship can be done by private companies or public avenues. It is just a word. If you mean government prohibitions that is a different story altogether.

The government has not yet, fully regulated speech. We'll get there, no doubt, but as yet we may say all manner of unpleasant things.

[junie]

Censorship can be done by private companies or public avenues. It is just a word. If you mean government prohibitions that is a different story altogether.

The government has not yet, fully regulated speech. We'll get there, no doubt, but as yet we may say all manner of unpleasant things.


bullshit. :rollseyes:

[Alyosha]

bullshit. :rollseyes:

Oh Junie, you may say fewer things today than you may have said 10 years ago, but believe what you want. Everyone else does.

[junie]

Censorship can be done by private companies or public avenues. It is just a word. If you mean government prohibitions that is a different story altogether.

The government has not yet, fully regulated speech. We'll get there, no doubt, but as yet we may say all manner of unpleasant things.


yes it's just a word which is being used to deceive people AS IF network choice in setting standards threatens our right to 'free speech'.

[jillian]

Censorship can be done by private companies or public avenues. It is just a word. If you mean government prohibitions that is a different story altogether.

The government has not yet, fully regulated speech. We'll get there, no doubt, but as yet we may say all manner of unpleasant things.

it isn't censorship for people to point out someone else's bigotry.

[Alyosha]

For people interested in reading things that don't frighten them...

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech

[Alyosha]

it isn't censorship for people to point out someone else's bigotry.

Please show me where I said that it was.

I don't mind people having opinions. I mind when people try to create my opinion for me. I am fully capable of articulating it on my own.

As a libertarian I believe that people have a right to an opinion and a company has a right to fire anyone for any reason. Laws may or may not agree with me, but there it is...my opinion.

[Alyosha]

yes it's just a word which is being used to deceive people AS IF network choice in setting standards threatens our right to 'free speech'.

I censor myself at times. I have been censored by my religion, my parents, etc. The word may be used to describe what is happening by that channel.

Because words can be used with irregularity in deference to common use, it is best to articulate clearly what you mean.

[jillian]

Please show me where I said that it was.

I don't mind people having opinions. I mind when people try to create my opinion for me. I am fully capable of articulating it on my own.

As a libertarian I believe that people have a right to an opinion and a company has a right to fire anyone for any reason. Laws may or may not agree with me, but there it is...my opinion.

do you consider informing you to be telling you what your opinion is?

if you believe A&E has every right to protect its image and can anyone who presents an image they don't want, then what is the argument about?

[junie]

it isn't censorship for people to point out someone else's bigotry.



remember when they wept for the 'freedom' of bigots to make ape gestures at Nigerian basketball players in the Olympic stadium..?

oh my how terrible the jerk got arrested by 'the government' and removed from the stadium...the horror of oppression is upon us all! :rollseyes:

[jillian]

remember when they wept for the 'freedom' of bigots to make ape gestures at Nigerian basketball players in the Olympic stadium..?

oh my how terrible the jerk got arrested by 'the government' and removed from the stadium...the horror of oppression is upon us all! :rollseyes:

yeah, they loved that one.

they also loved when the anti-iraq war protester got dragged out of the state of the union address.

[junie]

do you consider informing you to be telling you what your opinion is?

if you believe A&E has every right to protect its image and can anyone who presents an image they don't want, then what is the argument about?


hey A&E is free to uphold a 'world class' network and ban whomever refuses to 'get with the program'! lol :wink:

[Alyosha]

hey A&E is free to uphold a 'world class' network and ban whomever refuses to 'get with the program'! lol :wink:

Yes, just as you have the freedom to participate in threads on a world class forum that may also ban you for irrational crazy speech or leave if you don't like the use of their banhammer.

[junie]

Yes, just as you have the freedom to participate in threads on a world class forum that may also ban you for irrational crazy speech or leave if you don't like the use of their banhammer.




yeah, so you were for the ducky dude before you were against him then, huh?

or...........was it just a certain poster you were set against regardless?? ( lol 'world class' my ass. :laugh: )

[zelmo1234]

in a huge freaking mansion… where they then trow crawfish on top of the formal dining room table and eat them and throw the shells on the floor.


i know exactly how they live, Zelmo.

Then why would you say they live in a swamp!

[Alyosha]

yeah, so you were for the ducky dude before you were against him then, huh?

I don't watch train wreck television. I just am against whiner babies who believe that they have a right not to be offended.




or...........was it just a certain poster you were set against regardless?? ( lol 'world class' my ass. :laugh: )

There is only one poster on here that I find completely worthless and it is not your friend. Assumptions lead to misunderstandings.

[junie]

and believing a network has the right to dump someone who embarrasses them isn't a "liberal* thing, though no doubt you were out and about defending the dixie chicks and natalie manes from the rightwingnut assault on them.

every contract of the nature that A&E would have with people like the robertson's would allow them to terminate based on behavior.

what i don't understand is why you seem to be addressing this from a political, rather than a legal, perspective.


posers will be posers...

[Alyosha]

Actually, two posters, both men.

[zelmo1234]

words are not damaging?

of course they are. they spread hatred and bigotry. i'm not saying he can't say it.

but he (and people like him) spread hate with their bigoted statements.

so while i defend his right to say what he did. i absolutely defend the right of every decent person to get up and say he's trash.

but if you don't think words are damaging, perhaps you need to sit down and watch some of hitler's little speeches from WWII or george wallace's or storm thurmond's hate filled spew during the civil rights era.

again, i'm not talking about intervening and stopping the speech by government. but damn right that everyone should be calling it what it is… because THAT IS HOW YOU COMBAT HATE SPEECH.

His words are offensive because people want to believe that everything that they do is A OK and not a problem. they do not like to here that they are living a sinful lifestyle

But that can't be helped unless we want to go away from the truth!

[Alyosha]

posers will be posers...

Hmm, I happened to agree with Natalie, but at the same time I believe people had the right to throw away her stuff. They were whiner babies, but its their dollar.

[zelmo1234]

And A&E wants to have a world class network so they are free to "ban" him if his statements make their network look trashy.

But they are backing down really quickly are they not! You see this happens to be the number one show on there "World Class Network" and they are going to loose it if they don't come to the table and now they are going to have to make amends and it will cost them more!

Most of there top rated shows appeal more to conservative's than Liberals. So they decided to piss off their base

[zelmo1234]

I live in a swamp. I'm not on the tv making bigoted remarks. There is a difference. btw, you are the one that got bent out of shape over topography.

What was the bigoted remark that he made on TV?

[zelmo1234]

Consistency is the bedrock of equality, but you may cling to your fauxliberal equivalent of God and Guns if ya like. I know people need a security blanket.

You can't be liberal and be consistent, that would allow people that don't agree with you to have a right to an opinion? They will have none of that, so they need to be able to move freely in and out of topics with lies and misinformation that is about the only thing consistent about them

[zelmo1234]

Sure, when you lump someone in with a group you consider fake you are attempting to insult.

I believe all are created equal.

Nice work taking Obama's words out of context like a right wing parrot. Consistency of argument is a beautiful thing!

You mean like when some people call a group Right wing nutters? that would mean that this person is trying to insult someone personally?

That would be an interesting thought?

[junie]

You mean like when some people call a group Right wing nutters? that would mean that this person is trying to insult someone personally?

That would be an interesting thought?



if the 'nutty' shoe fits, it either goes on one foot or the other depending on the agenda...




"you may cling to your fauxliberal equivalent of God and Guns if ya like. I know people need a security blanket."

no idea what the point was there ^

[Ravi]

So, I have a couple of serious questions for you lefties brave enought to answer them:
1. What should Phil Roberston have said in answer to the question posed to him?
2. Should he have lied and given a politically correct answer, or should he have been rude and ignored the question?
3. What answer would have satisfied the left and the militant gays?
4. Why should he, or anyone else for that matter, worry about trying to, or being forced to, give answers that would satisfy the left?
5. Ravi whines about obama being taken out of context, but takes Phil Roberston out of context, what's the difference?

As far as I can tell the question he was asked was, "what do you consider sin?" And he sure could have answered that without spazzing all over the place about gays and blacks.

[Ravi]

Oh Junie, you may say fewer things today than you may have said 10 years ago, but believe what you want. Everyone else does.
Do you have some examples?

The only place I ever get "punished" for what I say is right here on this message board.

[Alyosha]

Do you have some examples?

The only place I ever get "punished" for what I say is right here on this message board.

I linked to the ACLU's free speech page. There is a wealth of information contained therein. Enjoy.

[Guest]

Just curious, was A&E a world-class network before or after they began producing Duck Dynasty?

[Ravi]

I linked to the ACLU's free speech page. There is a wealth of information contained therein. Enjoy.

You recently posted something along the lines of "I am fully capable of articulating it on my own."

So instead of throwing up a link, please describe what we are no longer free to say in the USA.

[Ravi]

Just curious, was A&E a world-class network before or after they began producing Duck Dynasty?

It's a joke. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a world class network.

[Chris]

As far as I can tell the question he was asked was, "what do you consider sin?" And he sure could have answered that without spazzing all over the place about gays and blacks.

Phil? He did, he talked about sin. He didn't spazz about gays and blacks. It's unbelievable that after all the discussions on this some still hold your mistaken view of what he said.

[Ravi]

Phil? He did, he talked about sin. He didn't spazz about gays and blacks. It's unbelievable that after all the discussions on this some still hold your mistaken view of what he said.
I see you never read the actual interview or watched his other rants on youtube.

[zelmo1234]

if the 'nutty' shoe fits, it either goes on one foot or the other depending on the agenda...


I few posts before she was complaining about being called a name, she was calling others names? Just an observation for her!

"you may cling to your fauxliberal equivalent of God and Guns if ya like. I know people need a security blanket."

no idea what the point was there ^

[zelmo1234]

As far as I can tell the question he was asked was, "what do you consider sin?" And he sure could have answered that without spazzing all over the place about gays and blacks.

First he did not say anything about blacks in that answer It went something like this, Start with Homosexuality, then morph into bestiality, adultery, womanizing ect!

If you believe in your Catholic Bible? then homosexuality is a sin!

But Glad threw a hissy fit because they don't want to have their lifestyle called a sin!

[jillian]

Phil? He did, he talked about sin. He didn't spazz about gays and blacks. It's unbelievable that after all the discussions on this some still hold your mistaken view of what he said.

in your opinion he didn't spazz out.

in hers he did.

[Chris]

in your opinion he didn't spazz out.

in hers he did.

Yes, and one opinion is based on the facts of what he actually said and the other on a straw man. Do we need to quote the man again? Of what value is an opinion based on a logical fallacy? Any? I think not.

[Chris]

I see you never read the actual interview or watched his other rants on youtube.

Ah, but I did. That is why I with confidence challenge you to back up your claim with his words? Waiting...

[Max Rockatansky]

Just curious, was A&E a world-class network before or after they began producing Duck Dynasty?

Before, but they don't produce DD. They only distribute it through broadcast. It's produced by Gurney Productions (http://www.gurneyproductions.com/).

[Guest]

It's a joke. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a world class network.

That's what I figured. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Guest]

Before, but they don't produce DD. They only distribute it through broadcast. It's produced by Gurney Productions (http://www.gurneyproductions.com/).

And important distinction to be sure. On second thought, however, does it really make any difference whatsoever whether you're the one responsible for producing garbage or merely broadcasting it?

[Max Rockatansky]

"If it's stupid and works, it's not stupid" -- Murphy's Laws of Combat

DD is a very successful show. Both the top show on A&E and one of the top shows on television. Feel free to call it stupid, trashy, fucked-up, whatever you like but the Hearst Corporation and the Disney–ABC Television Group are happy with it.

[jillian]

"If it's stupid and works, it's not stupid" -- Murphy's Laws of Combat

DD is a very successful show. Both the top show on A&E and one of the top shows on television. Feel free to call it stupid, trashy, fucked-up, whatever you like but the Hearst Corporation and the Disney–ABC Television Group are happy with it.

it certainly makes it popular. it doesn't make it quality. that said, even rachel maddow (pre-gay bashing) told her viewers to watch it.

[Chris]

it certainly makes it popular. it doesn't make it quality. that said, even rachel maddow (pre-gay bashing) told her viewers to watch it.

You mean pre-gay sin bashing, but then how can you bash sin, like how can you be bigoted against sin?

DD is slapstick family comedy.

[Chris]

A&E Reverses Decision on "Duck Dynasty" Suspension (http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12/27/ae-reverses-decision-on-duck-dynasty-sus)


A&E has ducked away from a controversy surrounding the stars of its hugely popular reality series Duck Dynasty...

In a statement, the network cited its "core values" of "inclusion and mutual respect" to explain why "we reacted so quickly and strongly." "While Phil's comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the 'coarse language' he used and the misinterpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would 'never incite or encourage hate.' We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold."

[Max Rockatansky]

A&E Reverses Decision on "Duck Dynasty" Suspension (http://reason.com/24-7/2013/12/27/ae-reverses-decision-on-duck-dynasty-sus)

That happened quicker than I thought it would, but still saw it coming. Who didn't?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/12/27/duck-dynasty-ae-phil-robertson-controversy/4224507/

The statement then offered some wiggle room: "But Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family… a family that America has come to love. As you might have seen in many episodes, they come together to reflect and pray for unity, tolerance and forgiveness," the statement said. "After discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family."

A mostly completed 10-episode season will begin airing Jan. 15, with all of the Robertsons featured. The new episodes, scheduled to be shot this spring, will air later next year.